Airport Master Plan Update by City of Lees Summit

Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan Update LEE’S SUMMIT, MISSOURI

Completed: April 2021 Approved: June 2021

CONTACT INFORMATION

Andrew J. Bodine, PE, CM Senior Aviation Planner | Aviation Planning abodine@cmtengr.com | 816.272.8363 WWW.CMTENGR.COM

CENTERED IN VALUE

Executive Summary .....................................................................................................0-1 Chapter One - Inventory..............................................................................................1-1 Master Plan Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1-2 Zoning ............................................................................................................................. 1-22 Airside Facilities................................................................................................................. 1-26 General Aviation (GA) Facilities .......................................................................................... 1-43 Landside Facilities.............................................................................................................. 1-48 Support Facilities ............................................................................................................... 1-51 Utility Inventory .................................................................................................................. 1-55 Environmental Inventory ..................................................................................................... 1-56

Chapter Two - Forecast ...............................................................................................2-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 Airport Service Area ............................................................................................................. 2-3 Socioeconomic Trends and Area Land Use ............................................................................ 2-9 National Aviation Trends .................................................................................................... 2-11 Forecasting Approach ........................................................................................................ 2-15 Previous Forecasts ............................................................................................................. 2-16 General Aviation Forecast .................................................................................................. 2-18 Peaking Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 2-41 Forecasts Summary ............................................................................................................ 2-42 Forecast Comparison to the TAF ......................................................................................... 2-44 Airport/Aircraft/Runway Classification .................................................................................. 2-45 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 2-53

Chapter Three – Facility Requirements ..........................................................................3-1 Airside Requirements............................................................................................................ 3-2 General Aviation/Corporate Facility Requirements ................................................................ 3-27 Landside Access and Parking .............................................................................................. 3-34 Airport Support Facilities .................................................................................................... 3-35 Electric Aircraft .................................................................................................................. 3-43 Summary of Facility Requirements ....................................................................................... 3-48

Chapter Four – Alternatives..........................................................................................4-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4-1 Airside Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 4-2 Non-Airside Facility Requirements Summary ......................................................................... 4-22 Non-Airside Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 4-22 Environmental Overview .................................................................................................... 4-39 Alternative Development Considerations .............................................................................. 4-48 Non-Aeronautical Development Land .................................................................................. 4-50 LXT Potential Development Areas ........................................................................................ 4-51

Chapter Five – Land Use Compatibility Plan ..................................................................5-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5-1 Overview of a Land Use Compatibility Plan ............................................................................ 5-1 LXT Land Use Compatibility Plan ........................................................................................... 5-4 LXT Land Use Assessment ................................................................................................... 5-20 Additional Land Acquisition ................................................................................................ 5-24 Potential Non-Aeronautical Land Use .................................................................................. 5-26 Land Use Recommendations............................................................................................... 5-29

Chapter Six – Implementation Plan ...............................................................................6-1 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Schedule ....................................................................... 6-1 Financial Plan ..................................................................................................................... 6-9 Key Actions and Responsibilities .......................................................................................... 6-12

Appendices ................................................................................................................7-1

The Airport Master Plan is the primary document used at airports for long-range planning. Master plans represent the vision of the airport operator, the stakeholders, the local community, government agencies, planners, and airport sponsors for the development of the airport for up to 20 years. The goal of the master plan is to provide a framework to guide future airport development that is cost-effective and satisfies the needs of the airport, the market, and the community, while also balancing environmental and socioeconomic impacts. This Master Plan Update includes a comprehensive study of Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport (LXT or Airport) that considers the Airport’s current capabilities, projects future activity, and suggests development projects to enable the Airport to accommodate the additional demand. This Master Plan, by means of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), also provides a graphical presentation of LXT and the anticipated land uses in its vicinity and establishes a realistic implementation schedule along with an achievable financial plan.

The most recent Master Plan for Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport was developed in 1996 and the ALP update was completed in the year 2012. This Master Plan, which was adopted in 2000, has largely been built-out, and needed to be updated to reflect current conditions, current projections of airport activity, and new environmental considerations. Furthermore, it takes into account other regulatory factors, while planning for future land uses and facility development and changes in the aviation environment.

The following chapters will make up the LXT Airport Master Plan Report: ▪

Chapter One – Inventory

▪

Chapter Two – Demand Projections

▪

Chapter Three - Facility Requirements

▪

Chapter Four - Alternatives Development and Evaluation

▪

Chapter Five – Land Use Compatibility Plan

▪

Chapter Six – CIP & Implementation Plan

Throughout the development of this Master Plan Update, consideration of environmental factors resulted in an overview of the Airport’s environmental setting, the identification of potential environmental impact of Airport development alternatives, and the identification of environmentally related permits that may be required for recommended development projects. Throughout the Master Plan process, key environmental issues were identified and analyzed for Airport development alternatives. This Master Plan recognized the need to achieve a balance between the manmade and the natural environment. Although every proposed development project will have some impact on the natural environment, the use of prudent planning criteria, along with sound environmental data and analysis, will help to minimize unavoidable environmental impact and to avoid delays in project design and construction

The inventory chapter of a master plan intends to provide the reader with a snapshot of the existing or “as is” conditions, facilities, and capabilities that an airport has available to support aviation activity. This chapter focuses on collecting all types of data pertaining to the airport service area. This includes a historical review of the airport and its facilities, airspace structures and navigation aids (NAVAIDS), airport-related land use, aeronautical activity, and socioeconomic factors.

In the 1960s, several plans identified Lee’s Summit as an ideal location for a general aviation (GA) airport. In 1974, the City of Lee’s Summit (City) began to potentially move forward with planning and potentially purchasing a small private airport on land owned by Bill McComas in northern Lee’s Summit.1 Letters of support were submitted by city organizations, the business community, and key stakeholders. In 1977, the City of Lee’s Summit City of Lee's Summit (1979) purchased the private airport owned by McComas, initially renamed it the McComas-Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport (LXT) and began improvements work. Since that time, the Airport grew steadily, both in land area and customers as several runway extensions took place.

Economic Impact Statement Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport, 1976

Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport is a public use airport in Jackson County, Missouri owned by the City of Lee’s Summit. The Airport’s service level has been classified as a regional reliever airport by the FAA2 and the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) classifies it as a National Business airport3. The City of Lee’s Summit spans both Jackson and Cass counties. The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) categorizes LXT as a general aviation reliever airport to Kansas City International Airport (MCI), which is defined as an airport that supports regional economies by connecting communities to regional and national markets.

The general aviation (GA) facilities at LXT are defined by the GA tenants, as well as the GA aprons, and GA aircraft parking and storage facilities. Generally, aviation operations and activities other than commercial aircraft operations are considered to be general aviation. Because LXT does not have commercial service, the Airport has several facilities that support the GA operations and activities on the airfield.

2 3

FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS) Report, 2019-2023 Missouri State Airport System Plan Update 2020

The Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport is the Fixed Based Operator (FBO) who is responsible for all fueling operations at the Airport and also provides aviation business services including aircraft management, line operation services (i.e. marshalling and deicing). General aviation aircraft storage is largely driven by aircraft size and owner preference. Aircraft can either be tied down outdoors on an apron or stored inside a storage hangar. LXT offers a variety of parking and storage options for both based and itinerant aircraft. There are three main business operators and one not for profit located at LXT that provide different types of services to the GA community4: ▪

MJ Aviation Innovations

▪

R&D American Aviation

▪

Rebel Aviation

▪

EAA Chapter 91(not for profit organization)

LXT General Aviation Facilities

Forecasts of future levels of aviation activity are the basis for effective decisions in airport planning. Aeronautical demand is forecast for short, intermediate, and long-range time frames, and is used to determine the need for new or expanded facilities. Forecasts are expected to be realistic and to be based upon current data. Future facility requirements, such as hangar and apron needs, are derived from projections of various aviation demand indicators. Using a broad spectrum of local, regional, and national socioeconomic and aviation information, and analyzing the most current aviation trends, forecasts for LXT are presented for the following aviation demand indicators:

▪

Based Aircraft

▪

Air Taxi and Military Operations

▪

Based Aircraft Fleet Mix

▪

Operational Peaks

▪

General Aviation Operations

Lee’s Summit Missouri Airport https://cityofls.net/airport/fbo-info/fixed-based-operations-services

The base year for the different forecasts developed in this Master Plan is 2020, with a 20-year planning horizon to 2040. The primary aviation demand indicators are based aircraft and operations. Based aircraft are forecast to increase from 137 in 2020 to 177 by 2040, for a CAGR of 1.29 percent. Total operations are forecast to increase from 49,600 in 2020 to 68,370 by 2040, which is a CAGR of 1.62 percent. Several forecasts for each aviation demand indicator were developed to create a range of reasonable forecasts from which a single forecast was selected for use in determine facility needs.

LXT Demand Projections

the 20-year scope of this master plan. For these reasons, the future airport critical aircraft is planned to be C-II-2, which is consistent with the ultimate condition of the currently approved ALP.

In the Facility Requirements chapter, the current facilities and services available at the airport are compared with the forecasted demand for facilities and services, and then determine what additional facilities and services will be needed. In addition to providing sufficient capacity, consideration has been given throughout this chapter to providing acceptable levels of service to all airport users. The requirements were calculated using FAA standards where applicable as well as established industry planning standards. For the purposes of master planning, the requirements presented in this chapter are tied to demand for various Planning Activity Levels (PALs). These PALS, while associated to a projected point in time based on the Forecast of Aviation Demand (5, 10, and 20 years in the future), allow the Airport flexibility in the implementation of future projects based on actual growth in demand.

The first element analyzed and assessed for capacity in the Facility Requirements chapter was the determination of airside requirements. This analysis falls into four broad categories: ▪

Runway Wind Coverage – Assess the predominate wind conditions over a period of at least ten years which is then used to determine the adequacy of the existing runway alignments at LXT.

▪

Runway Length – Calculates the runway length needed to accommodate the existing and projected fleet mix.

▪

Runway Design Standards – Compares the current runway geometry to modern runway design standards to identify where changes and updates may be necessary, this includes not only physical runway pavements, but runway safety areas and protection zones as well.

▪

Taxiway Design Standards – Compares the current taxiway geometry to modern taxiway design standards to identify where changes and updates may be necessary.

Next, the Facility Requirements chapter analyzed the overall needs required by LXT tenants and daily users. Given the multiple operators that exist at LXT and the unique requirements that each may have, GA requirements were calculated in the aggregate for both hangar space and apron space. Each of these requirements serve the airport as a general assessment of adequacy of existing facilities at the Airport. When additional GA facilities at LXT are required, they will typically be implemented by the ultimate user with the approval of the Airport to meet their specific needs at the time. For that reason, the actual implemented area will differ slightly from the calculated requirements. The GA/Corporate Facility Requirements assessment included: ▪

GA hangars total area requirement

▪

GA aprons total area requirements

For LXT, seeing an increase in the number of aeronautical operations in the last years has presented a new challenge for the immediate future: providing tenants, GA users, and the community with adequate parking facilities and enough parking spaces to support the forecasted demand. The determination of landside access and parking requirements falls into the following category: ▪

Passenger Vehicle Parking – Projects the demand that is anticipated to be placed on the public parking facilities and quantifies the amount of additional parking facilities required to accommodate this demand.

Providing adequate airport support facilities to GA tenants and users has been, and will continue to be, a crucial obligation for LXT. The Facility Requirements chapter analyzed existing conditions and capabilities of the following support facilities and services: ▪

Aircraft Fuel Storage - Given that the circumstances at each airport are different in terms of how fuel is consumed and dispensed, it was important to understand the relationship between aircraft operations and fuel consumption. To understand this relationship, historical fuel sales data was analyzed and included in the determination of future fuel storage requirements.

▪

Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) - As is presented in Chapter 2 – Demand Projections, a steep increase in transient aircraft operations and jet fuel sales has been realized since the extension of Runway 18/39 in 2018. As these increases inevitably continue, corporate flight departments and businesses that may require ARFF response, could relocate to LXT.

▪

Airport Maintenance – The assessment of existing capacity for airport maintenance equipment storage showed that the Airport does not have a dedicated maintenance facility. The Airport stores their maintenance equipment in various storerooms in t-hangars. While considering the additional space required for storage of maintenance equipment, it is suggested to see this is an opportunity to modify the current layout. Instead of having maintenance equipment storage space spread between different hangars, it is suggested to build a centralized maintenance equipment storage facility

As the aviation sector moves towards the development of sustainable and “green” practices, it is in the best interest of LXT to include, as part of their future facilities plan, the inclusion of areas dedicated to serve electric aircraft storage and support.

In addition to reducing carbon footprint and emissions, electric aircraft are considered a solution to reduce the cost of flight training programs. It is believed that an electric aircraft would significantly reduce the operational cost of flight training programs while replacing a small, obsolete training fleet. The Facility Requirements chapter discusses several electric aircraft models that have been approved, and others which will likely be approved for operation by FAA in the near future. This analysis also determines the total space required to support these Alpha Electro - Electric Aircraft operations.

The Alternatives chapter of this Master Plan update identifies and evaluates scenarios and concepts (known as alternatives) needed to accommodate the facility requirements presented in the preceding chapter. As an essential component in the planning process, this chapter reviews alternatives that LXT could develop to meet the needs of airport users, satisfy future demand, and conform to FAA design standards. Once alternatives are identified, each is evaluated based on operational performance (capacity, capability, and efficiency). The alternatives presented in this chapter are organized by facility type: ▪

Airside Alternatives

▪

General Aviation/Corporate Alternatives

▪

Parking Alternatives

▪

Support Facilities Alternatives

The General Aviation/Corporate, Parking, and Support Facilities Alternatives have been grouped into one category called Non-Airside Alternatives.

Airside alternatives analysis for LXT focuses on two main areas: 1. Runway Design Standards Review ▪

The Facility Requirements chapter found that the majority of LXT’s runway design is compliant with FAA design standards, however, there were a few areas where deficiencies were identified specifically related to runway shoulder widths and blast pad dimensions.

▪

The Facility Requirements chapter identified a few FAA design standards deficiencies, particularly with regards to the Runway Protection Zones (RPZ). The goal of the alternatives analysis is to discuss the Airport’s responsibility when managing incompatibilities inside their RPZs.

▪

This chapter evaluates the effects of meeting ownership and clearing requirements relating to Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) as published in AC 13A as well as FAA Memorandum dated September 27, 2012 Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone.

2. Taxiway Design Standards Review ▪

The Facility Requirements chapter found that the majority of LXT’s taxiway system is compliant with FAA design standards, however, there were a few areas where deficiencies were identified. This section evaluates the effects of meeting direct access requirements and runway to parallel taxiway separations relating to Taxiway Geometry Incompatibilities as published in AC 13A. The goal of the taxiway analysis is to identify alternatives that mitigate these deficiencies.

Direct Access Preferred Alternative

The Airport has identified non-aeronautical and aeronautical development areas within its property lines that serves as a guide for the development of the non-airside alternatives. For the purposes of this chapter, non-aeronautical land use describes areas without airfield access. For these areas, development possibilities should consist of appropriate uses that are compatible with an airport environment. Industrial development (manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, assembly, or production activity) is considered highly compatible for non-aeronautical airport property development, partially due to the capability of these entities to absorb the noise impacts from airport activity. Commercial/Retail development (office buildings, commerce parks, restaurants, franchise, and specialty goods outlets) are also considered compatible development for airport activities, although these areas are impacted more by airport-related noise than industrial development due mostly to the human activities there. For the development of the non-airside alternatives, the findings of the Facility Requirements chapter were considered. In addition, conversations and workshops with the Airport, applicable stakeholders, and with the City of Lee’s Summit were completed to identify and understand the additional requirements that various airports stakeholders would like to see included in the alternatives process. For example, during the workshops with the Airport and City staff, the desire to include an aircraft observation area next to the new Administration Building was communicated. In a similar way, stakeholders showed interest in constructing a viewing area on the East Apron dedicated for children. During these workshops, users, tenants, and staff expressed an interest in avoiding the segregation of flight school traffic with all other GA traffic. Multiple stakeholders commented on the potential to provide a positive learning experience for students through operation and interaction with day-to-day GA traffic. This means that placing a Flight School in between GA hangars is desired as oppose of having the Flight School separated from the rest of the tenants. The criteria used in the evaluation of the non-airside alternatives considered the following elements: ▪

Earthwork required

▪

Mix of operations in the east apron

▪

Parking space provided

▪

ATCT location utilities requirements

▪

Community engagement

▪

ATCT height requirement

▪

Non-aeronautical streams of revenue

Non-Airside Preferred Alternative

The alternatives discussed in the Non-Airside section of Chapter 4 of this document have been designed to accommodate the demand identified in the planning horizon of this Master Plan (2020 through 2040). Two additional alternatives that could provide the Airport with airfield and storage capacity for a post 20-year period have been designed. These alternatives are characterized by providing a larger number of box hangars and t-hangars. The core of the development in these alternatives occurs on the north side of the east apron.

Non-Airside Alternative B - Post 20 Years

An important component of the Airport Master Plan process is the analysis of potential environmental impacts of proposed airport development projects. The purpose of this section is to review the proposed improvement program at LXT to identify sensitive environmental resources specific to LXT and determine if proposed developments could significantly affect existing environmental resources. The primary purpose of this Environmental Overview is to identify significance thresholds for the various resource categories contained in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. For projects not “categorically excluded” under FAA Order 1050.1E, compliance with NEPA is generally satisfied through the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). While this evaluation is not designed to satisfy the NEPA, it is intended to supply a preliminary review of environmental issues that may need to be considered in more detail within the environmental review process. Various data sources were used to develop the information provided in this section, including previous studies, resource agency websites, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Environmental Overview discussion presented in the Alternatives chapter explores the following environmental topics at LXT: ▪

Air Quality

▪

Hazardous Materials, Prevention, and Solid Waste

▪

Compatible Land Use

▪

Pollution

Natural Resources and Energy Supply

▪

Light Emissions

▪

Farmland

▪

Fish, Wildlife, and Plants

Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety

▪

Floodplains

▪

Wetlands

Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources

▪

Water Quality

▪

FAA Section 163 Determination

The Business Plan Update for LXT has identified two potential non-aeronautical development parcels within the LXT property line: ▪

North Side Parcel: This parcel is located along Strother Road and includes roughly 16 acres of property for potential development. Because of terrain slopes, development uses will need to be carefully planned.

▪

South Side Parcel: This parcel is potentially accessible from NE Town Center Boulevard. It contains approximately 30 acres and it also has some terrain sloping, but not to the degree as the North Side Parcel.

As is explained in the LXT Business Plan Update, industrial development is considered highly compatible for non-aeronautical airport property development, partially due to the capability of these entities to absorb the noise impacts from airport activity. The Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport Business Plan Update has identified two primary options for development of non-aeronautical property: commercial real estate and solar energy. These are not mutually exclusive. In other words, both types of development can occur at LXT.

The non-airside preferred alternative has identified various zones inside the airport property that are suitable for aeronautical and non-aeronautical uses. The different development areas flagged in the preferred alternative have been combined with the on-airport nonaeronautical development areas presented in the LXT Business Plan Update to create a Potential Development Areas exhibit. This exhibit shows all the areas that can be developed either for aeronautical or non-aeronautical uses. This exhibit includes a tier classification that indicates the relative feasibility of developing each area of land. ▪

Tier 1 – land recommended to be developed within the first 20 years of the planning period

▪

Tier 2 – additional development considerations such as environmental considerations or significant engineered fill that categorizes the area as development post 20-year planning horizon LXT Potential Development Areas

The Land Use Compatibility Plan chapter of this Master Plan will allow the Airport to identify land in its vicinity in order to protect avigation surfaces, provide for aeronautical development, or could potentially be used for future non-aviation development. Thus, this chapter will allow LXT to manage and plan land development to ensure the safety of pilots and the local community. In addition, this chapter represents an opportunity for the Airport to coordinate land development with local governments so that future land developments around the airport are compatible with aeronautical activity. GA airports have a vital role in the economic development of the community which it serves, which is why their continuous development and growth of the airport is necessary to ensure an efficient economic growth of the local community. A proper Land Use Compatibility Plan will be key for the continuous development and growth of LXT as it will allow the Airport to mitigate the development of incompatible land uses which may interrupt their ability to serve the community in the future. The Land Use Compatibility chapter of this Master Plan has the following goals: 1. Review existing land use and regulatory controls (i.e., local municipal land use maps) 2. Complete a Land Use Compatibility Assessment through the definition of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) 3. Prepare land use recommendations

The area in which the extents of the Airport’s aeronautical operations impact the surrounding area is defined as the Airport Influence Area (AIA). The AIA is comprised of various sub-areas and zones for which each has a unique purpose of land use control (i.e., height restriction zone, no residential development zones, etc.). The LXT AIA is comprised from the following elements: ▪

Airport Noise Contours

▪

Part 77 Surfaces

▪

Runway Protection Zones (RPZ)

▪

FAA defined Airport Influence Zones (AIZ)

LXT AIA

The AIA was utilized to assess the overall existing land use compatibility between LXT and the surrounding municipalities. The land use assessment included placing the AIA on top of the existing local zoning maps to determine if incompatible land is present.

The Preferred Alternative presented in the Alternatives Chapter shows two developments which will require additional land acquisition. The first development is the construction of an ARFF station, Maintenance/SRE hangar, and stormwater detention in the north portion of the airfield. The second development is the construction of an Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and parking on the west side of the airfield. LXT Land Use Assessment

▪

ARFF Station and Maintenance/SRE Hangar: land acquisition will be required prior to the construction of the ARFF station, Maintenance/SRE hangar, and stormwater detention. The total land that needs to be purchased by the Airport for this development has an area of approximately 346,322 ft2 (7.95 acres).

ARFF Station and Maintenance/SRE Land Acquisition

▪

Air Traffic Control Tower and Parking: land acquisition will be required prior to the construction of the ATCT and parking lot. The total land that needs to be purchased by the Airport for this development has an area of approximately 63,704 ft2 (1.46 acres).

ATCT and Parking Land Acquisition

To enhance the protection of people and property on the ground, the RPZs should be under control of the Airport through ownership or easement. The FAA recommends acquisition of the property and complete land use control of the RPZs. Currently, LXT owns less than half of the RPZ of Runway 18. It is recommended that the Airport purchases the remaining land inside Runway 18 RPZ to have full control of this area. To be able to have full control of Runway 18 RPZ, LXT needs to purchase a total of approximately 645,777 ft2 (14.83 acres).

Runway 18 RPZ

Based on the findings of the Master Plan leading up to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Implementation Plan, a near, mid and long-term was developed as road map for the City and Airport. This program is fluid, but the near-term CIP represents the Airport’s most pressing needs in order to facilitate development on the east-side of the Airport. Ultimately, a focus on this area will help the Airport capitalize on unmet demand and provide a platform for diversification of revenue streams, opportunities for community engagement, and non-aeronautical developments that may be beneficial to the community as a whole. This executive summary focuses on the short-term CIP projects. A deeper discussion on the medium, long-term, and demand driven CIP’s can be found in Chapter 6 of the Master Plan Report.

The focus of the short-term CIP will be to accommodate existing unmet based aircraft aviation demand in the Kansas City Metropolitan area. LXT has a standing list of potential based users that continues to grow. In addition to that, the Airport and City staff have been contacted several times throughout the course of the Master Plan by potential users, developers, and tenants. Between 2015 and 2018, significant investments have been made in LXT’s airfield infrastructure, with recent pavement projects targeted towards Runway 18/36 Taxiways A. This provides the opportunity for the CIP to pause on significant airfield work while some of LXT’s enabling projects and building infrastructure is addressed. The year 0 or 2021 priority is Phase II of the Master Plan. This will allow the Airport to have a complete planning document and FAA approved deliverables (Airport Layout Plan and Exhibit A) in accordance with grant assurances. Completion of these deliverables will allow the City to remain eligible for federal participation in eligible Airport projects. There are also near-term pavement maintenance needs in the form of an overall pavement rehabilitation program for Runway 11/29 and Taxiway B. It should be noted that the Rehabilitation of Runway 11/29 project is shown to be a rehabilitation or life preservation project that is intended to raise PCI’s while delaying reconstruction. This project will replace the joint sealant on both Runway 11/29 and Taxiway B to protect the underlying

subgrade and prevent damage from multiple freeze-thaw cycles. A Terminal Building relocation and associated sitework are identified as priorities in the middle-to-late portion of the Short-Term CIP. The final two years see continued investment of supporting infrastructure through the design and construction of an Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and self-service fuel facilities on both sides of the airport. The final two years of the near-term also place a focus on obstruction clearing on the airfield with the use of AIP funds. It should be noted that various hangar projects could find their way into the short-term CIP given the demand for space. However, given the uncertain nature of funding hangar projects, the majority of these developments are shown in the medium-term or demand driven segments of the CIP. Total development cost for projects identified in the short-term CIP are estimated at approximately $20.6 million. The estimated costs to facilitate additional growth and development (approximately $6.6 million) and to develop building infrastructure to satisfy that demand, (approximately $10.0 million) are the largest project elements identified in the short-term CIP. Table 5.1-1, Short-Term CIP Project Table and Figure 5.1-1, Short-Term CIP Project Map provide a list of projects identified in the short-term CIP with total project costs. Also included is an anticipated detailed cost allocation table (federal, state, local participation) for the short-term CIP projects.

Total Estimated Project Cost

Funding Source

Federal Entitlement Share

Federal Discretionary Share

State Share

Local Share

$394,000

F/L

$354,600

$39,400

$2,653,000

S/L

$2,387,700

$265,300

$593,000

F/S/L

$150,000

$533,700

$59,300

Crack Seal West Apron

$134,000

Hangar 1 FBO Remodel

$278,000

2023

Land Acquisition

$1,000,000

F/S/L

$900,000

$50,000

2023

Construct Fuel Farm

$1,880,000

2024

South Apron Expansion and Existing Joint Rehabilitation

$1,681,000

S/L

$840,500

2024

Construct New Terminal Building

$3,500,000

S/L

$300,000

$1,000,000

$2,200,000

2025

Obstruction Removal

$892,000

F/L

$802,800

$89,200

2025

Construct Eastside & Westside Self-Service Fuel Facilities

$650,000

2026

Construct Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)

$6,471,000

F/S/L

$150,000

$5,823,900

$323,550

Project Number

Year

2021

2022

2023

6 7

Project Title Master Plan Update – Phase II Construct Eastside Utility Infrastructure Reseal Joints on Runway 11/29 and Taxiway B

Note: F = Federal; S = State; L = Local

An Airport Master Plan is a planning document that assists the airport, the community and the surrounding region in providing guidelines and direction over a 20-year period. Its long-term development concepts encompass the present and future aviation needs. The most recent Master Plan for Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport (LXT or Airport) was developed in 1996 and an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) update was completed in the year 2012. This Master Plan was adopted in 2000, has largely been built-out, and needs to be updated to reflect current conditions, current projections of airport activity, and new environmental considerations. Furthermore, it will take into account other regulatory factors, while planning for future land uses and facility development and changes in the aviation environment. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides documented guidance for Airport Master Plans1. Additionally, the FAA Central Region and the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) require ALP updates to include aeronautical survey and aerial imagery acquisition in order to meet standards set forth in Advisory Circulars2. These are significant items both in terms of effort and cost. They are necessary to obtain enhanced instrument approach capabilities and provide an Airports Geographic Information System (AGIS) compatible dataset, in order to aid in decision making and future airport design projects. The resulting ALP will go on file with the FAA to maintain airspace protection and permit the City of Lee Summit to receive federal funding associated with proposed improvements at the Airport. In an effort to manage funding availability, the AGIS and ALP tasks will be deferred to the second phase. The following chapters will make up the LXT Airport Master Plan Report, as specified by the FAA Advisory Circular: Chapter One – Inventory Chapter Two – Demand Projections Chapter Three - Facility Requirements Chapter Four - Alternatives Development and Evaluation Chapter Five - Environmental Considerations Chapter Six - Facilities Implementation Plan

FAA Advisory Circulars (AC’s), specifically AC 150/5070-6B, Change 2, “Airport Master Plans” https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5070-6B-Change-2-Consolidated.pdf 2 FAA Advisory Circulars (AC) 150/5300 -16A, -17C and -18B 1

An integral section of the Airport Master Plan is the ALP. It serves as a graphical depiction of the longterm goals for the airport, that have been laid out in the narrative report. An ALP will be created specific to LXT in a deferred phase as mentioned above. The guidelines contained in AC 150/5070-6B suggest providing the following sections: Introduction, Background, Socioeconomic Data, Land Use and Inventory and Description of Existing Facilities Data within Chapter One of the Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport’s (LXT) Master Plan Update. These sections are included in this Inventory chapter. Documentation, including graphical depictions (charts, drawings, aerial photography, and geographical information systems) is a major component of the master plan process and also included throughout this report. Because the AGIS datasets and aerial photography portion of the Master Plan Update process are deferred until a second phase, aerial photography used in this document was obtained from Nearmap.

Economic Impact Statement Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport, 1976

Source: City of Lee’s Summit (1976)

In 1977, the City of Lee’s Summit purchased the private airport owned by McComas, initially renamed it the McComas-Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport (LXT) and began improvements work. Since that time, the Airport grew steadily, both in land area and customers as several runway extensions took place. Plans included paving and lighting a 600-foot extension to Runway 18/36 to a total length of 3,000 feet, construction of a 250 x 350-foot apron, construction of tie-downs, parking, and a hangar area, and installation of an airport beacon, lighted wind cone, and segmented circle. Further extension of the LXT’s primary runway 18/36 happened in two phases in the early 90’s. In 1991 when the crosswind runway was completed, a 200-foot extension to the south was added to Runway 18/36. The primary runway was then rebuilt in 1993/94 and it was extended to 4,000 feet.

Source: City of Lee’s Summit (1979)

The Airport grew steadily in land area and customers and in 1996, the City began exploring the possibility of improving the Airport’s north/south runway by extending it from 4,014 feet to 5,500 feet to support economic growth taking place in the City. The expansion was expected to allow the airport to accommodate more corporate traffic. Hired by the City of Lee’s Summit in 2003, Crawford, Murphy & Tilly (CMT) began working with airport leaders, the community and the FAA to move forward an ambitious vision for expansion of LXT. A multi-year program was established that would assist the airport in becoming financially self-sufficient, fill a void for business aircraft in the Kansas City Metropolitan area, and drive economic growth for the region. The comprehensive multi-year program involved land acquisition of nearly 260 acres in fee simple and 60 acres of easements, several runway and taxiway improvements, establishment of a precision instrument approach, terminal relocation, road relocations and parking lots. However, the biggest catalyst for development and extension of Runway 18/36 came when the City of Lee’s Summit contracted with Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP (CHA) and R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. in 2008 to complete an Airport Business Plan. This business plan identified among other things, key opportunities for the Airport. These opportunities and subsequent end products identified the need for attraction of corporate aviation through runway lengthening. The report was finished in September 2009. It is important to note that the business plan was accepted by the Lee’s Summit City Council in 2011 but never formally adopted. Planning commission adopts elements of the BPU every year through the Capital Improvement Process (CIP).

Source: City of Lee’s Summit (2018)

The purchase of Hangar 1, a 40,000 square-foot heated hangar operated by the Airport, was completed on December 2016 and it accommodates aircraft with tail height up to 20 feet and offers additional space to the airport’s Fixed-Base Operator (FBO), a pilot’s lounge, and meeting rooms. In late 2018, construction of 28 new T-hangar units with electrical bi-fold doors was completed. The City of Lee’s Summit received three Honor Awards at the 2019 Engineering Excellence Awards including one for improvements made to the Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport.

Currently, the airport is owned by the City of Lee’s Summit, which operates the Airport as a division of the Public Works Department. Lee’s Summit Public Works is responsible for planning, design, and construction of the City's infrastructure. It also manages the operation and maintenance of the City's stormwater systems, streets and traffic control network, the fleet division, and it controls and manages the compliance and post-closure of the City's landfill. Another one of their responsibilities is the operation of the Lee's Summit Municipal Airport4.

Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport is a public use airport in Jackson County, Missouri owned by the City of Lee’s Summit. The Airport’s service level has been classified as a regional reliever airport by the FAA5 and the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) classifies it as a National Business airport6. The City of Lee’s Summit spans both Jackson and Cass counties. The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) categorizes LXT as a general aviation reliever airport to Kansas City International Airport (MCI), which is defined as an airport that supports regional economies by connecting communities to regional and national markets. LXT has no scheduled commercial service. General aviation, military, and air taxi operations totaled 52,500 for the twelve months ending December 31, 2017.7

The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) completed a regional aviation system plan (RASP) in 2019 for a nine-county study area focused on the Kansas City Region. The study area included counties in both Kansas and Missouri and considered 13 general aviation airports, including the Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport. The MARC report highlights LXT as a key economic asset, noting that ongoing improvements of the airport “will enable it to play a more significant role in meeting the region’s general aviation needs.”8 The economic impact of the Airport is derived from one or more of the following: airport management, airport tenants, average annual capital investment, and spending by visitors who arrive on general aviation aircraft. As of the date of the MARC study, the airport provided 63 jobs at an annual total payroll of $1,887,0009. The Airport provides its community with access to a full-service FBO with full-time concierge, rental car service, 24-hour jet-fuel service, and a heated hangar. It bases 150 (137 validated) aircraft supporting government, professional services, construction, retail trade, health care, real estate, finance and social services industry as well as recreational fliers.10

https://cityofls.net/public-works FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS) Report, 2019-2023 6 Missouri State Airport System Plan Update 2020 7 Airport 5010 8 Missouri State Airport System Plan Update, February 2019 9 Missouri State Airport System Plan Update, February 2019 10 Missouri State Airport System Plan Update, February 2019 4 5

Lee’s Summit is a part of the overall Kansas Metropolitan Area. There are 23 public-use airports with paved runways in the vicinity (a 50 nautical mile (NM) radius) of LXT. Of these 23 airports, one has scheduled airline service (MCI), and five have a published precision instrument approach (MKC, GPH, IXD, MCI, LWC)11. Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport occupies approximately 553-acres of land three (3) miles north of downtown Lee’s Summit, Missouri, a well-developed suburban community with robust economic activity, and 22 miles southeast of Kansas City, Missouri, a large urban center. The Airport is located in Jackson County, which is located southeast of Kansas City, Missouri. Exhibit 1.2-1, Location Map shows the airport’s exact location within Jackson County. Exhibit 1.2-2, Jackson County Details shows the detailed location of LXT within Jackson County. Kansas City, Missouri is part of a Combined Statistical Area (CSA) referred to as the Kansas CityOverland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA. This CSA has an area of 11,200 square miles and a population of approximately 2,490,000.12 Approximately 22 miles west of the Airport is the City of Overland Park, KS, the second most populous city in the state of Kansas and a well-developed economic center. Interstate 470 provides quick access to the Airport and connects the Airport with the community’s many amenities and the broader interstate transportation system including Interstate 70, located within 10 miles and Interstate 35, located within 25 miles. Interstate 70 extends west to Utah and east as far as Pennsylvania and Interstate 35 extends from Canada to Mexico. The Airport is a short distance from many parks and lakes, shopping centers, restaurants, businesses and other area attractions in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. Table 1.2-1, Paved Airports within 50 NM and Exhibit 1.2-3, Area Airports show all paved area airports within 50 NM of LXT.

11 12

AirNav, 2020 Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2019

Exhibit 1.2-1: Location Map

Source: CMT

Exhibit 1.2-2: Jackson County Details

Source: CMT

Table 1.2-1: Paved Airport within 50 NM

Source: AirNav 2020, CMT

Exhibit 1.2-3: Area Airports

Source: CMT

Understanding the local and regional socioeconomic trends around the Airport can be an essential factor in determining future aviation demand. Typically, there is a correlation of the aviation activity at an airport when compared to the economic activity in the area. The correlation to economic activity can indicate growth or decline to facets of general aviation (GA). Over the past 50 years, the population of the City of Lee’s Summit has grown in approximately 506%13, going from 16,230 in 1970 to 98,481 in 2018. The majority of Lee’s Summit is within Jackson County while a small southern portion of the city falls within Cass County. Since LXT serves citizens in the metropolitan area, it is important to look at socioeconomic data from both areas. Over the past 50 years, Jackson County has shown positive economic growth. Since 1969, the population in Jackson County has grown by nearly 8%. In contrast, Cass County has shown substantial growth in their population during the same period, at about 186%. In comparison, the State growth has steadily increased, at about 33%14. To better illustrate the socioeconomic profile of Jackson and Cass counties, each of the following subsections will provide comparisons to state trends.

Based on the data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau15, the City of Lee’s Summit has a reported population of 84,487 in 2008 and a population of 98,461 in 2018. This represents a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.54% in 10 years. In comparison, based on data provided by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc16., Jackson County had a reported population of 665,427 in 2008 and a population of 701,601 in 2018. This represents a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.53% in 10 years. For Cass County, the reported population in 2008 was 98,095 and a population of 104,952 in 2018. This represents a compounded annual growth rate of 0.68% in 10 years. During the same time period, the population growth rate for the State of Missouri was 0.36% CAGR. Table 1.2-2, City of Lee’s Summit, Jackson County, Cass County and State of Missouri Population shows the 50-year historic population trend of the city, the two counties where the City of Lee’s Summit is located and the State of Missouri.

U.S. Census Bureau, City of Lee’s Summit Woods & Poole CEDDS 2019 15 U.S. Census Bureau, City of Lee’s Summit 16 Woods & Poole CEDDS 2019 13 14

Table 1.2-2: City of Lee’s Summit, Jackson County, Cass County and State of Missouri Population

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Woods & Poole 2019, CMT

The total personal income per capita in a certain community or region is an important factor when determining its economic strength and stability. Typically, as income levels increase there is a corresponding increase in the demand for goods and services. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the per capita income for the City of Lee’s Summit reported in 2018 dollars is $42,452. The national income per capita for that year was $32,621, which makes the City’s income per capita 30% higher than the national average. Additional history was sought from the City of Lee’s Summit Economic Development Council related to per capita income history in addition to other sources such as Woods & Poole, but no historical data was obtained. In 2018, according to the data provided by Woods & Poole Economics17, the estimated total personal income per capita for Jackson County was $46,395. Similarly, the estimated total personal income per capita for Cass County was $46,512 for that year. The State of Missouri overall had a slightly higher total personal income per capita of $46,676 the same year. Table 1.2-3, Jackson County, Cass County and State of Missouri Income Per Capita illustrates the 50-year historic income per capita levels for the two counties where the City of Lee’s Summit is located compared to the State of Missouri. Table 1.2-3: Jackson County, Cass County and State of Missouri Income Per Capita

Source: Woods & Poole 2019, CMT

Woods & Poole CEDDS 2019

Jackson County supports a large Health Care and Social Assistance industry, as well as Professional and Technical Services, and Retail Trade. Each one of these industries employed 60,313, 45,429, and 43,138 employees is Jackson County in the year 201818 respectively. Jackson County is supported by a diverse employment sector. Despite periodic fluctuations, unemployment rates can be significant indicators of relative economic strength. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the unemployment rate in Jackson County was 3.7% as of December 2019, above the statewide average of 3.3% for the same month19. Exhibit 1.2-4, Jackson County Employment Sectors provides a breakdown of the job sectors in Jackson County.

18 19

Woods & Poole CEDDS 2019 Economic Research. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fred.stlouisfed.org/.

Exhibit 1.2-4: Jackson County Employment Sectors 14%

12%

Percent of Worforce

10%

Source: Woods & Poole 2019, CMT

The database D&B Hoovers and Lee’s Summit Economic Development Council were the sources consulted to identify all the businesses that operated in the City of Lee’s Summit in the year 2019. When looking at the number of employees by industry type, the industries of Educational Services and Health Care Assistance are the ones which employ the greatest number of workers in Lee’s Summit with 25.5% of the workforce. The second largest employment sector in the City is Professional, Scientific and Administrative services, with 14.7% of the workforce. Exhibit 1.2-5, Percentage of Workforce by Industry Type shows the top 13 industries in Lee’s Summit which hired the greatest number of employees in 2019. When looking at the number of employees by business, the top three businesses which hired the greatest number of employees in the year 2019 in the City were: ▪

Lee’s Summit R-7 School District (19.8% of workforce), which is a business committed to provide elementary and secondary schools furnishing academic courses, ordinarily for kindergarten through grade 12. Included in this industry are parochial schools and military academies furnishing academic courses for kindergarten through grade 12, and secondary schools which furnish both academic and technical courses.

▪

Homeland Security USCIS (19.1% of workforce), it is the third largest Department of the U.S. government, with a workforce of 229,000 employees and 22 components including TSA, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, FEMA, the Coast Guard, Secret Service, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, the National Protection and Programs Directorate, and the Science and Technology Directorate. DHS is responsible for counterterrorism, cybersecurity, aviation security, border security, port security, maritime security, administration and enforcement of our immigration laws, protection of our national leaders, protection of critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, detection of and protection against chemical, biological and nuclear threats to the homeland, and response to disasters13.

▪

Saint Luke’s East Hospital (9.1% of workforce). Saint Luke’s Health System includes 18 hospitals and campuses across the Kansas City region, home care and hospice, behavioral health care, dozens of physician practices, a life care senior living community, and more14.

Exhibit 1.2-6, Number of Employees by Business shows the top 10 businesses in Lee’s Summit which hired the greatest number of employees in 2019.

13 14

https://www.dhs.gov/secretary https://www.saintlukeskc.org/about-saint-lukes

When looking at the businesses which have their headquarters in Lee’s Summit, the D&B Hoovers database shows a total of 72 businesses in the year 2019. Of these 72 businesses, the top two businesses which hired the greatest number of employees are: ▪

John Knox Village (over 900 employees), which is primarily engaged in providing inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services to patients who require continuous health care, but not hospital services.

▪

Midwest Division LLC (over 390 employees), which is primarily engaged in providing general medical and surgical services and other hospital services.

Exhibit 1.2-7, Percentage of Workforce by Headquarter shows the top 5 businesses which have their headquarters in Lee’s Summit and have hired the greatest number of employees in 2019.

Exhibit 1.2-5: Percentage of Workforce by Industry Type in Lee’s Summit 30.0%

25.5% 25.0%

Percentage of Workforce

20.0%

14.7%

15.0%

10.3% 10.0%

9.5%

8.6% 6.4% 5.1%

5.0%

4.8%

4.3%

4.2% 3.2%

3.1% 0.3%

0.0% Educational Professional, services, and health scientific, and care and social management, and assistance administrative and waste management services Source: ACS; CMT

Retail trade

Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing

Manufacturing

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services

Other services, except public administration

Construction

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities

Public administration

Wholesale trade

Information

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining

Exhibit 1.2-6: Number of Employees by Business in Lee’s Summit 3,500 3,116 3,000

3,000

Number of Employees

2,500

2,000

1,430

1,500

1,200 1,000

1,000

880

786

730 450

500

450

0 Lee’s Summit R-7 Schools

Homeland Security USCIS

Source: LS Economic Development Council; CMT

Saint Luke’s Truman East Hospital Medical Center - Lakewood

John Knox Village

GEHA Holding City of Lee’s Lee’s Summit ReDiscover Inc. Summit Medical Center

CVS Caremark Call Center

Exhibit 1.2-7: Percentage of Workforce by Headquarter in Lee’s Summit 45.0%

40.0%

39.6%

35.0%

Percent Workforce

30.0%

25.0%

20.0% 17.2% 15.0% 10.6% 8.8%

10.0%

5.0%

2.6%

0.0% John Knox Village Source: D&B Hoovers 2019; CMT

Midwest Division - Lsh, LLC

R & D Tool & Engineering Co.

The City of Lee's Summit

Ultreya Solutions Group, Inc.

LXT covers approximately 553 acres of property for the operation of the airport, protection of runway approaches and compatible land use. Land use planning for on-airport, and off-airport, property parcels is an important element an airport should consider. Property in or near the vicinity of an airport is many times outside the ownership and control of the airport sponsor, which requires cooperation with surrounding jurisdiction. Careful planning measures and practices should be implemented to ensure compatible land with the airport both on and in the vicinity of LXT. Most of the airport property is devoted to existing or planned aviation use or airspace protection. Surrounding the airport property line, areas outside of aviation related operations are largely consumed by farming/agriculture activities and a combination of residential, commercial and industrial activities. Exhibit 1.3-1, Lee’s Summit Zoning Map portrays the different land zones in the City of Lee’s Summit and Exhibit 1.3-2, LXT Surrounding Zoning Map portrays the land uses that surround LXT. As shown in Exhibit 1.3-2, the off-airport property immediately west and north of the Airport is designated Agricultural land, while the property to the south is a mix of planned commercial, residential and community development property. North of Runway 18/36 is residential land-use. The land immediately north of Runway 11/29, between the airport and Interstate 470, is a business complex and is designated planned industrial property. Additional planned mixed-use development property is located to the northeast of the airport. Exhibit 1.3-3, Kansas City Zoning Map portrays the different zones of Kansas City. As shown in this exhibit, Kansas City land and airspace is near LXT and therefore there are overflights into Lee’s Summit corporate city limits. The proximity of LXT to Kansas City limits is something that needs to be considered and coordinating improvements applicable to either jurisdiction. Future land uses around the airport must be able to operate within the height restrictions for runway approaches, and support or compliment the airport. Parcels near the airport, not owned by the City, are candidates for light industrial and commercial uses. The large tracts of land northeast and northwest of the airport currently zoned for agricultural use have the most potential. The City can analyze the current state of infrastructure to determine the relative difficulty of development for marketing purposes. Increased activity from the airport may create the demand for more commercial uses outside of the facility itself. Restaurants and hotels are two examples of uses that would serve clients of the airport and the residents of the City. Proximity and access to the airport will determine the cross pollination of nearby commercial uses with the aviation community.

Exhibit 1.3-1: Lee’s Summit Zoning Map

Source: Arcgis – City of Lee’s Summit; CMT

Exhibit 1.3-2: LXT Surrounding Zoning Map

Source: Arcgis – City of Lee’s Summit; CMT

Exhibit 1.3-3: Kansas City Zoning Map

Source: Arcgis – City of Kansas City; CMT

The Airport’s facilities are presented in two categories: Airside and Landside Facilities. The Airside Facilities include areas on the airport directly associated with aircraft operations, such as the runways, taxiways, navigational aids, and airport lighting. The Landside areas include those facilities that provide a transition from surface to air transportation, such as Fixed Base Operators (FBOs), aircraft storage facilities, including T-hangars and apron areas, and automobile parking.

The FAA sets standards for safe operations at an airport in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (AC 13A)15. These standards are presented as recommendations but are required when receiving federal funds. AC 13A covers specific airfield design components like navigational aids (NAVAID) requirements, dimensions of runways and taxiways, requirements for protecting pavement surfaces, and requirements to protect airspace around the airport. The current airside facilities at LXT include: ▪

Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) - an automated sensor designed to observe aviation and meteorological forecasts to ensure safe and efficient operations.

▪

Remote Transmitter Receiver (RTR) Building – an unmanned communications facility remotely controlled which extends the communication range of an air traffic facility. RTRs were established to providing ground-to-ground communications between air traffic control specialists and pilots located at a satellite airport for delivering clearances, issuing departure authorizations, and acknowledging instrument flight rules cancellations or departure/landing times.

▪

Beacon – a light rotating beacon to indicate the Airport’s location to pilots at night.

▪

Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL) – lights that are used to outline the edges of runways when it is dark outside or during times of restricted visibility.

▪

Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) – lights that identify the correct direction for an approach end of a runway and to identify the end of the runway from the approach direction.

▪

Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) – ground device that assists providing pilots with visual glide slope guidance in non-precision approaches environment. o

▪

LXT has PAPI lights on each end of Runway 18/36 and Runway 11/29.

Segmented Circle - visual indicator that provides traffic pattern information to pilots at airports without a control tower. Each segmented circle consists of three components: the landing runway indicators, the traffic pattern indicators, and the wind cone. Each gives pilots a different piece of information to determine the correct traffic pattern to fly and the correct runway to land on.

FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5070-6B, Change 2, “Airport Master Plans” https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5070-6B-Change-2-Consolidated.pdf 15

▪

Windcone – visual aid in the form of a fabric cone that visually provides surface wind direction and approximate speed information to pilots. They are installed near the operational runway.

Exhibit 1.4-1, Airside Facilities illustrates all the existing airside facilities at LXT.

Exhibit 1.4-1: Airside Facilities

Source: CMT

The airspace LXT operates within is busy and includes four traffic-controlled airports, one of which is Kansas City International Airport (MCI) in short proximity north and west of the Airport. Right hand traffic procedures were developed at the time the airport was built to avoid noise sensitive, densely populated residential areas, concentrating traffic to the south and east of the airport and minimizing activity to the north and west. Pilots departing to the west or north must climb to at least 2,500 feet mean sea level (MSL) prior to turning to reduce noise over residential areas. The FAA is responsible for development of approach procedures. Whenever winds permit, departures to the south (Runway 18) are recommended. Pilots operating to and from the Airport under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) contact the Columbia Flight Service Station (FSS) and Kansas City Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) for the most up-to-date information and guidance. A remote transmitter receiver (RTR) operated by the FAA is located on the field and provides the communications link to the Kansas City ARTCC. In addition, the Airport’s airspace sees helicopter traffic due to the proximity of three major hospitals that serve the City. The airspace at LXT is organized as Class G airspace from the surface to 699 feet. LXT shares Class E Airspace with neighboring East Kansas City Airport (K3GV) to the east. Class E airspace begins at 700 feet and due to overlap with Kansas City International Airport’s (MCI) Class B airspace to the northwest of the field, ends at 3,999 feet. MCI Class B airspace above LXT’s airspace begins at 4,000 feet and extends to 8,000 feet. Air Traffic Control (ATC) clearance must be obtained from Kansas City Approach for all aircraft prior to entering or exiting MCI’s Class B airspace; separation service is provided once cleared. LXT currently operates four Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) approaches (Braymer Six, Robinson Four, Jhawk Six and Tyger Six) and six Departure Procedure (DP) approaches (Chief Seven, Tifto Six, Lake Three, Wildcat Five, Racer Seven and Royal Nine). Aircraft arriving MCI via the Tyger Six Arrival cross through LXT’s Class E airspace between 7,000 and 12,000 feet. LXT also falls within the 30 nautical mile Mode C Veil, requiring all aircraft to have a Mode C transponder with altitude reporting on from the surface to 10,000 feet. Exhibit 1.4-2, FAA Airspace Classifications, presents a generic diagram of the levels of airspace classification as defined by the FAA. Exhibit 1.4-3, VFR Terminal Area Chart Kansas City a presents a diagram of Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport’s airspace in relation to MCI airspace.

Exhibit 1.4-2: FAA Airspace Classifications

Source: FAA ALC Content – Classes of Airspace https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=42&sID=505&preview=true

Exhibit 1.4-3: VFR Terminal Area Chart Kansas City

Source: SkyVector

LXT is configured with two intersecting concrete runways: Runway 18/36 and Runway 11/29. In 2017, expansion of Runway 18/36 was extended from 4,015 feet to 5,501 feet and widened from 75 feet to 100 feet. As part of the runway reconstruction and extension, the pavement was grooved. Runway 18/36 extends north-south on the west side of the airfield east of the terminal area. Runway 11/29 is 4,000 feet long, 75 feet wide, and extends northwest-southeast on the south side of the airfield. Both runways are in good condition and have non-precision approach (NPI) markings, medium intensity runway lights (MIRL) and a full-length parallel taxiway. Runway 18/36 and Runway 11/29 are equipped with a Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) at both runway ends. Table 1.4-1, Runway 18/36 Information and Table 1.4-2, Runway 11/29 Information summarize the runway data for both runways.

Table 1.4-1: Runway 18/36 Information

Source: FAA Aeronautical Information Services - LXT, LXT ALP Revision 2019, CMT

Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport – Missouri Pavement Management Report – MoDOT, 2019

Table 1.4-2: Runway 11/29 Information

Source: FAA Aeronautical Information Services - LXT, LXT ALP Revision 2019, CMT

The FAA uses two designations to design airports and runways. They are the Airport Reference Code (ARC) and the Runway Design Code (RDC). The ARC refers to operational and physical characteristics of the type of aircraft operating at the airport. Additionally, the ARC also signifies an airport’s most demanding RDC excluding the visibility component. The RDC signifies design standards used to build a runway. Both codes are used for planning and to determine design standards. The three elements of RDC are: Aircraft Approach Category (AAC), Aircraft Design Group (ADG), and visibility minimums. The AAC is represented by a letter from A-E and reflects aircraft approach speeds. ADG is represented by a roman numeral from I-VI and reflects tail height and wingspan in feet. Finally, runway visibility minimums are a measurement of the instrument approach visibility minimum recorded, in feet, as the Runway Visual Range (RVR). A breakdown of the AAC, ADG and Visibility Minimums is shown in Table 1.4-3, Aircraft Approach Category, Table 1.4-4, Aircraft Design Group, and Table 1.4-5, Visibility Minimums respectively.

Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport – Missouri Pavement Management Report – MoDOT, 2019

Table 1.4-3: Aircraft Approach Category (AAC)

≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A

Table 1.4-4: Aircraft Design Group (ADG)

≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤

Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A

Table 1.4-5: Visibility Minimums

Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A

To determine the Airport’s ARC and RDC, information on the current design aircraft is necessary.

The FAA defines the design aircraft or critical aircraft as the most demanding aircraft type, or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics, that make regular use of the airport. Regular use is 500 annual operations, including both itinerant and local operations but excluding touch-and-go operations. An operation is either a takeoff or landing18. For LXT, the previous ALP identified the Canadair CL-600 as its critical aircraft. Table 1.4-6, Critical Aircraft Information shows the characteristics of this aircraft. It is important to note a new critical aircraft analysis will be performed in Chapter 2 - Demand Projection of this Master Plan Update.

FAA AC 150/5000-17

Table 1.4-6: Critical Aircraft Information

Source: FAA Aircraft Characteristics Database, 2018

Based on the information shown in Table 1.4-6, a 125 knots approach speed classifies the CL-600 as AAC C. The 20.6 feet tail height and 64.3 feet wingspan classify the CL-600 as an ADG II. Therefore, LXT currently has a C-II Airport Reference Code (ARC). Regarding the RDC, based on the most demanding aircraft that utilizes each runway, Runway 18/36 has an RDC C-II and Runway 11/29 has an RDC B-II (small). The Bombardier Challenger 600 series is a family of business jets developed by Canadair. There was a total of 83 Challenger 600 aircraft built between 1978 and 1983. After 1983, the manufacturer modified its model and started the production of the improved CL-60119. During the series’ nearly 40 years of service, 17 variations to this business jet have been introduced including the ones used for military purposes. A similar, but more recent model to the CL-600 is the CL-300 which has landed at LXT during the past couple of years on several occasions20. These two aircraft are similar in size, but the main difference between the CL-600 and the CL-300 is that the CL-600 has maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of approximately 48,200 lbs. and the CL-300 MTOW is 38,850 lbs.21 Since the CL-300 is a more modern model (started to be manufactured in 2003) it has more efficient engines and hence it has a shorter takeoff distance required (4,810 ft.) compared to the CL-600 (5,640 ft.)22 Given that the CL-600 is no longer in production, it is important for LXT to identify a more modern aircraft with similar characteristics and requirements and assesses its ability to accommodate this aircraft in the future. A similar model to the CL-600 is the Gulfstream G280 (began production in 2012). Table 1.4-7, CL-600 and G280 Comparison shows a comparison between these aircraft in different technical specifications and requirements. However, it should be noted that a more comprehensive analysis of fleet mix and current critical aircraft is discussed in the Demand Projections Chapter.

https://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/canadair-cl-600-challenger-600/135 FAA LXT TFMSC Report 01/2018 To 12/2020 21 https://usakarter.myshopify.com/blogs/bombardier/challenger-300-vs-600 22 https://usakarter.myshopify.com/blogs/bombardier/challenger-300-vs-600 19 20

Table 1.4-7: CL-600 and G280 Comparison

Source: FAA Aircraft Characteristics Database, 2018; https://www.paramountbusinessjets.com/tools/aircraft-comparison.html

Safe and efficient landing and takeoff operations at an airport require that certain areas on and near the airport are clear of objects or restricted to objects with a certain function, composition, and/or height. These clearing standards and criteria are established to create a safer environment for the aircraft operating on or near the airport. The airport operator is not required to prevent or clear penetrations to the Part 77, Subpart C, imaginary surfaces when the FAA determines these penetrations are not hazards. However, any existing or proposed object, whether man-made or of natural growth that penetrates these surfaces is classified as an “obstruction” and is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation. These obstructions are subject to an FAA aeronautical study, after which the FAA issues a determination stating whether the obstruction is in fact considered a hazard. The location and dimensions of the safety areas described below are mandated by FAA requirements.

According to the FAA, runways must have a Runway Safety Area (RSA). The RSA is a measurable rectangular area around a runway that reduces the risk of aircraft damage should an aircraft overshoot, undershoot, or travel off the runway. AC 150/5300-13A determines the dimensions of the RSA, which is based on the Runway Design Code (RDC). An RSA must not have any objects within its boundaries, except for items necessary for safe operations such as NAVAIDS.

The FAA requires a Runway Object Free Area (ROFA). The ROFA encompasses a large rectangular shape centered around the runway that provides a buffer from objects and operating aircraft. Objects required for aircraft navigation and ground maneuvering are allowed to be located within the ROFA. AC 150/5300-13A also dictates dimensions for the ROFA.

The Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) in established to protect people and property on the ground. Runways require an approach and departure RPZ. The RPZ has a trapezoidal shape and is located beyond each end of a runway. An RPZ’s dimensions are established in AC 150/5300-13A, which considers AAC for each runway end with visibility minimums being a factor for the approach RPZ, and departure procedures being a factor for the departure RPZ. Table 1.4-8, Existing RSA/ROFA/RPZ shows the dimensions of each one of these areas for both runways at LXT. Exhibit 1.4-3, LXT Safety Areas RSAs/ROFAs/RPZs, shows the three safety areas for Runway 18/36 and Runway 11/29. An analysis to determine whether these safety areas meet current FAA standards will be presented in Chapter 3 – Facility Requirements. Exhibit 1.4-4, Approach Surfaces show the approach surfaces at each runway end.

Table 1.4-8: Existing RSA/ROFA/RPZ

Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, LXT ALP 2019 Revision

Exhibit 1.4-3: LXT Safety Areas RSAs/ROFAs/RPZs

Source: CMT

Exhibit 1.4-4: Approach Surfaces

Source: CMT

The Airport’s taxiway system is designed for the movement of aircraft between the runway and apron areas. Each runway at LXT is served by a full-length parallel taxiway. Taxiway ’A’ serves as the parallel taxiway to Runway 18/36 and Taxiway ‘B’ serves as the parallel taxiway to Runway 11/29. In addition to the parallel taxiways, LXT has a series of connector taxiways which provide additional access around the airfield. Runway 18/36 also has a partial parallel taxiway on the east side of the runway designated as Taxiway ‘C’. Similar to the runways, taxiways also have safety areas and object free areas, which are referred to as the Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) and Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA). The dimensions of these areas are based off of the ADG and Taxiway Design Group (TDG). Table 1.4-9, Taxiway Data lists the two main taxiways at LXT and their associated design criteria. Exhibit 1.4-5, Taxiway System shows the taxiway configuration at LXT. Table 1.4-9: Taxiway Data

Source: LXT ALP 2019 Revision

Exhibit 1.4-5: Taxiway System

Source: CMT

The general aviation facilities at LXT are defined by the GA tenants, as well as the GA aprons, and GA aircraft parking and storage facilities. Generally, aviation operations and activities other than commercial aircraft operations are considered to be general aviation. Because LXT does not have commercial service, the Airport has several facilities that support the GA operations and activities on the airfield. The Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport is the Fixed Based Operator (FBO) who is responsible for all fueling operations at the Airport and also provides aviation business services including aircraft management, line operation services (i.e. marshalling and deicing). There are three main business operators located at LXT that provide different types of services to the GA community23: ▪

MJ Aviation Innovations

▪

R&D American Aviation

▪

Rebel Aviation

General aviation aircraft storage is largely driven by aircraft size and owner preference. Aircraft can either be tied down outdoors on an apron or stored inside a storage hangar. LXT offers a variety of parking and storage options for both based and itinerant aircraft. Currently, LXT has a total of 150 based aircraft (137 validated). According to the National Based Aircraft Inventory Program24, the distribution includes the following: ▪

Single Engine Aircraft: 129

▪

Multi Engine Aircraft: 12

▪

Jet Aircraft: 5

▪

Helicopters: 4

General aviation facilities are identified on Exhibit 1.5-1, LXT General Aviation, Landside, and Support Facilities Map.

23 24

Lee’s Summit Missouri Airport https://cityofls.net/airport/fbo-info/fixed-based-operations-services National Based Aircraft Inventory Program, 2/11/2020

Exhibit 1.5-1: LXT General Aviation, Landside, and Support Facilities Map

Source: CMT

There are different types of aprons at an airport (i.e. general aviation, commercial, cargo, etc.) that serve different purposes, such as aircraft parking, fueling, maintenance, loading/unloading of passengers, and special use aprons. At LXT, there are three main apron areas that can be used for aircraft parking: ▪

North Apron

▪

South Apron

▪

East Apron

Table 1.5-1, Apron Space list the square footage of the three aprons at LXT and the number of tiedowns in each one. Table 1.5-1: Apron Space

Source: CMT

There are currently 20 indoor aircraft storage hangars located at the airport that consist of 8 corporate (box) hangars, 1 box hangar used for FBO operations (Hangar 1), and 11 T-hangar buildings. The total indoor aircraft storage space at LXT is approximately 209,200 square feet. Table 1.5-2, Indoor Aircraft Storage Space lists the square footage of the indoor aircraft storage hangars at LXT. Exhibit 1.5-2, GA Hangar Area, depicts the different hangars that are available for GA users.

Table 1.5-2: Indoor Aircraft Storage Space

Source: CMT

Lee’s Summit Missouri Airport https://cityofls.net/airport/hangars/hangar-1

Exhibit 1.5-2: GA Hangar Area

Source: CMT

Landside facilities at LXT include areas of the airport that support the airside facilities and serve GA users including the FBO, MJ Aviation Innovations, R&D American Aviation, Rebel Aviation and Chapter 91 of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA). Landside facilities also include access roadways and vehicle parking.

The Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport Fixed Base Operator (FBO) facilities include Hangar 1 located next to the South Apron and the Airport Administration Building. The Airport Administration Building is approximately 2,400 square feet and is located on the north portion of the Airport, west of Runway 18/36. NE Douglas Street leads to and terminates at the Administration Building. The FBO’s Hangar 1 is 40,000 square feet and is located on the west side of the Airport. The FBO services include: ▪

Sale of aviation fuel

▪

Aircraft storage space (tie-down and hangar space)

▪

Parking facilities for general aviation users

▪

Support to general aviation operators

▪

Pilot’s lounge with leather recliners, coffee maker, TV, wi-fi, and separate sleeping area

▪

Concierge Service available for car rental, hotel reservations, sedan service, restaurant reservations, tee-times, catering, conference room reservations, and meeting planning

▪

Rental cars available through Enterprise, Toyota Rent-a-Car, and Hertz Gold Club

MJ Aviation Innovations is a business that provides general maintenance and repair services to the GA community. Their services are targeted to piston engine aircrafts. This business currently has office space that consists of one desk located inside Hangar 1. This business occupies 5,600 square feet of leased space inside Hangar 1. Their aircraft storage space is in the southwest corner of Hangar 1. Their services include: ▪

Single and Multi-Engine Service

▪

All GA and Experimental Aircraft

▪

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Compliance

▪

Aircraft Weight and Balance

▪

Annual Inspection/100 Hour Inspections

▪

Pre-Purchase Inspection

▪

Emergency Service

R&D American Aviation is an aircraft maintenance business which was established in 1944. This business provides the following services to the airport’s users: ▪

Single and Multi-Engine Service

▪

All GA and Experimental Aircraft

▪

Annual Inspection/100 Hour Inspections

▪

Pre-Purchase Inspection

▪

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Compliance

▪

Aircraft Weight and Balance

▪

Oxygen System Services

▪

Emergency Service

R&D American Aviation provides maintenance for Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, Mooney, Cirrus and Diamond aircraft. Currently, the business’ hangar is the southern-most hangar on the western edge of hangars on the north side of the Airport (Hangar J). This hangar is 80x80 square feet. Their office is located next to the Airport Administration Building, also on the west side of the Airport26. The company’s office is 160 square feet.

Rebel Aviation is a flight instruction business that offers a variety of services including aircraft rental and scheduling, ground school instruction and flight training. This company houses aircraft in Hangar P, as shown in Exhibit 1.5-1. Rebel Aviation’s office is located in the Airport Administration Building and is 144 square feet.

The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) is a growing and diverse organization of members with a wide range of aviation interests and backgrounds27. Chapter 91 of the EAA, the Greater Kansas City Chapter, was chartered in 1960, and has more than 130 members. Many chapter members have built or are in the process of building a wide variety of experimental aircraft. Activities include an annual fly-in (usually June), several pancake breakfasts usually including Young Eagle rallies, and hosting other aviation activities/groups such as the EAA B-17, Aluminum Overcast or the Lee's Summit Public Works Expo. Chapter 91 has traditionally been very active in the Aviation Expo held at Downtown Kansas City Airport annually. This chapter operates at the Airport’s hangars K, L and M, which are 6,400 square feet each.

26 27

R&D American Aviation http://www.rdamericanaviation.com/facility/ EAA https://www.eaa.org/eaa/about-eaa

LXT currently has two public parking areas available. One of them is located next to the Airport Administration Building and the second one is located next to Hangar 1. Table 1.6-1, Public Parking Capacity shows the current capacity for the two existing parking lots.

Source: CMT

In addition, when Hangar 1 capacity is reached, additional parking occurs on the south side of the South Apron. The Airport is planning to expand their Hangar 1 parking lot in the summer of 2020 and therefore the existing spaces shown include those for which construction is imminent. LXT does not have a parking lot dedicated to employees. Airport employees’ access and utilize the same parking spaces open to the public.

Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport does not have a dedicated equipment storage facility. The City of Lee’s Summit Public Works Department has a maintenance facility on Hamblend Road that houses their fleet and fleet personnel. Fleet serves the airport’s maintenance needs. The Airport stores their maintenance equipment in Hangar F, and various storerooms in Hangars W and X. In addition, hangar storerooms are approximately 800 square feet each. Additional space is used in Hangar 1 and a 3-car garage is located approximately 0.14 miles northwest of Hangar 1. Exhibit 1.7-1, Airport Maintenance Equipment Storage shows the location in the GA Hangar area where the equipment is currently stored. Snow removal equipment currently available at LXT is shown in Table 1.7-1: Snow Removal Equipment. Table 1.7-1: Snow Removal Equipment • • • • • • • • • • • Source: LXT Snow Plan 2017

Exhibit 1.7-2, Snow Removal Equipment portrays some of the existing snow removal inventory. Snow removal equipment, specialty trucks, are usually parked outside. However, if a hangar is available during a snow event, trucks will be parked inside overnight.

Exhibit 1.7-1: Airport Maintenance Equipment Storage

Source: CMT

Exhibit 1.7-2: Snow Removal Equipment

Top picture: snow broom; bottom picture: snowplow.

Source: CMT

LXT has one above ground Jet A fuel tank, one underground 100-LL/AVGAS tank, one underground Mogas tank and one above ground Diesel tank. Jet A and 100-LL tanks are located next to the Airport Administration building and the Diesel tank is located in the north section of the airport, in the vicinity of the two most recent built T-hangars. The Mogas tank is located on the northeast corner of the Airport Administration Building, in proximity to the 100-LL tank. Table 1.7-1, Fuel Tanks Capacity shows the current fuel storage capacity. Table 1.7-1: Fuel Tank Capacity

Source: CMT

To transport fuel to users, LXT currently has one 3,000-gallon Jet A truck and one 900-gallon Avgas truck. A condition/age analysis of the fuel tanks is presented in Chapter 3 – Facility Requirements.

De-icing fluid is stored in Building #6 located inside Hangar 1. Table 1.7-2, De-icing Storage shows the different tank capacities owned by LXT.

Source: LXT

The totes owned by the Airport are 2,000 pounds each and provide 8,000 pounds of solid runway de-ice material. These are also stored in Hangar 1until a storage facility is constructed.

Table 1.8-1, Utilities show the companies which serve LXT: Table 1.8-1: Utilities

Source: CMT

The purpose of this environmental inventory is to provide a general summary of environmental conditions in the vicinity of Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport. This inventory of environmental resources enables the preparation of development alternatives that have the highest possibility for implementation by minimizing potential environmental impacts. FAA has issued guidance documents associated with the consideration of environmental impacts of aviation-related actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and implementing regulations. At the master planning level, the FAA Advisory Circular28 states that environmental considerations should be incorporated into the master planning and alternatives development processes. FAA Order 5050.4B29, and FAA Order 1050.1F30, serve as a guide for the discussion below and identify those resources that will require evaluation prior to commencing any project actions. FAA Order 1050.1F Desk Reference identifies 14 environmental categories that require evaluation. The following pages describe each of those categories as well as any known resources present within the project area: ▪

Air Quality

▪

Biological Resources

▪

Climate

▪

Coastal Resources

▪

Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f)

▪

Farmlands

▪

Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention

▪

Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources

▪

Land Use

▪

Natural Resources and Energy Supply

▪

Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use

▪

Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks

▪

Visual Effects

▪

Water Resources

▪

Cumulative Impacts

▪

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

FAA Advisory Circular AC specifically AC 150/5070-6B, Change 2, “Airport Master Plans” FAA Order 5050.4B: NEPA Instructions for Airport Actions 30 FAA Order 1050.1F: Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures 28 29

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted air quality standards that specify the maximum permissible short-term and long-term concentrations of various air contaminants. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) consist of primary and secondary standards for six criteria pollutants which include: Ozone (O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Oxide (NO), Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and Lead (Pb). Various levels of review apply within both National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and permitting requirements. Potentially significant air quality impacts, associated with an FAA project or action, would be demonstrated by the project or action exceeding one or more of the NAAQS for any of the time periods analyzed. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenbook, portions of Jackson County are classified as being in nonattainment for SO2; however, the airport is located outside of this nonattainment area. The non-attainment area is west of Interstate 435, south of Interstate 70, and stops at the state line with Kansas.

Biological resources are valued for their intrinsic, aesthetic, economic, and recreational qualities and include fish, wildlife, plants, and their respective habitats. Typical categories of biological resources include terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal species, game and non-game species, special status species, and environmentally sensitive or critical habitats. A number of regulations have been established to ensure that projects do not negatively impact protected plants, animals, or their designated habitat. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, applies to federal agency actions and sets forth requirements for consultation to determine federal actions that may affect federally endangered or threatened species. The Sikes Act and various amendments authorize states to prepare statewide wildlife conservation plans for resources under their jurisdiction. To assist with the review of federal species potentially occurring in the airport environs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information, Planning, and Consultation System (iPAC) and the Missouri Department of Conservation was consulted. It was found that three species have the potential to occur within Jackson County. These include the Gray Bat, Indiana Bat, and the Northern Long-eared Bat. The Indiana and Northern long-eared bat hibernate during winter months in caves and mines. During the summer months, they roost and raise young under the bark of trees in wooded areas, often riparian forests and upland forests near perennial streams. The habitat for all of these species consist of mines and they use water features and forested riparian corridors for foraging and travel. The airport does not appear to contain necessary habitat for these species; therefore, impacts are not anticipated. Appendix B contains both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Missouri Department of Conservation species list and details. Table 1.9-1, Threatened or Endangered Species shows the species that have been found in Jackson County.

Table 1.9-1: Threatened or Endangered Species

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Missouri Department of Conservation species; Centurion Planning & Design

Scientific research is ongoing to better understand climate change, including any incremental atmospheric impacts that may be caused by aviation. Uncertainties are too large to accurately predict the timing, magnitude, and location of aviation’s climate impacts; however, it is clear that minimizing GHG emissions and identifying potential future impacts of climate change are important for a sustainable national airspace system. Increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere affect global climate. GHG emissions result from anthropogenic sources including the combustion of fossil fuels. GHGs are defined as including carbon CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). CO2 is the most important anthropogenic GHG because it is a long-lived gas that remains in the atmosphere for up to 100 years.

Coastal resources include all-natural resources occurring within coastal waters and their adjacent shorelands. Coastal resources include islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as fish and wildlife and their respective habitats within these areas. Coastal resources include the coastlines of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. Lee’s Summit Municipal airport is inland and is not subject to any coastal restrictions.

The U.S. DOT Act of 196631 protects significant publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public and private historic sites. Section 4(f) provides that the Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly owned land off a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance, only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the using that land and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use.

Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act of 196631 (now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 303)

No publicly owned land from a public park, recreational area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance; or any land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance is present within the airport environs.

Farmlands are defined as those agricultural areas considered important and protected by Federal, state, and local regulations. Important farmlands include all pasturelands, croplands, and forests (even if zoned for development) considered to be prime, unique, or of statewide or local importance. Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), federal agencies are directed to identify and take into account the adverse effects of federal actions on the preservation of farmland, to consider appropriate alternative actions which could lessen adverse effects, and to assure that such federal programs are, to the extent practicable, compatible with state or local government programs and policies to protect farmland. The FPPA guidelines developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) apply to farmland classified as prime or unique, or of state or local importance as determined by the appropriate government agency, with concurrence by the Secretary of Agriculture. Information obtained from the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey located in Appendix C indicates that a small percentage of soils indicative of prime or unique farmlands are present within the vicinity of the airport. Additionally, the survey indicates the majority of soils in the vicinity of the airport are classified as Greenton-Urban and Sibley-Urban land, which is generally exempt from the FPPA.

Hazardous materials, solid waste, and pollution prevention as an impact category includes an evaluation of the following: ▪

Waste streams that would be generated by a project, potential for the wastes to impact environmental resources, and the impacts on waste handling and disposal facilities that would likely receive the wastes.

▪

Potential hazardous materials that could be used during construction and operation of a project, and applicable pollution prevention procedures.

▪

Potential to encounter existing hazardous materials at contaminated sites during construction, operation, and decommissioning of a project.

▪

Potential to interfere with any ongoing remediation of existing contaminated sites at the proposed project site or in the immediate vicinity of a project site.

The terms hazardous material, hazardous waste, and hazardous substance are often used interchangeably when used informally to refer to contaminants, industrial wastes, dangerous goods, and petroleum products.

Federal, state, and local laws regulate hazardous materials use, storage, transport, and disposal. These laws may extend to past and future landowners of properties containing these materials. In addition, disrupting sites containing hazardous materials or contaminates may cause significant impacts to soil, surface water, groundwater, air quality, and the organisms using these resources. The EPA’s Enviromapper for Enviro-facts was consulted regarding the presence of impaired waters or regulated hazardous sites in the vicinity of the airport and is located in Appendix D. According to the EPA Enviromapper, there are no known impaired waters under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act or hazardous sites at the airport or within the airport environs.

Historical, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources encompass a range of sites, properties, and physical resources relating to human activities, society, and cultural institutions. Such resources include past and present expressions of human culture and history in the physical environment, such as prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, structures, objects, districts, which are considered important to a culture or community. Historical, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources also include aspects of the physical environment, namely natural features and biota, that are a part of traditional ways of life and practices and are associated with community values and institutions. Under NEPA, the FAA is responsible for analyzing the impacts of its action on historical, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources as part of a broader review of the human environment 32. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) utilizes the State Historic Office (SHPO) online Geographic Information System (GIS). According to this website there are three recorded Architectural Survey sites within the vicinity of the airport. Site one is 0.5 miles southwest of the airport’s property line, located on the west side of NW Lees Summit Road. Site two is 0.16 miles south of the airport, located in between NW Colbern and NW Lees Summit Road. Site three is 0.6 miles east located in between Highway 470 and NE Rice Road. These Architectural Surveys sites were recorded by Three Gables Preservation in 1994. The closest site listed on the National Register of Historical Places Database is Unity School of Christianity, located 1.6 miles directly southwest from the airport. The study area has been surveyed using online resources for cultural resources and no resources were identified. Any projects undertaken are not going to have adverse effects on any cultural resources.

FAA’s 1050.1f Desk Reference

The compatibility of existing and planned land uses with an aviation or aerospace proposal is usually associated with noise impacts. In addition to the impacts of noise on land use compatibility, other potential impacts of FAA actions may also affect land use compatibility (e.g., disruption of communities, relocation, induced socioeconomic impacts, land uses protected under Section 4(f) of the DOTAct). Compatible Land Use- Exhibit A reflects the land uses immediately surrounding Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport. The surrounding property consists of undeveloped cropland and pastureland to the north, west, and southwest. A large swath of undeveloped land is located directly north of the airport, with two schools located to the northwest, and residential and mixed-use property to the northeast. Development to the east of the airfield includes industrial and commercial facilities. Further to the west of the airport are residential, undeveloped, and agricultural lands that contain a high school and church. The residential development within the airport vicinity on the west primarily consists of large lot or rural residential properties scattered throughout the area. Compatible land use also addresses nearby features that could pose a threat to safe aircraft operations by attracting wildlife (e.g., landfills, lakes, and ponds). Land-use practices and habitat are the key factors determining the wildlife species and the size of wildlife populations that are attracted to airport environments. The recognition and control of those land-use practices and habitats on or near airports that attract hazardous wildlife are fundamental to effective Wildlife Hazard Management Plans. The FAA33 provides guidance on locating certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports. For all airports, a minimum separation distance of 5 statute miles is recommended between the farthest edge of the airport’s AOA and known hazardous wildlife attractant if the attractant could cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. Lakes and ponds in the vicinity of the airport include Lakewood Lakes, 1 mile to the north, Lake Jacomo, 1.5 miles to the east, Unity Lake Number One, 1 mile southwest of the airport, Unity Lake Number Two, .7 miles west of the airport, and several farm ponds are located within the vicinity of Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport. Municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) are known to attract large numbers of hazardous wildlife, particularly birds. The closest landfill to the airport is located approximately 9 miles northeast of the airport (Pink Hill Sanitary Landfill).

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports

As an impact category, natural resources and energy supply provides an evaluation of a project’s consumption of natural resources (such as water, asphalt, aggregate, wood, etc.) and use of energy supplies (such as coal for electricity; natural gas for heating; and fuel for aircraft, commercial space launch vehicles, or other ground vehicles). Consumption of natural resources and use of energy supplies may result from construction, operation, and/or maintenance of the proposed action or alternative(s).

Aviation noise primarily results from the operation of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, such as departures, arrivals, overflights, taxiing, and engine run-ups. Noise is often the predominant aviation environmental concern of the public. Significant levels of aircraft noise in communities around airports generate the most issues. However, there are increasing concerns in areas of moderate noise exposure, and noise issues are raised by residents in suburban and rural areas where ambient noise is lower than in the more urbanized areas that tend to surround many commercial service airports.

Socioeconomics is an umbrella term used to describe aspects of a project that are either social or economic in nature. A socioeconomic analysis evaluates how elements of the human environment such as population, employment, housing, and public services might be affected by the proposed action and alternative(s). The Crossroads of Lee’s Summit Apartments is a low-income housing unit located southeast of the Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport.

Visual effects deal broadly with the extent to which the proposed action or alternative(s) would either: 1) produce light emissions that create annoyance or interfere with activities; or 2) contrast with, or detract from, the visual resources and/or the visual character of the existing environment. Visual effects can be difficult to define and assess because they involve subjectivity. Proposed aviation and aerospace actions do not commonly result in adverse visual effects, but these effects may occur in certain circumstances.

Water resources are surface waters and groundwater that are vital to society; they are important in providing drinking water and in supporting recreation, transportation and commerce, industry, agriculture, and aquatic ecosystems. Surface water, groundwater, floodplains, and wetlands do not function as separate and isolated components of the watershed, but rather as a single, integrated natural system. Because of the close and integrated relationship of these resources, their analysis is conducted under the all-encompassing impact category of water resources. Wild and Scenic Rivers are included because impacts to these rivers can result from obstructing or altering the free-flowing characteristics of a designated river, an impact more closely resembling an impact to a water resource. Surface Waters- Surface waters include streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, estuaries, and oceans. Lakes and ponds in the vicinity of the airport include Lakewood Lakes, 1 mile to the north, Lake Jacomo, 1.5 miles to the east, Unity Lake Number One, 1 mile southwest, Unity Lake Number Two, .7 miles west, and several farm ponds are located within the vicinity of the airport. There are 5 tributaries on airport property. Two of them begin on airport property and lead to Lakewood Lakes, and three begin on airport property and head west to Unity Lake Number Two. These tributaries are seen on the wetland map located in Appendix E. Groundwater- a subsurface water that occupies the space between sand, clay, and rock formations. The term aquifer is used to describe the geologic layers that store or transmit groundwater, such as to wells, springs, and other water sources. Exhibit 4-1 of FAA Order 1050.1F provides the FAA’s significance threshold for groundwater. A significant impact exists if: The action would: 1. Exceed groundwater quality standards established by Federal, state, local, and tribal regulatory agencies; or 2. Contaminate an aquifer used for public water supply such that public health may be adversely affected. There are no active groundwater sites on or near the airport property. Floodplains- Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by the floodplains. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)34, the airport itself is not located within a 100-year floodplain and no 100-year floodplains are located in proximity to the airport.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number 29095C0430G (published January 20, 2017) located in Appendix F 34

Wetlands- According to the Clean Water Act, Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) include rivers, streams, tributaries, interstate waters, and wetlands. Such areas are regulated and subject to permitting under the federal Clean Water Act by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Wetlands include areas where water either covers the soil or is present at or near the surface of the soil at a frequency and duration to support plants that would grow in saturated soil conditions. Hydrology largely determines how the soil develops and the types of plant and animal communities living in and on the soil, which can support both aquatic and terrestrial species. The prolonged presence of water creates conditions that favor the growth of specially adapted plants, or hydrophytes, and promotes the development of characteristic hydric wetland soils. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are defined in Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, as those areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonably saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands can include swamps, marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, natural ponds, estuarine areas, tidal overflows, and shallow lakes and ponds with emergent vegetation. Wetlands exhibit three characteristics: the soil is inundated or saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season (hydrology), has a population of plants able to tolerate various degrees of flooding or frequent saturation (hydrophytes), and soils that are saturated enough to develop anaerobic conditions during the growing season (hydric). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper as seen in Appendix E, a small wetland is located on the east of the property located in the industrial park, and a small wetland located on the south side of the property connected to the tributary that leads to the Unity Lake Number Two. Water Quality- The Clean Water Act provides the authority to establish water quality standards, control discharges, develop waste treatment management plans and practices, prevent or minimize the of wetlands, and regulate other issues concerning water quality. Water quality concerns related to airport development most often relate to the potential for surface runoff and soil erosion, as well as the storage and handling of fuel, petroleum products, solvents, etc. Congress has mandated (under the Clean Water Act) the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This program addresses non-agricultural stormwater discharges. Through the use of NPDES permits, certain procedures are required to prevent contamination of water bodies from stormwater runoff. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can delegate this permit authority to individual states. Wild and Scenic Rivers – Wild and Scenic Rivers are rivers having remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, or cultural values as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. If the FAA is taking an action that would physically impact resources covered by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, there may be consultation requirements under the Act. There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers located in proximity to the airport. The closest Wild and Scenic River in the state of Missouri is the Eleven Point Wild and Scenic River, located approximately 220 miles southeast of Lee’s Summit Municipal airport.

The depth of a cumulative impacts analysis should be commensurate with the potential for significant impacts. The scope and extent of the analysis will vary by project type, geographic location, potential to impact resources, and other factors such as the current condition of potentially affected impact categories.

An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to impacts on or losses to resources that cannot be recovered or reversed. Examples include permanent conversion of wetlands and loss of cultural resources, soils, wildlife, agricultural production, or socioeconomic conditions. Irreversible is a term that describes the loss of future options. It applies primarily to the impacts of use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors, such as soil productivity, that are renewable only over long periods of time. Irretrievable is a term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources.

The definition of demand that may reasonably be expected to occur during the useful life of an airport’s key components (e.g., runways, taxiways, terminal buildings, etc.) is an important factor in facilityty planning. In airport forecasting, this involves projecting potential aviation activity for at least a 20year timeframe. Aviation demand forecasting for the Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport (LXT) will primarily consider based aircraft, aircraft operations, and peak activity periods. Because Missouri is a state block grant state, the Airport coordinates their forecast of aviation demand directly with Missouri Department of Transportation Aviation Section (MODOT). MODOT liaises directly with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and ultimately, the FAA has oversight responsibility to review and approve aviation forecasts developed in conjunction with airport planning studies. FAA will review individual airport forecasts with the objective of comparing them to its Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) and the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Though the TAF is updated annually, there has been disparity between the TAF and airport planning forecasts in the past. Consequently, the TAF forecasts are the result of a top-down model that does not consider local conditions or recent trends. While the TAF forecasts are to be a point of comparison for airport forecasts, they serve other purposes, such as asset allocation by the FAA. It should also be noted that in the midst of the world pandemic due to COVID-19, the 2020 TAF has been deemed “invalid” by the FAA. This was communicated to CMT and the LXT team in June during a phone call between CMT and the FAA Central Region. While the TAF is considered invalid, it is still used within this document for comparison purposes. When reviewing a sponsor’s airport forecast, MODOT and the FAA must ensure that the forecast is based on reasonable planning assumptions, uses current data, and is developed using appropriate forecast methods. As stated in FAA Order 5090.5, Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) and Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP), forecasts should be: ▪

Realistic

▪

Based on the latest available data

▪

Reflective of current conditions at the airport (as a baseline)

▪

Supported by information in the study

▪

Able to provide adequate justification for airport planning and development

The forecast process for an airport planning study consists of basic steps that vary in complexity depending upon the issues addressed and the level of effort required. The steps include a review of previous forecasts, determination of data needs, identification of data sources, collection of data, selection of forecast methods, preparation of the forecasts, and evaluation and documentation of the results. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, outlines seven standard steps involved in the forecast process:

1. Identify Aviation Activity Measures: The level and type of aviation activities likely to impact facility needs. For general aviation, this typically includes based aircraft and operations. 2. Review Previous Airport Forecasts: May include the FAA Terminal Area Forecast, state or regional system plans, and previous master plans. 3. Gather Data: Determine what data are required to prepare the forecasts, identify data sources, and collect historical and forecast data. 4. Select Forecast Methods: There are several appropriate methodologies and techniques available, including regression analysis, trend analysis, market share or ratio analysis, exponential smoothing, econometric modeling, comparison with other airports, survey techniques, cohort analysis, choice and distribution models, range projections, and professional judgment. 5. Apply Forecast Methods and Evaluate Results: Prepare the actual forecasts and evaluate for reasonableness. 6. Summarize and Document Results: Provide supporting text and data tables as necessary. 7. Compare Forecast Results with FAA’s TAF: For general aviation airports such as Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport, forecasts for based aircraft and total operations are considered consistent with the TAF if they meet the following criteria: ▪

Forecasts differ by less than 10 percent in the 5-year forecast period and 15 percent in the 10-year forecast period; or

▪

Forecasts do not affect the timing or scale of an airport project; or

▪

Forecasts do not affect the role of the airport as defined in the current version of FAA Or-der 5090.5, Formulation of the NPIAS and ACIP.

Aviation activity can be affected by many influences on the local, regional, and national levels, making it virtually impossible to predict year-to-year fluctuations of activity over 20 years with any certainty. Therefore, it is important to remember that forecasts are to serve only as guidelines, and planning must remain flexible enough to respond to a range of unforeseen developments. This forecast analysis for LXT was produced following these basic guidelines. Previous forecasts are examined and compared against current and historic activity. The historical aviation activity is then examined, along with other factors and trends that can affect demand. The intent is to provide an updated set of aviation demand projections for LXT that will permit airport management to make planning adjustments as necessary to maintain a viable, efficient, and cost-effective facility. The forecasts for this study will utilize a base year of 2020, with a long-range forecast year of 2040.

The initial step in determining the aviation demand for an airport is to define its generalized service area for various segments of aviation the airport can accommodate. The airport service area is determined primarily by evaluating the location of competing airports, their capabilities, their services, and their relative attraction and convenience. In determining the aviation demand for an airport, it is necessary to identify the role of that airport, as well as the specific areas of aviation demand the airport is intended to serve. As one of four FAA designated reliever airports in the Kansas City metropolitan area, the primary role of Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport is to relieve congestion at Kansas City International Airport1. This is accomplished by providing an option that serves general aviation demand in the region. The airport service area is a geographical area where there is a potential market for airport services. Access to general aviation airports and transportation networks enter the equation to determine the size of a service area. Also, to be factored are subjective criteria, such as the quality of aviation facilities and services. As in any business enterprise, the more attractive the facility is in terms of services and capabilities, the more competitive it will be in the market. If an airport’s attractiveness increases in relation to nearby airports, so will the size of the service area. If facilities are adequate and rates and fees are competitive at Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport, some level of aviation activity might be attracted to the airport from more distant locales. Defining a service area for an airport is also important in the forecasting process. Once a general service area is identified, various statistical comparisons can be made for projecting aviation demand. For example, in rural areas, where there may be one general aviation airport in each county, the service area could reasonably be defined as the entire county. This would facilitate comparisons to county population and other factors pertaining to that county for forecasting purposes. In urban areas, where there are many general aviation airports, the definition of a service area is not as simple. Aircraft owners in urban areas have many more choices when it comes to basing their aircraft. In general, one of the primary reasons aircraft owners select an airport at which to base their aircraft is convenience to home or work. Other reasons that affect that choice might include the capability of the runway system, services available, hangar space availability, airport or airspace congestion, etc. A defined service area is developed for the purposes of identifying a geographic area from which to further develop aviation demand projections. The service area will generally represent where most, but not all, based aircraft will come from. It is not unusual for some based aircraft to be registered outside the region or even outside the state. Particularly in urban areas, airport service areas will likely overlap to some extent as well. As previously discussed, the generalized service area of an airport can be estimated by its proximity to other airports providing similar levels of service. Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport is one of several airports serving the general aviation needs of west-central Missouri. Table 2.2-1 summarizes the capabilities of eight of the most competitive airports within 30 nautical miles (nm) of Lee’s Summit 1

FAA - National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 2021-2025

Municipal Airport. The service area for Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport is primarily limited to the north and northwest by Midwest National Air Center (Midwest National) and Charles B. Wheeler Downtown (Wheeler Downtown) Airports as well as Johnson County Executive (Executive), New Century Air Center (New Century), and Gardner Municipal (Gardner) Airports to the west and southwest. Additionally, Lawrence Smith Memorial (Smith Memorial) and Skyhaven Airports are both located south and eastsoutheast between 20 and 30 nm from Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport and offer an array of general aviation services, including 100LL and Jet A fuel, aircraft maintenance, aircraft storage, etc. It should be noted that there are also seven privately-owned airports located within the 30 nm radius; however, these airports are not included in the NPIAS and services offered are more limited, including 100LL fuel aircraft maintenance, and aircraft tiedown storage. The only privately-owned/public use airport in Jackson County and within 10 nautical miles of LXT is the East Kansas City Airport in Grain Valley. The privately-owned airport can house more than 100 aircraft, but over the years has become highly constrained by surrounding development. Under the co-operative ownership of the Grain Valley Airport Corporation, the airport has remained in operation for over 60 years, while many other private airports in Jackson County have been lost to the surrounding development. Although the primary function of Kansas City International (KCI) is to serve scheduled commercial passenger and cargo airline services, the airport also caters to corporate aviation activity. The FAA Based Aircraft Database indicates there are 739 general aviation aircraft based at the identified NPIAS airports, as well as East Kansas City Airport, located within the 30 nm radius.

Table 2.2-1: Area NPIAS Airports and Capabilities

49,600⁵

Source: Airnav.com

Available runway length and the capability of instrument approaches is a significant factor when aircraft owners choose an airport at which to base. Aside from KCI, New Century, and Wheeler Downtown, Lee’s Summit Municipal and Midwest National Air Center provide the longest runways (5,500 feet) and have similar instrument approach capabilities (GPS approach with not lower than ¾-mile visibility minimums) among general aviation airports within a 30-nautical-mile radius. The closest airport with more competitive capabilities than LXT is Wheeler Downtown, located approximately 14 nm to the northwest in the neighboring City of Kansas City, Missouri. Wheeler Downtown Airport is a controlled airport, its longest runway is 6,827 feet long, and it has similar instrument approach visibility minimums (not lower than ¾-mile) when compared to LXT. Based upon its proximity and characteristics, Wheeler Downtown could be considered the greatest competition to LXT, with Johnson County Executive a close second, and Midwest National and New Century airports tying for third. The remaining four NPIAS airports situated between 20 nm and 30 nm from LXT also provide an array of general aviation services and have runway lengths ranging from 2,960 to 10,801 feet. These airports also affect the extent of the LXT service area; they are not, however, as competitive as the three aforementioned airports. The levels of service and facilities also play a role in determining the airport’s service area. Based on this criteria, Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport has remained a very important facility that meets the needs of general aviation operators in the region, ranging from recreational flying in single engine aircraft to corporate business jets and charter operators. The airport is also home to the second most aircraft in the region, behind only Wheeler Downtown Airport. In its role, a regional reliever airport, LXT should be maintained to accommodate a full range of general aviation aircraft. An indication of Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport’s general service area can also be obtained through an examination of its based aircraft owners. Exhibit 2.2-1 presents the total registered aircraft within 30 nm of LXT for 2020. As shown in the exhibit, a comparison has been made between regional registered aircraft and current based aircraft at LXT. The regional registered aircraft are depicted as the blue dots, while registered aircraft that are currently based at Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport are represented as red dots.

Exhibit 2.2-1: Registered Aircraft within 30nm of LXT

Source: ESRI Basemap Imagery (2018), FAA Registered Aircraft Database, BasedAircraft.com

Many of these aircraft registrations surround LXT within the 0-10 nm radius and to the west within the 10-20 nm radius. At present, there are a total of 235 registered aircraft within 10 miles of LXT. Of these aircraft, LXT has 69 based at the airport, leaving a difference of 166 aircraft that have registered owners within 10 miles of the airport. Within the 10-20 nm radius, there are a total of 781 aircraft registrations, 39 of which are based at LXT. 450 registered aircraft are located within the 20-30 nm radius and seven are currently based at LXT. This data shows that a high percentage of based aircraft that are regionally registered reside or do business near the airport. It should be noted that 22 of the current based aircraft at LXT are registered beyond 30 nm of the airport. The remainder of the based aircraft owners are more rurally located surrounding the greater Kansas City metropolitan area. Table 2.2-2 shows the percentage breakdown of where in proximity to the airport, the addresses where based aircraft owners have their aircraft registered. Approximately 50 percent of based aircraft are registered within 10 miles of the airport. Another 28 percent are registered within 10-20 miles from the airport, while approximately 5 percent are registered between 20-30 miles. Registrations beyond 30 miles account for approximately 16 percent of based aircraft owners. Table 2.2-2: Based Aircraft Location Analysis for LXT

Source: Coffman Associates

Considering all previous factors associated with competing airports, available aviation services, and based aircraft ownership, the airport’s primary service area can be considered to be Jackson County, which is the primary driver of based aircraft at LXT, capturing 53 percent of LXT based aircraft. However, LXT is currently at full capacity. The Airport has built-out all its readily available and costeffective land opportunities on the west-side. The Airport consistently carries a waitlist for hangar space and therefore, to satisfy this demand, cost-effective improvements should be considered within the facilities requirements and alternatives sections.

Socioeconomic conditions also provide an important baseline for preparing aviation demand forecasts. Local socioeconomic variables, such as population and employment, are indicators for understanding the dynamics of the community and can relate to local trends in aviation activity. Analysis of the demographics of the airport service area will give a more comprehensive understanding of the socioeconomic situations influencing the region which supports LXT. The following is a summary of historic and forecast demographic and socioeconomic data. Table 2.3-1 summarizes historical and forecast population, employment, and income estimates for Jackson County, which comprises the airport service area. For purposes of this analysis, socioeconomic metrics of the Kansas City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and the State of Missouri have also been examined. By 2040, the population of Jackson County is projected to reach over 742,000 people, which will make up over 11 percent of the state’s population. During the same time period, population within the Kansas City MSA and the State of Missouri are projected to grow to approximately 2.5 million and 6.7 million, respectively. As a point of comparison, historic and forecast population for the City of Lee’s Summit has also been included. Over the planning period from 2019-2040, the population of the City of Lee’s Summit is forecast to grow from 99,618 to 168,640 at a CAGR of 2.53 percent. Employment growth is projected to outpace population growth in each jurisdiction, forecast at 0.35 percent compound average annual growth rate (CAGR) for Jackson County, 0.99 percent CAGR for the Kansas City MSA, and 0.73 percent CAGR for the state. Per capita personal income is projected to grow most quickly in the Kansas City MSA at 1.19 percent CAGR, compared to 1.14 and 0.95 percent CAGR for the state and Jackson County, respectively. Gross regional product (GRP) for Jackson County and State are projected to grow at CAGRs of 0.43 and 1.17 percent, respectively, while the GRP for the Kansas City MSA is projected to grow at 1.48 percent.

Table 2.3-1: Socioeconomic History and Projections

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Woods & Poole Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS) 2019

In addition to socioeconomic conditions, existing and planned land uses surrounding airports can have a significant impact on airport operations and growth. Understanding the land use issues surrounding LXT will assist in making appropriate recommendations for the future sustainability of the airport in the way of both environmental compatibility and economic development. The City of Lee’s Summit’s 2005 Comprehensive Plan (amended in 2019), presented in Chapter 1 - Exhibit 1.3-1, includes agricultural and industrial/commercial uses along the interstate corridor and long-term plans for business park development immediately west of the airport.

Each year, the FAA updates and publishes a national aviation forecast. Included in this publication are forecasts for the large air carriers, regional/commuter air carriers, general aviation, and FAA workload measures. The forecasts are prepared to meet the budget and planning needs of the FAA and to provide information that can be used by state and local authorities, the aviation industry, and the public. The current edition used in preparation of this study was FAA Aerospace Forecasts – Fiscal Years 20202040, published in March 2020. The FAA primarily uses the economic performance of the United States as an indicator of future aviation industry growth. Similar economic analyses are applied to the outlook for aviation growth in international markets. The following discussion is summarized from the FAA Aerospace Forecasts.

The FAA forecasts the fleet mix and hours flown for single engine piston aircraft, multi-engine piston aircraft, turboprops, business jets, piston and turbine helicopters, light sport, experimental, and others (gliders and balloons). The FAA forecasts “active aircraft,” not total aircraft. An active aircraft is one that is flown at least one hour during the year. As previously mentioned, from 2010 through 2013, the FAA undertook an effort to have all aircraft owners re-register their aircraft. This effort resulted in a 10.5 percent decrease in the number of active general aviation aircraft, mostly in the piston category. The long-term outlook for general aviation is relatively stable, as growth at the high-end offsets continuing retirements at the traditional low end of the segment. The active general aviation fleet is forecast to decline slightly between 2020 and 2040. While steady growth in both gross domestic product (GDP) and corporate profits result in continued growth of the turbine and rotorcraft fleets, the largest segment of the fleet – fixed-wing piston aircraft – continues to shrink over the forecast. Against the marginally declining fleet, the number of general aviation hours flown is projected to increase by an average of 0.7 percent per year during the same period, as growth in turbine, rotorcraft, and experimental hours more than offset a decline in fixed wing piston hours. Table 2.4-1 shows the primary general aviation demand indicators as forecast by the FAA.

Table 2.4-1: FAA General Aviation Forecast

CAGR: compound annual growth rate (2020-2040) Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast - Fiscal Years 2020-2040

For 2020, the FAA estimated there were 141,245 piston-powered aircraft in the national fleet. The total number of piston-powered aircraft in the fleet is forecast to decline by 0.98 percent from 20202040, resulting in 115,970 by 2020. This includes a decline of 1.00 percent annually for single engine pistons and a decline of 0.50 percent for multi-engine pistons. Total turbine aircraft are forecast to grow at an annual growth rate of 1.82 percent through 2040. The FAA estimates there were 25,490 fixed-wing turbine-powered aircraft in the national fleet in 2020, and there will be 36,595 by 2040. This includes annual growth rates of 1.20 percent for turboprops and 2.20 percent for business jets. Total helicopters are forecast to grow at an annual growth rate of 1.63 percent annually through 2040. The FAA estimates there were 10,340 helicopters in 2020, which are forecast to grow to 14,295 by 2020. This includes annual growth rates of 1.40 percent for piston helicopters and 1.70 percent for turbine helicopters. The FAA also forecasts experimental aircraft, light sport aircraft, and others. Combined, there were 35,305 other aircraft in 2020. This is forecast to grow to 43,520 by 2040 for an annual growth rate of 1.05 percent. The term “experimental aircraft” refers to a category of aircraft that have a special airworthiness certificate issued by the FAA. These aircraft have an “experimental” designation because they do not have a type certificate or do not conform to their type certificate, however, are in a condition for safe operation as deemed by the FAA. Often times, the experimental certificate is applied to kitbuilt aircraft that have undergone proper FAA inspection.

Similarly, “light sport aircraft” are a category of aircraft that weigh less than 1,320 pounds (1,430 pounds for amphibious aircraft) and are heavier and faster than ultralight vehicles. Additionally, light sport aircraft can have a maximum speed of 138 miles per hour, two seats, one engine, and fixed landing gear, among other limited characteristics. Light sport aircraft can include gliders, balloons, powered parachutes, weight-shift control aircraft, and gyroplanes.

The FAA also forecasts total operations based upon activity at control towers across the U.S. Operations are categorized as air carrier, air taxi/commuter, general aviation, and military. General aviation operations, both local and itinerant, declined significantly as a result of the 20082009 recession and subsequent slow recovery. Through 2040, total general aviation operations are forecast to grow 0.29 percent annually. This includes annual growth rates of 0.33 percent for local general aviation operations and 0.26 percent for itinerant general aviation operations. Exhibit 2.4-1 presents the historical and FAA forecast of the U.S. active general aviation aircraft fleet and operations.

Exhibit 2.4-1: Historical and Forecast U.S. Active GA Aircraft and Operations

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast – Fiscal years 2019-2039

The development of aviation forecasts proceeds through both analytical and judgmental processes. A series of mathematical relationships is tested to establish statistical logic and rationale for projected growth. However, the judgment of the forecast analyst, based upon professional experience, knowledge of the aviation industry, and assessment of the local situation, is important in the final determination of the preferred forecast. The most reliable approach to estimating aviation demand is through the utilization of more than one analytical technique. Methodologies frequently considered include trend line/ time-series projections, correlation/regression analysis, and market share analysis. The forecast analyst may decide to employ one or all these methods to arrive at a reasonable single forecast. The following is a description of those methodologies utilized to develop the forecasts of aviation demand. TREND LINE/TIME SERIES EXTENSION: Trend line/time-series projections are probably the simplest and most familiar of the forecasting techniques. By fitting growth curves to historical data, and then extending them into the future, a basic trend line projection is produced. An assumption of this technique is that outside factors will continue to affect aviation demand in much the same manner as in the past. As broad as this assumption may be, the trend line projection does serve as a reliable benchmark for comparing other projections. RATIO PROJECTION: The ratio projection methodology examines the historical relationship between two variables as a ratio. A common example in aviation demand forecasting is to consider the number of based aircraft as a ratio of the service area population where there may be 1.8 aircraft per 1,000 people. This ratio can then be carried to future years in comparison to projections of population. MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS: Market share analysis involves historical review of airport activity as a percentage, or share, of a larger regional, state, or national aviation market. A historical market share trend is determined, providing an expected market share for the future. These shares are then multiplied by the forecasts of the larger geographical area to produce a market share projection. This method has the same limitations as trend line projections but can provide a useful check on the validity of other forecasting techniques. SOCIOECONOMIC METHODOLOGIES: Though trend line extrapolation and market share analysis may provide mathematical and formulaic justification for demand projections, many factors beyond historical levels of activity may identify trends in aviation and impact aviation demand locally. Socioeconomic or correlation analysis examines the direct relationship between two or more sets of historical data from which future aviation activity projections are developed. PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT: Judgmental methods are educated estimations of future events based on the industry knowledge, experience, and intuition of the forecaster. This method permits the inclusion of a broad range of relevant information into the forecasting process and is usually used to refine the results of the other methods.

Forecasts will age the farther they are from the base year, thus the less reliable a forecast may become, due to changing local and national conditions. Nonetheless, the FAA indicates that a 20-year forecast be developed for long-range airport planning. Facility and financial planning usually require at least a 10 -year view because it often takes more than five years to complete a major facility development program. However, it is important to use forecasts that do not overestimate revenue-generating capabilities or understate demand for facilities required to meet public (user) needs. A wide range of factors is known to influence the aviation industry and can have significant impacts on the extent and nature of aviation activity in both the local and national markets. Historically, the nature and trend of the national economy have had direct impacts on the level of aviation activity. Recessionary periods have been closely followed by declines in aviation activity. Nonetheless, over time trends emerge and provide the basis for airport planning. Future facility requirements, such as hangar and apron needs, are derived from projections of various aviation demand indicators. Using a broad spectrum of local, regional, and national socioeconomic and aviation information, and analyzing the most current aviation trends, forecasts are presented for the following aviation demand indicators: ▪

Based Aircraft

▪

Based Aircraft Fleet Mix

▪

General Aviation Operations

▪

Air Taxi and Military Operations

▪

Operational Peaks

This forecasting effort was completed in June 2020, with a base year of 2020. While it is too early to understand the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on general aviation, there are early signs that are considered in this forecasting effort. For example, recreational and student training appears to be slowing while charter and private aviation appears to be increasing. Therefore, certain forecasting elements are tempered in the short term and an assumption made that activity will return to more normal levels within the short-term (five year) timeframe.

Consideration is given to any forecasts of aviation demand for the airport that have been completed in the recent past. Recent forecasts have been sourced from the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) Regional Aviation System Plan, Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Missouri State Airport System Plan, and the FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). It should be noted that in conversations with MODOT and the FAA Central Region that the current TAF (2020) should be considered invalid for forecasting purposes. However, it is displayed within this document solely as a means of comparison. These forecasts are presented in Table 2.6-1 for comparison.

Table 2.6-1: Previous Forecasts LXT

CAGR - Compound annual growth rate Source: Mid-America Regional Council, Regional Airport System Plan Update, January 2016; Missouri Department of Transportation, Missouri State Airport System Plan Update, February 2019; FAA Terminal Area Forecast, January 2020.

In early 2016, MARC published the final report of its regional aviation system plan (RASP) for a ninecounty area focused on the Kansas City Region. The study area included counties in both Kansas and Missouri, and considered 13 general aviation airports, including LXT. These forecasts are presented in Table 2.6-1 and utilize a base year of 2015. The forecast for each airport in the regional system was based upon a constant market share of the FAA forecast for U.S. active general aviation fleet as published in the FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2014-2034. LXT had 152 based aircraft in 2015 and was projected to grow to 170 by year 2035 at a CAGR of 1.0 percent. Over the 20-year planning horizon, annual aircraft operations were forecast to grow from 50,500 in 2015 to 61,550 in 2035 at a CAGR of 0.60 percent. The RASP compared its forecast to that of the FAA TAF at the time. Each of the eight NPIAS general aviation airports in the system were forecast by the RASP at the same CAGR. In 2015, LXT’s 152 based aircraft comprised 18.5 percent of the 824 aircraft based at the eight NPIAS airports in the system. The RASP forecast of 170 based aircraft at LXT in 2035 would remain 18.5 percent of the 920 total aircraft it projected to be based at the same eight airports. Although, at the time, the TAF projected only 851 based aircraft between the eight airports in 2035, its forecast of 176 for LXT comprised 20.7 per-cent of the total.

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) prepared the Missouri State Airport System Plan (MoSASP) in February of 2019, which included an updated set of based aircraft and aircraft operation projections for each airport included in the state system. These forecasts were developed utilizing a base year of 2017 and are presented in Table 2.6-1. The MoSASP reported LXT with 148 based aircraft in 2017. The based aircraft count was projected to grow to 162 over the 20-year period, resulting in a CAGR of 0.45 percent. During the same period, annual operations were estimated at 50,000 and were projected to grow at a CAGR of 0.29 percent to 52,990 operations by 2037.

It should be noted that the forecasts for the 2016 RASP and the 2019 MoSASP were prepared by the same consultant. As with the RASP, the preferred forecast for each airport in the system was derived from a constant market share of the FAA forecast for U.S. active general aviation fleet. The current FAA forecast at this time was published in the FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2018-2038. The forecast CAGR for active general aircraft had declined from 0.6 to 0.45 percent. As with the RASP, each system airport was projected to grow at the same rate, thus maintaining the same market share throughout the planning period.

On an annual basis, the FAA publishes the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for each airport included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The TAF is a generalized forecast of airport activity used by the FAA primarily for internal planning purposes. It is available to airports and consultants to use as a baseline projection and important point of comparison while developing local forecasts. The TAF was published in January 2020 and is based on the federal fiscal year (OctoberSeptember) and is summarized in Table 2.6-1. The TAF estimates 133 based aircraft in 2020 and projects growth to 171 by year 2040 at a CAGR of 1.29 percent. The TAF estimated 52,500 annual operations for LXT in 2020 and did not project any grow over the planning horizon. It should be noted that the TAF is rarely in concert with an actual date for an airport. For example, the airport has physically counted 137 based aircraft, which is different than the TAF. In addition, the TAF utilized a zero-growth scenario for total operations over the planning horizon. Although zero growth is likely not the case for LXT, a flat-line forecast is common practice in the TAF for non-towered general aviation airports across the country. Once the master plan forecasts are approved by the FAA, it is recommended that the TAF may be updated to reflect these forecasts. The FAA also provides a TAF for all airports in each state. Statewide TAF data is helpful as a projection tool and as a point of comparison to assess the reasonableness of the forecasts developed here. In the State of Missouri, total based aircraft is projected to grow 0.37 percent and total operations are projected to grow 0.46 percent CAGR.

General aviation encompasses all portions of civil aviation except commercial service and military operations. To determine the types and sizes of facilities that should be planned to accommodate general aviation activity at the airport, certain elements of this activity must be forecast. These indicators of general aviation demand include based aircraft, aircraft fleet mix, operations, and peak periods. The number of based aircraft is the most basic indicator of general aviation demand. By first developing a forecast of based aircraft for LXT, other demand indicators can be projected. The process of developing forecasts of based aircraft begins with an analysis of aircraft ownership in the primary general aviation service area through a review of historical aircraft registrations. An initial forecast of service area registered aircraft is developed and will be used as one data point to arrive at a based aircraft forecast for LXT.

The number of based aircraft is the most basic indicator of general aviation demand. By first developing a forecast of based aircraft for the airport, other general aviation activity and demand can be projected. The process of developing forecasts of based aircraft begins with an analysis of aircraft ownership in the airport service area through a review of historical aircraft registrations. Table 2.7-1 presents historical data regarding aircraft registered in Jackson County since 2001. These figures are derived from the FAA aircraft registration database that categorized registered aircraft by county based on the zip code of the registered aircraft. Although this information generally provides a correlation to based aircraft, it is not uncommon for some aircraft to be registered in the county but based at an airport outside the county or vice versa. Between 2008 and 2014, two factors contributed to the decline in registered aircraft nationally: 1) the 2008-2009 national recession and subsequent slow recovery; and 2) FAA required all aircraft to be reregistered from 2010-2013, which removed nearly 10.5 percent of previously registered active general aviation aircraft. The FAA’s database of registered aircraft was inaccurate due to a lack of proper data maintenance as well as faulty registration reporting by aircraft owners. As presented in the table, Jackson County experienced a decline in registered aircraft during this timeframe that was likely attributed to a combination of the factors mentioned. With these two major factors now in the past, it is reasonable to anticipate a return to more normal growth trends. As presented in the table, Jackson County registered aircraft ranged between a high of 859 in 2001 to a low of 404 as of June 2020. It should be noted that since end-of-year registered aircraft data is not yet available at the time of preparation of this forecast, the Jackson County 2020 registered aircraft count was retrieved from the FAA daily updated registered aircraft database. Since the year 2001, Jackson County has experienced a generally declining registered aircraft trend. The table also includes the type of aircraft registered in Jackson County. As is typical for nearly all areas in the United States, single engine piston aircraft dominate the total aircraft registrations. In 2019, for example, of the 418 registered aircraft in the county, 313 were single engine piston aircraft. Aircraft registrations in 2019 also included 30 multi-engine piston aircraft, seven turboprop aircraft, 42 jets, and 13 helicopters. There were also 13 aircraft included in the “other” category, which can include gliders, ultralights, and electric-powered aircraft.

Table 2.7-1: Historical Aircraft Registration by Type – Jackson County (Primary Airport Service Area)

"Other" category consists of gliders, ultralights, electric-powered aircraft, etc. ²2020 year-end FAA registered aircraft counts are not yet available. The Jackson County 2020 registered aircraft count was retrieved from the FAA daily updated registered aircraft database in June 2020. SEP - Single Engine Piston MEP - Multi-Engine Piston Source: FAA Aircraft Registration Database

Table 2.7-2 presents five different projections of registered aircraft for Jackson County, two market share forecasts, two ratio projections, as well as a trend-line projection of the FAA TAF based aircraft growth rate for the State of Missouri. The first market share forecast considers the relationship between registered aircraft located within Jackson County and active aircraft within the United States. In June of 2020, Jackson County held 0.190 percent of the U.S. active aircraft. By keeping this market share constant, a forecast emerges that shows negative growth, with registered aircraft decreasing to 400 over the next 20 years at a CAGR of -0.05 percent.

The second forecast considers an increasing market share percentage of local registered aircraft to the number of national active aircraft. As evidenced in the table, since 2001, the county’s market share has fluctuated from a high of 0.406 percent to a low of 0.190 percent. Over the past 10-years, the county has had an average market share of 0.239 percent. An increasing forecast model having the county market share of U.S. active aircraft rising to 0.239 percent in 2040 generates 503 registered aircraft at a CAGR of 1.10 percent.

Table 2.7-2: Registered Aircraft Projections – Jackson County

Source: 1 FAA Aircraft Registration Database; 2 FAA Aerospace Forecast - Fiscal Years 2020-2040; 3 U.S. Census Bureau; Woods and Poole CEDDS 2019

In addition to the market share forecasts, two ratio projection forecasts were generated. In 2020, the county had 0.57 registered aircraft per 1,000 Jackson County residents. The first ratio projection holds this ratio constant while it is applied to the population forecast of Jackson County. The constant ratio forecast results in 423 registered aircraft by 2040 and a CAGR of 0.23 percent. A second ratio projection considers an increase in the number of aircraft per 1,000 residents in Jackson County. For this forecast, the 10-year historical average ratio projection of registered aircraft per 1,000 county residents was examined and has averaged 0.73 since 2011. When increasing the ratio projection up to 0.73 over the planning period, the forecast results in 542 registered aircraft at a CAGR of 1.48 percent. From 2020 to 2040, the FAA TAF projects the based aircraft in the State of Missouri to increase at a CAGR of 0.37 percent. Applying this growth rate to registered aircraft in Jackson County over the 20year planning horizon yields a forecast of 435 registered aircraft by year 2040 and CAGR of 0.37 percent. It should be noted that regression and time-series analyses were conducted. Because of the overall stagnant or declining trends in certain variables, such as registered aircraft and U.S. active aircraft not being consistent with increasing trends in population growth, regression and time-series analyses did not result in reliable forecasts. As such, these analytical methods were not considered further. Exhibit 2.7-1 summarizes the registered aircraft forecasts for Jackson County. The registered aircraft forecasts produced a high range of 542 registered aircraft and a low range of 400 registered aircraft. Recent declines in registered aircraft and U.S. active aircraft following the 2008-2009 recession have slowly leveled off and have experienced moderate growth, however, are projected to remain somewhat stagnant over the planning horizon. Ultimately, the constant market share projection is considered the most reasonable forecast as it maintains the historic downward trend of registered aircraft within the service area that has been experienced over the past 20-year period, and carries forward the relatively stagnant registered aircraft forecast that the FAA projects nationally. In 2025, registered aircraft are forecast to decrease to 402. By 2040, registered aircraft for the county are forecast to decline to 400. Over the next 20 years, registered aircraft within the county are forecast to decline at a CAGR of -0.05 percent annually. The registered aircraft projection is one variable to be considered in the development of a based aircraft forecast. The following section will present several projections of based aircraft from which a preferred master plan forecast will evolve.

Exhibit 2.7-1: Registered Aircraft Projections

Source: Coffman Associates

Forecasts of based aircraft may directly influence needed facilities and the applicable design standards. The needed facilities may include hangars, aprons, taxilanes, etc. The applicable design standards may include separation distances and object clearing surfaces. The size and type of based aircraft are also an important consideration. The addition of numerous small aircraft may have no effect on design standards, while the addition of a few larger business jets can have a substantial impact on applicable design standards. Because of the numerous variables known to influence aviation demand, several separate projections of future based aircraft were developed. Each of the projections were examined for reasonableness, and any outliers were discarded or given less weight. The remaining projections collectively will create a planning envelope. A single planning forecast is then selected within the envelope as most reasonable. The selected forecast of based aircraft may be a range of several projections developed or based on the experience and judgment of the forecaster, a blend of the forecasts.

Documentation of the historical number of based aircraft at LXT has been somewhat intermittent. For many years, FAA did not have a system to confirm and validate the number of based aircraft reported by airports. It is only in recent years that the FAA has established a based aircraft inventory in which it is possible to cross-reference based aircraft claimed by one airport with other airports. The FAA is now utilizing this based aircraft inventory as a baseline for determining how many, and what type of, aircraft are based at any individual airport. This database evolves daily as aircraft are added or removed, and it does not provide an annual history of based aircraft. It is the responsibility of the sponsor (owner) of each airport to input based aircraft information into the FAA database (www.basedaircraft.com). The FAA based aircraft database currently shows 137 verified aircraft as based at LXT. The mix of aircraft is comprised of 117 single engine pistons, five multi-engine pistons, seven turboprops, four jets, and four helicopters.

Table 2.7-3 presents several based aircraft projections developed and examined for LXT. The first method used to project based aircraft examined the airport’s share of registered aircraft in Jackson County. As shown, the airport captured 33.9 percent of aircraft registered in the county as of June 2020 with 137 based aircraft. The first projection assumes a constant market share of 33.9 percent. This would result in 136 aircraft by 2040, equating to a -0.05 percent CAGR. A comparison of the number of based aircraft with the airport’s service area population was also analyzed. A constant ratio of based aircraft per 1,000 people results in based aircraft growing at the same rate as the service area population. This yields 144 based aircraft by 2040, which is an annual growth rate of 0.25 percent.

Lee’s Summit and eastern Jackson County are anticipated to be the primary growth areas of Jackson County in the coming years. As demonstrated in Table 2.3-1, 23 percent of the county population growth by 2040 is forecast for Lee’s Summit, which currently comprises 14 percent of the county population. Subsequently, the future growth in county aircraft ownership can be anticipated to be stronger in the eastern half of Jackson County. In addition, northern Cass County, which includes a small portion of southern Lee’s Summit, is another strong area of growth. Therefore, a second set of projections were developed considering that the airport’s registered aircraft market share and aircraftto-population ratio are likely to increase throughout the planning period. LXT’s market share of aircraft ownership in the county has steadily risen in recent years, even while the airport’s based aircraft declined. With the removal of the two rows of shade hangars for relocation of the parallel taxiway, the airport has a hangar waiting list of 30 aircraft. This list includes aircraft not currently based on airport. However, experience suggests that even if adequate hangars were available immediately, not all on the list would sign a lease. The increasing market share projection on Table 2.7-3 accounts for an increase related to current demand as well, and it continues to grow with economic growth in Lee’s Summit and eastern Jackson County. This projection yields 176 based aircraft by the 2040, resulting in a CAGR of 1.26 percent. Additionally, an increasing ratio to county population up to 0.25 in the long term, representing a level experienced prior to the 2008-09 recession, was analyzed. This forecast results in 186 based aircraft by 2040 and a CAGR of 1.53 percent.

Table 2.7-3: Based Aircraft Forecast - LXT

Source: 1Airport Records; 2FAA Aircraft Registration Database; 3U.S. Census Bureau; Woods and Poole CEDDS 2019

The projections previously discussed in Table 2.7-3, and further depicted on Exhibit 2.7-2, represent a reasonable planning envelope. A review of the growth rates of the three previous forecasts of based aircraft for LXT found that the growth rate of the most recent TAF falls into a middle range of the planning envelope. However, the based aircraft for 2020 in the TAF was below the actual based aircraft total. Applying the 1.29 percent CAGR to the current based aircraft of 137 results in a projection of 177 based aircraft by 2040. The resulting forecast is presented on Table 2.7-3 and Exhibit 2.7-2 for comparison. Future aircraft basing at the airport will depend on several factors, including the state of the economy, fuel costs, available facilities, competing airports, and hangar development potential. Forecasts assume a reasonably stable and growing economy, as well as reasonable development of airport facilities necessary to accommodate aviation demand. Competing airports will play a role in deciding demand; however, LXT is positioned to fare well, as it is served by a runway system capable of handling most general aviation aircraft. Consideration must also be given to the current and future aviation conditions at the airport. LXT provides an array of aviation services and will continue to be favored by aviation operators due to its accessible location and available facilities. Moreover, the fact that there are currently 235 registered aircraft within 10 nm of the airport and the hangar waiting list is over 30 aircraft, further highlights the current and future demand potential at LXT. While the range of the planning envelope should remain a factor in planning, the TAF Growth Rate projection is the recommended master plan forecast for based aircraft. The selected master plan forecast continues the increasing based aircraft market share that has been experienced at the airport over the past 20 years and accounts for LXT’s ability to capitalize on attracting aircraft owners to base at the airport that have previously based at other airports in the metropolitan area with greater infrastructure.

In 1996, the City of Lee’s Summit began exploring the possibility of improving the Airport’s north/south runway by extending it from 4,014 feet to 5,500 feet to support economic growth taking place in the City. The expansion was expected to allow the airport to accommodate more corporate traffic. In 2003, a multi-year program was established that would assist the airport in becoming financially selfsufficient, fill a void for business aircraft in the Kansas City Metropolitan area, and drive economic growth for the region. The comprehensive multi-year program involved land acquisition of nearly 260 acres in fee simple and 60 acres of easements, several runway and taxiway improvements, establishment of a precision instrument approach, terminal relocation, road relocations and parking lots. However, the biggest catalyst for development and extension of Runway 18/36 came when the City of Lee’s Summit contracted with Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP (CHA) and R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. in 2008 to complete an Airport Business Plan. This business plan identified among other things, key opportunities for the Airport. These opportunities were answers to the question, “how can we increase revenues and become financially self-sufficient?” Jet fuel sales was identified as a priority one opportunity that could lead to an increase in revenues. In order to accommodate more jet aircraft, the runway would need to be lengthened. Therefore, recommendations from the previous business plan centered around an extension of the primary runway – Runway 18/36.

As plans began to unfold, the airport continued to experience gradual growth and for the 12-month period ending December 31, 2011, the airport’s aviation activity had grown to 50,543 aircraft operations, an average of 138 per day made up of 96% general aviation, 3% air taxi, and 1% military. At that time there were 139 aircraft based at the airport including: 89% single-engine, 9% multi-engine, 1% jet, and 1% helicopter. In accordance with the CIP, in 2015, the City received a grant from the FAA to fund the earthwork for the runway improvements, and in 2016, the City received an additional FAA grant to complete the paving necessary for the runway improvements. A highlight of the $30 million program has been the widening and extension of the primary runway 18/36 from a 4,015′ x 75′ runway to a 5,501′ x 100′ runway. Following completion of the runway extension and reconstruction of parallel Taxiway A in 2018, the airport is now able to serve a larger variety of corporate aircraft. The selected based aircraft forecast shown in Table 2.7-3 shows an aggressive growth rate of based aircrafts when compared to the registered aircraft in the county. The reason for this difference is that LXT is pursuing an aggressive buildout of their east side to meet demand for hangar space/terminal area. As is explained, a great percentage of this new demand centers around the Runway 18/36 extension that was completed in 2018. Historically, an important number of aircraft had based at other airports in the KC Metro area due to lack of infrastructure at LXT. The Airport is currently operating at 100% capacity from a based aircraft perspective and their sole means of accommodating overnight transient aircraft - Hangar 1- is constantly at full capacity. The Airport keeps an active waiting list but have had to actively decline or turn away interested parties. These parties have inquired not only about basing their aircraft, but potentially leasing land to help satisfy the demand. The lack of shovel-ready infrastructure has prohibited LXT from satisfying current demand, let alone future growth. The aggressive growth of based aircraft that LXT estimates to occur in the future, and the growth in jet aircraft, can primarily be attributed to the runway extension and improvement in overall infrastructure at the Airport.

Exhibit 2.7-2: Based Aircraft Forecasts

Source: Coffman Associates

The fleet mix of based aircraft is oftentimes more important to airport planning and design than the total number of aircraft. For example, the presence of one, or a few business jets, can impact the design standards more than many smaller, single engine piston-powered aircraft. Knowing the aircraft fleet mix expected to utilize LXT is necessary to properly plan for facilities that will best serve the level of activity and the type of activities occurring at the airport. The existing fleet mix of aircraft based at the airport is comprised of 117 single engine piston aircraft, five multi-engine piston aircraft, seven turboprops, four jets, and four helicopters. The based aircraft fleet mix, as presented on Table 2.7-4, was compared to the existing and forecast U.S. general aviation fleet mix trends as presented in FAA Aerospace Forecast – Fiscal Years 20202040, as well as to trends occurring at the airport. The national trend in general aviation continues to be toward a greater percentage of larger, more sophisticated aircraft. While single engine pistonpowered aircraft will continue to account for the largest share of based aircraft at the airport, these aircraft are forecast to drop as a percentage of the fleet mix. Multi-engine piston-powered aircraft are expected to decrease slightly in both number and as a percentage of the fleet mix during the planning period of the master plan. Consistent with national aviation trends, growth is anticipated to occur within the more sophisticated categories, including turboprop and jet categories. The turboprop and jet categories are projected to increase to a total of 12 and 14, respectively, over the next 20 years. Helicopters are also considered a significant growth category, growing to 10 based helicopters through 2040. Table 2.7-4: Based Aircraft Fleet Mix - LXT

Source: Airport Records: Coffman Associates

General aviation operations are classified as either local or itinerant. A local operation is a take-off or landing performed by an aircraft that operates within sight of the airport, or which executes simulated approaches or touch-and-go operations at the airport. Generally, local operations are characterized by training operations. Itinerant operations are those performed by aircraft with a specific origin or destination away from the airport. Typically, itinerant operations increase with business and commercial use, since business aircraft are not typically used for large scale training activities. Local operations include a portion of general aviation and military operations, while itinerant operations include general aviation, military, and air taxi (for-hire operators such as air cargo, life flight, charters, and fractionals). Each operational segment is forecast individually, then the segments are combined to arrive at a total operations forecast.

The FAA TAF estimated operational levels for LXT in the current TAF at 52,500 total operations, and the forecast is a flatline forecast through the planning horizon. This is merely stated as point of reference because per a call between CMT and FAA Central Region in June, the FAA indicated that the TAF is no longer valid. When developing forecasts for general aviation airports without an air traffic control tower, the FAA recommends applying an approved forecast model specifically developed for non-towered general aviation airports. The report entitled, Model for Estimating General Aviation Operations at NonTowered Airports Using Towered and Non-Towered Airport Data (GRA, Inc. 2001), presents the methodology and formula for the model. Independent variables used in the model include airport characteristics, demographics, and geographic features. The model was derived using a combined data set for small towered and non-towered general aviation airports and incorporates a dummy variable to distinguish the two airport types. Specifically, the model utilizes the following variables: ▪

Based aircraft

▪

Percent of aircraft based at the airport among general aviation airports within 100 miles

▪

Number of FAR 141 flight training schools at the airport

▪

Population within 100 miles

▪

Ratio of population within 25 miles and within 100 miles

The model factors each of these variables so that both local and national factors are considered when estimating operations. The results of the model show an annual operation estimate of 49,600. Table 2.7-5 presents the calculations of operations for the airport.

Table 2.7-5: Model for Estimating Operations at Non-Towered Airports - LXT

¹Rounded to the nearest hundred Function Definitions: BA - Based Aircraft: 137 BA2 - Based Aircraft Squared: 18,769 %100mi - % Based aircraft among based GA aircraft within 100 miles: 10.73% VITFSnum - # of FAR 141 flight schools on airport: 1 Pop100 - Population within 100 miles: 2,967,954 WACAORAK - 1 if WA, CA, OR, AK; 0 otherwise: 0 Pop20/100 - Ratio of Pop 25 to Pop 100 (proportion between 1 and 0): 0.539351

Source: Airport Records: 2020 Estimate of operations – Derived from Model for Estimating General Aviation Operations at Non-Towered Airports, Equation #15, FAA Statistics and Forecast Branch (July 2001).

In addition, over a one-month period from May 1 through May 31, 2020, the airport conducted a physical operations count utilizing motion activated cameras. The cameras were positioned on each runway end threshold of Runways 18-36 and 11-29 as well as Taxiways A4 and B to capture aircraft arrivals and departures. During the month of May, the average number of daily operations was 51, ranging from a low of one to a high of 168. Weather during the recording period was relatively mild, with daily temperatures ranging from 60 – 80 degrees Fahrenheit. While several days were overcast, only three days of measurable rain were noted. During this time-period, flight track data published on the FlightAware website was monitored for touch-and-go training activity. Touch-and-go operations were estimated at approximately 40 percent of total operational activity. However, based on a correlation with historical IFR records and observations by Airport staff, it was determined that the traffic counts were invalid as a baseline for forecast of aviation demand. A phone call between CMT and FAA Central in Mid-June of 2020 was held to understand how best to move forward. CMT communicated that the traffic counts were deemed to be invalid and without that data would have to rely on the FAA’s model for estimating traffic at non-towered airport. At this time, no specific guidance from the FAA regarding forecasting was available, but the Central Region did provide good guidance in the form of recognizing that the TAF is no longer valid in its truest sense and that forecast scenarios should build in the effects of COVID-19. Reference to the TAF is still made throughout this document when comparing against other forecast scenarios.

To better gauge activity levels, current and historic fuel sales were also examined. During the month of May 2020, fuel sales totaled 18,769 gallons, which is over 2,000 gallons more than total fuel sold during the month of May in 2019. Both 100LL and Jet A fuel sold more during the month of May 2020 when compared to fuel sold in May of 2019, while Mogas sold approximately 400 gallons less in May of 2020. Over the course of fiscal year (FY) 2020, fuel sales totaled 272,970 gallons, which is nearly 66,900 gallons more than FY 2019 and approximately 53,600 gallons more than the three-year historic average. Analysis of operational types captured during the physical operations count was also conducted. Table 2.7-6 presents the classification of operations at LXT. Local operations account for 39.21 percent and itinerant operations account for 60.79 percent of total operations. The itinerant operations category is further subdivided into general aviation, military, and air taxi. While the camera operations study did capture the local/itinerant split, it did not capture the subclassification of the itinerant operations category. Because the subclassifications of itinerant operations can have a significant impact on facility needs (especially the air taxi category, a high percentage of which tend to operate some of the largest aircraft at the airport), the FAA TAF and Traffic Flow Management System Count (TFMSC) were consulted to establish the baseline percentage of each category. The FAA’s TFMSC database captures an operation when a pilot files a flight plan and/or when flights are detected by the National Airspace System, usually via radar. It includes documentation of commercial traffic (air carrier and air taxi), general aviation, and military aircraft. Table 2.7-6: Operations by Category - LXT

Source: Coffman Associates; ¹FAA TAF 2020; ²FAA Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC)

As can be seen from the table, the TAF provided an estimate of 750 itinerant military operations for 2020, which represents 1.51 percent of the total operations. Itinerant air taxi operations obtained from TFMSC represent 0.47 percent of total operations.

Utilizing the operations estimate derived from the model described above, five forecasts of general aviation operations have been developed and are presented in Table 2.7-7. The forecasts presented examine and/or manipulate variables, such as LXT’s operations per based aircraft and forecast growth rates in the FAA’s Aerospace Forecast 2020-2040. As shown in the table, the estimated 48,615 annual general aviation operations equate to 355 operations per based aircraft. Typically, general aviation airports will experience between 250 and 500 operations per based aircraft. Based upon motion activated camera data, it is estimated that the current general aviation operational split is approximately

60 percent itinerant and 40 percent local and will continue to remain so through the forecast period. It should be noted that all operations forecasts have been rounded to the nearest hundred for planning purposes. Table 2.7-7: General Aviation Operations Forecast - LXT

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast 2020-2040; FAA Form 5010; FAA Terminal Area Forecast; FAA National Based Aircraft Inventory Program

The first projection maintains the existing general aviation operations per based aircraft of 355 through the long-term planning period, resulting in 62,800 operations by year 2040 and a CAGR of 1.23 percent. Applying low, medium, and high growth rates of 380, 450, and 500 operations per based aircraft by year 2040 results in annual operations forecasts of 67,300, 79,700, and 88,500, with respective CAGRs of 1.56, 2.38, and 2.89 percent. The high growth model is unlikely unless significant aircraft pilot training operations were to base at the airport. If a large volume training operation were to base at the airport, operations could jump in a very short period. Those operations, however, would likely be primarily local (training) by small aircraft.

The State of Missouri’s general aviation operations forecasts presented in the FAA’s 2020 TAF were also examined. Using the base year of 2020, the TAF’s forecasted growth rate of 0.46 percent was carried forward throughout the planning horizon. This projection yields 53,300 annual general aviation operations by 2040. Ultimately, the “Increasing Operations per Based Aircraft - Low Growth” projection has been selected. The potential for additional based aircraft at LXT could drive local as well as itinerant demand. The selected forecast maintains a reasonable and modestly increasing level of operations per based aircraft, while also maintaining the existing percentage split between local and itinerant general aviation annual operations. Exhibit 2.7-3 graphically illustrates the forecasts for total general aviation operations along with the air taxi operations forecasts (to be discussed). As can be seen, the forecasts developed create a planning envelope of high and low growth curves, with a selected forecast within the envelope.

Exhibit 2.7-3: General Aviation Operations Forecast & Air Taxi Operations Forecast

Source: Coffman Associates

The air taxi category can be classified as a sub-set of the itinerant operations category and includes aircraft involved in on-demand passenger charter, fractional ownership aircraft operations, small parcel transport, and air ambulance activity. While not typically a large percentage of total airport operations, air taxi operations can be conducted via more sophisticated aircraft, ranging from multi-engine piston aircraft up to large business jet aircraft. As a result, it is important to factor these types of operations at airports that experience air taxi operations. The FAA national air taxi forecast projects a 2.4 percent decrease in air taxi operations through 2030, followed by modest increases thereafter. The primary reason for this decrease is the transition by commuter airlines to larger aircraft with more than 60 passenger seats, which are then counted as air carrier operations. While air taxi operations that are represented by commuter airlines using aircraft with fewer than 60 seats are decreasing, the business jet segment of the air taxi category is expected to continue to grow nationally. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the business jet component of air taxi activity to increase moderately over time at LXT. Based upon historical air taxi operations reported in the FAA’s Traffic Flows Management System Counts (TFMSC) from May 2019-April 2020, it was determined that LXT experienced 235 annual air taxi operations, totaling approximately 1.2 percent of annual airport operations. Table 2.7-8 and Exhibit 2.7-3 present four forecasts for air taxi operations at LXT. To generate reliable air taxi forecasts, two different forecasting techniques were utilized. The first examines a constant market share of national air taxi operations. Carrying the existing 0.0032 percent market share of national air taxi operations forward through the long-term planning horizon, a forecast emerges of 210 air taxi operations and a CAGR of -0.56 percent by year 2040. Similar to the general aviation operations forecast above, the air taxi forecast has been rounded to the nearest hundred for planning purposes.

Table 2.7-8: Air Taxi Operations Forecast - LXT

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast 2020-2040; FAA Form 5010; FAA Terminal Area Forecast; FAA Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC).

The second forecast method applies an increasing market share of national air taxi operations throughout the planning period, generating three forecasts at low, medium, and high growth rates. The low, medium, and high growth rates yield totals of 320, 390, and 450 air taxi operations by year 2040 and CAGRs of 1.56, 2.57, and 3.30 percent, respectively. The “Increasing Operations Per Based Aircraft - Low Growth” projection has been selected as the most reasonable forecast. With increasingly regular turbine aircraft traffic at LXT associated with local and perspective businesses, and with long-term growth projected for this market segment nationally, LXT could reasonably expect air taxi operations to grow.

Military aircraft can and do utilize civilian airports across the country. Forecasting of military activity is inherently difficult because of the national security nature of their operations and the fact that missions can change with little notice. Thus, it is typical for the FAA to utilize a flat-line forecast number for military operations. At LXT, the FAA TAF shows 750 itinerant military operations (zero local military operations) through the long-term planning horizon. For this forecasting effort, the TAF number of 750 itinerant military operations is utilized through the 20-year planning period.

The selected total operations forecast to be used for planning purposes is as follows: ▪

2020 – 49,600 total operations

▪

2025 – 53,540 total operations (788 additional operations per year or 2.16 operations daily)

▪

2030 – 58,680 total operations (1,028 additional operations per year or 2.82 operations daily)

▪

2040 – 68,370 total operations (969 additional operations per year or 2.65 operations daily)

Table 2.7-9 presents the classification of the selected operations forecast. The airport experiences a mix of operation types, including general aviation, air taxi, and military. Table 2.7-9: Total Operations Forecast - LXT

Source: Coffman Associates

Many aspects of facility planning relate to levels of peaking activity times when an airport is busiest. For example, the appropriate size of terminal facilities can be estimated by determining the number of people that could reasonably be expected to use the facility at a given time. The following planning definitions apply to the peak periods: ▪

Peak Month – The calendar month when peak aircraft operations occur.

▪

Design Day – The average day in the peak month.

▪

Busy Day – The busy day of a typical week in the peak month.

▪

Design Hour – The peak hour within the design day.

For the purposes of this study, the peak month was estimated at twelve percent of the annual operations. By 2040, the estimated peak month is projected to reach 8,204 operations. The design day is estimated by dividing the peak month by its number of days (31). The busy day is calculated at 25 percent higher than the design day. The design hour is calculated at 15 percent of the design day. These projections can be viewed in Table 2.8-1. Table 2.8-1: Peak Period Forecasts - LXT

Source: Coffman Associates analysis of other non-towered airports.

Developing an understanding of the operational fleet mix, including the approximate volume of operations by aircraft type, is an important input in determining future facility needs. The operations count utilizing motion activated cameras, previously outlined in this chapter, captured detailed fleet mix data which serves as the baseline operational fleet mix. Table 2.8-2 presents the fleet mix operations forecast for LXT. The future operational fleet mix is primarily based on national trends in aviation by aircraft type. Piston aircraft are anticipated to continue to represent most operations but are forecast to decline as a percent of the whole over time. Growth areas are in turbine engines and helicopters.

Table 2.8-2: Fleet Mix Operations Forecast – LXT

Source: Airport Records: Coffman Associates analysis

This study has outlined the various activity levels that might reasonably be anticipated over the planning period. Exhibit 2.9-1 presents a summary of the aviation forecasts prepared in this study. The base year for these forecasts is 2020, with a 20-year planning horizon to 2040. The primary aviation demand indicators are based aircraft and operations. Based aircraft are forecast to increase from 137 in 2020 to 177 by 2040, for a CAGR of 1.29 percent. Total operations are forecast to increase from 49,600 in 2020 to 68,370 by 2040, which is a CAGR of 1.62 percent. Several forecasts for each aviation demand indicator were developed to create a range of reasonable forecasts from which a single forecast was selected for use in determine facility needs. Projections of aviation demand will be influenced by unforeseen factors and events in the future. Therefore, future demand will not likely follow the exact projection line, but over time, forecasts of aviation demand tend to fall within the planning envelope. The need for additional facilities will be based upon these forecasts; however, if demand does not materialize as projected, then implementation of facility construction can be slowed. Likewise, if demand exceeds these forecasts, then implementation of facility construction can be accelerated.

Exhibit 2.9-1: Forecast Summary

Source: Coffman Associates

The FAA reviews the aviation demand forecasts developed in aviation planning studies and compares them to the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for the airport. The forecasts are considered consistent with the TAF if they meet the following criteria: ▪

Forecasts differ by less than 10 percent in the 5-year forecast period, and 15 percent in the 10year forecast period; or

▪

Forecasts do not affect the timing or scale of an airport project; or

▪

Forecasts do not affect the role of the airport as defined in the current version of FAA Order 5090.5, Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) and Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP).

Table 2.10-1: Forecast Comparison to the Terminal Area Forecast - LXT

Source: Coffman Associates

If the forecasts exceed these parameters, they may be sent to FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C., for further review. Table 2.10-1 presents the direct comparison of the planning forecast with the TAF published in January 2020. The forecasts for based aircraft and operations are within the FAA range for consistency.

The FAA has established several aircraft classification systems that group aircraft types based on their performance (approach speed in landing configuration) and design characteristics (wingspan and landing gear configuration). These classification systems are used to determine the appropriate airport design standards for specific airport elements, such as runways, taxiways, taxilanes, and aprons.

The selection of appropriate FAA design standards for the development and location of airport facilities is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft which are currently using, or are expected to use, an airport. The critical design aircraft is used to define the design parameters for an airport. The design aircraft may be a single aircraft type or a composite aircraft representing a collection of aircraft with similar characteristics. The design aircraft is classified by three parameters: Aircraft Approach Category (AAC), Airplane Design Group (ADG), and Taxiway Design Group (TDG). FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, describes the following airplane classification systems, the parameters of which are presented on Exhibit 2.11-1. Aircraft Approach Category (AAC): A grouping of aircraft based on a reference landing speed (VREF), if specified, or if VREF if not specified, 1.3 times stall speed (VSO) at the maximum certificated landing weight. VREF, VSO, and the maximum certificated landing weight are those values established for the aircraft by the certification authority of the country of registry. The AAC generally refers to the approach speed of an aircraft in landing configuration. The higher the approach speed, the more restrictive the applicable design standards. The AAC, depicted by a letter A through E, is the aircraft approach category and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteristics). The AAC generally applies to runways and runway-related facilities, such as runway width, runway safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway protection zone (RPZ), and separation standards. Airplane Design Group (ADG): The ADG, depicted by a Roman numeral I through VI, is a classification of aircraft which relates to aircraft wingspan or tail height (physical characteristics). When the aircraft wingspan and tail height fall in different groups, the higher group is used. The ADG influences design standards for taxiway safety area (TSA), taxiway object free (TOFA), taxilane object free area, apron wingtip clearance, and various separation distances. Taxiway Design Group (TDG): A classification of airplanes based on outer-to-outer Main Gear Width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance. The TDG relates to the undercarriage dimensions of the design aircraft. The TDG is classified by an alphanumeric system: 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The taxiway design elements determined by the application of the TDG include the taxiway width, taxiway edge safety margin, taxiway shoulder width, taxiway fillet dimensions, and, in some cases, the separation distance between parallel taxiways/taxilanes. Other taxiway elements, such as the taxiway safety area (TSA), taxiway/taxilane object free area (TOFA), taxiway/taxilane separation to parallel taxiway/taxilanes or fixed or movable objects, and taxiway/taxilane wingtip clearances are determined solely based on the wingspan (ADG) of the design aircraft utilizing those surfaces. It is appropriate for taxiways to be planned and built to different TDG standards based on expected use.

Exhibit 2.11-2 summarizes the classification of the most common aircraft in operation today. Generally, recreational and business piston and turboprop aircraft will fall in AAC A and B, and ADG I and II. Business jets typically fall in AAC B and C, while the larger commercial aircraft will fall in AAC C and D. Exhibit 2.11-1: Aircraft Classification Parameters

Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design

Exhibit 2.11-2: ARC Classification

Source: Coffman Associates

Airport and runway classifications, along with the aircraft classifications defined previously, are used to determine the appropriate FAA design standards to which the airfield facilities are to be designed and built. Runway Design Code (RDC): A code signifying the design standards to which the runway is to be built. The RDC is based upon planned development and has no operational component. The AAC, ADG, and runway visual range (RVR) are combined to form the RDC of a runway. The RDC provides the information needed to determine certain design standards that apply. The first component, depicted by a letter, is the AAC and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteristics). The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the ADG and relates to either the air-craft wingspan or tail height (physical characteristics), whichever is most restrictive. The third component relates to the available instrument approach visibility minimums expressed by RVR values in feet of 1,200 (⅛-mile), 1,600 (¼-mile), 2,400 (½-mile), 4,000 (¾-mile), and 5,000 (1-mile). The RVR values approximate standard visibility minimums for instrument approaches to the runways. The third component reads “VIS” for runways designed for visual approach use only. Approach Reference Code (APRC): A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway and associated parallel taxiway regarding landing operations. Like the RDC, the APRC is composed of the same three components: the AAC, ADG, and RVR. The APRC describes the current operational capabilities of a runway under meteorological conditions where no special operating procedures are necessary, as opposed to the RDC, which is based upon planned development with no operational component. The APRC for a runway is established based upon the minimum runway-to-taxiway centerline separation. Departure Reference Code (DPRC): A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway and associated parallel taxiway regarding takeoff operations. The DPRC represents those aircraft that can takeoff from a runway while any aircraft are present on adjacent taxiways, under meteorological conditions with no special operating conditions. The DPRC is like the APRC, but is composed of two components, AAC and ADG. A runway may have more than one DPRC depending on the parallel taxiway separation distance. Airport Reference Code (ARC): An airport designation that signifies the airport’s highest Runway Design Code (RDC), minus the third (visibility) component of the RDC. The ARC is used for planning and design only and does not limit the aircraft that may be able to operate safely at an airport.

There are three elements for classifying the airport critical aircraft. The three elements are the AAC, ADG, and the TDG. The AAC and ADG are examined first followed by the TDG. The primary method for determining the critical aircraft at non-towered airports is to examine the FAA’s TFMSC database, which captures an operation when a pilot files a flight plan and/or when flights are detected by the National Airspace System, usually via radar. It includes documentation of commercial traffic (air carrier and air taxi), general aviation, and military aircraft. Due to factors such as incomplete flight plans, limited radar coverage, and VFR operations, TFMSC data does not account for all aircraft activity at an airport by a given aircraft type. However, the TFMSC does provide an accurate reflection of IFR activity. Operators of high-performance aircraft, such as turboprops and jets, tend to file flight plans at a high rate. Exhibit 2.11-3 shows the TFMSC data for turboprops and business jets for the last 10 calendar years at LXT. As detailed, operational observations for aircraft in AAC C and D totaled 124 and 16, respectively, in 2019. When examining the 2019 operations with aircraft in AAC B, there was a total of 1,294. Therefore, the appropriate AAC for the airport is B.

The critical ADG for the airport is also determined by identifying would group exceeds the 500 operations threshold. There were 802 operations by aircraft in ADG II and no operations conducted by aircraft ADG III during 2019. Additionally, there were very few operations by aircraft in ADG III of the 10-year horizon; therefore, ADG II is the appropriate classification. As such, the existing ARC is best described as B-II. The TDG is the third component of the airport critical aircraft determination. The TDG is primarily based on the main gear wheel width. Medium and large business jets, as well as turboprops, tend to have the widest wheel widths. Based on the TFMSC analysis, over 1,600 operations were cataloged by turbine powered aircraft, and many of the turbine aircraft cataloged fall within the TDG 2 category. Representative aircraft include the Cessna Citation series, as well as the Beechcraft 200 and 350. Although aircraft operations by TDG 2 aircraft only totaled 450 in 2019, operations by TDG 2 aircraft have exceeded the 500 operations threshold within the past 10 years and have averaged 350 operations during this timeframe. Given the level of existing and forecast operations by turbine powered aircraft at LXT, the current TDG is best described as 2. In the future, the airport can expect to continue to see increased activity by turboprops and business jets. The operational fleet mix forecast showed turbine operations increasing to more than 7,600 by 2040. Historic planning studies considered a C-II ARC. The Airport continues to work towards a C-II classification. The runway extension and reconstruction were completed next steps to achieving this goal. Today, only a few additional infrastructure upgrades remain to achieve a C-II classification. Therefore, the facilities requirements will assess the Airport’s infrastructure against this classification. Along with continued transition of the ARC, this plan will maintain TDG 2.

Exhibit 2.11-3: Aircraft Operations by Reference Code

Source: TFMSC 2010 - 2019 Normalized by year ARC Code and TDG from FAA aircraft characteristics database.

The analysis presented examined each of the three elements for classifying the airport critical aircraft. The three elements are the aircraft approach category, airplane design group, and taxiway design group. The current airplane approach category is “B.” The current airplane design group is “II.” The current taxiway design group is “2.” Therefore, the current airport critical aircraft is classified as B-II-2. A representative aircraft that meets the criteria of the B-II-2 family is the Cessna Citation V. Activity by turboprops and business jets at LXT is projected to continue to increase. There were 124 AAC “C” operations in 2019. The Airport continues to work towards implementation of infrastructure to accommodate these aircraft and over the course of the next 20 years, AAC “C” will likely increase to meet or exceed the 500 operations threshold within the 20-year scope of this master plan. For these reasons, the future airport critical aircraft is planned to be C-II-2, which is consistent with the ultimate condition of the currently approved ALP.

The RDC relates to specific FAA design standards that should be met in relation to a runway. The RDC takes into consideration the AAC, ADG, and the RVR. In most cases, the critical aircraft will also be the RDC for the primary runway.

Runway 18-36 is 5,501 feet long, 100 feet wide, with instrument approach visibility minimums of not lower than ¾-mile. Based on current activity, the current RDC is B-II-4000. The critical aircraft may transition to AAC C in the future and an instrument approach with not lower than ¾-mile visibility minimums is considered. Therefore, the future RDC for Runway 18-36 is C-II-4000.

Runway 11-29 is the crosswind runway, which is 4,000 feet long and 75 feet wide. It is also provided with an instrument approach procedure that allows for visibility minimums not lower than ¾-mile. At present, Runway 18-36 provides crosswind coverage of 92.8 percent at 10.5 knots and 96.4 percent at 13 knots. As will be discussed in Chapter Three, Facility Requirements, the desirable wind coverage for each runway is 95 percent. The combined crosswind coverage of Runway 18-36 and 11-29 is 98.2 percent at 10.5 knots and 99.6 percent at 13 knots. Historically, Runway 11-29 has been planned to meet ARC B-II standards. Therefore, the existing RDC for Runway 11-29 is B-II-4000 and should be maintained as such in the future.

The approach and departure reference codes (APRC and DPRC) describe the current operational capabilities of each runway and the adjacent parallel taxiways, where no special operating procedures are necessary. Essentially, the APRC and DPRC describe the current conditions at an airport in runway classification terms when considering the parallel taxiway. Runway 18-36 is served by full-length parallel Taxiway A and partial parallel Taxiway C. Both Taxiway A and C have a runway to taxiway centerline separation of 400 feet. Similarly, full-length Taxiway B serving crosswind Runway 11-29, has a runway to taxiway centerline separation of 240 feet. The runway/taxiway system meets the standards associated with the current and future APRC and DPRC.

Table 2.11-1 summarizes the design aircraft components to be applied at the airport. Besides the RDC, the APRC and DPRC are also noted for each runway. Table 2.11-1: Design Aircraft Parameters - LXT

Runway 18-36 (400' runway/taxiway separation)

B-II-4000/ C-II-4000

D/IV/4000 D/V/4000

D/IV D/V

Runway 11-29 (240’ runway/taxiway separation)

B-II-4000

B/II/4000

B/II

Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design

This study has outlined the various activity levels that might reasonably be anticipated over the planning period, as well as the critical aircraft for the airport. Based aircraft are forecast to increase from 137 in 2020 to 177 by 2040, for an annual growth rate of 1.29 percent. Total operations are forecast to increase from an estimated 49,600 in 2020 to 68,370 by 2040, which is also an annual growth rate of 1.62 percent. The critical aircraft for the airport was determined by examining the FAA TFMSC database of flight plans, as well as the motion camera analysis conducted over a one-month period from May 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020. The current critical aircraft is described as B-II-2 and is best represented by the Cessna Citation V. The future critical aircraft is described as C-II-2 and is best represented by the Hawker 800 business jet.

This chapter presents the future requirements for airport facilities so that the City is informed about the infrastructure required to meet the projected demand throughout the planning period at Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport (LXT). In addition to providing sufficient capacity, consideration has been given throughout this section to providing acceptable levels of service to all airport users. The requirements presented herein are primarily based on the demand and traffic projections presented in Chapter 2 – Demand Projections of this master plan document. The requirements were calculated using Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards where applicable as well as established industry planning standards. For the purposes of master planning, the requirements presented in this chapter are tied to demand for various Planning Activity Levels (PALs). These PALS, while associated to a projected point in time based on the Forecast of Aviation Demand (5, 10, and 20 years in the future), allow the Airport flexibility in the implementation of future projects based on actual growth in demand. Table 3.0-1 Planning Activity Levels, presents the four PALs, their respective traffic volumes, and the projected point in time when they are to occur. Table 3.0-1: Planning Activity Levels

Source: Coffman Associates, CMT

The determination of airside facility requirements falls into four broad categories: ▪

Runway Wind Coverage – Assess the predominate wind conditions over a period of at least ten years which is then used to determine the adequacy of the existing runway alignments at LXT.

▪

Runway Length – Calculates the runway length needed to accommodate the existing and projected fleet mix.

▪

Taxiway Design Standards – Compares the current taxiway geometry to modern taxiway design standards to identify where changes and updates may be necessary.

The Airport Reference Code (ARC) is an airport designation that is used to help categorize the airport’s existing airfield capability as determined by a set of design standards prescribed by the FAA. The ARC consists of two components; the first is a letter (A through E) that indicates the Aircraft Approach Category (AAC), the second is a roman numeral that indicates the Airplane Design Group (ADG). Table 3.1-1 Airport Reference Codes, presents the various levels of ARC as defined by FAA AC 150/530013A, Airport Design. Table 3.1-1: Airport Reference Code

≤ ≤ ≤ ≤

≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤

Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A

The existing ARC at LXT is B-II. This ARC is based on the most capable runway at the Airport (Runway 18/36) which has a Runway Design Code (RDC) of B-II. However, the Airport continues to work towards a C-II classification. The runway extension and reconstruction were completed next steps to achieving this goal. Today, only a few additional infrastructure upgrades remain to achieve a C-II classification. Therefore, the facilities requirements will assess the Airport’s infrastructure against this classification. Along with continued transition of the ARC, this plan will maintain a Taxiway Design Group (TDG) 2. In addition, the previous chapter of this Master Plan discussed that the future critical aircraft at LXT is described as a C-II-2 and is best represented by the Hawker 800 business jet.

Wind is a key factor influencing runway orientation and the number of runways. Ideally, a runway should be aligned with the prevailing wind. Wind conditions affect all aircraft to varying degrees, but generally the smaller the aircraft, the more it is affected by wind, particularly crosswind components. Wind coverage refers to the percent of time crosswind and tailwind components are above an acceptable velocity threshold. In accordance with FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, the crosswind should not exceed the velocities for the specific Runway Design Code (RDC) presented in Table 3.1-2, Allowable Crosswind Component per Runway Design Code (RDC), more than five percent of the time. Table 3.1-2: Allowable Crosswind Component per Runway Design Code (RDC)

Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A

It is important to observe that Runway 18/36 is the most capable runway at LXT as this runway has the biggest runway length capacity and serves the most demanding airframes. For this reason, and as mentioned in the previous section, the existing RDC at LXT is B-II, which will serve to evaluate Runway 11/29 requirements. In contrast, the C-II classification will be used to assess the Airport’s infrastructure and determine requirements for Runway 18/36. Based on the C-II allowable crosswind component requirement, the wind coverage analysis allowed for maximum crosswind components of 10.5 knots, 13.0 knots, and 16.0 knots on each runway end.

The analysis performed to evaluate the wind coverage of the existing airfield geometry at LXT for this Master Plan was consistent with the guidance prescribed in FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, Appendix 2. When a runway or system of runways provides less than 95 percent coverage for the aircraft that are projected to use the runway(s) on a regular basis, an additional runway orientation may be recommended.

A windrose provides a graphical presentation of the average wind direction and velocity observed at an airport over a period of time compared to the existing runway headings. One windrose diagram was created for LXT per FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Appendix 2, Wind Analysis. This diagram reflects all-weather conditions. Hourly weather data required to create the windrose was obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for the period January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2019 and included wind direction and wind speed. The windrose diagram showing all-weather conditions is depicted in Exhibit 3.1-1, LXT All-Weather Windrose. The wind direction, which is measured at ten-degree intervals between 0 and 360 degrees, is displayed by radial lines, with the directions labeled along the outer ring. The wind velocity is shown within the concentric circles at: zero to ten knots, 11 to 16 knots, 17 to 21 knots, 22 to 27 knots, and 28 knots or greater. Each segment of the windrose represents the percent occurrence of wind observations at the given direction and velocity range. Note that the center circle of the windrose displays the percent occurrence of wind observations at zero to ten knots regardless of wind direction. Percentages were calculated and rounded to the nearest one tenth of one percent and entered in the appropriate segment of the windrose. Plus (+) symbols are used to indicate direction and velocity combinations which occur less than one tenth of one percent of the time, but greater than zero percent of the time. A crosswind template is overlaid on each windrose as parallel lines that show the existing runway end directions and crosswind limits, which for this analysis are 10.5, 13.0, and 16.0 knots. This crosswind template is used to calculate the percent coverage offered by the runway orientation at each crosswind limit. By adding together the sum of the percentages that fall within each crosswind limit for all runways, the percent coverage can be calculated. The desirable wind coverage for an airport is 95 percent. This 95 percent takes into account various factors influencing operations and the economics of providing the coverage. Based on the weather observations presented in the windroses for all-weather, the Airport provides at least 95 percent coverage under the existing runway configuration. Table 3.1-3, Percent Wind Coverage by Runway End shows the percentage of wind that is covered in all-weather conditions for each crosswind limit. Table 3.1-3: Percent Wind Coverage by Runway End

Source: CMT

Exhibit 3.1-1: LXT All-Weather Windrose

Source: CMT

Ideally all runways are designed and constructed in accordance with FAA guidelines and requirements at the time of construction. These guidelines will stipulate basic geometric requirements that enable a runway or runway system to accommodate traffic by a certain type or size of aircraft and will assist in identifying any airfield constraints that require modification. The following subsections present the runway compliance constraints at LXT based on FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airfield Design, and AC 150/5000-17, Critical Aircraft and Regular Use Determination.

The specific set of guidelines to which an airfield is to comply is determined by the size and needs of the largest aircraft which operates at an airport, or the “critical aircraft.” FAA AC 150/5000-17, Critical Aircraft and Regular Use Determination, defines a critical aircraft as the most demanding aircraft type, or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics, that make regular use of an airport. Regular use of the Airport is defined as 500 annual operations, including both itinerant and local operations, but excludes touch-and-go operations. One landing is considered an operation as is one takeoff. The FAA uses a coding system to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the critical aircraft at an airport. This coding system is prescribed in FAA AC 150/530013A Change 1, Airport Design, and classifies the critical aircraft using three parameters: ▪

Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) – classified according to aircraft approach speeds. Refer to Section 1.2.1, for definitions of the AAC categories.

▪

Airplane Design Group (ADG) – defined by its wingspan and tail height, whichever is most restrictive. Refer to Section 1.2.1, for definitions of the ADG categories.

Chapter 2 of this Master Plan identified the Cessna Citation V as the current critical aircraft for the Airport. However, given the configuration of the airfield system at LXT, various parts of the airfield provide different capabilities in terms of Critical Aircraft. Typically, each set of capabilities ties a specific runway to the set of taxiways that support that runway. Table 3.1-4, Critical Aircraft Information, presents the critical aircraft currently listed for each runway as well as that aircraft’s respective design grouping information. Table 3.1-4: Critical Aircraft Information

Source: Coffman Associates

It is also important to notice that Chapter 3 identified the Hawker 800 business jet as the future critical aircraft, which is a C-II ADG, and will be used to assess the airfield’s infrastructure through this chapter.

The following subsections present the evaluation of the compliance of the runways at LXT with the applicable Runway Design Standards as prescribed by the FAA. As was mentioned in section 3.1.1 of this chapter, many infrastructure efforts have been implemented and currently planned by the Airport to make Runway 18/36 a RDC C-II in the future. Therefore, this Chapter assesses the airfield’s infrastructure against the FAA’s requirements for an RDC of C-II for Runway 18/36 and for an RDC BII for Runway 11/29. Table 3.1-5, Runway Geometry Standards Evaluation, presents a comparison of each runway at LXT to the respective runway geometry design standards as prescribed by the FAA based on the critical aircraft for each runway. In summary, each runway at LXT complies with the runway width guidance and runwayto-taxiway separation guidance It is also recommended that each runway enhances its runway shoulders and blast pads. Exhibit 3.1-2 and 3.1-3 shows a visual representation of the recommended runway shoulders and blast pads for both runways. Table 3.1-5: Runway Geometry Standards Evaluation

Note: Runway 18/36 is assessed against a C-II RDC and Runway 11/29 is assessed against a B-II RDC. Source: LXT ALD 2019, FAA AC 150/5300-13A

It is important to clarify that FAA AC 150/5300-13A indicates paved shoulders are required for runways accommodating ADG IV and higher and are recommended for runways accommodating ADG III aircraft. For this reason, runway shoulders and blast pads are not required at this time at LXT, but they are recommended if resources are available during the next runway rehabilitation project.

Exhibit 3.1-2: Runway 18/36 Blast Pads and Shoulders Recommendation

Source: CMT

Exhibit 3.1-3: Runway 11/29 Blast Pads and Shoulders Recommendation

Source: CMT

FAA AC 150/5300-13A Change 1 prescribes the geometric standards for Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) and Runway Object Free Areas (ROFAs) at airports in the United States. Each of these safety areas are defined as follows: ▪

Runway Safety Area (RSA) – A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to an aircraft in the event of an overshoot, or excursion from the runway.

▪

Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) – An area centered on the ground on a runway centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by remaining clear of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the ROFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes.

The dimensions of these safety areas are determined by the capabilities of the runway and the type of traffic the runway in intended to serve. Table 3.1-6, Runway Safety Areas and Object Free Areas presents a comparison of each runway at LXT and its associated RSA and ROFA to the respective dimensional guidance as prescribed by the FAA. Table 3.1-6: Runway Safety Areas and Object Free Areas

Note: Runway 18/36 is assessed against a C-II RDC and Runway 11/29 is assessed against a B-II RDC. Source: LXT ALD 2019, FAA AC 150/5300-13A

While the RSAs and ROFAs at LXT are dimensionally compliant, there are several instances of incompatible object(s) within each of these safety areas. Mitigation of these objects may be achievable through one or a combination of operational restrictions, frangible mounting, or removal. In the instances where removal may be necessary, the Airport should evaluate the feasibility of doing so during the next upgrade or modification to the respective runway. Navigational aids (NAVAIDS) typically should not be located within the RSA or ROFA, unless they are required to be in a specific location in order to function properly or “fixed-by-function”.1

FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, Paragraph 605a.

A “fixed-by-function” NAVAID equipment can be defined as an object that is critical for its proper functioning and the safety benefit derived from the operation of the NAVAID outweighs the potential risk of an aircraft striking the NAVAID. A fixed-by-function determination allows NAVAIDs to be in the RSAs or Object Free Areas (OFAs)2. The following subsections present the incompatibilities identified by this evaluation on a runway by runway basis. While Runway 18/36 is provided with a standard dimension RSA and ROFA, there are several instances of incompatible objects within these safety areas. Exhibit 3.1-4, Runway 18/36 RSA & ROFA, identifies the location of the following incompatible objects within the Runway 18/36 RSA & ROFA: ▪

Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) located on Runway 18.

▪

Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) located on Runway 18.

▪

Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) located on Runway 36.

▪

Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) located on Runway 36.

These objects are navigational aids and therefore are considered fixed by function.

While Runway 11/29 is provided with a standard dimension RSA and ROFA, there are several instances of incompatible objects within these safety areas. Exhibit 3.1-5, Runway 11/29 RSA & ROFA, identifies the location of the following incompatible objects within the Runway 11/29 RSA & ROFA: ▪

Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) located on Runway 11.

▪

Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) located on Runway 11.

▪

Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) located on Runway 29.

▪

Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) located on Runway 29.

These objects are navigational aids and therefore are considered fixed by function.

FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, Paragraph 605a.

Exhibit 3.1-4: Runway 18/36 RSA & ROFA

Source: CMT

Exhibit 3.1-5: Runway 11/29 RSA & ROFA

Source: CMT

The Runway Protection Zone’s (RPZ) function is to enhance the protection of property and people on the ground. The RPZ is defined by the FAA as, “an area at ground level prior to the threshold or beyond the runway end to enhance the safety and protection of people and property on the ground.” This is best achieved through airport owner control of the land area(s) that fall within the RPZ. Control is preferably exercised through the acquisition of sufficient property interest in the RPZ and included clearing the RPZ areas (and maintaining them clear) of incompatible objects and activities.3 Similar to RSAs and ROFAs, the dimensions of RPZs are determined by the capabilities of the associated runway and the size and capabilities of the aircraft which regularly use the runway. Table 3.1-7, LXT Runway Protection Zone Dimensions, presents the dimensions of each RPZ at LXT based on existing conditions and classifications. Exhibit 3.1-6 shows a graphical representation of each approach RPZ for every Runway end. Table 3.1-7: LXT Runway Protection Zone Dimensions

Source: LXT ALD 2019

Of the four RPZs at LXT (one for each runway end), none are compliant with FAA standards of compatible uses and control. The Runway 18, 36, 11 and 29 RPZs all have incompatible objects/land-uses within the existing boundaries of the RPZs.

FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, paragraph 310.

Exhibit 3.1-6: LXT Safety Areas RSAs/ROFAs/RPZs

Source: CMT

Within the Runway 18 approach RPZ, one incompatible land-use has been identified. This incompatible land-use is Strother Road which passes through the center portion of this RPZ. Exhibit 3.1-7, Runway 18 RPZ, identifies the incompatibility within the Runway 18 RPZ. Exhibit 3.1-7: Runway 18 RPZ

Source: CMT

Within the Runway 36 approach RPZ, three incompatible land-uses have been identified. One incompatible land-use is Colbern Road which goes through the south portion of this RPZ. The second incompatible land-use is a portion of Highway 470 which goes through the southern border of this RPZ. The third incompatibility is a portion of Douglas St. which is located in the southwest corner of this RPZ. Exhibit 3.1-8, Runway 36 RPZ, identifies the incompatibilities within the Runway 36 RPZ graphically. Exhibit 3.1-8: Runway 36 RPZ

Source: CMT

Within the Runway 11 approach RPZ, two incompatible land-uses have been identified. The first incompatible land-use is Douglas Street which goes through the center portion of this RPZ. The second incompatibility is a Service Road that connects Douglas Street with the Airport Administration Building parking lot. Exhibit 3.1-9, Runway 11 RPZ, identifies the incompatibilities within the Runway 11 RPZ graphically. Exhibit 3.1-9: Runway 11 RPZ

Source: CMT

Within the Runway 29 approach RPZ, three incompatible land-uses have been identified. The first incompatible land-use is Independence Avenue which goes through the west-center portion of this RPZ. The second incompatibility is Highway 470 that passes through the central portion of the RPZ. The third incompatibility is Rice Road located in the east portion of this RPZ. Exhibit 3.1-10, Runway 29 RPZ, identifies the incompatibilities within the Runway 29 RPZ graphically. Exhibit 3.1-10: Runway 29 RPZ

Source: CMT

As shown previously, every RPZ at LXT has incompatible roads and highways passing through. It is important to understand that each RPZ’s function is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. This is best achieved through airport owner control over RPZs. Control is preferably exercised through the acquisition of sufficient property interest in the RPZ and includes clearing RPZ areas (and maintaining them clear) of incompatible objects and activities. Regarding the incursion of Strother Road in the Runway 18 approach RPZ, this issue was identified by the FAA during the planning process of Runway 18/36 extension, and since then it has been taken into account in the following planning efforts. Given that the described RPZ incompatibilities at LXT can be roads and highways with an important level of traffic, mitigation or relocation can represent a challenge due to the extensive planning and resources required to relocate a portion of a busy road or highway. Where practical, airport owners should own the property under the runway approach and departure areas to at least the limits of the RPZ. It is desirable to clear the entire RPZ of all above-ground objects. Where this is impractical, airport owners, as a minimum, should maintain the RPZ clear of all facilities supporting incompatible activities.

Taxiway design standards are set by the FAA and are a function of the size of aircraft that are intended to be using the taxiway. The FAA categorizes taxiways of varying capability using a system similar to that of the RDC discussed previously in this chapter called Taxiway Design Group (TDG). TDG is based on the dimensions of the aircraft undercarriage. The determining factors are (1) the width of its main gear 4 and (2) the distance between the cockpit and the main gear5. Exhibit 3.1-11, Taxiway Design Group (TDG) Chart, presents how an aircraft’s dimensions (relating to its main gear) determine TDG. Exhibit 3.1-11: Taxiway Design Group (TDG) Chart

Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A Change 1, Airport Design

Exhibit 3.1-12, LXT Taxiway Design Groups, identifies the TDG of each taxiway at LXT in graphical form.

4 5

The distance from the outer edge to outer edge of the widest set of main gear tires. The distance from the pilot’s eye to the main gear turn center.

Exhibit 3.1-12: LXT Taxiway Design Groups

Source: CMT

Runway to parallel taxiway centerline separation requirements are determined by the ADG in combination with the visibility minima of the associated runway. If the visibility minimum is less than a half-mile, the separation requirement increases further. Table 3.1-8, LXT Parallel Taxiway Separations, presents a comparison of the runway to parallel taxiway separation requirements with the existing separation distances of each. At this point, it is again important to mention that the Airport is continuing to work towards a true C-II Runway environment for 18/36 and in concert with those infrastructure upgrades, the Airport is working towards implementation of a precision approach to Runway 36. Installation of the infrastructure required for a precision approach (ILS, ALS, etc.) in addition to coordination with the FAA regarding Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) development and obstruction identification/clearance with the ultimate goal of achieving 1/2 mile visibility minimums to Runway 36. Therefore, ½ mile visibility minimum will be used in this section to determine the required runway centerline to parallel taxiway separation. Phase II of this Master Plan will review the existing approach and departure procedures and will discuss the procedure design changes, ILS requirements and necessary approach lighting systems. The runway to parallel taxiway separation for Runway 11/29 meets the minimum distance required and therefore no changes are required. Runway 18/36 has two parallel taxiways. Taxiway A is a full length parallel on the west side of Runway 18/36 and Taxiway C is a partial parallel that runs from Runway 11/29 to the Runway 18/36 threshold. Taxiway C meets the required separation distance from Runway 18/36 (400’). Taxiway A is offset the required 400’ distance from Runway 18/36 except for a 750’ section that runs between Taxiway B and A3. This section of Taxiway A remains at the original 300’ separation distance applicable to C-II Runways with as low as ¾-mile visibility minimums. Currently, the Airport Administration Building, airport’s fuel facilities, and other operationally critical components lie within the 400’ offset and preclude this 750’ section of taxiway from being offset to 400’ from the Runway 18/36 centerline6. During the reconstruction of Runway 18/36, this section of taxiway was reconstructed in-place until such time that funding becomes available for the relocation of these facilities. Exhibit 3.1-13, LXT Runway 18/36 Parallel Taxiway Separations depicts this nonstandard condition.

All the facilities that need to be relocated to accomplish the 400’ separation have been noted and are documented in the current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) of the Airport and are known by the FAA. 6

Table 3.1-8: LXT Parallel Taxiway Separations

*Required separation for C-II ADG with lower than ¾ mile visibility minimums. Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A Change 1, CMT

Exhibit 3.1-13: LXT Runway 18/36 Parallel Taxiway Separations

Source: CMT

The FAA defines a runway incursion as “any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft.”7 In recent years, the FAA has placed special emphasis on the prevention of Runway Incursions and the maintaining of pilot awareness. FAA AC 150/5300/13A Change 1, Airport Design, provides the following guidance on how to design taxiways and taxilanes in a way that enhances safety by reducing the probability of runway incursions: ▪

Keep taxiway systems simple by using the three-node concept. As illustrated in Exhibit 3.1-14, Three Node Concept, the three-note concept means a pilot should have no more than three choices at an intersection (preferably left turn, right turn, and straight).

▪

Avoid wide expanses of pavement with taxiway-to-runway interfaces. For example, an aircraft parking apron should not be directly connected to a runway by a taxiway.

▪

Reduce the need for aircraft to cross runways.

▪

Avoid “high-energy” intersections. High-energy intersections are intersections in the middle third of the runway.

▪

Provide right angle intersections (between two taxiways and between a taxiway and a runway). Do not use acute angle runway exits as a runway entrance point or as runway crossing.

▪

Avoid dual-purpose pavements. Do not use runways as taxiways and vice versa.

▪

Do not construct taxiways that lead directly from an aircraft parking apron to a runway.

Exhibit 3.1-14: Three Node Concept

Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A Change 1

https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incursions/

The taxiway system at LXT meets most of these criteria, except for the following deviation:

▪

Taxiways providing direct access to a runway from an aircraft parking apron.

Each instance of these deviations is described as follows and are identified in Exhibit 3.1-15, LXT Taxiway Deviations from Standards. ▪

Intersection of Taxiway A3 and Runway 18/36 – This intersection violates the direct access design standards mentioned above. Taxiway A3 east of Runway 18/36 connects directly from the East GA Apron to Runway 18/36. Reconfiguration of this intersection is recommended.

Exhibit 3.1-15: LXT Taxiway Deviations from Standards

Source: CMT

General Aviation (GA) facilities at LXT consist of multiple individual facilities operated by several entities at the Airport. The primary operators are the FBO (operated by the City of Lee’s Summit), MJ Aviation Innovations, R&D American Aviation, Rebel Aviation and Chapter 91 of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA). Given the multiple operators that exist at LXT and the unique requirements that each may have, GA requirements were calculated in the aggregate for both hangar space and apron space. Each of these requirements serve the airport as a general assessment of adequacy of existing facilities at the Airport. When additional GA facilities at LXT are required, they will typically be implemented by the ultimate user with the approval of the Airport to meet their specific needs at the time. For that reason, the actual implemented area will differ slightly from the calculated requirements.

The following methodology was employed for calculating GA hangar needs through the planning period. The methodology utilizes the projected number of based aircraft through PAL 3 broken down by single-engine and multi-engine aircraft. It forecasts the aggregate area of hangar space (square feet) that will be required through the planning period.

Table 3.2-1, General Aviation Hangar Assumptions, presents the planning assumptions used in the development of these requirements. To determine the space requirement for single and multi-engine aircraft, an average space utilization was calculated for the current hangars and occupation at the Airport. It was also assumed that any additional based aircraft beyond those currently based at LXT would require additional hangar space as the existing hangars at the Airport are completely occupied. The Airport currently has a waiting list of potential users, operators, and developers who are vying to get hangar space. Table 3.2.-1: General Aviation Hangar Assumptions

Source: CMT

Table 3.2-2, General Aviation Hangar Requirements, presents the GA hangar requirements based on the previously presented assumptions. Turboprop, jet, and helicopter based-aircraft forecasts have been grouped into the Multi-Engine category for simplicity. The current hangar capacity at LXT (T-hangars + box hangars) is approximately 249,200 ft2. For the total space requirement for multi-engine hangars, forecasted total itinerant operations were also taken into account to include flights which require hangar space for overnight storage. The results of this analysis indicate that approximately 26,566 ft2, 60,738 ft2, and 123,963 ft2 of total additional GA hangar space will be required at PAL 1, 2, and 3 respectively to accommodate the projected growth in based aircraft. The table below also shows these total additional square footage requirements in terms of additional hangars that are representative of the size of Hangar 1. As shown below, additional hangar space approximately representative of Hangar 1 is required in each of PAL 1, two at PAL 2, and three at PAL 3. Table 3.2-2: General Aviation Hangar Requirements

Source: CMT

One aspect that is important to understand about the GA hangar space requirements is that these are driven only by the demand projections presented in the previous chapter. There is likely additional demand for hangar space driven by the need for more space or redistribution of aircraft from other airports located relatively close to LXT. Due to the lack of proper infrastructure at LXT, many GA users shifted to other airports in the area. After the runway extension completion, LXT now has the airfield capability to serve a larger number of airframes. With additional hangar space provided through the planning period, it is likely that GA users that currently occupy other airports will shift their attention to LXT and will be interested in occupying their new hangar facilities.

Because Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport is a larger GA Airport, there are several ramps and aprons designated for GA traffic at the airport. Each of these three apron areas is described in greater detail below.

The Hangar 1 apron is available for use by both based and transient aircraft and consists of approximately 14,000 square yards of PCC pavement and is located south of the General Aviation terminal and east of NE Douglas Street, the Airport’s current entrance road. This apron is immediately adjacent to several parcels of non-aeronautical and privately owned land, but most notably located adjacent to Hangar 1. As mentioned previously and described in Chapter 1 – Inventory, Hangar 1 is owned and operated by the City of Lee’s Summit as the Airport’s FBO. Exhibit 3.2-1, Existing LXT General Aviation Aprons, identifies the Hangar 1 apron situationally at the Airport.

The GA Terminal Apron at LXT is available for use by both based and transient aircraft and consists of approximately 22,000 square yards of area and is located immediately adjacent to and surrounding the current GA terminal at the Airport. Exhibit 3.2-1, Existing LXT General Aviation Aprons, identifies the GA Terminal Apron situationally at the Airport. This apron area does not include the apron immediately adjacent to individual box hangars or T-hangars as those taxilanes and pavement areas are part of those respective facilities for the purpose of this analysis.

The East GA apron at LXT will be available for use by both based and transient aircraft in the near future, and consists of approximately 25,000 square yards of area located on the undeveloped east side of the airport. The GA apron is only accessible from the landside via Hagen Road to a gravel Leinweber Road, which is now a vacated road. This apron has no surrounding structures and is available for development adjacent to the ramp. Exhibit 3.2-1, Existing LXT General Aviation Aprons, identifies the East GA apron situationally at the Airport. It is important to notice that the east apron is not usable at this point in time to actively store, or service aircraft. The reason being that there is no infrastructure yet in the east side of the airfield to house aircraft or provide ground services.

Exhibit 3.2-1: Existing LXT General Aviation Aprons

Source: CMT

The methodology employed in the analysis of the GA apron requirements for this Master Plan utilized the spreadsheet model developed by the FAA Central Region for the calculation of apron size for Transient Aircraft. This model utilizes two methods of calculating these requirements. The first calculates the area required based on the projections of based aircraft. The second calculates the area required based on the projected number of annual GA operations. While these two methods are consistent in their results, they each serve to establish a range of requirements. Exhibits 3.2-2 through 3.2-4 show the results obtained with the FAA Central Region apron size calculation spreadsheet. Exhibit 3.2-2: Total Apron Area Requirement – Planning Activity Level 1

Source: FAA Central Region Apron Size for Transient Aircraft, CMT

Exhibit 3.2-3: Total Apron Area Requirement – Planning Activity Level 2

Source: FAA Central Region Apron Size for Transient Aircraft, CMT

Exhibit 3.2-4: Total Apron Area Requirement – Planning Activity Level 3

Source: FAA Central Region Apron Size for Transient Aircraft, CMT

Table 3.2-3, General Aviation Apron Requirements, presents the GA apron requirements based on the previously described methodology. By combining the apron areas of the Hangar 1, Terminal and East Aprons, LXT has a total existing capacity of 61,000 square yards.

The results of this analysis indicate that the existing GA aprons will be sufficient in size to accommodate the projected demand through PAL 2. At PAL 3, additional 9,000 square yards will be necessary to accommodate the forecasted annual operations and based aircrafts. While the aprons will be sufficient in size for the next 10 years, as development occurs at the Airport, they may not be ideally configured for its ultimate use. Therefore, as development occurs, additional apron development may be necessary to serve these new facilities and should be evaluated on a project basis. Table 3.2-3: General Aviation Apron Requirements

Source: CMT

The determination of landside access and parking requirements falls into the following category: ▪

Passenger Vehicle Parking – Projects the demand that is anticipated to be placed on the public parking facilities and quantifies the amount of additional (if any) parking facilities required to accommodate this demand.

Passenger vehicle parking requirements were calculated for each demand level through the planning period to determine the adequacy of the existing public vehicle parking. At this time, LXT has a total of 71 parking spaces in the GA hangar area, and a total of 102 parking spaces available between the Airport Administration Building and Hangar 1. The addition of 23 parking spaces close to Hangar 1 was completed in October 2020. It was assumed that the occupation of the GA Hangars parking spaces is due to based aircraft activity, and the occupation of the Administrative parking spaces (Administration Building + Hangar 1) is due to employees, those serving itinerant operations, and a certain portion of based users. To account for the number of parking spaces required at Hangar 1 due to Based Aircraft, it was assumed that the Hangar can fit on average 10 aircraft, and every aircraft will require one parking space per two seats, plus two parking spaces for both pilots. In addition, the Beechcraft King Air airframe (12 seats total) was used as the representative model which currently utilize this hangar. This means that a total of (7 seats x 10 aircraft = 70) 70 parking spaces are currently required at Hangar 1 to account for based aircraft operations. The additional parking spaces driven by the GA hangar requirements presented in section 3.2.1 have been added to total parking space requirements.

It was also assumed that the current parking utilization is attributable to only existing infrastructure and does not account for any future demand. Table 3.3-1, LXT Parking Lot Assumptions shows the assumptions that were utilized to determine future parking space requirement. Table 3.3-1: LXT Parking Lot Assumptions

Source: CMT

Table 3.3-2, LXT Vehicle Parking Requirements, presents the parking spaces required through the planning period. Table 3.3-2: LXT Vehicle Parking Requirements

Source: CMT

As outlined in Chapter 1 – Inventory, aircraft fuel storage at LXT is currently split between four separate facilities on the Airport. The diesel storage is located on the north side of the Airport next to GA Hangars W and X, 100LL and Mogas storage are located on the north side of the Airport Administration Building, and Jet A storage is located south of the Airport Administration Building. The four separate facilities are split by fuel type and provide all aircraft fuel storage capacity for the Airport. The aboveground Jet A fuel tank provides a total of 10,000 gallons of storage capacity. The underground AvGAS (100-LL) tanks provides a total of 10,000 gallons of storage capacity. The Mogas tank provides a total of 2,500 gallons of storage capacity. Finally, the diesel tank provides a total of 1,000 gallons of storage capacity. However, given its small quantity, diesel fuel is not represented in the aircraft fuel storage observations below. Given that the circumstances at each airport are different in terms of how fuel is consumed and dispensed, it was important to understand the relationship between aircraft operations and fuel consumption. To understand this relationship, historical fuel sales data was obtained from the Airport

for Fiscal Years (FY) 2009 to 2020. Exhibit 3.4-1, LXT Historic Fuel Sales shows the historic fuel sales for each fuel type from FY 2009 to FY 2020. Table 3.4-1, LXT Fuel Sales Observations, presents the information that was extracted from this set of fuel sales data. To understand the effect that COVID-19 has had on fuel sales, a FY 2019 vs. FY 2020 comparison has been included. Table 3.4-1 shows that the effects of COVID-19 have been felt in the number of gallons sold of 100LL and Mogas, which are 21% and 3% down respectively, in comparison with FY 2019 numbers. However, the opposite can be seen in Jet A fuel sales. In FY 2020, Jet A fuel sales were up 71% in comparison with FY 2019 levels. For this reason, in the total fuel sales comparison, FY 2020 is up 32% from FY 2019. One of the reasons for this may be the increase of corporate and business operations. As shown in Table 3.4-1, the share of corporate and business operations (Jet A) has increased in comparison with FY 2019, going from 49% to 63%. The opposite can be seen in the share of smaller airframes that utilize 100LL and Mogas, which share has decreased in comparison with FY 2019. This may be attributable to the decrease of recreational flight operations due to COVID-19. Exhibit 3.4-1: LXT Historic Fuel Sales

Source: LXT Fuel Sales (FY 2009-2020), CMT

Table 3.4-1: LXT Fuel Sales Observations

Source: LXT, CMT

Table 3.4-2, Fuel Storage Assumptions, presents the planning assumptions used in the development of these requirements. An important set of assumptions made to determine the uplift per operations for the different fuel types is the type of aircraft that use them. Based on industry best practices, professional judgement, and the fleet mix at LXT, it was assumed that the demand of Jet A will be driven by Jet and Turboprop operations, the demand of 100LL will be driven by Single/Multi-Engine Piston and Helicopters, and the demand of Mogas will be driven by Single/Multi-Engine Piston. In addition, by analyzing the total gallons of 100LL and Mogas that were sold from FY 2009 to FY 2020, it was possible to observe that 93% of the gallons were 100LL and 7% were Mogas. This ratio is carried forward through this analysis. A common assumption for this kind of analysis was to incorporate the industry standard target of having a three-day supply of fuel on hand. The purpose of this three-day supply is to maintain continuity of operations in the event of a fuel supply disruption. However, the Airport currently experiences a lead time longer than 3 days for the supply of Avgas due to the large distance of its supplier (located in Texas). LXT has reported lead of times of over 4 days to a week. For this reason, a one-week (5 days) supply was utilized to establish the fuel storage requirements. Table 3.4-2: Fuel Storage Assumptions

Source: LXT, CMT

Table 3.4-3, Fuel Storage Requirements, presents the fuel storage requirements based on the previously presented methodology and planning assumptions. The results of this analysis indicate that the existing fuel storage capacity for Jet A, 100LL, and Mogas, will be sufficient through the planning period. Table 3.4-3: Fuel Storage Requirements

Source: LXT, CMT

While additional fuel storage requirements have not been identified as necessary for the planning period. It is important to discuss the existing tanks conditions. The aboveground Jet A fuel tank was installed in 1999, and it is a steel lined tank. At this moment, this tank meets requirements to remain in the Missouri Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund (PSTIF) program and meets the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements. It is important to notice that the Jet A tank is already 21-years old, when the average industry life expectancy of an aboveground tank is between 20 to 30 years 8. Close examination of this tank’s condition should remain a priority through the planning period. The underground 100LL tank was installed in 1979, and it is a steel lined tank. On an annual basis, this tank meets the PSTIF requirements. This tank has received modifications throughout the years as required by the PSTIF to remain in their program and meet MDNR & EPA requirements. Close examination of this tank’s condition should remain a priority through the planning period as this tanks age is 41-years old.

Curren Environmental. https://www.currenenvironmental.com/oil-tanks-lifespan#:~:text=Both%20aboveground%20storage%20tanks%20(ASTs,last%20longer%20and%20some%20short er. 8

The underground Mogas unleaded automotive tank was installed in 1983, and it is made of steel with cathodic protection. This tank has received modifications throughout the years as required by the PSTIF to meet their requirements to remain in the program and meet MDNR & EPA requirements. The age of this tank is 37 years, which is why the airport should keep monitoring its conditions through the planning period.

Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting services are provided by the City of Lee’s Summit Fire Department (LSFD). The City has a total of 7 fire stations and the closest to the Airport is Station 2. This station is located at the intersection of Colbern Road and Rice Road approximately 2.5 miles from the Airport GA terminal. Station 2 is specifically located at 2000 NE Rice Road, Lee’s Summit, MO 64064. Response from this station to the Airport is further backed up by Station 4 located on Wood’s Chapel Road and then by Station 1 in Downtown in Lee’s Summit. These fire stations and all other Lee’s Summit fire stations are career firehouses – meaning that they are staffed 24/7/365. No assets within the Lee’s Summit Fire Department are dedicated specifically to the airport. However, all pumping apparatuses (except ladder trucks) are foam capable. All fire apparatuses are also equipped with rescue tools. The fire department owns 5 front line pumpers and 2 ladder trucks. This equipment satisfies the needs of the Airport and its users at this time. However, as a result of Runway 18/36 being reconstructed and lengthened to 5,500’, the Airport is experiencing a marked increase in jet and turbine powered operations and aircraft. An airport with a runway length of 5,500’ has additional capabilities and flexibilities for jet operations that airports with less runway lengths, do not possess. In the 3 years since the runway was lengthened, the airport has seen a 650% increase in based turbine-powered aircraft and a marked increase in transient turbine-powered aircraft. As presented in Chapter 2 – Demand Projections, a steep increase in transient aircraft operations and jet fuel sales has been realized since the runway was extended. As these increases inevitably continue, corporate flight departments and businesses that may require ARFF response, could relocate to LXT. As a parallel effort the Master Plan Update, the Business Plan Update identifies the potential for additional catchment of business or corporate flight departments within its analysis. Should a corporate flight department base at LXT and require ARFF response, it’s probable that this ARFF response would be consistent with Part 139 requirements. While the Airport has no intent to seek Part 139 certification, using established ARFF Criteria makes the most sense when providing ARFF response to the Airport’s users. From the Lee’s Summit Fire Department’s perspective, a dedicated or dual-use (landside and airside) ARFF facility is in their future planning. LSFD is currently in the process of realigning their northern district to accommodate for a future station on or near the Airport. Per the Asst. Fire Chief of LSFD, given the forecasted growth around the airport and subsequent increase in service and demand, incorporation of an additional facility falls into the concept of best practices.

The level of protection that is required to be provided at an airport is known as the ARFF Index. An ARFF index for the Airport is defined in 14 CFR Part 139.315, Paragraph C and is determined by the longest air carrier passenger aircraft with an average of five (5) or more daily scheduled departures. However, when there are fewer than five average daily departures of the longest air carrier aircraft serving the Airport, the Index required for the Airport will be the next lower index group than the index group prescribed for the longest aircraft.9 The requirements for index determination are presented in Table 3.4-4, Airport ARFF Index Determinations. Table 3.4-4: Airport ARFF Index Determinations

Source: 14 CFR 139.312, Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting: Index Determination, 2013

14 CFR Part 139.315, Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting: Index Determination, 2013. Length of largest aircraft providing an average of five scheduled departures daily. 11 Light-weight vehicle requirements for Index A are part of the total for Index B-E. 12 The protein-based agents may be substituted for aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and the quantities of water shown increased by a factor of 1.5. Dry chemicals in the ratio of 12.7 pounds per gallon of water may be substituted for up to 30 percent of the water specified for AFFF. 13 Water for protein foam production. 9

Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport does not have a dedicated maintenance facility. The Airport stores their maintenance equipment in storerooms in Hangars F, W and X. Exhibit 3.4-2 shows the specific site where the storerooms are located within the mentioned hangars. Hangar W has one storeroom, Hangar X has two, and Hangar F has one. In addition, hangar storerooms are approximately 800 square feet each. Additional space is used in Hangar 1 and a 3-car garage is located approximately 0.14 miles northwest of Hangar 1.

Table 3.4-5, Airport Maintenance Assumptions, presents the planning assumptions used in the development of these requirements. For this item, it was assumed that the current maintenance equipment storerooms are 100% utilized. Table 3.4-5: Airport Maintenance Assumptions

Source: CMT

Table 3.4-6, Airport Maintenance Requirements, presents the airport maintenance facility requirements based on the previously presented methodology and planning assumptions. The results of this analysis indicate that the existing airport maintenance facility storerooms are not sufficient in size to accommodate the projected demand through PAL 3. Additional area will be required in PAL 1, through PAL 3. As shown in the table below, one additional 800 ft2 storeroom will be required to accommodate demand in PAL 1 and 2; a second additional storeroom will be required at PAL 3. Table 3.4-6: Airport Maintenance Requirements

Source: CMT

While considering the additional space required for storage of maintenance equipment, it is suggested to see this is an opportunity to modify the current layout. Instead of having maintenance equipment storage space spread between different hangars, it is suggested to build a centralized maintenance equipment storage facility. By unifying the storage of maintenance equipment under one roof, it will be possible to free up hangar space at Hangars W, X, and F that can be used to serve aircraft. In addition, having all maintenance equipment stored in a centralized facility will allow to have better control and more efficient logistics over how the maintenance equipment is stored, used, and deployed.

Exhibit 3.4-2: LXT Maintenance Equipment Storage

Source: CMT

According to Boeing, prior to COVID-19 there was an important growth in the need for new pilots. An estimated 804,000 new pilots would be needed over the next 20 years, which is five times the number of pilots flying today (155,000)14. However, due to the occurrence of COVID-19, it is expected that a slower GDP growth will occur, which will affect the growth of the aviation sector and it will potentially decrease the need for new pilots in the next years. It is still important for LXT to understand the pilot training trends prior to COVID-19. According to various industry sources, 80% of new student pilots drop out of training with the number one reason being the cost of the flight program15. In addition, before the world pandemic, it was estimated that 35,000 new flight trainers were needed. A solution that has been proposed to reduce the cost of flight training programs is the use of all-electric aircraft. It is believed that an electric aircraft would significantly reduce the operational cost of flight training programs while replacing a small, obsolete training fleet. The existing 230,000-unit General Aviation fleet is ready for replacement. The majority of these aircraft were manufactured between 1960 and 1983 when production averaged over 10,000 units per year. Sales slumped in the early 1980’s due to market saturation, rising fuel cost and limited access to capital with high interest rates. According to the FAA and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), there are 10,800 two-seat trainers’ aircraft in use today that average 48-years old. These old, legacy aircraft are difficult and costly to maintain, burn expensive leaded avgas producing CO2, and are nearing obsolescence16.

In 2018, the first all-electric trainer plane received airworthiness certification from the FAA in the U.S. The Slovenian-based light aircraft manufacturer, Pipistrel, started the production of its Alpha Electro plane after gaining popularity with flight schools17.

Bye Aerospace https://byeaerospace.com/ Bye Aerospace https://byeaerospace.com/ 16 https://electricflyer.com/ 17 Electrek, April 27th, 2018. https://electrek.co/2018/04/27/all-electric-trainer-plane-airworthinesscertification-faa-us/ 14 15

Exhibit 3.5-1: Alpha Electro

Source: https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/alpha-electro/

The Alpha Electro is a 34’6” wingspan all-electric aircraft which is design for training programs. The aircraft is available in a fixed configuration of instrumentation and is targeted directly to flight schools and the training market but can also be used by recreational flyers looking for a fully featured electric aircraft18. The reason why this aircraft has gotten the attention of flight programs across the US is because Alpha Electro is an aircraft which is affordable to acquire, it is economical to maintain and in most areas it could be as little as $3/hour for electricity to operate the aircraft19. This aircraft is a 2-seat electric trainer with an all-composite body with electric motor and 20 kWh battery packs, which weights a total of 772 lbs. and it has a max payload of 441 lbs.20.

Established in February 2014, the eFlyer program was created by Bye Aerospace to produce the two seat “eFlyer”, and for it to be fully certified under the new FAR 23 and bring it to market. As of March 2020, the manufacturer has over 300 paid purchase deposits, split evenly between the eFlyer 2 and eFlyer 421.

https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/alpha-electro/ https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/alpha-electro/ 20 Electrek, April 27th, 2018. https://electrek.co/2018/04/27/all-electric-trainer-plane-airworthinesscertification-faa-us/ 21 https://electricflyer.com/ 18 19

The eFlyer family of aircraft, including the 2-seat eFlyer 2 and the 4-seat eFlyer 4, aims to be a FAAcertified, practical, all-electric airplanes to serve the flight training and general aviation markets. Siemens will provide electric propulsion systems for the eFlyer 2 airplane. It is powered by a 90-kilowatt electric motor and features lithium-ion batteries, much like electric cars. The motor weighs around 20 kg, about 90 kg less than the combustion engine powering the Cessna 172 currently used by many flight schools22. Exhibit 3.5-2: eFlyer

Source: https://electricflyer.com/gallery/

The eFlyer family consists of 38 feet wingspan aircrafts which are 1,460 lbs. empty weight23. They have a single Siemens SP70D electric motor in tractor configuration, powered by up to six Lithium-ion battery packs. This model is expected to reach a maximum speed of 135 mph with a rate of climb of 1,050 ft/min. Like the Alpha Electro, it is expected that with the eFlyer flight training energy costs will be $3 per hour compared to $45-50 in a conventional avgas trainer24. In addition, the take-off noise profile is expected to be lower than conventional piston-engine powered training aircraft, such as the Cessna 172.

https://osmaviation.com/introducing-the-bye-aerospace-e-flyer-2/ https://electricflyer.com/ 24 https://electricflyer.com/ 22 23

To determine the additional hangar space that would be required to store electric aircrafts like the Alpha Electro or eFlyer, assumptions based on accepted industry best practices were used. For this, conventional hangar dimensions were consulted for aircrafts with similar physical characteristics to the electric aircrafts discussed above.

It was assumed that any additional based aircraft beyond those currently based at LXT would require additional hangar space as the existing hangars at the Airport are completely occupied. Table 3.5-1, Electric Aircraft Wingspan presents the wind span of two electric aircrafts presented above. Table 3.5-1: Electric Aircraft Wingspan

Source: https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/alpha-electro/; https://byeaerospace.com/

Table 3.5-2, Electric Aircraft Hangar Space Requirements, presents the electric aircraft hangar space requirements based on the previously presented methodology and planning assumptions. Exhibit 3.53, Electric Aircraft Hangar Model shows a graphical representation of the hangar. The results of this analysis indicate that for a 2-unit hangar, LXT would need approximately 3,213 ft2 or around 1,600 ft2 for one unit. Table 3.5-2: Electric Aircraft Hangar Space Requirements

Source: Erect a Tube http://www.erect-a-tube.com/broch4pg.pdf; CMT

Exhibit 3.5-3: Electric Aircraft Hangar Model

Source: Erect a Tube http://www.erect-a-tube.com/broch4pg.pdf; CMT

Both the Alpha Electro and eFlyer require electrical charging stations to be installed inside their hangars. These charging stations can charge up to four aircraft simultaneously25. The United States has two charging systems available, which are shown in Table 3.5-3. Table 3.5-3: Charging Stations Details

Source: Pipistrel Alpha Electro Aircraft Information

A prototype of the charging stations can be seen in Exhibit 3.5-4. Exhibit 3.5-4: Charging Station Prototype

Source: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/july/25/pipistrel-shows-electric-airplane-battery-charger

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/july/25/pipistrel-shows-electric-airplane-batterycharger 25

Table 3.6-1, LXT Facility Requirements Summary, provides an overall summary of the net change in facility requirements for the Airport when compared to existing conditions. Table 3.6-1: LXT Facility Requirements Summary

This chapter presents the Alternatives Development section of the Master Plan that identifies and evaluates scenarios and concepts (known as alternatives) needed to accommodate the facility requirements presented in the preceding chapter. As an essential component in the planning process, this chapter will review alternatives that Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport (LXT or Airport) could develop to meet the needs of airport users, satisfy future demand, and conform to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards. The alternatives presented herein are based on the requirements identified in Chapter 3 – Facility Requirements. The guidelines prescribed in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070-6B, Change 2, Airport Master Plan, were utilized to ensure the elements and processes outlined by FAA were followed. Additionally, standards set forth in FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design (AC 13A), were applied to airfield design alternatives to identify compliance. There are endless possibilities of scenarios and concepts that can be developed during the Alternatives Development phase. Therefore, professional judgment and experience have been applied to identify alternatives with the greatest potential for implementation. As such, the alternatives scenarios presented in this section are organized by facility type: 1. Airside Alternatives 2. General Aviation/Corporate Alternatives 3. Parking Alternatives 4. Support Facilities Alternatives The General Aviation/Corporate, Parking, and Support Facilities Alternatives have been grouped into one category called Non-Airside Alternatives. Through an evaluation process, alternatives were analyzed, ultimately identifying a Preferred Development concept. The Preferred Development concept will be used in the development of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

Airside alternatives analysis for LXT concentrated on two main areas: 1. Runway Design Standards Review ▪

The Facility Requirements chapter found that the majority of LXT’s runway design is compliant with FAA design standards. Recommendations were identified specifically related to runway shoulder widths and blast pad dimensions.

▪

This chapter will evaluate the effects of meeting ownership and clearing requirements relating to Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) as published in AC 13A as well as FAA Memorandum dated September 27, 2012 Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone.

2. Taxiway Design Standards Review ▪

Table 4.2-1 presents the runway design standards that are not consistent with FAA 13A criteria based on the existing and proposed critical aircraft for Runway 18/36 and 11/29, and subsequently identifies the level of deficiency. In summary, it is recommended to enhance Runway’s 18/36 and 11/29 shoulders and blast pads dimension requirements based on the critical aircraft and Runway Design Code (RDC). As mentioned in the previous chapter, many infrastructure efforts have been implemented and the City continues to work towards the goal of achieving an RDC of C-II for Runway 18/36 in the near future. Therefore, the table below assesses the airfield’s infrastructure against the FAA’s requirements for an RDC of C-II for Runway 18/36 and for an RDC B-II for Runway 11/29. Table 4.2-1: Runway Geometry Standards Evaluation

Note: Runway 18/36 is assessed against a C-II RDC and Runway 11/29 is assessed against a B-II RDC. Source: LXT ALD 2019, FAA AC 150/5300-13A

As was previously mentioned in the Facility Requirements chapter, FAA AC 150/5300-13A indicates paved shoulders are required for runways accommodating ADG IV and higher and are recommended for runways accommodating ADG III aircraft. For this reason, runway shoulders and blast pads are not required at this time at LXT, but they are recommended if resources are available during the next runway rehabilitation project.

The Facility Requirements chapter identified one incompatible land-use within the Runway 18 arrival RPZ. This incompatible land-use is Strother Road which passes through the center portion of this RPZ. Exhibit 4.2-1 shows this RPZ. Exhibit 4.2-1: Runway 18 RPZ

Source: CMT

Within the Runway 11 approach RPZ, two incompatible land-uses have been identified. The first incompatible land-use is Douglas Street which goes through the center portion of this RPZ. The second incompatibility is the Airport entrance road that connects Douglas Street with the Airport Administration Building parking lot. Exhibit 4.2-3 shows this RPZ. Exhibit 4.2-3: Runway 11 RPZ

Source: CMT

As discussed in Chapter 3 of this Master Plan, the functionality of RPZ’s is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. This is best achieved through airport owner control over RPZs. Control is preferably exercised through the acquisition of sufficient property interest in the RPZ and includes clearing RPZ areas (and maintaining them clear) of incompatible objects and activities. Regarding the incursion of Strother Road in the Runway 18 approach RPZ, this issue was identified by the FAA during the planning process of Runway 18/36 extension, and since then it has been taken into account in the subsequent planning efforts. The roadway itself was realigned to the extent practicable as part of the Runway 18/36 extension and reconstruction project. Given that the described RPZ incompatibilities at LXT can be roads and highways under the control of other federal agencies, mitigation or relocation can represent a challenge due to the extensive planning and monetary resources required to relocate a portion of a busy road or highway. Where practical, airport owners should own the property under the runway approach and departure areas to at least the limits of the RPZ. It is desirable to clear the entire RPZ of all above-ground objects. Where this is impractical, airport sponsors, at a minimum, should maintain the RPZ clear of all facilities supporting incompatible activities.

The Facility Requirements chapter showed that a section of one of the two parallel taxiways serving Runway 18/36 does not comply with the required runway to parallel taxiway centerline to centerline separation requirements. Taxiway A, located west of Runway 18/36, is offset the required 400’ distance from Runway 18/36 except for a 750’ section that runs between Taxiway B and A3. This section of Taxiway A remains at the original 300’ separation distance applicable to C-II Runways with as low as ¾-mile visibility minimums. As discussed in the previous chapter, the Airport is continuing to work towards a true C-II Runway environment for 18/36 which includes a ½-mile visibility minimum (hence the 400’ separation requirement). Currently, the Airport Administration Building, airport’s fuel facilities, and other operationally critical components lie within the 400’ offset and preclude this 750’ section of taxiway from being offset to 400’ from the Runway 18/36 centerline. Exhibit 4.2-5 shows Runway’s 18/36 taxiway separations.

Exhibit 4.2-5: Runway 18/36 Parallel Taxiway Separations

Source: CMT

To relocate the 750’ of Taxiway A that does not comply with the runway to parallel taxiway separation requirements, it is necessary to relocate the facilities that are preventing this taxiway relocation. The facilities that need to be relocated are the Airport Administration Building, 100LL fuel tanks and pump stations, and the Jet A fuel tank. In addition, next to the Administration Building, there is a community building that is used primarily for storage and for multiple purposes by the FBO. These facilities should be relocated to the eastern side of the airfield to facilitate the relocation of Taxiway A. Planning efforts have identified an area east of Runway 18/36 and north of Runway 11/29 on Airport property for the relocation of these facilities.

The different layout alternatives for the relocation of the mentioned facilities will be presented in the Non-Airside Alternatives section of this chapter along with layout alternatives for different facilities such as General Aviation hangars, aprons, parking lots, and support facilities that are both desired and supported by the Airport’s Facilities Requirements.

The Facility Requirements chapter showed that there is one direct access incompatibility to Runway 18/36. The intersection of Taxiway A3 and Runway 18/36 violates the direct access design standards requirement that is presented on AC 150/5300-13A. AC 13A explains that apron locations that allow direct access onto a runway are not recommended. The apron layout should allow the design of taxiways in a manner that promotes good situational awareness by forcing pilots to consciously make turns. Taxiway A3 east of Runway 18/36 connects directly from the East GA Apron to Runway 18/36. Exhibit 4.2-6 shows the direct access to Runway 18/36. Exhibit 4.2-6: Taxiway Deviations from Standards

Source: CMT

The criteria used in the evaluation of the alternatives utilized a red, amber, green (RAG) analysis scoring method. The RAG analysis gives a red score for a negative (-) result, an amber score for a neutral/not applicable result, and a green score for a positive (+) result. If a red negative (-) is given to any of the evaluation criteria categories in the “fatal flaws” section, the alternative is deemed not feasible. The evaluation criteria are presented in Table 4.2-2. Table 4.2-2: Direct Access Alternatives Evaluation Criteria

• •

Source: CMT

Alternative 1 assumes a closure/removal of the existing Taxiway ‘A3’ on the east side of Runway 18/36. It includes a new taxiway connector located 200 feet south of the existing Taxiway ‘A3’. Exhibit 4.2-7 depicts this alternative. Exhibit 4.2-7: Direct Access Alternative 1

Source: CMT

The following is the evaluation of this alternative: ▪

This alternative will require the closure of Runway 18/36 during construction by virtue of work that must be completed in the Runway Safety Area (RSA).

▪

The 200 ft. of separation between the removed A3 connector and the new connector will be enough distance for large airframes (ADG III) to taxi through the taxiway with no obstructions during construction.

▪

This alternative does not conflict with future expansions planned in the East Apron, and it will not require future modifications to satisfy future development in the east side of the airfield.

▪

The new relocated connector will be placed within the middle third of Runway 18/36, which means the new intersection is located inside the high energy zone of the Runway.

▪

The relocation of connector A3 shown in this alternative will encourage aircraft to use Runway 18/36 to taxi while moving from the west side of the airfield to the East Apron.

▪

This alternative complies with the 152 ft. required distance between parallel taxiways centerlines for ADG III aircraft.

Table 4.2-3 shows the quantitative summary of the evaluation of this alternative. Table 4.2-3: Alternative 1 Evaluation

Source: CMT

Alternative 2 assumes a closure/removal of the existing Taxiway ‘A3’ on the east side of Runway 18/36. It includes a new taxiway connector located 200 feet north of the existing Taxiway ‘A3’. Exhibit 4.2-8 depicts this alternative. Exhibit 4.2-8: Direct Access Alternative 2

Source: CMT

The evaluation of this alternative is the following: ▪

This alternative will require the closure of Runway 18/36 during construction by virtue of work that must be completed in the RSA.

▪

This alternative does not conflict with future expansions planned in the East Apron, and it will not require future modifications to satisfy future development in the east side of the airfield.

▪

The new relocated connector will be placed outside the middle third of Runway 18/36, which means the new intersection is located outside the high energy zone of the Runway.

▪

The relocation of connector A3 shown in this alternative will encourage aircraft to use Runway 18/36 to taxi while moving from the west side of the airfield to the East Apron.

▪

This alternative complies with the 152 ft. required distance between parallel taxiways centerlines for ADG III aircraft.

Table 4.2-4 shows the quantitative summary of the evaluation of this alternative. Table 4.2-4: Alternative 2 Evaluation

Source: CMT

Alternative 3 assumes a closure/removal of the existing Taxiway connector ‘A3’ on the east side of Parallel Taxiway C. It includes a new taxiway connector located approximately 100 feet south of the existing Taxiway ‘A3’. Exhibit 4.2-9 depicts this alternative. Exhibit 4.2-9: Direct Access Alternative 3

Source: CMT

The evaluation of this alternative is the following: ▪

This alternative will not require the closure of Runway 18/36 during construction because there is no work necessary within the RSA.

▪

The 100 ft. of separation between the removed A3 connector and the new connector will be enough distance for large airframes (ADG III) to taxi through the taxiway with no obstructions during the majority of construction.

▪

This alternative does not conflict with future expansions planned in the East Apron, and it will not require future modifications to satisfy future development in the east side of the airfield.

▪

The new relocated connector has no interaction with the middle third of Runway 18/36, which means the new intersection is located outside the high energy zone of the Runway.

▪

The relocation of connector A3 shown in this alternative will not encourage aircraft to use Runway 18/36 to taxi while moving from the west side of the airfield to the East Apron. In this alternative, aircraft are encouraged to use Taxiway C and the new taxiway connector to move from one side of the airfield to the other.

▪

This alternative complies with the 152 ft. required distance between parallel taxiways centerlines for ADG III aircraft.

Table 4.2-5 shows the quantitative summary of the evaluation of this alternative. Table 4.2-5: Alternative 3 Evaluation

Source: CMT

Alternative 4 assumes a closure/removal of the existing Taxiway connector ‘A3’ on the east side of Parallel Taxiway C. It includes a new taxiway connector located approximately 45 feet north of the existing Taxiway ‘A3’. Exhibit 4.2-10 depicts this alternative. Exhibit 4.2-10: Direct Access Alternative 4

Source: CMT

The evaluation of this alternative is the following: ▪

This alternative will not require the closure of Runway 18/36 during construction because there is no work necessary within the RSA. The 45 ft. of separation between the removed A3 connector and the new connector will not be enough distance for large airframes (ADG III) to taxi through the taxiway with no obstructions during construction. The wingspan of the G550 (C-III ADC) is 94 ft, which indicates that this type of airframe will not be able to use taxiway A3 while construction vehicles are on site.

▪

This alternative does not conflict with future expansions planned in the East Apron, and it will not require future modifications to satisfy future development in the east side of the airfield.

▪

The new relocated connector has no interaction with the middle third of Runway 18/36, which means the new intersection is located outside the high energy zone of the Runway.

▪

This alternative complies with the 152 ft. required distance between parallel taxiways centerlines for ADG III aircraft.

Table 4.2-6 shows the quantitative summary of the evaluation of this alternative. Table 4.2-6: Alternative 4 Evaluation

Source: CMT

Alternative 5 assumes a closure/removal of the existing Taxiway connector ‘A3’ on the east side of Parallel Taxiway C. It includes a new taxiway connector located approximately 200 feet north of the existing Taxiway ‘A3’. This new connector will be constructed with the East Apron expansion. Exhibit 4.2-11 depicts this alternative. Exhibit 4.2-11: Direct Access Alternative 5

Source: CMT

The evaluation of this alternative is the following: ▪

This alternative will not require the closure of Runway 18/36 during construction because there is no work necessary within the RSA..

▪

This alternative will require the future East Apron expansion before it becomes operational.

▪

The new relocated connector has no interaction with the middle third of Runway 18/36, which means the new intersection is located outside the high energy zone of the Runway.

▪

This alternative complies with the 152 ft. required distance between parallel taxiways centerlines for ADG III aircraft.

Table 4.2-7 shows the quantitative summary of the evaluation of this alternative. Table 4.2-7: Alternative 5 Evaluation

Source: CMT

Table 4.2-8 presents the qualitative evaluation and total score for every alternative discussed previously. Table 4.2-8: Direct Access Alternatives Summary

Source: CMT

As shown in this table, Alternative 3, which consists of relocating the existing Taxiway A3 approximate 150 feet south on the east side of Parallel Taxiway C, is the alternative with the highest score in the evaluation process. Alternative 3 is the recommended alternative for LXT to eliminate the direct access from Taxiway A3 to Runway 18/36.

Table 4.3-1 provides an overall summary of the non-airside facilities that require modifications and increase in capacity to meet the forecasted demand through the planning period. A detailed discussion of these requirements can be found in Chapter Three of this Master Plan. Table 4.3-1: LXT Facility Requirements Summary

Source: CMT

Exhibit 4.4-1: LXT Aeronautical and Non-Aeronautical Land for Possible Development

Source: R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc., CMT

Planning efforts have identified an area owned by LXT east of Runway 18/39 and north of Runway 11/29 that is ideal for aeronautical use developments. Thus, this area was selected by stakeholders, staff, and as a recommendation of this report to pursue development of airside facilities. This development will help to meet the projected aviation demand through the planning period.

The criteria used in the evaluation of the alternatives utilized a red, amber, green (RAG) analysis scoring method. The RAG analysis gives a red score for a negative (-) result, an amber score for a neutral/not applicable result, and a green score for a positive (+) result. If a red negative (-) is given to any of the evaluation criteria categories in the “fatal flaws” section, the alternative is deemed not feasible. The evaluation criteria are presented in Table 4.4-1. Table 4.4-1: Non-Airside Alternatives Evaluation Criteria

•

Source: CMT

For the development of the non-airside alternatives, the requirements identified in Table 4.3-1 were considered. It is important to remember that the requirements shown in Table 4.3-1 are the result of the Facility Requirements chapter, which computed additional facilities capacities based on the forecasted demand of aviation traffic. In addition, conversations and workshops with the Airport, applicable stakeholders, and with the City of Lee’s Summit were completed to identify and understand the additional requirements that various airports stakeholders would like to see included in the alternatives process. For example, during the workshops with the Airport and City staff, the desire to include an aircraft observation area next to the new Administration Building was communicated. In a similar way, stakeholders showed interest in constructing a viewing area on the East Apron dedicated for children. During these workshops, users, tenants, and staff expressed an interest in avoiding the segregation of flight school traffic with all other GA traffic. Multiple stakeholders commented on the potential to provide a positive learning experience for students through operation and interaction with day-to-day GA traffic. This means that placing a Flight School in between GA hangars is desired as oppose of having the Flight School separated from the rest of the tenants.

Alternative 1 assumes the development of the east section of the airfield and the addition of a community hangar on the west side of the airfield (Hangar #2). A total of 6 box hangars and 4 corporate hangars are shown to be developed in the south portion of the east apron. A flight school and a community hangar (Hangar #3) is shown on the north side of the east hangar. Based on feedback from stakeholders and Airport staff, this alternative’s east development also includes an Administration Building, a restaurant, an observation deck, and an aircraft observation area/aviation-themed playground. Based on forecasted operational levels and traffic mix, an Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is shown as an infrastructure upgrade south of Runway 11/29. Airport maintenance and electric aircraft hangars are also included in this alternative, which are located on the north side of the east apron. This alternative also includes the development of a pilot’s lounge area inside the existing Hangar #1 and the development of lounge area for all hangar tenants next to the existing Administration Building on the west side of the airfield. Exhibit 4.4-2 depicts this alternative.

Exhibit 4.4-2: Non-Airside Alternative 1

Source: CMT

The following is an evaluation of this alternative: ▪

Some earthwork will be required for the east development. The area north of the east apron has a lower terrain elevation than the east apron, which is why engineered fill will be necessary prior to the construction of the Maintenance Hangar, Electric Hangar and Flight School. Engineered fill will also be required for the east apron north extension.

▪

This alternative provides approximately 358 additional parking spaces. Know that parking often comes at a premium and that often certain developments require more parking than others, this alternative provides 127 more parking spaces than the number of spaces required for the planning period identified in the Facility Requirements chapter (231 spaces).

▪

This alternative enhances community engagement by allowing the public to enjoy a front row view of the east apron and aeronautical activities through the use of an Observation Deck as well as an Aircraft Observation Area meant to engage children.

▪

This alternative does provide opportunities or infrastructure for the generation of nonaeronautical streams of revenue, such as the new restaurant and the Aircraft Observation Area equipped with new concessions.

▪

In this alternative the Flight School is located on the north side of the east apron and GA and Corporate hangars are located on the south side of the east apron. This will allow for a limited interaction between corporate, GA, and flight school operations.

▪

In this alternative an ATCT is shown south of Runway 11/29. This location is consistent with previous planning efforts. However, placement of the tower in this location demands additional utilities to be installed on top of those required for the east side development.

▪

The area south of Runway 11/29, where the proposed ATCT is located, is lower in elevation in relation to the airfield. This means that some engineered fill or additional tower height will be required to provide adequate line of sight to all airfield pavements as required by the FAA.

Table 4.4-2: Alternative 1 Evaluation

Source: CMT

Alternative 2 assumes the development of the east section of the airfield and the addition of a community hangar in the west side (Hangar #2). A total of 5 box hangars and 4 corporate hangars will be developed in the south portion of the east apron. A flight school, a community hangar (Hangar #3), and two additional box hangars will be placed in the north side of the east hangar. This alternative’s east development also includes an Administration Building, a restaurant, and space for commercial development. The Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is located on the southeast side of the east apron, behind the GA hangar development. Airport maintenance and electric aircraft hangars are also included in this alternative, which are located on the north side of the east apron. This alternative also includes the development of a pilot’s lounge area inside the existing Hangar #1 and the development of lounge area for all hangar tenants next to the existing Administration Building on the west side of the airfield. Exhibit 4.4-3 depicts this alternative.

Exhibit 4.4-3: Non-Airside Alternative 2

Source: CMT

The following is an evaluation of this alternative: ▪

Significant earthwork will be required for the east development. The area north of the east apron has a lower terrain elevation than the east apron, which is why engineered fill will be necessary prior to the construction of the Maintenance Hangar, Electric Hangar, Flight School, and two box hangars. Engineered fill will also be required for the east apron north extension.

▪

This alternative provides approximately 436 additional parking spaces. Know that parking often comes at a premium and that often certain developments require more parking than others, this alternative provides 205 more parking spaces than the number of spaces required for the planning period identified in the Facility Requirements chapter (231 spaces).

▪

This alternative enhances community engagement by allowing the public to enjoy commercial activities, such as shopping and restaurants, located east of the proposed Administration Building.

▪

This alternative does provide opportunities and infrastructure for the generation of nonaeronautical streams of revenue through the commercial development east of the proposed Administration Building.

▪

In this alternative the Flight School is located on the north side of the east apron, next to the proposed community Hangar #3. The GA and Corporate hangars are located on the south side of the east apron. This will allow for adequate interaction between corporate, GA, and flight school operations.

▪

In this alternative the ATCT is located southeast of the east development, behind the GA hangar development. This location for the tower does not require additional utilities to be installed since the east portion of the airfield already has utilities installed. The ATCT will operate utilizing the same utilities that will serve the east apron developments.

▪

The area southeast of the east apron development, where the proposed ATCT is located, may have eyesight restrictions since the development of the GA and Corporate hangars may block part of the view from the air traffic controller’s perspective. This means that a taller tower will be required to compensate for eyesight blocking.

Table 4.4-3: Alternative 2 Evaluation

Source: CMT

Alternative 3 is a combination of attributes from Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 and assumes the development of the east section of the airfield. A total of 7 box hangars and 4 corporate hangars will be developed in the south portion of the east apron. A flight school and two community hangars (Hangar #2 and Hangar #3) will be placed in the north side of the east hangar. This alternative’s east development also includes an Administration Building, a restaurant, an aircraft observation area/aviation-themed playground, and space for commercial development. The Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is located on the west side of the airfield next to the existing community Hangar #1. Airport maintenance and electric aircraft hangars are also included in this alternative, which are located on the north side of the east apron. This alternative also includes the development of a pilot’s lounge area inside the existing Hangar #1 and the development of lounge area for all hangar tenants next to the existing Administration Building on the west side of the airfield. Exhibit 4.4-4 depicts this alternative.

Exhibit 4.4-4: Non-Airside Alternative 3

Source: CMT

The following is an evaluation of this alternative: ▪

Significant earthwork will be required for the east development. The area north of the east apron has a lower terrain elevation than the east apron, which is why engineered fill will be necessary prior to the construction of the Maintenance Hangar, Electric Hangar, Flight School, and community Hangar #2. Engineered fill will also be required for the east apron north extension.

▪

This alternative provides approximately 450 additional parking spaces. Know that parking often comes at a premium and that often certain developments require more parking than others, this alternative provides 219 more parking spaces than the number of spaces required for the planning period identified in the Facility Requirements chapter (231 spaces).

▪

In this alternative the Flight School is located on the north side of the east apron, next to the proposed community Hangar #3 and close to the community Hangar #2. The GA and Corporate hangars are located on the south side of the east apron. This will allow for adequate interaction between corporate, GA, and flight school operations.

▪

In this alternative the ATCT is located on the west side of the airfield, south of the existing community Hangar #1. This location for the tower does not require additional utilities to be installed since the tower can utilize the utilities already in place that are serving Hangar #1.

▪

The area south of Hangar #1, where the proposed ATCT is located, does not have any eyesight restrictions, and has a clear view of the airfield. This Master Plan does not anticipate the need for a taller tower if the ATCT is constructed in this location.

Table 4.4-4: Alternative 3 Evaluation

Source: CMT

Table 4.4-5 shows the qualitative evaluation and total score for the three alternatives discussed previously. Table 4.4-5: Non-Airside Alternatives Evaluation Summary

Source: CMT

To develop a preferred alternative for inclusion on the Future ALP as part of Phase II of the Airport Master Plan Update, the individual evaluations of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were considered. Several LXT staff and stakeholder workshops were completed to discuss the various layouts and to obtain feedback on proposed developments and the elements that would be desirable in a Preferred Alternative. Appendix G presents the meeting minutes from the different workshops that took place with the Airport and the City of Lee’s Summit. Since Alternative 3 is the alternative with the highest qualitative score after the evaluation, it was the layout chosen to be utilized for the development of the Preferred Alternative. Based on the various workshops completed with the Airport and stakeholders, the following additions and modifications were made to create the ‘Preferred Alternative’:

▪

An Observation Deck on the east apron is shown as a preferred development.

▪

The aircraft observation area/aviation-themed playground are planned to be located in between the Administration Building and the Observation Deck, which will allow the public to have a front row view of the apron and aircraft activity.

▪

East Self-Service Fuel Station is planned to be relocated next to the Flight School.

▪

West Self-Service Fuel Station is designed to be relocated next to the future Hangar Tenants New Lounge for easier access in the west apron.

▪

A second Observation Deck and parking is shown as a preferred development located southwest of Runway End 36.

▪

A potential hangar development area was added in the west apron. The west side of the west apron can be used to develop a strip of 60x60 private box hangars.

▪

Two planned water detention areas were added to this alternative. The first one located on the east side of the airfield, south of the post 20 yr. development area, and the second one located north of the proposed Fuel Farm expansion and Maintenance/SRE hangar.

▪

The existing wind cone currently located south of the east apron, next to Taxiway B, will have to be relocated before the construction of the east apron development. A new location for the wind cone is proposed in this alternative which is shown south of Runway 11/29 and next to Taxiway C extension.

▪

An additional t-hangar has been proposed east of the existing T-Hangar X, on the north side of the airfield. This proposed t-hangar will be 17,200 ft2.

Exhibit 4.4-5 depicts the preferred alternative.

Exhibit 4.4-5: Non-Airside Preferred Alternative

Source: CMT

The alternatives discussed previously have been designed to accommodate the demand identified in the planning horizon of this Master Plan (2020 through 2040). This section presents two additional alternatives that could provide the Airport with airfield and storage capacity for a post 20-year period. These alternatives are characterized by providing a larger number of box hangars and t-hangars. The core of the development in these alternatives occurs on the north side of the east apron. Exhibits 4.4-6 and 4.4-7 show both alternatives.

Exhibit 4.4-6: Non-Airside Alternative A

Source: CMT

Exhibit 4.4-7: Non-Airside Alternative B

Source: CMT

The Preferred Alternative layout and development area were utilized to conduct an assessment of environmental considerations presented in this section.

An important component of the Airport Master Plan process is the analysis of potential environmental impacts of proposed airport development projects. The purpose of this section is to review the proposed improvement program at Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport (LXT) to identify sensitive environmental resources specific to LXT and determine if proposed developments could significantly affect existing environmental resources. The primary purpose of this Environmental Overview is to identify significance thresholds for the various resource categories contained in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. For projects not “categorically excluded” under FAA Order 1050.1E, compliance with NEPA is generally satisfied through the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). While this evaluation is not designed to satisfy the NEPA, it is intended to supply a preliminary review of environmental issues that may need to be considered in more detail within the environmental review process. Various data sources were used to develop the information provided in this section, including previous studies, resource agency websites, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is determined that the following resources are not present within the airport environs: ▪

Coastal Resources (Coastal Barriers and Coastal Zones)

▪

Department of Transportation Act: Section 4(f)

▪

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted air quality standards that specify the maximum permissible short-term and long-term concentrations of various air contaminants. The significance of a pollution concentration is determined by comparing it to the state and federal air quality standards. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) consist of primary and secondary standards for six criteria pollutants which include: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). When compared to federal and state air quality standards, the above referenced criteria pollutants, and their thresholds, establish “attainment”, “maintenance”, or “non-attainment” air quality standards for specific geographic areas. The threshold for non-attainment varies by pollutant. According to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources non-attainment map (Exhibit 4.5-1), a small portion of Jackson County is classified as non-attainment for 2010 SO2 1-hour NAA.

Although a portion of Jackson County is classified non-attainment, Lee’s Summit is located outside of the non-attainment area. Several proposed construction projects could create temporary air quality impacts. Activities include construction of new and demolition of existing taxiways, development of aircraft storage hangars, and development of non-aeronautical parcels. Dust and heavy equipment exhaust are common air pollutants during construction. During evaluation of proposed construction projects, an emissions inventory using on-road and off-road emissions modeling, may be required. As new expansions occur, permanent air quality impacts may result with increases in aircraft operations. As operations increase the potential impacts may warrant evaluation of emissions as part of required environmental documentation for planned projects Exhibit 4.5-1: Jackson County Non-Attainment Areas

Source: Centurion Planning & Design

Exhibit 4.5-1 - Continue: Jackson County Non-Attainment Areas

Source: Centurion Planning & Design

Land uses surrounding Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport consist primarily of undeveloped cropland and pastureland to the north and west. Additionally, within the vicinity of the airport are planned community development areas, single family residential, and planned apartment residential. Development to the east of the airfield includes planned industrial and commercial facilities, an existing apartment complex lies to the southeast of the airport. Most of the Preferred Alternative lies within areas zoned accordingly. One area to the northeast is currently zoned as agriculture land and proposed on the alternative as a land acquisition area. Exhibit 4.5-2 reflects the immediate surrounding land uses at Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport. In evaluating compatible land use, it is important to identify nearby features that could potentially pose a threat to aircraft operations, mainly by attracting wildlife. Wildlife attractant land uses include wetlands, agriculture crops, landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and various other land uses that attracts wildlife. FAA AC 150/5200-33B states that the land uses mentioned above prove hazardous if they are located within: ▪

5,000 feet of an airport serving piston-powered aircraft

▪

10,000 feet of an airport serving turbine-powered aircraft; and/or

▪

For all airports, the FAA recommends five miles between the farthest end of the airport operating area and the hazardous wildlife attractant if the attractant can cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the airport approach or departure airspace.

Lakes and ponds in the vicinity of the airport include Lakewood Lakes, 1 mile to the north, Lake Jacomo, 1.5 miles to the east, Unity Lake Number One, 1 mile southwest of the airport, Unity Lake Number Two, 0.7 miles west of the airport, and several farm ponds are located in the area. A Wildlife Hazards Assessment/Management Plan was completed in 2012, with future proposed developments, the assessment may need to be revisited to ensure its current applicability. Additionally, land use compatibility between existing and proposed land use within the vicinity of an airport generally focuses on the extent of the airport’s noise impacts. Noise impacts are determined by comparing the extent of the airport’s noise exposure contours to the land uses within the immediate vicinity of the airport. Noise is discussed in greater detail in the Land Use Compatibility Plan chapter of this Master Plan, along with a more detailed discussion about land compatibility around the Airport.

Exhibit 4.5-2: City of Lee’s Summit Land Use Zoning

Source: https://cityofls.net/development-services/doing-business/maps-plans/zoning-map

The U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) sections 1502.16(e) and (f) require federal agencies to consider energy requirements, natural depletable resource requirements, and the conservation potential of alternatives and mitigations measures. Existing conditions for natural resources and energy supply within the area should be considered and the potential increase demand a project may pose. Major construction projects within the airport may involve a high demand for energy and natural resources. The Preferred Alternative development at Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport may increase consumption of these natural resources, but typically not enough to result in significant impacts.

Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), federal agencies are directed to identify and consider the adverse effects of federal programs on the preservation of farmland, to consider appropriate alternative actions which could lessen adverse effects, and to assume that such federal programs are, to the extent practicable, compatible with state or local government programs and policies to protect farmland. The FPPA guidelines developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) apply to farmland classified as prime or unique, or of state or local importance as determined by the appropriate government agency, with concurrence by the Secretary of Agriculture. Soil data provided by the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (USDA) Web Soil Survey located in Appendix H shows that most soils within the vicinity of the airport are deemed prime farmland, only if drained. Portions of the proposed land acquisition in the Preferred Alternative, presented in the section above, is labeled as prime farmland, but the majority is only if the soil is drained. Although some of the soils show characteristics conducive to prime farmland, most of the land surrounding, and within, the airport is considered urban land which is typically exempt from the FPPA.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is charged with implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 7 protects animal and plant species whose populations are threatened by human activities. The FAA and FWS review projects to determine if a significant impact to these protected species will result with implementation of a proposed project. Significant impacts occur when the proposed action could jeopardize the continued existence of a protected species or would result in the destruction or adverse modification of federally designated critical habitat in the area. Table 4.5-1 represents the federally and state listed threatened and endangered species for Jackson County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information, Planning, and Consultations System (iPAC) and the Missouri Department of Conservation were consulted to determine if any endangered or threatened species occur within the airport environs. The report listed two species as endangered and protected under the ESA. Additionally, the report lists one threatened species with the potential to occur in Jackson County. These include the Gray Bat, Indiana Bat, and the Northern Long-eared Bat. The Indiana and Northern long-eared bat hibernate during winter months in caves and mines.

During the summer months, they roost and raise young under the bark of trees in wooded areas, often riparian forests, and upland forests near perennial streams. The habitat for all these species consists of mines and the use water features and forested riparian corridors for foraging and travel is also considered. No critical habitats for these species are noted as occurring in the vicinity of the airport and the airport itself does not appear to contain necessary habitat for these species; therefore, impacts are not anticipated. Appendix I contains the U.S. FWS and the Missouri Department of Conservation’s report. Table 4.5-1: Federal and State Listed Threatened or Endangered Species Lee’s Summit

Source: Centurion Planning & Design

In accordance with Executive Order 11988, federal agencies must take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize impacts to human safety, and protect and preserve the natural and beneficial attributes served by floodplains. To comply, all FAA actions must avoid floodplains if a practicable alternative exists. Proposed projects within the regulated floodplain (1% annual chance) must follow local community regulations for floodplain management. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel number 29095C0430G (published January 20, 2017) the airport and proposed development will not be in any identified floodplain. Furthermore, no floodplains are located within the surrounding properties of the airport. Appendix J provides a map to show where floodplains are mapped within the vicinity of the airport.

The Clean Water Act defines wetlands as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands provide many benefits to ecology including habitat for fish and wildlife, water quality improvement, and flood storage. Certain wetlands may be considered waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) by their proximity to traditional navigable waters. Executive Order 13788 established the navigable waters protection rule and includes adjacent wetlands under its jurisdiction. As shown in Appendix K the property contains a few intermittent freshwater ponds and two freshwater emergent wetlands. One wetland is in the industrial park to the east and the second is located to the south of the property. The south freshwater wetland connects to a tributary that flows to Unity Lake. This area may require coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if development activities have the potential to impact this specific area.

The Clean Water Act provides the authority to establish water quality standards, control discharges, develop waste treatment management plans and practices, prevent, or minimize impacts to wetlands, and regulate other issues concerning water quality. Water quality concerns related to airport development most often relate to the potential for surface runoff and soil erosion, as well as the storage and handling of fuel, petroleum products, solvents, etc. According to EPA’s GeoViewer, Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport does not directly discharge into any 303(d) impaired waters of the U.S. Furthermore, the facility is authorized under the Missouri State Operating Permit for stormwater discharges. No violations have been reported for the facility. Lee’s Summit will be required to obtain authorization for stormwater discharges for construction activities prior to construction commencement.

The FAA offers no formal required federal consultation processes related to hazardous materials, solid waste, and pollution prevention. However, there are federal, state, and local laws which regulate hazardous materials use, storage, transport, and disposal. These laws may extend to past and future landowners of properties containing these materials. Additionally, disrupting sites containing hazardous materials or contaminates may significantly impact soil quality, surface water, groundwater, air quality, and other organisms dependent on these resources. The EPA has been given authority to control hazardous waste from generation to disposal under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes and underground petroleum storage tanks. LXT has an active facility registration through RCRA. According to EPA’s ECHO facility report, LXT has not been assessed any violations. The detailed report may be found in Appendix L. As previously mentioned, LXT is authorized to discharge stormwater under the Missouri State Operating Permit. LXT has not received any violations under this authorization.

Light emissions include any light that emanates from a light source into the surrounding environment. Examples of sources of light emissions include airfield and apron flood lighting, navigational aids, terminal lighting, parking facility lighting, roadway lighting, safety lighting on launch pads, additional lighting to support nighttime commercial space launches, and light generated from such launches. Glare is a type of light emission that occurs when light is reflected off a surface (e.g., window glass, solar panels, or reflective building surfaces).

Because of the Airport’s location adjacent to a business industrial park, lighting impacts as the east side of the airport develops are not anticipated. West side development should also not result in impacts as planned facilities are in areas that are already developed for aviation purposes.

Socioeconomic impacts include the process of evaluating the proposed project and its effects on economic activity, employment, income, population, housing, public services, and social conditions. It is important to consider whether the proposed project will result in relocation of local businesses, public services, or housing units. Based on the nature of proposed projects within the airport property, no relocation or disruption of any businesses will be involved. Environmental Justice relates to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people. EPA ensures that no group of people should sustain an unbalanced share of negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ensures that federal agencies make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. In this Executive Order the EPA establishes four priority areas: Asthma, Unintentional Injuries, Developmental Disorders, Cancer. The proposed projects at LXT would not create any new or worsen existing adverse impacts to children.

Historical, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources encompass a range of sites, properties, and physical resources relating to human activities, society, and cultural institutions. Such resources include past and present expressions of human culture and history in the physical environment, such as prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, structures, objects, districts, which are considered important to a culture or community. Historical, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources also include aspects of the physical environment, namely natural features and biota, that are a part of traditional ways of life and practices and are associated with community values and institutions. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources utilizes the State Historic Office (SHPO) online Geographic Information System (GIS). According to this website there are three recorded survey sites within the vicinity of the airport. Site one is 0.5 miles southwest of the airport’s property line, located on the west side of NW Lees Summit Road. Site two is 0.16 miles south of the airport, located in between NW Colbern and NW Lees Summit Road. Site three is 0.6 miles east located in between Highway 470 and NE Rice Road. These sites were recorded by Three Gables Preservation in 1994. The closest site listed on the National Register of Historical Places Database is Union College, located 1.6 miles directly southwest from the airport. None of the identified resources would be impacted by development proposed within the master plan. It is not anticipated development would impact undiscovered resources as the area containing and surrounding the airport has been heavily disturbed during construction of airport and

commercial/industrial facilities. This finding would need to be confirmed by the SHPO as part of any necessary NEPA documentation.

As discussed in the Preferred Alternative section of this chapter, several portions of land in the east development will be considered non-aeronautical uses. LXT needs to remember that when an airport sponsor submits an ALP change, requests a change in land use from aeronautical to non-aeronautical, or requests to dispose of airport-owned land, the FAA must determine whether the proposal is subject to the agency’s approval authority, as defined/limited by section 163. This determination involves a two-step process. In order to ensure the FAA exercises its regulatory authority consistent with the statutory constraints, the FAA must separately examine and reach a determination regarding its authority under both steps outlined in these instructions. The first step is to determine if FAA has ALP approval authority (under section 163(d)). The second step is to determine how the land was acquired (and therefore if a release of obligations may be required (under section 163(a))1. The analysis begins with section 163(d). If the FAA retains ALP approval authority under section 163(d) for a proposed project, or a portion of a project, then the FAA would not in most circumstances consider releasing sponsor obligations related to non-aeronautical use or disposal as to that specific portion of the proposed project. However, regardless of the outcome of the ALP approval authority determination, Step 2 is required to complete an analysis for section 163(a) through(c).

In the previous discussion of alternatives, Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and Preferred show a Green Space/Commercial Development area located east of the east apron development. This area can provide LXT flexibility as it can be developed for aeronautical and non-aeronautical activities, or it can remain as green space/landscaped in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the airport. One alternative is to use a portion of this area for the construction of shade ports hangar units. It is not uncommon for GA tenants to look for aircraft shelter that is more economical than renting a regular enclosed hangar. For this reason, the Airport can benefit from building and renting shade ports hangar units in the portion of this area that is closest to the east apron. Exhibit 4.6-1 shows an example of a shade port hangar unit.

https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/media/Section-163-Final-Instructions-October-2020.pdf

Exhibit 4.6-1: Shade Port Hangar Unit

Source: http://www.aeroport-usa.com/AeroPort/AeroPort.html

In the past, the Airport has been approached about the feasibility of a “jump zone” to accommodate skydiving operations. Based on the extreme and dangerous topography at the airport, and presence of numerous buildings both on and in the immediate vicinity of the airport property, such a development is not recommended. Establishing a feasible and safe portion of land for the purpose of a jump zone will require additional land acquisition and expenditure from the FAA. In addition, jumping operations would require agreement between the Airport and the FAA to guarantee the safety of users during those activities. Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport has received requests from the community to offer office and event space. Business aviation is an important contributor to the Airport’s annual operations, which is why an alternative for a non-aeronautical development on the Green Space/Commercial Development area is a dedicated office and event space. The Airport may benefit economically by leasing spacious offices, conference rooms, and event spaces for the business community the flies into LXT.

As identified on Exhibit 4.4-1, there are two non-aeronautical development parcels within the LXT property line: ▪

▪

As mentioned previously in this chapter and is explained in the LXT Business Plan Update, industrial development is considered highly compatible for non-aeronautical airport property development, partially due to the capability of these entities to absorb the noise impacts from airport activity. The Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport Business Plan Update has identified two primary options for development of non-aeronautical property: commercial real estate and solar energy. These are not mutually exclusive. In other words, both types of development can occur at LXT.

The commercial real estate market is comprised of several sectors: office market, industrial market, retail, and multi-family housing market (condominiums, rental properties). For LXT, non-aeronautical property development should focus on the industrial and retail market. Residential multi-family developments are not compatible with the Airport land use, and office market real estate has suffered an oversupply in the region and nationally due to work at home orders surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. One important aspect to consider about the development of commercial real estate is that retail sites must have road frontage and good highway access. That would eliminate most of the property in the south side parcel from retail development. Based on feedback from the Lee’s Summit Economic Development Commission, it would be in the best interest of the community to seek Missouri Site Certification for the North Side Parcel. The purpose of the Missouri Certified Sites program is to provide consistent standards regarding the availability and development potential of commercial or industrial development sites. The certification of a site is performed through a comprehensive review of items including the availability of utilities, site access, environmental concerns, land use conformance, and potential site development costs. Having a site “certified” reduces the risk associated with development of particular sites by providing up front and consistent information for use in site selection2. By virtue of reducing the risk of upfront development surprises and costs, sites become highly sought after and desired by the development community. This could represent an opportunity for the airport to diversify its revenue streams through the capture of non-aeronautical lease revenues.

https://www.missouripartnership.com/regions-sites-incentives/find-sites/

The second type of revenue producing non-aeronautical land development at LXT involves the production of solar energy. As explained in the LXT Business Plan Update, the development of a solar farm with sales of electricity to the local power grid are not profitable. Thus, the development of solar energy could be used to offset the retail price of electricity used on the Airport, which costs about $60,000 per year. It is important to understand that if a solar energy production facility is compatible and proceeds for development, a glare and sun reflection analysis must be addressed in the design of the solar farm.

The non-airside preferred alternative presented in this chapter shows the different development projects that are recommended to accommodate the forecasted aviation demand through the planning period. However, it also depicts the desires of stakeholders and the community in an effort to position the airport for financial sustainability. The preferred alternative has identified various zones inside the airport property that are suitable for aeronautical and non-aeronautical uses. The different development areas flagged in the preferred alternative have been combined with the onairport non-aeronautical development areas presented in the LXT Business Plan Update to create a Potential Development Areas exhibit. This exhibit shows all the areas that can be developed either for aeronautical and non-aeronautical uses. This exhibit includes a tier classification that indicates the relative feasibility of developing each area of land. ▪

Tier 1 – land recommended to be developed within the first 20 years of the planning period

▪

Tier 2 – additional development considerations such as environmental considerations or significant engineered fill that categorizes the area as development post 20-year planning horizon

Exhibit 4.8-1 shows the different potential development areas at LXT.

Exhibit 4.8-1: LXT Potential Development Areas

Source: CMT

Chapter Three – Facility Requirements of this Master Plan identified the facility needs that Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport will have to fulfill to satisfy the General Aviation demand in the next 20 years. Chapter Four – Alternatives identified the preferred development alternatives for LXT, which will provide the Airport with the capacity it needs to support the aviation demand identified in Chapter Two – Demand Projections. The next step in this Master Plan is to prepare a Land Use Compatibility Plan which will allow the airport to identify land in its vicinity in order to protect avigation surfaces, provide for aeronautical development, or could potentially be used for future non-aviation development. Thus, this chapter will allow LXT to manage and plan land development to ensure the safety of pilots and the local community. In addition, this chapter represents an opportunity for the Airport to coordinate land development with local governments so that future land developments around the airport are compatible with aeronautical activity. GA airports have a vital role in the economic development of the community which it serves, which is why their continuous development and growth of the airport is necessary to ensure an efficient economic growth of the local community. A proper Land Use Compatibility Plan will be key for the continuous development and growth of LXT as it will allow the Airport to mitigate the development of incompatible land uses which may interrupt their ability to serve the community in the future.

To understand the importance of developing a Land Use Compatibility Plan, first it is imperative to understand the role that GA airports, like LXT, have on their local community.

GA airports provide an indispensable link to regional, state, and national transportation systems. This transportation link contributes to local and regional economies that in turn promote and sustain the GA airports. However, LXT not only connects and supports its local community, by virtue of its location in the Kansas City metropolitan area, LXT plays the role of a reliever to a medium-hub airport (Kansas City International Airport) in a region of over 2.5 million people. Thus, LXT has a vital role of providing aviation services to meet aeronautical demand that is generated in the Kansas City metropolitan area. In addition to the economic benefits contributed by GA airports, other vital GA activities include emergency medical flights, police and fire support, search and rescue operations, traffic reporting, and agricultural and environmental management operations.

During the nation’s airport construction boom of the 1950s and 1960s, most GA airports were constructed with runway lengths of 3,000 to 4,000 feet. The airports were located away from communities and were generally surrounded by agricultural or industrial land uses. The primary users of the new GA airports, during this period, were recreational flyers. There were few corporate users at the time. Within the past two decades, however, the role of the GA airport has changed. As evidenced by the increased use of corporate aircraft, GA airports have been transformed from serving weekend flyers to serving as an economic generator for local, regional, and state economies. GA airports provide a needed service to corporations as they move people and goods through the country and within regions. Realizing the increased time and costs associated with many metropolitan airports, corporate flight operations are using GA airports located in suburban and rural areas. To accommodate the increased frequency by corporate aircraft, the GA airport sponsor is often faced with a need to extend the runway length or enlarge the ramp and tie-down areas. Moreover, increased frequency of aircraft flights sometimes increases the associated noise impacts to airport neighbors, which is why coordination with local communities and zone planners is important to reduce noise pollution in the contiguous areas to the airport.

Incompatible land uses around GA airports jeopardize the safety and efficiency of flying activities, and the quality of life of the community's residents. Incompatible land uses can include wildlife-attracting land uses such as wetlands and landfills, cell towers and antennae transmitting signals that interfere with radio transmissions and/or navigational aids, lights that may be disorienting to a pilot, and tall structures including towers and construction cranes that may impact an airport’s airspace. Common incompatible airport land uses comprise: ▪

Residential development

▪

Tall structures

▪

Schools

▪

Smoke and electrical signal generators

▪

Community centers and libraries

▪

Hospitals

Landfills and attractants

▪

Buildings used for religious services

other

bird/wildlife

Residential development, particularly high-density development, is not compatible with airport operations due to aircraft noise impacts and safety reasons. Within an airport’s noise impact areas, residential and public facilities such as schools, churches, public health facilities, and concert halls are sensitive to high noise levels and can affect the development of the airport. In some cases, the airport sponsor has not purchased or protected sufficient lands around the airport to prohibit the infringement of incompatible land uses. Conversely, incompatibility may occur because an airport project has expanded in proximity of an existing residential neighborhood.

Land use decisions that conflict with aeronautical activity and airport facilities can result in undue constraints being placed on an airport. In order to enable this sector of the economy to continue to expand, to provide for a wide variety of job opportunities for local citizens, and to meet the needs of the traveling public, it is vitally important that airports operate in an environment that maximizes the compatibility of the airport with off-airport development. For LXT to meet its current and future needs and thereby continue contributing to the local and regional economies, it is the airport sponsor's responsibility to develop in an appropriate manner and in such a way that is compatible with its neighbors and community.

As mentioned above, the objective of compatible land use planning is to encourage land uses that are generally considered to be incompatible with airports (such as residential, schools, and churches) to be located away from airports. In a similar way, compatible land use planning encourages land uses that are more compatible with an airport environment, such as industrial and commercial uses, to be located around airports. Most commercial and industrial uses, especially those associated with the airport, are good neighbors to airports and even the community-at-large. These developments are often staffed by workers that are citizens of the City they work in. Land uses where the airport creates the demand are compatible land uses for LXT as well. These include: ▪

Motels/Hotels

▪

Aircraft-related industries

▪

Restaurants

▪

Aeronautical related companies

▪

Warehouses

▪

Shipping Agencies

Industries that benefit from the access to the airport

Other uses that may be compatible with airports are: ▪

Large parks

▪

Forestry services

▪

Conservatory areas and other open spaces

▪

Landscape services

▪

Golf courses

These land uses are created for public purposes and are opportunities for local government bodies to provide facilities that serve another public purpose to protect airport operations. Agriculture is another land use that is compatible with airport operations so long as the use is not a wildlife attractant. Agricultural use of land near an airport permits the owner of the property to efficiently use land while providing an additional benefit to the community for airport protection.

Historically, land use plans (comprehensive plans) prepared by local governments have only minimally recognized the implications of planning for airports and off-site, airport-related development. Local land use planning, as a method of determining appropriate (and inappropriate) use of properties around airports, should be an integral part of the land use policy and regulatory tools used by airports and local land use planners. The LXT Airport Master Plan recognizes that state and local governments are responsible for land use planning, zoning, and regulation. For this reason, this document should be coordinated with local jurisdictions surrounding the airport to ensure that future airport development plans are taken into consideration in each jurisdiction’s local comprehensive land use plan. Local land use planners and airport planners should use it to evaluate new development within an airport’s surrounding area. Furthermore, during Phase II of the Master Plan Update, the City of Lee’s Summit will be provided with 3-dimensional airspace structures and obstruction analysis tools to understand the impacts of development around the airport. This tool will not only compliment the contents of this chapter but will aid in the decision-making process. The Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport master planning process provides a means to promote land use compatibility around the airport.

The airport sponsor is responsible to the extent reasonable for ensuring that land uses around the airport are compatible with existing and future airport operations. When the airport sponsor is a city and or county government, the government also is responsible for promoting the general welfare of its citizens, which includes the health and safety of all residents. An airport sponsor should initiate coordination efforts with surrounding communities to ensure that existing and future airport development is compatible with the land use plan for the area.

A typical Land Use Compatibility Plan identifies four key issues for evaluating the types of land uses to be considered compatible around airports: ▪

The impact of aircraft noise and noise compatibility planning

▪

The potential for airspace conflicts from tall structures in the vicinity of an airport

▪

The possibility of electronic interference with aviation navigation aids (NAVAIDS)

▪

The potential for interaction between aircraft and wildlife attractants.

As part of this Master Plan effort, this Land Use Compatibility Plan describes land use associated with Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport and its surroundings.

Land use planning seeks to surround the airport with land that is “compatible” with aeronautical activity. Doing this helps protect the public from safety hazards, noise exposure, and safeguards operations at the airport. The Land Use Compatibility chapter of this Master Plan has the following goals: 1. Review existing land use and regulatory controls (i.e., local municipal land use maps) 2. Complete a Land Use Compatibility Assessment through the definition of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) 3. Prepare land use recommendations

The goal of this section is to identify the municipalities and city limits of all the cities and counties that surround Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport. There are five local municipal jurisdictions that surround LXT: ▪

Blue Springs, Missouri

▪

Cass County, Missouri

▪

Grandview, Missouri

▪

Kansas City, Missouri

▪

Raytown, Missouri

It is important that the land use planning efforts identify the existing municipal zoning landscape that surrounds LXT. Exhibit 5.3-1 shows the location of the five municipalities in relation to LXT. As was mentioned previously in this chapter, the goal of the Land Use Compatibility Plan is to help the airport sponsor to communicate and coordinate with local zone planners to prevent the development of incompatible land uses around LXT. The exhibit below shows the location of all five municipalities that surround LXT, but only a few of these will be affected by some of the land use considerations evaluated as part of this chapter. The next step of this Land Use Compatibility Plan is to define the Airport Influence Area (AIA) to identify which of the municipalities shown on the exhibit below will be affected by the activities generated by LXT.

Exhibit 5.3-1: Local Municipal Limits

Source: CMT

Airport Noise Contours

▪

Part 77 Surfaces

▪

Runway Protection Zones (RPZ)

▪

FAA defined Airport Influence Areas (AIA)

The FAA’s Land Use Compatibility and Airports document was used to develop the sub-zone within the AIA, known as the Airport Impact Zones (AIZ).

GA airports have a vital role in the economic development of the community which it serves. However, along with these important economic benefits, the transport of people and products may also disturb those living or working near airports by exposing them to noise. Over the last 40 years, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been working to reduce the number of Americans exposed to aviation noise around airport communities. By one measure, it has been a success: over the last four decades, the number of people in the U.S. exposed to aviation noise has dropped substantially, even as the number of flights has soared. However, even with this success, aviation noise is and remains a concern for many communities. To promote ways in which to better balance the benefits and adverse effects of aviation on airport communities, it is vital to identify the areas where noise generated by aeronautical activity is more prominent and work with local planners to avoid the development of residential communities in these areas. The FAA provides specific guidance that help define exposure to individuals living or working on surrounding incompatible land uses. Noise levels can be computed at individual locations of interest, but to show how noise can vary over extended areas, noise metric results like day-night average sound level (DNL) are often drawn on maps in terms of lines connecting points of the same decibel (dBA). The DNL noise metric is used to reflect a person's cumulative exposure to sound over a 24-hour period, expressed as the noise level for the average day of the year on the basis of annual aircraft operations1. Noise compatibility or non-compatibility of land use is determined by comparing the aircraft DNL values at a site to the values in the land use compatibility guidelines provided by FAA. Special consideration needs to be given to noise sensitive areas within Section 4(f) properties including, but not limited to: 1

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/noise/basics/

noise sensitive areas within national parks, national wildlife and waterfowl refuges and historic sites, including traditional cultural properties. For proposed airport development and other actions in the immediate vicinity of an airport, FAA recommends providing noise exposure contours at the DNL 65-, 70-, and 75-dB levels (additional contours may be provided on a case-by-case basis)2. When a noise analysis in the immediate vicinity of an airport identifies noise sensitive areas that would have an increase of DNL 3 dB or more from DNL 60 dB up to DNL 65 dB noise exposure, the potential for mitigating noise in those areas should be considered, including consideration of the same range of mitigation options available at DNL 65 dB and higher. It is important for the public to understand that once the airport identifies noise sensitive areas according to FAA requirements, it will work towards protection of these areas and mitigation of noise. Similar to topographical maps showing the elevation of terrain in an area, these noise "contours" are useful for comparing aircraft noise exposure throughout an airport community. The shape of noise contours depends on many factors but are influenced by things like whether more arriving or departing aircraft are flying over an area. Exhibit 5.3-2 shows an example of what a noise contour map looks like. Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport has noise contours depicted on its Airport Layout Plan and this discussed further later in this chapter. Exhibit 5.3-2: Noise Contour Map Example

Source: FAA Fundamentals of Noise and Sound

Regulations for the protection of airspace around a public‐use civilian or military airport are specified in 14 CFR Part 77 Approach Surfaces. These defined surfaces are used by the FAA to identify obstructions to airspace around an Airport facility. Runway approach surfaces are a critical component

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/policy/faa_nepa_ord er/desk_ref/media/11-noise.pdf

of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 as they control objects located in the glidepath to a specified runway. Approach surfaces are established 200 feet from the end of each runway threshold at the threshold elevation and extend at a specified slope and distance dependent upon the type of instrument approach to serve the runway end. Transitional surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach surface which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, extend 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface and at right angles to the runway centerline. Exhibit 5.3-3 shows a graphical depiction of Part 77 Surfaces. Exhibit 5.3-3: Part 77 Surfaces

Source: FAA Part 77 Surfaces

Each of the Part 77 Surfaces depicted on this exhibit will have a different height restriction, which will restrict any manmade object to be constructed beyond a certain height. These height restrictions will protect the Airport’s airspace and approaches so that aeronautical operations can be completed in a safe, secure, and efficient way. FAR Part 77 regulations require project sponsors to notify the FAA of proposed structures within the airport airspace area. The FAA will evaluate each proposed structure and will issue a determination of “hazard” or “no hazard” depending on the impacts to airport airspace. The height restrictions imposed by Part 77 Surfaces should be considered by local planners from the different municipalities that surround LXT to be capable of restricting the development of any tall structure that may violate any Part 77 height restriction.

The Runway Protection Zone’s (RPZ) function is to enhance the protection of property and people on the ground. The RPZ is defined by the FAA as, “an area at ground level prior to the threshold or beyond the runway end to enhance the safety and protection of people and property on the ground.” This is best achieved through airport owner control of the land area(s) that fall within the RPZ. Control is preferably exercised through the acquisition of sufficient property interest in the RPZ and included clearing the RPZ areas (and maintaining them clear) of incompatible objects and activities.3 RPZ land use compatibility also is often complicated by ownership considerations. Airport owner control over the RPZ land is emphasized to achieve the desired protection of people and property on the ground. Although the FAA recognizes that in certain situations the airport sponsor may not fully control land within the RPZ, the FAA expects airport sponsors to take all possible measures to protect against and remove or mitigate incompatible land uses. Compatible land use within the RPZ is generally restricted to such land uses as agricultural and similar uses that do not involve congregations of people or construction of buildings or other improvements that may be obstructions. Allowable activities in an RPZ include4:

3 4

▪

Farming activities meeting airport design clearance standards.

▪

Irrigation channels meeting the standards of AC 150/5200-33 and FAA/USDA manual, Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports.

▪

Airport service roads, as long as they are not public roads and are under direct control of the airport operator.

▪

Underground facilities, as long as they meet other design criteria, such as RSA standards, as applicable.

▪

NAVAIDs and aviation facilities, such as equipment for airport facilities considered fixed byfunction in regard to the RPZ.

▪

Above-ground fuel tanks associated with back-up generators for unstaffed NAVAIDS.

FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, paragraph 310. FAA Central Region Airports Division – AIP Sponsor Guide – Airport Planning

As mentioned previously, noise contours, Part 77 surfaces, and RPZ are three elements that will restrict certain land use development in the vicinity of LXT. On one hand, noise contours for the Airport will help identify the areas where a high concentration of people, such as residential development, is not desirable due to prolonged exposure to noise from aeronautical operations. On the other hand, Part 77 surfaces will help identify the areas with height restrictions the surround the Airport. Similarly, RPZs will help identify the land where the Airport should acquire sufficient property to have strict control over the development in those areas for the safety of those traveling by air and those on the ground. These three elements have been put together into one exhibit to visualize their extent. Exhibit 5.3-4 show the noise contours, Part 77 surfaces, and RPZs for LXT.

Exhibit 5.3-4: LXT Noise Contours, Part 77 Surfaces, and RPZs

Source: CMT

Section 5.3.1 of this chapter discussed how there are five municipalities that surround LXT: ▪

Blue Springs, Missouri

▪

Cass County, Missouri

▪

Grandview, Missouri

▪

Kansas City, Missouri

▪

Raytown, Missouri

However, not all these municipalities will be impacted by aeronautical activities originated at LXT. As is shown on Exhibit 5.3-4, Part 77 surfaces represent the outermost controlling surface that restricts land development around the Airport. Exhibit 5.3-5 shows the Part 77 outermost surface and the municipalities located inside this boundary. The exhibit shows that the municipalities impacted by the outermost surface of Part 77 are: Independence, Kansas City, Lee’s Summit, Unity Village, Greenwood, and Cass County. It is the Airport sponsor’s responsibility to coordinate the development of compatible land with the authorities from the municipalities in the immediate vicinity with LXT. The municipalities in the immediate vicinity of the Airport will be shown later in this chapter when the AIA is defined.

Exhibit 5.3-5: LXT Part 77 Surface and Municipalities

Source: CMT

In some cases, GA airport owners are faced with the challenge of ensuring land use compatibility without the benefit of using aircraft noise exposure contours to establish compatibility. In the absence of aircraft noise exposure contours, airport owners can define Airport Impact Zones and identify appropriate land use zoning for each impact zone. Currently, the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics and the Washington State Department of Transportation, Aviation Division provide technical assistance to the GA airports in their respective states to implement Airport Impact Zones as a land use compatibility tool. The specific areas, both on and off airport property, that are included in the impact zones are based on aircraft incident investigation data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Exhibit 5.3-6 defines the dimensions and locations of each zone. Airport Impact Zones would be added or modified based on individual airport conditions and future development projections. Typical Airport Impact Zones include: ▪

Airport Impact Zone 1 – Runway Protection Zone

▪

Airport Impact Zone 2 – Inner Safety Zone

▪

Airport Impact Zone 3 – Inner Turning Zone (60-degree sector)

▪

Airport Impact Zone 4 – Outer Safety Zone

▪

Airport Impact Zone 5 – Sideline Safety Zone

▪

Airport Impact Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern Zone

The idea behind defining the AIZ for LXT is to visualize the areas next to the Airport that will be impacted by aeronautical activities. Once these areas have been identified, the next step is to recognize the different land uses inside each of these zones and identify if there are any incompatible land uses. In locations where the Airport Impact Zones are within multiple jurisdictions, representatives from each jurisdiction would be involved in the planning and implementation process. Appropriate land use zoning would be established to ensure compatibility of land uses and development densities around LXT. Zoning also would control the construction of tall structures in the airport’s airspace, electronic interference with the airport’s navigation aids, and wildlife attractants around the airport.

Equivalent to the Airport Impact Zones designed by the California Department of Transportation and the Washington State Department of Transportation, the state of Missouri provides the Airport Overlay District (AOD) or Airport Hazard Overlay District (AHOD). The regulations included in the AOD are adopted pursuant to the current Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 14, Parts 77, Parts 91 and 105, and Missouri Department of Transportation, Aviation Division standards as are applicable to those areas within the airport county adjacent to and including for each and every publicly owned, public use airport. These standards are established to determine obstructions to air navigation and airport use from new land uses, and to provide due process for determining the effect of proposed construction or alterations to existing structures and land uses or the safe and efficient use of airspace near and on public airports.

The AOD is to ensure a regulatory means of facilitating airport compatible land uses in the vicinity of any public airport in the City. The purpose of the Airport Hazard Overly District in the City of Lee’s Summit is the following5: 1. Establish land uses that are compatible with continued airport operations. 2. Reduce hazards that may endanger the lives and property of the public and aviation users. 3. Protect the viability of the Lee's Summit Municipal Airport. 4. Discourage siting of incompatible land uses that may impair the future development and operation of the Lee's Summit Municipal Airport. 5. Protect navigable airspace from obstructions which are of sufficient height as to constitute a danger to aircraft flight. To carry out the provisions of this division throughout certain zones, there are hereby established certain zones that include all of the land lying beneath the approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, and conical surfaces as they apply to the Lee's Summit Municipal Airport. These zones are shown on the adopted Airport Layout Plan (ALP), as amended, consisting of drawings, prepared to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) Aviation Section standards as required under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.

https://library.municode.com/mo/lee's_summit/codes/unified_development_ordinance?nodeId=ART5OVDI_DI VIAIHAOVDI

Exhibit 5.3-6: Airport Impact Zones

Source: FAA Land Use Compatibility and Airports; NTSB Accident Investigations

Recommended land uses and densities of land development are different depending on the Airport Impact Zone. Table 5.3-1 indicates the recommended land uses for each AIZ. Table 5.3-1: Airport Impact Zones Recommended Land Uses

     

     

     

     

Low-Density Residential Development = Less than five people per acre Low-Density Industrial Development = Less than five people per acre Medium-Density Industrial Development = 25 to 40 people per acre Industrial Development = Less than 100 people per acre Source: FAA Land Use Compatibility and Airports; NTSB Accident Investigations

Once zoning is adopted for Airport Impact Zones, proposals for development in the impact zones would be evaluated by the jurisdictional bodies responsible for land use around the Airport.

This section explains how the Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport AIA is a combination of various sub-areas and zones for which each has a unique purpose of land use control (i.e., height restriction zone, no residential development zones, etc.). The LXT AIA is comprised of Airport Noise Contours, Part 77 Surfaces, Runway Protection Zones (RPZ), and FAA defined Airport Influence Areas (AIA). Exhibit 5.3-7 shows the defined AIA for LXT.

Exhibit 5.3-7: LXT AIA

Source: CMT

In the previous exhibit it is possible to see that Kansas City, Lee’s Summit, and Unity Village are municipalities that are located in the immediate vicinity of the Airport. Since the Airport Impact Zones that were defined previously are located inside these municipalities, it is the Airport sponsor’s responsibility to coordinate the development of compatible land uses with local authorities from these three municipalities. The next section will provide an evaluation of the existing land uses and zoning in each of the Airport Impact Zones.

Section 5.3 identified the Airport’s AIA. The AIA was utilized to assess the overall existing land use compatibility between LXT and the surrounding municipalities. The land use assessment included placing the AIA on top of the existing local zoning maps to determine if incompatible land is present. Exhibit 5.4-1 shows LXT’s AIA and existing zoning development in each Airport Impact Zone. Tables 5.4-1 through 5.4-4 show the land use assessment per runway end that was completed using Table 5.3-1, which shows the recommended land uses for each Airport Impact Zone. Airport Impact Zones 1 through 5 have been evaluated for incompatible development.

Table 5.4-1: Runway 18 Land Use Compatibility Assessment

Source: CMT

As shown on Table 5.3-1, residential development is not recommended on AIZ #2. The reason for this is that the Inner Safety Zone of a runway’s approach can be exposed to high levels of noise from aeronautical activities. This would cause discomfort to the community living in this zone. AIZ #2 on Runway 18 includes Single Family Residential and Planned Residential Mixed-Use developments. However, the noise contours do not reach AIZ #2 on Runway 18. Exhibit 5.3-7 shows the extension of LXT’s noise contours.

The table above also shows that AIZ #4 on Runway 18 has Two Family Residential and Apartment Residential developments. These have been classified as not compatible because the only recommended residential development on AIZ #4 is low-density residential development. However, the noise contours do not reach AIZ #4 on Runway 18 and therefore, does not impact the adjacent housing in a manner that would require mitigation as defined by the FAA.

Table 5.4-2: Runway 36 Land Use Compatibility Assessment

Source: CMT

As shown on Table 5.3-1, industrial development is not recommended on AIZ #4. The reason for this is that the Outer Safety Zone of a runway’s approach can be exposed to high levels of noise from aeronautical activities, and, for safety purposes, it is not recommended to have a high concentration of industrial developments in this zone. AIZ #4 on Runway 36 includes Planned Industrial development. However, this should not be of concern to the Airport since the noise contours do not reach AIZ #4 on Runway 36. In addition, the portion of AIZ #4 on Runway 36 that is dedicated to Industrial development is not substantial in relation to the AIZ #4 total area.

Table 5.4-3: Runway 11 Land Use Compatibility Assessment

Source: CMT

Residential development is not recommended on AIZ #2. AIZ #2 on Runway 11 includes Residential Rural development which belongs to the Kansas City municipality. This development should not be of concern to the Airport since the residential development is outside of the noise contours. In addition, the residential development located on Runway 11’s AIZ #2 is a low-density development.

Table 5.4-4: Runway 29 Land Use Compatibility Assessment

Source: CMT

AIZ #5 corresponds to the Sideline Safety Zone. In this case, there is the presence of a few industrial developments, including industrial vendors, located inside AIZ #5 close to Runway 29. Zero to lowdensity industrial development is the only type of industrial development recommended inside AIZ #5. This should not be of concern for LXT since the existing industrial developments in this area are located outside the noise contours.

Exhibit 5.4-1: LXT Land Use Assessment

Source: CMT

Chapter 4 – Alternatives presented and discussed several non-airside alternatives for LXT. The Preferred Alternative presented in Chapter 4 shows two developments which will require additional land acquisition. The first development is the construction of an ARFF station, Maintenance/SRE hangar, and stormwater detention in the north portion of the airfield. The second development is the construction of an Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and parking on the west side of the airfield. Exhibits 5.5-1 and 5.52 show these developments. Exhibit 5.5-1: ARFF Station and Maintenance/SRE Hangar

Source: CMT

As shown on the exhibit above, land acquisition will be required prior to the construction of the ARFF station, Maintenance/SRE hangar, and stormwater detention. The total land that needs to be purchased by the Airport for this development has an area of approximately 346,322 ft2 (7.95 acres).

Exhibit 5.5-2: ATCT and Parking

Source: CMT

As shown on the exhibit above, land acquisition will be required prior to the construction of the ATCT and parking lot. The total land that needs to be purchased by the Airport for this development has an area of approximately 63,704 ft2 (1.46 acres).

To enhance the protection of people and property on the ground, the RPZs should be under control of the Airport through ownership or easement. The FAA recommends acquisition of the property and complete land use control of the RPZs. Currently, LXT owns less than half of the RPZ of Runway 18. It is recommended that the Airport purchases the remaining land inside Runway 18 RPZ to have full control of this area. Exhibit 5.5-3 shows this area. Exhibit 5.5-3: Runway 18 RPZ

Source: CMT

To be able to have full control of Runway 18 RPZ, LXT needs to purchase a total of approximately 645,777 ft2 (14.83 acres).

In the latest Busines Plan Update, non-aeronautical and aeronautical development areas within the Airport’s property line have been identified. In the Business Plan, non-aeronautical land use describes areas without airfield access. For these areas, development possibilities should consist of appropriate uses that are compatible with an airport environment. Industrial development (manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, assembly, or production activity) is considered highly compatible non-aeronautical airport property development, partially due to the capability of these entities to absorb the noise impacts from airport activity. Commercial/Retail development (office buildings, commerce parks, restaurants, franchise, and specialty goods outlets) are also considered compatible development for airport activities, although these areas are impacted more by airport-related noise than industrial development due mostly to the human activities there.

In contrast, the aviation development land use are areas within the Airport property boundary which provide access to the airfield and can be used for the development of non-airside facilities. These areas can be observed in Exhibit 5.6-1. Exhibit 5.6-1: LXT Aeronautical and Non-Aeronautical Land for Possible Development

Source: R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc., CMT

Several parcels of Airport property have been identified as potential non-aeronautical developable land. These parcels do not have access to the airfield and cannot ever be used for aviation purposes. Rather than let them sit idle, the Business Plan recommends the conversion and use of the land to revenue producing property. Their descriptions include: ▪

North Side Parcel: This parcel is located along Strother Road and includes roughly 16 acres of property for potential development. Because of topography, development uses will need to be carefully planned.

▪

South Side Parcel: This parcel is potentially accessible from NE Town Center Boulevard. It contains approximately 30 acres and it also has some topography.

There are several reasons for developing this property at LXT, including: ▪

Property that does not have access to the airfield and would otherwise be unproductive can be used to produce non-aeronautical revenue.

▪

As an Enterprise Fund, the Airport needs to be as financially self-sufficient as possible.

▪

FAA grant assurances also require the Airport to charge fees and work towards financial sustainability.

▪

With compatible development, non-aviation property can serve as a buffer to residential properties near the Airport.

▪

There are non-aeronautical land uses that actually support airports, including restaurants, car rental locations, hotels, etc.

The Updated Business Plan for LXT has analyzed the vacant land on the North Side Parcel and South Side Parcel and come to the recommendation of two primary options for development of nonaeronautical property: commercial real estate and solar energy. These are not mutually exclusive. That is, both types of development can occur at LXT. ▪

Commercial Real Estate - The commercial real estate market is comprised of several sectors: office market, industrial market, retail, and multi-family housing market (condominiums, rental properties). For LXT, non-aeronautical property development should focus on the industrial and retail market. Residential multi-family developments are not compatible with the Airport land use, and office market real estate has suffered an oversupply in the region and nationally due to work at home orders surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. ▪

The retail market has the higher rents than industrial, ranging between $8 and $17 per square foot per year, depending on location, size, and condition. Average cost is about $13 per square foot.

▪

The industrial market has a much lower cost per square foot as these buildings require large spaces for materials storage and handling. Lease rates in the area for industrial and warehousing space run in the range of $4-$10 per square foot per year, depending on location, size, and type of use. Average cost is about $7 per square foot.

▪

Ground lease rates are often tied to the market rental rates for the type of property. Thus, higher land lease rates can be gained from retail leases than from industrial leases.

▪ ▪

However, retail sites must have road frontage and good highway access. That would eliminate most of the property in the south side parcel from retail development.

Solar Energy Production - The second type of revenue producing non-aeronautical land development at LXT involves the production of solar energy. However, as is explained in detail in the Business Plan Update, the development of a solar farm with sales of electricity to the local power grid are not profitable. Thus, the development of solar energy could be used to offset the retail price of electricity used on the Airport, which costs about $60,000 per year.

According to the LXT Business Plan Update, the recommended plan for developing non-aeronautical property at LXT includes the following steps: 1. ALP Update: Identify non-aeronautical property for development on the Airport Layout Plan. This includes laying out the property in accessible parcels. 2. Land Release: Initiate the land release process with FAA. The release does not have to be for property sale, but rather, to lease for a non-aeronautical use. This means that the airport receives direct benefit from a lease structure. 3. Solicit RFI: Solicit Request for Information/Interest (RFI) on developing a small solar PV system of 1-2 acres on non-aeronautical property. Cost information is important, along with system set up information needed to reduce electricity costs on the Airport. 4. Advertise Property: Use in-house staff or commercial real estate broker to advertise nonaeronautical Airport property. Seek to lease property for the long term, if possible. 5. Sale Option: If property sale is the only way to move the parcels, examine the return on assets as compared to a long-term lease.

As was discussed in this chapter, GA airports have a vital role in the economic development of the community which it serves, which is why their continuous development and growth are necessary to support an efficient economic growth of the local community. A necessary step that LXT needs to take to stay in the path of continuous growth is to continue coordination the development of compatible land in its vicinity with local municipalities. In addition, the Airport is encouraged to acquire two additional parcels for the development of airfield support facilities as recommended in the Chapter 4 - Alternatives. The recommendations of this Land Use Plan are the following: ▪

Utilize noise contours to maintain control of noise generated by aeronautical activities and evaluate if aeronautical activity may be affecting new established communities in the vicinity of the Airport.

▪

Coordinate the construction of industrial developments with local municipalities. As was discussed earlier in this chapter, the City of Lee’s Summit has Planned Industrial developments in Airport Impact Zone #5. The future development of industrial zoning in this area should be coordinated between the Airport staff and the broader City of Lee’s Summit staff to make sure these developments will not impact operations at the Airport and users of industrial facilities will not be affected by aeronautical impacts.

▪

It is recommended that the Airport purchase approximately 7.95 acres on the north airfield for the development of the proposed ARFF Station, Maintenance/SRE hangar, and stormwater detention.

▪

It is recommended that the Airport purchase approximately 1.46 acres on the west airfield for the development of the ATCT and associated parking area.

▪

It is recommended that the Airport purchase approximately 14.83 acres in the north section of Runway 18 to be able to have full control and ownership of Runway 18 RPZ.

Coordination with local municipalities is necessary to ensure that future airport development plans are taken into consideration in each jurisdiction’s local comprehensive land use plan. Local land use planners and airport planners should use it to evaluate new developments within an airport’s surrounding area. For general aviation and business aviation operations to thrive in the future at LXT, and for LXT to keep growing as an asset to the community, development must be responsibly implemented. Incompatible land uses around GA airports may jeopardize the safety and efficiency of flying activities, and the quality of life of the community's residents. Therefore, this Land Use Compatibility Plan provides the Airport the tools to coordinate land development with local governments so that future land developments around the airport are compatible with aeronautical activity. Ultimately the goal of the findings, recommendations, and coordination that stems from this plan, is to allow the Airport to continue to be a benefit to the community economically, provide for a wide variety of job opportunities for local citizens, and meet the needs of the traveling public.

The following section presents a description of the near-term, medium-term, and long-term physical development program for LXT. The facility improvements identified in the previous sections as being necessary over the 20-year planning period to accommodate forecasted aviation demand will be added to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The following implementation plan has been developed using 2021 dollars. Implementation of individual projects within their specific development years may require adjustments for inflation and specific funding resources that are available.

As mentioned above, the physical development program for the Airport has been separated into three planning phases, short-term (0-5 years), medium-term (6-10 years) and long-term (11-20 years) and demand driven. The demand driven planning phase included with the long-term projects represents a group of improvements that address capacity issues associated with potential future aviation demand but are still very speculative in terms of the exact timing of the trigger point. While this group of projects has not been slotted into a program timeframe, estimated costs has been provided to understand the potential magnitude of the projects. As demand approaches the need for these improvements, it is recommended that a reevaluation be conducted to the most appropriate improvement and a more specific timeframe for implementation. It should also be noted that anything outside of the documented near-term CIP, is an improvement or infrastructure upgrade that would be considered commensurate with a Planning Activity Level (PAL) as described in Chapter 3 Facility Requirements and would not necessarily be representative of a project implemented in a specific year.

from multiple freeze-thaw cycles. A Terminal Building relocation and associated sitework are identified as priorities in the middle-to-late portion of the Short-Term CIP. The final two years see continued investment of supporting infrastructure through the design and construction of an Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and self-service fuel facilities on both sides of the airport. The final two years of the near-term also place a focus on obstruction clearing on the airfield with the use of AIP funds. It should be noted that various hangar projects could find their way into the short-term CIP given the demand for space. However, given the uncertain nature of funding hangar projects, the majority of these developments are shown in the medium-term or demand driven segments of the CIP. Total development cost for projects identified in the short-term CIP are estimated at approximately $20.6 million. The estimated costs to facilitate additional growth and development (approximately $6.6 million) and to develop building infrastructure to satisfy that demand, (approximately $10.0 million) are the largest project elements identified in the short-term CIP. Table 5.1-1, Short-Term CIP Project Table and Figure 5.1-1, Short-Term CIP Project Map provide a list of projects identified in the short-term CIP with total project costs. Also included is an anticipated detailed cost allocation table (federal, state, local participation) for the short-term CIP projects.

Total Estimated Project Cost

Funding Source

Federal Entitlement Share

Federal Discretionary Share

State Share

Local Share

$394,000

F/L

$354,600

$39,400

$2,653,000

S/L

$2,387,700

$265,300

$593,000

F/S/L

$150,000

$533,700

$59,300

Crack Seal West Apron

$134,000

Hangar 1 FBO Remodel

$278,000

2023

Land Acquisition

$1,000,000

F/S/L

$900,000

$50,000

2023

Construct Fuel Farm

$1,880,000

2024

South Apron Expansion and Existing Joint Rehabilitation

$1,681,000

S/L

$840,500

2024

Construct New Terminal Building

$3,500,000

S/L

$300,000

$1,000,000

$2,200,000

2025

Obstruction Removal

$892,000

F/L

$802,800

$89,200

2025

Construct Eastside & Westside Self-Service Fuel Facilities

$650,000

2026

Construct Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)

$6,471,000

F/S/L

$150,000

$5,823,900

$323,550

Project Number

Year

2021

2022

2023

6 7

Project Title Master Plan Update – Phase II Construct Eastside Utility Infrastructure Reseal Joints on Runway 11/29 and Taxiway B

Note: F = Federal; S = State; L = Local

The medium-term CIP is intended to be a list of projects that would be candidates for inclusion in the short-term CIP in future years. Specific years or priorities are not assigned to these projects to provide LXT with the flexibility to configure future short-term CIP’s as future conditions require. This project list includes a wide array of project types which includes airfield pavement projects, roadway and parking expansion projects, general aviation area projects, an airfield maintenance site project, and a facility that pairs an Aircraft Rescue & Fire Fighting (ARFF) (dual-use for public-side fire and EMT services) with a Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) and Maintenance storage facility. Total estimated development cost for projects identified in the medium-term CIP equals approximately $21 million. Table 5.1-2, Medium-Term CIP Project Table and Figure 5.1-2, Medium-Term CIP Project Map provide a list of projects identified in the medium-term CIP with total estimated project costs. Detailed cost allocations will not be provided for the medium-term CIP due to likelihood of changes in funding levels and participation levels/eligibility in future federal and state regulations. Anticipated funding sources, however, have been included. Additionally, information is provided to show the origin of the project as well as assumptions made regarding project elements or funding.

Project Number

Project Title

Total Estimated Project Cost

Anticipated Funding Source

Rehabilitate Airfield Lighting Runway 11/29 and Taxiway Bravo

$870,000

Federal / State / Local

Construct NW Side T-Hangar

$1,660,000

State / Local

Construct Hangar 2

$4,500,000

State / Local

West Apron Reconstruction

$1,796,000

Federal / State / Local

$800,000

Federal / State / Local

$1,345,000

Federal / State / Local

4 5 6

Approach Lighting System (ALS) Runway 36 Construct Middle Section of West Parallel Taxiway Alpha

Reseal Joints on Taxiway Charlie and East Apron

$396,000

State / Local

Remark Taxiway A

$108,000

State / Local

$9,450,000

Federal / State / Local

$300,000

Local Only

$277,000

Federal / Local

10 11

Construction Airport Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) Equipment Maintenance/Storage Facility and Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting Facility (ARFF) Dual-use Public/Airport Side Rehabilitate Hangar Taxilanes Alpha and Bravo Rubber Removal and Remark Runway 18/36

The long-term CIP is a mix of pavement projects combined with airfield and land projects generated from the master planning process. Based on current PCI’s, the pavement projects on this list are not anticipated to require rehabilitation for the next ten years. The Master Plan projects have been slotted in this timeframe for a variety of reasons, namely project trigger points at higher demand levels and the anticipated lack of local fund availability. The focus of the long-term CIP is primarily airfield infrastructure projects, general aviation development projects and land use compatibility projects. The total estimated development cost for projects identified in the long-term CIP equals approximately $16 million. Table 5.1-3, Long-Term & Demand Driven CIP Project Table and Figure 5.3-1, Long-Term & Demand Driven CIP Project Map provide a list of projects identified in the long-term CIP with total estimated project costs. Similar to the medium-term CIP, detailed cost allocations will not be provided for the long-term CIP, but anticipated project funding sources, project origin information and general assumptions are included in the Table. The demand-driven CIP projects, terminal building modernization and expansion and the Runway 4 extension, represent projects with uncertain timeframes, justifications and funding sources that will be required if aviation demand warrants their implementation. Total estimated development costs for the projects identified in the demand-driven CIP are approximately $20 million. Table 5.1-3, Long-Term & Demand Driven CIP Project Table provides a list of projects identified in the demand-driven CIP with total estimated project costs.

Project Number

1 2 3 4 5 6

Project Title

Total Estimated Project Cost

Anticipated Funding Source

Long Term (11-20 years) Federal / State Rehabilitate Runway 11/29 $3,831,000 / Local Federal / State Part 29 Part 77 Grading $1,079,000 / Local Federal / State Taxiway C Extension $5,400,000 / Local Federal / State Access Road $1,819,000 / Local Federal / State Hangar 1 Parking Lot Rehabilitation $200,000 / Local Federal / State Taxiway B Rehabilitation $3,000,000 / Local Demand Driven

Notes/Comments

Pavement project Master Plan project Master Plan project Master Plan project Pavement project Pavement project

West Apron Shade Ports

$30,000

TBD

Master Plan project (per unit)

Electric Aircraft Hangar

$1,660,000

TBD

Master Plan project

Aircraft Viewing Area

$250,000

TBD

Master Plan project

Corporate Flight Department Hangar

Variable

Private

Master Plan Project (per unit)

Box Hangar Development

$1,280,000

TBD

Master Plan Project (per unit)

Community Hangar (Hangar #3)

$4,500,000

TBD

Master Plan Project

East Ramp Expansion - Phase I

$4,900,000

TBD

Master Plan Project

East Ramp Expansion - Phase 2

$6,600,000

TBD

Master Plan Project

The following section will provide information on the financial framework of the Airport, potential funding sources, and a detailed cost allocation analysis for projects identified in the short-term CIP.

The Airport is owned and operated by the City of Lee’s Summit, Missouri. LXT operates as an enterprise fund with the municipal framework of the City Government. The Airport is a reliever airport that has a large number of based tenants and itinerant users that contribute/offset the Airport’s operating expenses. However, these revenues coupled with allotted NPE for infrastructure development and maintenance is generally inadequate for LXT to be financially self-sufficient.

The following funding sources may be utilized during the implementation of the Airport’s CIP.

Airports such as LXT rely heavily on the AIP to finance airport development. AIP is a cost-sharing program that assists in the development of a nationwide system of public-use airports by providing funding for airport planning and development projects, including runways, taxiways, aprons, land purchases, airport access roads, safety and security projects, and certain terminal development. Funds obligated for AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust fund, which is supported by ticket taxes, fuel taxes, and other similar revenues sources. AIP funding is administered through both entitlement and discretionary grant programs. The entitlement program for primary commercial service airports is apportioned based on their annual passenger enplanement levels. Discretionary grants are distributed based upon a system of set-aside categories and national priority ratings. Airport projects must compete for these funds based upon their national priority, a value based upon both the type of project and airport. AIP funding can only be used on construction and planning related projects. AIP funding cannot be used for maintenance items, operating expenses or debt repayment. The federal share of eligible projects seeking AIP entitlement and/or discretionary funding is currently 90% for reliever airports like LXT.

The primary State funding agency for Airports in Missouri is the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), Aviation Section. MoDOT provides an additional funding source for all federally eligible aviation developments and may provide certain levels of funding for ineligible or low priority projects. In normal activities, MoDOT uses several funding options. Additional description of these options is as follows:

▪

State Matching on Federal Fund Sources (AIP entitlement and discretionary funds) – These funding options can be used to reduce the Airport Sponsor’s total financial participation. Normally, funding percentages (percentages can vary) are 90% Federal Share, 5% State Share and 5% Local Share. These funding percentage options can vary depending on the availability of State funds.

▪

State-Local Funding Using General Revenue/Aviation Fuel Tax Funds – The Missouri Department of Transportation administers a cost-sharing program called the State Aviation Trust Fund Program which is made available through the Missouri State Aviation Trust Fund. Funds for this program are provided from a tax on aviation fuel within the state. The program assists local airport sponsors in the planning, purchase, construction, or improvement of public use airports. Under this cost-sharing program, eligible projects qualify for 90 percent state funding, with the remaining 10 percent representing the local sponsor’s share. Similar to the FAA AIP program, it is critical that the local match be secured in order to fully leverage available state participation.

▪

State-Local Funding Using Loans – MoDOT also maintains a State Transportation Assistance Revolving (STAR) fund. The STAR fund provides loans to local entities for non-highway projects such as rail, waterway and air travel infrastructure. The STAR fund can assist in the planning, acquisition, development and construction of facilities for transportation by air, water, rail or mass transit; however, STAR fund money cannot fund operating expenses.

An airport sponsor may obtain the required local share of a project through bonds. LXT has bonding capacity through its ownership by the City of Lee’s Summit. The information included below is based on common industry standards and practices. The airport sponsor will select the appropriate bond to acquire the necessary financing based upon the number of projects requiring local share monies and the type of airport. Airports typically use one of two types of bonds to fund capital development projects:

▪

General Obligation Bonds (GOB) – Payments to the bondholders are secured by the full faith, credit, and taxing power of the issuing governmental entity. An advantage of general obligation bonds is that they are typically issued at a lower interest rate due to the governmental guarantee. However, there are typically limits on the amount of general obligation debt that can be incurred, and many states require voter approval before issuing general obligation debt. In addition, typically general obligation bonds can only be financed for 10-15 years, increasing the monthly payment.

▪

General Revenue Bonds (GARB) – The debt service from these bonds is paid solely from the revenue received from the facility that was constructed with the proceeds of the bonds. This type of financing presents an opportunity to construct facilities without increasing the debt burden of the airport, since the debt is backed solely by the revenue generated by the facility. Because these bonds are not backed by an additional government guarantee and are therefore perceived as a greater risk, they typically have interest rates that are higher than general obligation bonds. One advantage of GARBs is they typically can be financed for a greater amount of time (25-30 year terms) resulting in lower monthly debt payments.

The balance of capital project costs, after consideration has been given to FAA grants, State funding, and other sources, must be funded through airport resources. The future share of local costs identified in the short-term CIP is anticipated to be funded partially with airport funds derived from user/tenant charges, fuel sales, and direct funding from the City transportation fund. If additional funds are required to cover local costs, LXT may also borrow additional funds from the City through internal financing. The availability of local funds to support LXT’s future CIP is anticipated to be a major constraint in its implementation. It is recommended that LXT continue coordination efforts with the City to identify and understand projected local funding shortfalls for key future development projects. Once understood, this provides an opportunity for the City and Airport to work with the Lee’s Summit Economic Development Council, surrounding communities, and local developers/stakeholders to work on innovate funding solutions and strategies to backfill this shortfall. The coordination also provides the benefit of advance notice for future funding requests and needs and serves as a launching point for building community consensus for significant projects.

As indicated previously, project cost allocations were only developed for projects identified in the shortterm CIP. Table 5.1-1, Short-Term CIP Project Table provides a breakdown of funding levels by source for each project. The local share represents a range of funding sources the Airport may use (bonds, operating revenues, etc.). To provide a conservative approach to budget management, the short-term CIP project cost allocations are based on the assumption that the Airport’s $150,000 of annual non-primary entitlement remains consistent. As federal programs evolve, including stimulus and relief funding, additional federal funds may become available which will require a periodic reevaluation of development goals and funding sources and uses. For the purpose of the short-term CIP, it is assumed that FAA discretionary funding levels will remain constant, but it is recommended that the Airport be prepared to re-evaluate the CIP should anticipated discretionary funding levels be significantly reduced by the federal government.

Capital improvements at airports require a number of steps to be completed prior to construction activities begin. The following actions with associated responsibility are required:

▪

Sponsor Approval – depending on agreements signed with air carriers and/or tenants, the Airport may be required to receive approval by the air carriers and/or tenants for the proposed capital improvement project.

▪

Funding Applications – the Airport or their representing engineering firm must submit federal and state applications for funding well in advance of the anticipated construction date. Federal funding for capital improvement projects at airports is extremely competitive.

▪

Environmental Documentation – the Airport, under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and in accordance with FAA policies, must submit the necessary environmental documentation and receive approval by the appropriate agencies prior to federal funding being allocated to the proposed capital improvement project. Environmental documentation should be submitted early in the planning/design stage of a project due to the amount of time required to complete the environmental review process.

▪

Aeronautical Study Determination – the FAA must formally approve the airspace for Airport development/improvement projects. The Airport must submit the necessary airspace information and receive approval from the FAA as part of the FAA’s grant assurances. Similar to environmental documentation, the airspace submittal should also be submitted early in the project planning/design stage due to the lengthy airspace review process.

▪

Land Acquisition – the Airport must secure any additional land resources (fee simple or avigation easement) necessary for the proposed capital improvement project prior to construction beginning. The Airport should begin the land acquisition process as soon as practicable as this process can take anywhere from 9 months to 2 or 3 years to complete depending on level of complexity.

▪

Project Design – this process involves the design of the proposed capital improvement project and typically takes between 36 and 60 weeks to complete depending on the level of complexity and the level of agency coordination.

▪

Agency Coordination Activities – depending on the size and complexity of the proposed capital improvement project, coordination and permitting with a number of agencies may be required. The time to complete coordination and permitting efforts with agencies is dependent on specific project details.

▪

Public Coordination Activities – depending on the size and complexity of the proposed capital improvement project (i.e., new runway or runway expansion), the Airport may need to complete a public outreach program to identify the benefits of the project and allow the public to provide critical feedback on potential impacts. The level of effort necessary to conduct a public outreach program is dependent on specific project details.

LEE’S SUMMIT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

APPENDIX A – ACRONYMS

APRIL 2021

7-1

LEE’S SUMMIT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

APPENDIX B, C, D, E AND F – ENVIRONMEMTAL OVERVIEW

APRIL 2021

APPENDIX A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Missouri Ecological Services Field Office 101 Park Deville Drive Suite A Columbia, MO 65203-0057 Phone: (573) 234-2132 Fax: (573) 234-2181

In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 03E14000-2020-SLI-1947 Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906 Project Name: Lee's Summit Municipal Airport

April 17, 2020

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: This response has been generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system to provide information on natural resources that could be affected by your project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides this response under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). Threatened and Endangered Species The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirement for obtaining a Technical Assistance Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

Consultation Technical Assistance Refer to the Midwest Region S7 Technical Assistance website for step-by-step instructions for making species determinations and for specific guidance on the following types of projects: projects in developed areas, HUD, pipelines, buried utilities, telecommunications, and requests for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. Federally Listed Bat Species Indiana bats, gray bats, and northern long-eared bats occur throughout Missouri and the information below may help in determining if your project may affect these species. Gray bats - Gray bats roost in caves or mines year-round and use water features and forested riparian corridors for foraging and travel. If your project will impact caves, mines, associated riparian areas, or will involve tree removal around these features particularly within stream corridors, riparian areas, or associated upland woodlots gray bats could be affected. Indiana and northern long-eared bats - These species hibernate in caves or mines only during the winter. In Missouri the hibernation season is considered to be November 1 to March 31. During the active season in Missouri (April 1 to October 31) they roost in forest and woodland habitats. Suitable summer habitat for Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags 5 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) for Indiana bat, and 3 inches dbh for northern long-eared bat, that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or hollows), as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Tree species often include, but are not limited to, shellbark or shagbark hickory, white oak, cottonwood, and maple. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when they exhibit the characteristics of a potential roost tree and are located within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of other forested/wooded habitat. Northern long-eared bats have also been observed roosting in human-made structures, such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses; therefore, these structures should also be considered potential summer habitat and evaluated for use by bats. If your project will impact caves or mines or will involve clearing forest or woodland habitat containing suitable roosting habitat, Indiana bats or northern long-eared bats could be affected. Examples of unsuitable habitat include: ▪ Individual trees that are greater than 1,000 feet from forested or wooded areas; ▪ Trees found in highly-developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas); ▪ A pure stand of less than 3-inch dbh trees that are not mixed with larger trees; and ▪ A stand of eastern red cedar shrubby vegetation with no potential roost trees.

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

Using the IPaC Official Species List to Make No Effect and May Affect Determinations for Listed Species 1. If IPaC returns a result of “There are no listed species found within the vicinity of the project,” then project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on any federally listed species under Service jurisdiction. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records. An example "No Effect" document also can be found on the S7 Technical Assistance website. 2. If IPaC returns one or more federally listed, proposed, or candidate species as potentially present in the action area of the proposed project other than bats (see #3 below) then project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect those species. For assistance in determining if suitable habitat for listed, candidate, or proposed species occurs within your project area or if species may be affected by project activities, you can obtain Life History Information for Listed and Candidate Species through the S7 Technical Assistance website. 3. If IPac returns a result that one or more federally listed bat species (Indiana bat, northern longeared bat, or gray bat) are potentially present in the action area of the proposed project, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect these bat species IF one or more of the following activities are proposed: a. Clearing or disturbing suitable roosting habitat, as defined above, at any time of year; b. Any activity in or near the entrance to a cave or mine; c. Mining, deep excavation, or underground work within 0.25 miles of a cave or mine; d. Construction of one or more wind turbines; or e. Demolition or reconstruction of human-made structures that are known to be used by bats based on observations of roosting bats, bats emerging at dusk, or guano deposits or stains. If none of the above activities are proposed, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on listed bat species. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records. An example "No Effect" document also can be found on the S7 Technical Assistance website. If any of the above activities are proposed in areas where one or more bat species may be present, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect one or more bat species. We recommend coordinating with the Service as early as possible during project planning. If your project will involve removal of over 5 acres of suitable forest or woodland habitat, we recommend you complete a Summer Habitat Assessment prior to contacting our office to expedite the consultation process. The Summer Habitat Assessment Form is available in Appendix A of the most recent version of the Range-wide Indiana Bat Summer Survey Guidelines. Other Trust Resources and Activities

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

Bald and Golden Eagles - Although the bald eagle has been removed from the endangered species list, this species and the golden eagle are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should bald or golden eagles occur within or near the project area please contact our office for further coordination. For communication and wind energy projects, please refer to additional guidelines below. Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Service. The Service has the responsibility under the MBTA to proactively prevent the mortality of migratory birds whenever possible and we encourage implementation of recommendations that minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Such measures include clearing forested habitat outside the nesting season (generally March 1 to August 31) or conducting nest surveys prior to clearing to avoid injury to eggs or nestlings. Communication Towers - Construction of new communications towers (including radio, television, cellular, and microwave) creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. However, the Service has developed voluntary guidelines for minimizing impacts. Transmission Lines - Migratory birds, especially large species with long wingspans, heavy bodies, and poor maneuverability can also collide with power lines. In addition, mortality can occur when birds, particularly hawks, eagles, kites, falcons, and owls, attempt to perch on uninsulated or unguarded power poles. To minimize these risks, please refer to guidelines developed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and the Service. Implementation of these measures is especially important along sections of lines adjacent to wetlands or other areas that support large numbers of raptors and migratory birds. Wind Energy - To minimize impacts to migratory birds and bats, wind energy projects should follow the Service's Wind Energy Guidelines. In addition, please refer to the Service's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, which provides guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and operating wind energy facilities. Next Steps Should you determine that project activities may affect any federally listed species or trust resources described herein, please contact our office for further coordination. Letters with requests for consultation or correspondence about your project should include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header. Electronic submission is preferred. If you have not already done so, please contact the Missouri Department of Conservation (Policy Coordination, P. O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65102) for information concerning Missouri Natural Communities and Species of Conservation Concern. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please feel free to contact our office with questions or for additional information.

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

Karen Herrington Attachment(s): ▪ Official Species List ▪ USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries ▪ Wetlands

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Missouri Ecological Services Field Office 101 Park Deville Drive Suite A Columbia, MO 65203-0057 (573) 234-2132

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

Project Summary Consultation Code: 03E14000-2020-SLI-1947 Event Code:

03E14000-2020-E-04906

Project Name:

Lee's Summit Municipal Airport

Project Type:

Guidance

Project Description: Master Plan Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/38.95723872333616N94.3738087877812W

Counties: Jackson, MO

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

Mammals NAME

STATUS

Gray Bat Myotis grisescens

Endangered

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis

Endangered

There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949

Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis

Threatened

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045

Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lands And Fish Hatcheries Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

Wetlands Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND

▪ Palustrine RIVERINE

▪ Riverine

Missouri Department of Conservation Missouri Department of Conservation’s Mission is to protect and manage the forest, fish, and wildlife resources of the state and to facilitate and provide opportunities for all citizens to use, enjoy and learn about these resources.

Natural Heritage Review Level Two Report: State Listed Endangered Species and/or Missouri Species/Natural Communities of Conservation Concern There are records for state-listed Endangered Species, or Missouri Species or Natural Communities of Conservation Concern within or near the defined Project Area. Please contact Missouri Department of Conservation for further coordination. Foreword: Thank you for accessing the Missouri Natural Heritage Review Website developed by the Missouri Department of Conservation with assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri Department of Transportation and NatureServe. The purpose of this website is to provide information to federal, state and local agencies, organizations, municipalities, corporations and consultants regarding sensitive fish, wildlife, plants, natural communities and habitats to assist in planning, designing and permitting stages of projects.

PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name and ID Number: Lee's Summit Municipal Airport #7505 Project Description: Supplementary information Project Type: Residential, Commercial and Governmental Building Development Contact Person: Katy Moran Contact Information: katy@plan.design or 3257571001

Missouri Department of Conservation

Page 1 of 5

Report Created: 5/19/2020 03:16:26 PM

Disclaimer: The NATURAL HERITAGE REVIEW REPORT produced by this website identifies if a species tracked by the Natural Heritage Program is known to occur within or near the area submitted for your project, and shares suggested recommendations on ways to avoid or minimize project impacts to sensitive species or special habitats. If an occurrence record is present, or the proposed project might affect federally listed species, the user must contact the Department of Conservation or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for more information. The Natural Heritage Program tracks occurrences of sensitive species and natural communities where the species or natural community has been found. Lack of an occurrence record does not mean that a sensitive plant, animal or natural community is not present on or near the project area. Depending on the project, current habitat conditions, and geographic location in the state, surveys may be necessary. Additionally, because land use conditions change and animals move, the existence of an occurrence record does not mean the species/habitat is still present. Therefore, Reports include information about records near but not necessarily on the project site. The Natural Heritage Report is not a site clearance letter for the project. It provides an indication of whether or not public lands and sensitive resources are known to be (or are likely to be) located close to the proposed project. Incorporating information from the Natural Heritage Program into project plans is an important step that can help reduce unnecessary impacts to Missouri's sensitive fish, forest and wildlife resources. However, the Natural Heritage Program is only one reference that should be used to evaluate potential adverse project impacts. Other types of information, such as wetland and soils maps and on-site inspections or surveys, should be considered. Reviewing current landscape and habitat information, and species' biological characteristics would additionally ensure that Missouri Species of Conservation Concern are appropriately identified and addressed in planning efforts. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Endangered Species Act (ESA) Coordination: Lack of a Natural Heritage Program occurrence record for federally listed species in your project area does not mean the species is not present, as the area may never have been surveyed. Presence of a Natural Heritage Program occurrence record does not mean the project will result in negative impacts. The information within this report is not intended to replace Endangered Species Act consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for listed species. Direct contact with the USFWS may be necessary to complete consultation and it is required for actions with a federal connection, such as federal funding or a federal permit; direct contact is also required if ESA concurrence is necessary. Visit the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) website at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ for further information. This site was developed to help streamline the USFWS environmental review process and is a first step in ESA coordination. The Columbia Missouri Ecological Field Services Office may be reached at 573-234-2132, or by mail at 101 Park Deville Drive, Suite A, Columbia, MO 65203. Transportation Projects: If the project involves the use of Federal Highway Administration transportation funds, these recommendations may not fulfill all contract requirements. Please contact the Missouri Department of Transportation at 573-526-4778 or www.modot.mo.gov/ehp/index.htm for additional information on recommendations.

Missouri Department of Conservation

Page 2 of 5

Report Created: 5/19/2020 03:16:26 PM

Missouri Department of Conservation

Page 3 of 5

Report Created: 5/19/2020 03:16:26 PM

Species or Communities of Conservation Concern within the Area: There are records for state-listed Endangered Species, or Missouri Species or Natural Communities of Conservation Concern within or near the defined Project Area. Please contact the Missouri Department of Conservation for further coordination. MDC Natural Heritage Review Resource Science Division P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180 Phone: 573-522-4115 ext. 3182 NaturalHeritageReview@mdc.mo.gov

Other Special Search Results: No results have been identified for this project location. Project Type Recommendations: New construction, maintenance and remodeling, including government, commercial and residential buildings and other structures. Fish, forest, and wildlife impacts can be avoided by siting projects in locations that have already been disturbed or previously developed, where and when feasible, and by avoiding alteration of areas providing existing habitat, such as wetlands, streams, forest, native grassland, etc. The project should be managed to minimize erosion and sedimentation/runoff to nearby wetlands, streams and lakes, including adherence to any “Clean Water Act Permit” conditions. Project design should include stormwater management elements that assure storm discharge rates to streams for heavy rain events will not increase from present levels. Revegetate areas in which the natural cover is disturbed to minimize erosion using native plant species compatible with the local landscape and wildlife needs. Annual ryegrass may be combined with native perennials for quicker green-up. Avoid aggressive exotic perennials such as crownvetch and sericea lespedeza. Pollutants, including sediment, can have significant impacts far downstream. Use silt fences and/or vegetative filter strips to buffer streams and drainages, and monitor the site after rain events and until a well-rooted ground cover is reestablished. Project Location and/or Species Recommendations: Endangered Species Act Coordination - Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis, federal- and state-listed endangered) and Northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis, federal-listed threatened) may occur near the project area. Both of these species of bats hibernate during winter months in caves and mines. During the summer months, they roost and raise young under the bark of trees in wooded areas, often riparian forests and upland forests near perennial streams. During project activities, avoid degrading stream quality and where possible leave snags standing and preserve mature forest canopy. Do not enter caves known to harbor Indiana bats or Northern long-eared bats, especially from September to April. If any trees need to be removed for your project, please contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ecological Services, 101 Park Deville Drive, Suite A, Columbia, Missouri 65203-0007; Phone 573-234-2132 ext. 100 for Ecological Services) for further coordination under the Endangered Species Act.

Missouri Department of Conservation

Page 4 of 5

Report Created: 5/19/2020 03:16:26 PM

Invasive exotic species are a significant issue for fish, wildlife and agriculture in Missouri. Seeds, eggs, and larvae may be moved to new sites on boats or construction equipment. Please inspect and clean equipment thoroughly before moving between project sites. See http://mdc.mo.gov//9633 for more information.

Remove any mud, soil, trash, plants or animals from equipment before leaving any water body or work area.

Drain water from boats and machinery that have operated in water, checking motor cavities, live-well, bilge and transom wells, tracks, buckets, and any other water reservoirs.

When possible, wash and rinse equipment thoroughly with hard spray or HOT water (?140° F, typically available at do-it-yourself car wash sites), and dry in the hot sun before using again.

Streams and Wetlands – Clean Water Act Permits: Streams and wetlands in the project area should be protected from activities that degrade habitat conditions. For example, soil erosion, water pollution, placement of fill, dredging, in-stream activities, and riparian corridor removal, can modify or diminish aquatic habitats. Streams and wetlands may be protected under the Clean Water Act and require a permit for any activities that result in fill or other modifications to the site. Conditions provided within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Clean Water Act Section 404 permit (http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryBranch.aspx ) and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issued Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/401/index.html), if required, should help minimize impacts to the aquatic organisms and aquatic habitat within the area. Depending on your project type, additional permits may be required by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, such as permits for stormwater, wastewater treatment facilities, and confined animal feeding operations. Visit http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/index.html for more information on DNR permits. Visit both the USACE and DNR for more information on Clean Water Act permitting. For further coordination with the Missouri Department of Conservation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, please see the contact information below. MDC Natural Heritage Review U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Science Division Ecological Service P.O. Box 180 101 Park Deville Drive Jefferson City, MO Suite A 65102-0180 Columbia, MO Phone: 573-522-4115 ext. 3182 65203-0007 NaturalHeritageReview@mdc.mo.gov Phone: 573-234-2132

Miscellaneous Information FEDERAL Concerns are species/habitats protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act and that have been known near enough to the project site to warrant consideration. For these, project managers must contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services (101 Park Deville Drive Suite A, Columbia, Missouri 65203-0007; Phone 573-234-2132; Fax 573-234-2181) for consultation. STATE Concerns are species/habitats known to exist near enough to the project site to warrant concern and that are protected under the Wildlife Code of Missouri (RSMo 3 CSR 1 0). "State Endangered Status" is determined by the Missouri Conservation Commission under constitutional authority, with requirements expressed in the Missouri Wildlife Code, rule 3CSR 1 0-4.111. Species tracked by the Natural Heritage Program have a "State Rank" which is a numeric rank of relative rarity. Species tracked by this program and all native Missouri wildlife are protected under rule 3CSR 10-4.110 General Provisions of the Wildlife Code. Additional information on Missouri's sensitive species may be found at http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/fieldguide/endangered-species . Detailed information about the animals and some plants mentioned may be accessed at http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/applications/mofwis/mofwis_search1.aspx . If you would like printed copies of best management practices cited as internet URLs, please contact the Missouri Department of Conservation.

Missouri Department of Conservation

Page 5 of 5

Report Created: 5/19/2020 03:16:26 PM

APPENDIX B SOIL SURVEY

United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for

Jackson County, Missouri

April 17, 2020

Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil

Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

380900

381200

381500

381800

382100

382400

4313900

4314200

4313600

4313900

4313300

4313600

4313000

4313300

4312700

4313000

4312400

4312700

4312100

4312400

4311800

4312100 4311800

38° 56' 48'' N

380600

380900

381200

381500

381800

Map Scale: 1:13,600 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Meters 1200 Feet 0 500 1000 2000 3000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84 0

200

400

800

382100

382400 94° 21' 25'' W

380300 94° 22' 52'' W

38° 56' 48'' N

38° 58' 18'' N

4314200

4314500

380600 38° 58' 18'' N

94° 21' 25'' W

94° 22' 52'' W

Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map

Custom Soil Resource Report

MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp

MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Spoil Area Stony Spot

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Very Stony Spot Wet Spot

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Other Special Line Features Water Features

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Major Roads Local Roads

Soil Survey Area: Jackson County, Missouri Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 16, 2019

Background Aerial Photography

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 16, 2019

Perennial Water Rock Outcrop

Sep 6, 2019—Nov

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

10024

Greenton-Urban land complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes

227.7

25.3%

10117

Sampsel silty clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

0.1

0.0%

10120

Sharpsburg silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

15.7

1.7%

10128

Sharpsburg-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes

3.6

0.4%

10132

Sibley silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

47.1

5.2%

10136

Sibley-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes

383.9

42.6%

10142

Snead-Rock outcrop complex, 5 to 14 percent slopes

1.6

0.2%

10180

Udarents-Urban land-Sampsel complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes

1.3

0.1%

30080

Greenton silty clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

220.3

24.4%

901.3

100.0%

Totals for Area of Interest

Custom Soil Resource Report management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12

Custom Soil Resource Report

Jackson County, Missouri 10024—Greenton-Urban land complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2qky4 Elevation: 800 to 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained Map Unit Composition Greenton and similar soils: 60 percent Urban land: 35 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Greenton Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex, concave Parent material: Loess over residuum weathered from limestone and shale Typical profile A - 0 to 16 inches: silty clay loam Bt1 - 16 to 26 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt2 - 26 to 80 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: About 16 inches to abrupt textural change Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 12 to 30 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Loess Upland Prairie (R109XY002MO) Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Across-slope shape: Convex, concave Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No

10117—Sampsel silty clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2qkzz Elevation: 600 to 900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained Map Unit Composition Sampsel and similar soils: 85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sampsel Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Convex, concave Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale Typical profile Ap - 0 to 13 inches: silty clay loam Bt - 13 to 80 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None

Custom Soil Resource Report Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: Interbedded Sedimentary Upland Savanna (R109XY010MO) Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

10120—Sharpsburg silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2yy7v Elevation: 1,000 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Sharpsburg and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sharpsburg Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loess Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam A - 6 to 16 inches: silty clay loam Bt1 - 16 to 22 inches: silty clay loam Bt2 - 22 to 46 inches: silty clay loam BC - 46 to 58 inches: silty clay loam C - 58 to 79 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr)

Custom Soil Resource Report Depth to water table: About 45 to 50 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Loess Upland Prairie (R109XY002MO) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Higginsville, eroded Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Ecological site: Loess Upland Prairie (R109XY002MO) Hydric soil rating: No Sibley Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Ecological site: Loess Upland Prairie (R109XY002MO) Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Sharpsburg Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess Typical profile A - 0 to 17 inches: silt loam Bt - 17 to 55 inches: silty clay loam C - 55 to 60 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 35 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 12.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Loess Upland Prairie (R109XY002MO) Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

10132—Sibley silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ql0d Elevation: 850 to 950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Sibley and similar soils: 95 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sibley Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess Typical profile Ap1 - 0 to 11 inches: silt loam Ap2 - 11 to 18 inches: silt loam Bt - 18 to 49 inches: silty clay loam C - 49 to 72 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: High (about 11.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Deep Loess Upland Prairie (R107BY002MO) Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation)

Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: No

10136—Sibley-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ql0j Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Sibley and similar soils: 60 percent Urban land: 35 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sibley Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess Typical profile A - 0 to 17 inches: silt loam Bt - 17 to 65 inches: silty clay loam C - 65 to 80 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: High (about 12.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Deep Loess Upland Prairie (R107BY002MO) Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Across-slope shape: Convex Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 11 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Interbedded Sedimentary Upland Savanna (R109XY010MO) Other vegetative classification: Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Rock Outcrop Setting Landform: Hillslopes Typical profile R - 0 to 80 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 14 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to lithic bedrock Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.60 in/hr) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Sampsel Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Concave Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

10180—Udarents-Urban land-Sampsel complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1n85h Elevation: 600 to 900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 43 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 57 degrees F Frost-free period: 175 to 220 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Udarents and similar soils: 41 percent Urban land: 39 percent Sampsel and similar soils: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Udarents Setting Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Mine spoil or earthy fill Typical profile C1 - 0 to 5 inches: silt loam C2 - 5 to 80 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.14 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Deep Loess Upland Prairie (R107BY002MO) Other vegetative classification: Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation)

Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Across-slope shape: Convex Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Description of Sampsel Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale Typical profile Ap - 0 to 13 inches: silty clay loam Bt - 13 to 80 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: Wet Footslope Prairie (R112XY041MO) Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

30080—Greenton silty clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2xjd9 Elevation: 640 to 1,120 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 57 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 209 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained Map Unit Composition Greenton and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Greenton Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess over residuum weathered from limestone and shale Typical profile Ap - 0 to 12 inches: silty clay loam Bt - 12 to 28 inches: silty clay 2Bt - 28 to 30 inches: silty clay 2C - 30 to 79 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 12 to 30 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e

Custom Soil Resource Report Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: Loess Upland Prairie (R109XY002MO) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Sampsel Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Ecological site: Loess Upland Prairie (R109XY002MO) Hydric soil rating: Yes

References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf

APPENDIX C HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

L e e 'sS u m m itM u n ic ip a lA irp o rt

A p ril 2 1 ,2 0 2 0

H a z a rd o u sW a s te(R C R A In fo )(c lu s te re d ) H a z a rd o u sW a s te(R C R A In fo )(s in g le )

1 :3 6 ,1 1 2

A irP o llu tio n(IC IS -A IR )(c lu s te re d ) A irP o llu tio n(IC IS -A IR )(s in g le )

0 .2 3

0 .3 8

0 .4 5 0 .7 5

0 .9m i 1 .5k m

S o u rc e s :E s ri,H E R E ,G a rm in ,In te rm a p ,in c re m e n tPC o rp .,G E B C O ,U S G S , F A O ,N P S ,N R C A N ,G e o B a s e , IG N ,K a d a s te rN L ,O rd n a n c eS u rv e y ,E s ri

APPENDIX D WETLANDS

KLXT Wetland

0.375

0.5

1:45,817 0.75

1.5 mi

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov

2 km

April 17, 2020

Wetlands

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Lake

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper

APPENDIX E FLOODPLAINS

94°22'31.01"W

39°0'13.34"N

784 FE E T

, % F

, % G

, %

87 9

, %

, % B

, %

, % D

, %

864 FE E T

891

90 9

912

FE E

881

,% % ,

FE E

, % % ,

, %

93 1

939 FE ET

ET 886 FE

E FE

, %

, % 7 93

, % 94°18'44.04"W

USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed April, 2019.

38°56'1.71"N

FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99

With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR

SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS

Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone X

Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone X

Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee See Notes. Zone X

OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD

Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D

NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Effective LOMRs

OTHER AREAS

SCALE

For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), available products associated with this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order products, or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood Map Service Center website at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can beordered or obtained directly from the website.

Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed above.

Map Projection: GCS, Geodetic Reference System 1980; Vertical Datum: NAVD88

For information about the specific vertical datum for elevation features, datum conversions, or vertical monuments used to create this map please see the Flood Insurance Study(FIS) Report for your community at https://msc.fema.gov

Basemap information shown on this FIRM was provided in digital format by USDA, Farm Service Agency (FSA). This information was derived from NAIP, dated April 11, 2018. This map was exported from FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) on 4/24/2020 10:52:40 AM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. For additional information, please see the Flood Hazard Mapping Updates Overview Fact Sheet at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/118418 This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards

JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL

For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP

1 inch = 1,000 feet

500 1,000

0 105 210

420

2,000

630

1:12,000

3,000

Meters 840

4,000 Feet

430

Panel Contains: COMMUNITY

JACKSON COUNTY MISSOURI CITY OF LEE'S SUMMIT MISSOURI

605

NUMBER 290492 290174

PANEL 0430 0430

Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer

GENERAL STRUCTURES

Levee, Dike, or Floodwall

B 8

OTHER FEATURES

NOTES TO USERS

20.2 17.5

Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature

Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)

Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary

MAP NUMBER

29095C0430G

EFFECTIVE DATE

01/20/2017

LEE’S SUMMIT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

APPENDIX G – STAKEHOLDER MEETING SUMMARY

APRIL 2021

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (MPU) Progress Meeting Meeting Summary Wednesday, January 6, 2021 3:00 pm Via Zoom Attendees Stakeholders: Phil Mall (BOAC Commissioner), Paula Derks (BOAC Commissioner), Mike McGraw (DSi), John Faulkenberry, Rick McDowell (LSEDC), Dr. Jeremy Bonnesen (UCM), Mark Reid (LPOA), Matt Baird (LS Chamber of Commerce), Brian Boehmer (MoDOT), Rob Binney (former Councilmember) Staff Support: Bob Hartnett (CofLS), Mike Anderson (CofLS), Sarah Shore (CofLS), John Ohrazda (CofLS), Joel Arrington (CofLS), Christal Weber (CofLS), Ryan Elam (CofLS), Mike Weisenborn (CofLS), Cheryl Nash (CofLS), Cindy DeShazo (CofLS) Consultants: Andy Bodine (CMT), Seth Wiedemann (RAW), Esteban Aguirre (CMT) The facilitator, Andy Bodine with Crawford, Murphy & Tilly (CMT), began at 3:00 pm with a quick re-introduction of attendees as well as the agenda. Andy gave a brief review of demand projections which were submitted to the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) for coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) central region in September 2020. CMT received comments from the FAA in November, 2020. Responses were provided to the FAA and MoDOT in November 2020 and a formal response or approval is still outstanding. However, given the nature of the comments, the team felt comfortable moving forward with Facilities Requirements and Alternatives. The demand projections and facilities requirements directly inform the alternatives and that is the purpose of discussion in this meeting. Mr. Bodine shared a powerpoint of major airspace surfaces and noise contours, and safety areas, for LXT. These surfaces are used to note areas of potential development and the Master Plan team is currently working with Ryan Elam, Director of Development Services for the City of Lee’s Summit, to coordinate these areas with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Potential development areas have been identified on the east and north side of airport property. A sliver of land just adjacent to airport property off of Hagan and Strother Road is also tagged as potential development area. Additional development areas were identified south of Runway 11/29 on Airport Property as well as one vacant parcel south of Hangar 1. Mr. Bodine shared four alternatives for potential development of land use, and explained developments that would be shown in a consistent manner across each alternative. Potential development on the east side could

consist of a Hangar 3, an Administration building or airport terminal, a 15,000 square foot flight school, an electric aircraft hangar, a restaurant and a self-service fuel station. Aircraft based onsite, as well as airport users, is projected to increase as people do more and more business in Lee’s Summit and the Kansas City area. Mr. Binney suggested co-locating the restaurant with the airport Administration building. This could help ease the burden on any potential restaurant owner. Mr. McGraw asked about total square footage of corporate sites. Mr. Bodine stated that 51,000 square feet of corporate hangar space is the potential, to include four hangars of 160 X 80, or 12,800 sq. ft. per hangar. Mr. McGraw asked about lessees building the hangar space and then having a grounds lease. Mr. McGraw was surprised to see only 4 corporate hangars. Mr. Bodine noted there could potentially be more, depending on the demand that is actually realized. Mr. McGraw noted box versus corporate hangars, and asked as to the reasoning here. Mr. Bodine responded this projection stems from an airport user or tenant response - box hangars are more in demand than T-hangar spaces. Joel Arrington, Assistant Airport Manager, noted box hangars on the south side could be utilized for single corporate aircraft. Mr. McDowell noted he would like to see certified sites available at the airport, and suggested that a discussion of certification of non-aeronautical sites be included in the alternatives. Mr. Bodine thanked Mr. McDowell for this information, and Mr. McDowell provided additional information and clarity on the requirements for a MoDOT certified development site. Ryan Elam inquired as to vacant land by Hagan Road. Mr. Bodine stated this is potential areas for parking lots, a playground for the public, public sidewalks, a park and landscaping. Mr. Elam inquired as to whether or not there may be commercial development potential in the area between Hagan Road and the proposed parking lots. Mr. Elam asked for clarification regarding the separation of the public from the operational airside, and Mr. Bodine stated fencing would run from building to building as well as the perimeter. Mr. Reid noted he likes the outdoor space planned for a restaurant, for the public to observe flights, and the airport atmosphere. Mr. McGraw inquired as to what the reasoning was for the planned flight school being separated from the rest of the certified pilots. Mr. Bodine replied as to the rationale being that seasoned pilots desire to be set apart from new pilots, pilot etiquette issues. Mr. McGraw added his observation, being he has sixty plus years of flight experience, that he prefers integrating student pilots with certified pilots and would like to see the City take that route. Dr. Faulkenberry concurred stating flight instructors are with students, or instruct students of airport/pilot expectations. Mr. Mall noted that he prefers Option #2, also concurring with observations of integrating the flight school with other proposed aeronautical developments. Mr. Mall prefers a tower to be located on the west side, near Hangar One. Dr. Bonnesen also would like to see students immersing with the Airport staff and pilots. Mr. Elam noted the east side parking lots are more inviting for additional attractions and a restaurant development area. Mr. Arrington noted that a terminal building, restaurant, flight schools and the FBO need to be in one general area in order to provide the most benefit to all users. This seems to be the general interest of the group. Mr.

Binney asked if a terminal building is the next phase. Mr. Bodine stated that alternatives will be the driving force for the CIP, with a terminal building and utility corridor targeted for the east side development area. Mr. Bodine thanked everyone for their time and participation. Ms. Derks asked if the group could meet in person in the future. Mr. Hartnett stated as much as Staff would prefer to meet in person, the City has to follow guidelines set by the Fire Chief as well as Jackson County. Mr. Hartnett and the consultants hope to wrap up soon and present the Master and Business Plan to City Council soon. The virtual meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

LEE’S SUMMIT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

APPENDIX H – USDA SOIL SURVEY

APRIL 2021

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Custom Soil Resource Report for

Jackson County, Missouri

February 5, 2021

Contents Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................ 12 Jackson County, Missouri............................................................................... 14 10000—Arisburg silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes........................................14 10024—Greenton-Urban land complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes................... 15 10082—Arisburg-Urban land complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes.....................17 10116—Sampsel silty clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes.............................. 18 10117—Sampsel silty clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes.............................. 19 10120—Sharpsburg silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes...................................20 10122—Sharpsburg silt loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded..................... 22 10128—Sharpsburg-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes................23 10132—Sibley silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes........................................... 24 10136—Sibley-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes........................ 25 10142—Snead-Rock outcrop complex, 5 to 14 percent slopes.................. 27 10143—Snead-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes......................28 10179—Udarents-Urban land-Oska complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes.......... 30 10180—Udarents-Urban land-Sampsel complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes.... 32 10181—Udarents-Urban land-Sampsel complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes.... 34 10183—Udarents-Urban land-Polo complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes........... 36 30080—Greenton silty clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes............................. 38 30180—Polo silt loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded.................................39 Soil Information for Urban Uses......................................................................... 41 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use....................................................................41 Land Classifications........................................................................................ 41 Farmland Classification (Lee's Summit)...................................................... 41 References............................................................................................................48

Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

378600

379400

380200

381000

381800

94° 20' 34'' W

94° 24' 15'' W

Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 382600

383400 38° 58' 53'' N

4308900

4309700

4310500

4311300

4312100

4312900

4313700

4314500

4315300

38° 58' 53'' N

38° 55' 5'' N

379400

380200

381000

381800

Map Scale: 1:34,300 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Meters 3000 Feet 0 1500 3000 6000 9000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84 0

500

1000

2000

382600

383400 94° 20' 34'' W

94° 24' 15'' W

378600

Custom Soil Resource Report

MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Survey Areas Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp

MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Sodic Spot Spoil Area

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Stony Spot Very Stony Spot

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Wet Spot Other Special Line Features

Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

US Routes Major Roads

Soil Survey Area: Jackson County, Missouri Survey Area Data: Version 22, May 29, 2020

Local Roads Background

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Aerial Photography

Mine or Quarry

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 16, 2019

Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water

Sep 6, 2019—Nov

Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

10000

Arisburg silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes

10024

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI 1.2

0.0%

Greenton-Urban land complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes

371.9

13.5%

10082

Arisburg-Urban land complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes

460.3

16.7%

10116

Sampsel silty clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

60.3

2.2%

10117

Sampsel silty clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

60.7

2.2%

10120

Sharpsburg silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

37.0

1.3%

10122

Sharpsburg silt loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded

0.2

0.0%

10128

Sharpsburg-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes

239.5

8.7%

10132

Sibley silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

198.3

7.2%

10136

Sibley-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes

456.8

16.6%

10142

Snead-Rock outcrop complex, 5 to 14 percent slopes

116.9

4.2%

10143

Snead-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes

26.1

0.9%

10179

Udarents-Urban land-Oska complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes

9.1

0.3%

10180

Udarents-Urban land-Sampsel complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes

181.2

6.6%

10181

Udarents-Urban land-Sampsel complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes

52.3

1.9%

10183

Udarents-Urban land-Polo complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes

0.1

0.0%

30080

Greenton silty clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

469.9

17.0%

30180

Polo silt loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded

15.6

0.6%

2,757.2

100.0%

Totals for Area of Interest

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas

Custom Soil Resource Report shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report

Jackson County, Missouri 10000—Arisburg silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2w22b Elevation: 610 to 1,130 feet Mean annual precipitation: 39 to 43 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Arisburg and similar soils: 87 percent Minor components: 13 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Arisburg Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam A - 6 to 13 inches: silt loam Bt - 13 to 19 inches: silty clay loam Btg - 19 to 56 inches: silty clay loam BCg - 56 to 79 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 30 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 11.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R107BY007MO - Loess Upland Prairie Amorpha canescens/ Andropogon gerardii-Zizia aurea Leadplant/Big Bluestem-Golden Zizia Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

Minor Components Greenton Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Hydric soil rating: No Sharpsburg Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Ridges Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Hydric soil rating: No Haig Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flats Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Convex Ecological site: R109XY001MO - Claypan Summit Prairie Hydric soil rating: Yes

10024—Greenton-Urban land complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2qky4 Elevation: 800 to 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained Map Unit Composition Greenton and similar soils: 60 percent Urban land: 35 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Greenton Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex, concave Parent material: Loess over residuum weathered from limestone and shale Typical profile A - 0 to 16 inches: silty clay loam Bt1 - 16 to 26 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt2 - 26 to 80 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 12 to 30 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 3.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Across-slope shape: Convex, concave Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

10082—Arisburg-Urban land complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2w7ld Elevation: 750 to 1,130 feet Mean annual precipitation: 39 to 45 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Arisburg and similar soils: 61 percent Urban land: 30 percent Minor components: 9 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Arisburg Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam A - 6 to 13 inches: silt loam Bt - 13 to 19 inches: silty clay loam Btg - 19 to 56 inches: silty clay loam BCg - 56 to 79 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 30 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 11.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C

Custom Soil Resource Report Ecological site: R107BY007MO - Loess Upland Prairie Amorpha canescens/ Andropogon gerardii-Zizia aurea Leadplant/Big Bluestem-Golden Zizia Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Sampsel Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Concave Ecological site: R109XY010MO - Interbedded Sedimentary Upland Savanna Hydric soil rating: Yes Greenton Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Hydric soil rating: No Sharpsburg Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Ridges Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Hydric soil rating: No

10116—Sampsel silty clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2qkzy Elevation: 600 to 900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F

Custom Soil Resource Report Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained Map Unit Composition Sampsel and similar soils: 95 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sampsel Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Convex, concave Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale Typical profile Ap - 0 to 11 inches: silty clay loam Bt - 11 to 80 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: R109XY010MO - Interbedded Sedimentary Upland Savanna Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Composition Sampsel and similar soils: 85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sampsel Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Convex, concave Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale Typical profile Ap - 0 to 13 inches: silty clay loam Bt - 13 to 80 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: R109XY010MO - Interbedded Sedimentary Upland Savanna Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sharpsburg Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loess Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam A - 6 to 16 inches: silty clay loam Bt1 - 16 to 22 inches: silty clay loam Bt2 - 22 to 46 inches: silty clay loam BC - 46 to 58 inches: silty clay loam C - 58 to 79 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 45 to 50 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Higginsville, eroded Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Hydric soil rating: No Sibley Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit

Custom Soil Resource Report Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Hydric soil rating: No

10122—Sharpsburg silt loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2yy7x Elevation: 1,000 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Sharpsburg, eroded, and similar soils: 95 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sharpsburg, Eroded Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loess Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: silt loam A - 6 to 8 inches: silty clay loam Bt1 - 8 to 18 inches: silty clay loam Bt2 - 18 to 46 inches: silty clay loam BC - 46 to 58 inches: silty clay loam C - 58 to 79 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 45 to 50 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)

Custom Soil Resource Report Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R107BY007MO - Loess Upland Prairie Amorpha canescens/ Andropogon gerardii-Zizia aurea Leadplant/Big Bluestem-Golden Zizia Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Higginsville, eroded Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Hydric soil rating: No

10128—Sharpsburg-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ql09 Elevation: 1,000 to 1,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Sharpsburg and similar soils: 60 percent Urban land: 35 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sharpsburg Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess Typical profile A - 0 to 17 inches: silt loam Bt - 17 to 55 inches: silty clay loam C - 55 to 60 inches: silty clay loam

Custom Soil Resource Report

Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 35 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very high (about 12.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Sibley Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess Typical profile Ap1 - 0 to 11 inches: silt loam Ap2 - 11 to 18 inches: silt loam Bt - 18 to 49 inches: silty clay loam C - 49 to 72 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 11.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R107BY002MO - Deep Loess Upland Prairie Amorpha canescens/Schizachyrium scoparium-Sporobolus heterolepis Leadplant/Little Bluestem-Prairie Dropseed Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

10136—Sibley-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ql0j Elevation: 720 to 1,080 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Sibley and similar soils: 60 percent

Custom Soil Resource Report Urban land: 35 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sibley Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess Typical profile A - 0 to 17 inches: silt loam Bt - 17 to 65 inches: silty clay loam C - 65 to 80 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 12.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R107BY002MO - Deep Loess Upland Prairie Amorpha canescens/Schizachyrium scoparium-Sporobolus heterolepis Leadplant/Little Bluestem-Prairie Dropseed Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Across-slope shape: Convex Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

10142—Snead-Rock outcrop complex, 5 to 14 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ql0q Elevation: 600 to 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Snead and similar soils: 80 percent Rock outcrop: 10 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Snead Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from calcareous shale Typical profile Ap - 0 to 5 inches: silty clay loam Bw - 5 to 24 inches: silty clay loam Cr - 24 to 80 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 14 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 11 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R109XY010MO - Interbedded Sedimentary Upland Savanna

Custom Soil Resource Report Other vegetative classification: Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Rock Outcrop Setting Landform: Hillslopes Typical profile R - 0 to 80 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 14 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to lithic bedrock Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.60 in/hr) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Sampsel Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Concave Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

10143—Snead-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ql0r Elevation: 700 to 900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 220 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Snead and similar soils: 65 percent Urban land: 25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Snead Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from calcareous shale Typical profile A - 0 to 12 inches: flaggy silty clay loam Bw - 12 to 40 inches: silty clay Cr - 40 to 80 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 9 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 39 to 50 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 5.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R109XY012MO - Interbedded Sedimentary Backslope Savanna Other vegetative classification: Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

10179—Udarents-Urban land-Oska complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1n85j Elevation: 700 to 1,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 43 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 57 degrees F Frost-free period: 175 to 220 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Udarents and similar soils: 41 percent Urban land: 39 percent Oska and similar soils: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Udarents Setting Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Mine spoil or earthy fill Typical profile C1 - 0 to 5 inches: silt loam C2 - 5 to 80 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.14 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R107BY002MO - Deep Loess Upland Prairie Amorpha canescens/Schizachyrium scoparium-Sporobolus heterolepis Leadplant/Little Bluestem-Prairie Dropseed Other vegetative classification: Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation)

Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Ridges Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Across-slope shape: Convex Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Description of Oska Setting Landform: Ridges Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: silty clay loam Bt - 7 to 34 inches: silty clay loam R - 34 to 80 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 5.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R106XY015KS - Loamy Upland (PE 30-37) Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

10180—Udarents-Urban land-Sampsel complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1n85h Elevation: 600 to 900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 43 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 57 degrees F Frost-free period: 175 to 220 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Udarents and similar soils: 41 percent Urban land: 39 percent Sampsel and similar soils: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Udarents Setting Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Mine spoil or earthy fill Typical profile C1 - 0 to 5 inches: silt loam C2 - 5 to 80 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.14 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R107BY002MO - Deep Loess Upland Prairie Amorpha canescens/Schizachyrium scoparium-Sporobolus heterolepis Leadplant/Little Bluestem-Prairie Dropseed

Custom Soil Resource Report Other vegetative classification: Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Across-slope shape: Convex Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Description of Sampsel Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale Typical profile Ap - 0 to 13 inches: silty clay loam Bt - 13 to 80 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: R109XY010MO - Interbedded Sedimentary Upland Savanna Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

10181—Udarents-Urban land-Sampsel complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1n85g Elevation: 600 to 900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 43 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 57 degrees F Frost-free period: 175 to 220 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Udarents and similar soils: 41 percent Urban land: 39 percent Sampsel and similar soils: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Udarents Setting Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Mine spoil or earthy fill Typical profile C1 - 0 to 5 inches: silt loam C2 - 5 to 80 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.14 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R107BY002MO - Deep Loess Upland Prairie Amorpha canescens/Schizachyrium scoparium-Sporobolus heterolepis Leadplant/Little Bluestem-Prairie Dropseed

Custom Soil Resource Report Other vegetative classification: Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Across-slope shape: Convex Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Description of Sampsel Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale Typical profile Ap - 0 to 13 inches: silty clay loam Bt - 13 to 80 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: R109XY010MO - Interbedded Sedimentary Upland Savanna Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

10183—Udarents-Urban land-Polo complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1n85d Elevation: 600 to 1,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 57 degrees F Frost-free period: 175 to 220 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Udarents and similar soils: 41 percent Urban land: 39 percent Polo and similar soils: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Udarents Setting Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Mine spoil or earthy fill Typical profile C1 - 0 to 5 inches: silt loam C2 - 5 to 80 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.14 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R107BY002MO - Deep Loess Upland Prairie Amorpha canescens/Schizachyrium scoparium-Sporobolus heterolepis Leadplant/Little Bluestem-Prairie Dropseed

Custom Soil Resource Report Other vegetative classification: Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Across-slope shape: Convex Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Description of Polo Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave, convex Parent material: Loess over residuum Typical profile A - 0 to 12 inches: silt loam BA - 12 to 29 inches: silty clay loam Bt1 - 29 to 35 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt2 - 35 to 80 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R107BY007MO - Loess Upland Prairie Amorpha canescens/ Andropogon gerardii-Zizia aurea Leadplant/Big Bluestem-Golden Zizia Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No

Custom Soil Resource Report

30080—Greenton silty clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2xjd9 Elevation: 640 to 1,120 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 57 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 209 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained Map Unit Composition Greenton and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Greenton Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess over residuum weathered from limestone and shale Typical profile Ap - 0 to 12 inches: silty clay loam Bt - 12 to 28 inches: silty clay 2Bt - 28 to 30 inches: silty clay 2C - 30 to 79 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 12 to 30 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 9.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D

Custom Soil Resource Report Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Sampsel Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Ecological site: R109XY002MO - Loess Upland Prairie Hydric soil rating: Yes

30180—Polo silt loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2qnst Elevation: 600 to 1,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 41 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 177 to 209 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Polo and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Polo Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave, convex Parent material: Loess over residuum weathered from shale Typical profile A - 0 to 12 inches: silt loam BA - 12 to 29 inches: silty clay loam Bt - 29 to 35 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt - 35 to 80 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: High

Custom Soil Resource Report Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R107BY007MO - Loess Upland Prairie Amorpha canescens/ Andropogon gerardii-Zizia aurea Leadplant/Big Bluestem-Golden Zizia Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Sampsel Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex, concave Across-slope shape: Convex, concave Other vegetative classification: Grass/Prairie (Herbaceous Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: Yes

Soil Information for Urban Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation.

Land Classifications Land Classifications are specified land use and management groupings that are assigned to soil areas because combinations of soil have similar behavior for specified practices. Most are based on soil properties and other factors that directly influence the specific use of the soil. Example classifications include ecological site classification, farmland classification, irrigated and nonirrigated land capability classification, and hydric rating.

Farmland Classification (Lee's Summit) Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.

378600

379400

380200

381000

381800

94° 20' 34'' W

94° 24' 15'' W

Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Farmland Classification (Lee's Summit) 382600

383400 38° 58' 53'' N

4308900

4309700

4310500

4311300

4312100

4312900

4313700

4314500

4315300

38° 58' 53'' N

38° 55' 5'' N

379400

380200

381000

381800

Map Scale: 1:34,300 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Meters 3000 Feet 0 1500 3000 6000 9000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84 0

500

1000

2000

382600

383400 94° 20' 34'' W

94° 24' 15'' W

378600

Custom Soil Resource Report

MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Survey Areas Soil Rating Polygons Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated and drained

Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of statewide importance, if drained Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated

Farmland of statewide importance, if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and drained Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance, if drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough, and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough Farmland of statewide importance, if thawed Farmland of local importance Farmland of local importance, if irrigated

Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of unique importance Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Custom Soil Resource Report

Farmland of unique importance Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Prime farmland if irrigated

Farmland of statewide importance, if drained

Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Prime farmland if irrigated and drained

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated

Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Custom Soil Resource Report

Farmland of unique importance

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

Background Aerial Photography

Farmland of statewide importance, if thawed

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Jackson County, Missouri Survey Area Data: Version 22, May 29, 2020

Farmland of local importance

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Farmland of local importance, if irrigated

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 16, 2019

Sep 6, 2019—Nov

Custom Soil Resource Report

Table—Farmland Classification (Lee's Summit) Map unit symbol

Map unit name

Rating

10000

Arisburg silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes

All areas are prime farmland

10024

Greenton-Urban land complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes

10082

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI 1.2

0.0%

Prime farmland if drained

371.9

13.5%

Arisburg-Urban land complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes

All areas are prime farmland

460.3

16.7%

10116

Sampsel silty clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Prime farmland if drained

60.3

2.2%

10117

Sampsel silty clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Prime farmland if drained

60.7

2.2%

10120

Sharpsburg silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

All areas are prime farmland

37.0

1.3%

10122

Sharpsburg silt loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded

Farmland of statewide importance

0.2

0.0%

10128

Sharpsburg-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes

All areas are prime farmland

239.5

8.7%

10132

Sibley silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

All areas are prime farmland

198.3

7.2%

10136

Sibley-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes

All areas are prime farmland

456.8

16.6%

10142

Snead-Rock outcrop complex, 5 to 14 percent slopes

Not prime farmland

116.9

4.2%

10143

Snead-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes

Not prime farmland

26.1

0.9%

10179

Udarents-Urban landOska complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Farmland of statewide importance

9.1

0.3%

10180

Udarents-Urban landAll areas are prime Sampsel complex, 2 to farmland 5 percent slopes

181.2

6.6%

10181

Udarents-Urban landFarmland of statewide Sampsel complex, 5 to importance 9 percent slopes

52.3

1.9%

10183

Udarents-Urban landPolo complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Farmland of statewide importance

0.1

0.0%

30080

Greenton silty clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Prime farmland if drained

469.9

17.0%

30180

Polo silt loam, 5 to 9 Farmland of statewide percent slopes, eroded importance

15.6

0.6%

2,757.2

100.0%

Totals for Area of Interest

Custom Soil Resource Report

Rating Options—Farmland Classification (Lee's Summit) Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary Tie-break Rule: Lower

LEE’S SUMMIT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

APPENDIX I – UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFW) REPORT

APRIL 2021

In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 03E14000-2020-SLI-1947 Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906 Project Name: Lee's Summit Municipal Airport

April 17, 2020

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

Karen Herrington Attachment(s): ▪ Official Species List ▪ USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries ▪ Wetlands

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

Project Summary Consultation Code: 03E14000-2020-SLI-1947 Event Code:

03E14000-2020-E-04906

Project Name:

Lee's Summit Municipal Airport

Project Type:

Guidance

Project Description: Master Plan Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/38.95723872333616N94.3738087877812W

Counties: Jackson, MO

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

Mammals NAME

STATUS

Gray Bat Myotis grisescens

Endangered

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis

Endangered

There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949

Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis

Threatened

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045

Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

04/17/2020

Event Code: 03E14000-2020-E-04906

▪ Palustrine RIVERINE

▪ Riverine

LEE’S SUMMIT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

APPENDIX J – FLOODPLAINS

APRIL 2021

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

N a tio n a lF lo o dH a z a rdL a y e rF IR M e tte

L e g e n d

9 4 °2 2 '4 9 "W 3 8 °5 7 '5 5 "N

S E EF ISR E P O R TF O RD E T A IL E DL E G E N DA N DIN D E XM A PF O RF IR M P A N E LL A Y O U T

W ith o u tB a seF lo o dE le va tio n(B F E ) Z o n eA ,V ,A 9 9

O ,A H ,V E ,A R W ithB F Eo rD e p thZoneAE,A

S P E C IA LF L O O D H A Z A R DA R E A S

R e g u la to ryF lo o d w a y 0 .2 % A n n u a lC h a n ceF lo o dH a za rd ,A re a s o f1 % a n n u a lch a n ceflo o dw itha ve ra g e d e p thle ssth a no n efo o to rw ithd ra in a g e a re a so fle ssth a no n esq u a rem ileZoneX F u tu reC o n d itio n s1 % A n n u a l C h a n ceF lo o dH a za rdZoneX A re aw ithR e d u ce dF lo o dR iskd u eto L e ve e .S e eN o te s.ZoneX A re aw ithF lo o dR iskd u etoL e ve eZoneD

O T H E RA R E A SO F F L O O DH A Z A R D

re ao fM in im a lF lo o dH a za rd ZoneX N OS C R E E NA E ffe ctiveL O M R s

O T H E RA R E A S

A re ao fU n d e te rm in e dF lo o dH a za rdZoneD C h a n n e l,C u lve rt,o rS to rm S e w e r L e ve e ,D ik e ,o rF lo o d w a ll

G E N E R A L S T R U C T U R E S B

O T H E R F E A T U R E S

2 0 .2 1 7 .5

C ro ssS e ctio n sw ith1 % A n n u a lC h a n ce W a te rS u rfa ceE le va tio n C o a sta lT ra n se ct B a seF lo o dE le va tio nL in e(B F E ) L im ito fS tu d y Ju risd ictio nB o u n d a ry C o a sta lT ra n se ctB a se lin e P ro fileB a se lin e H yd ro g ra p h icF e a tu re D ig ita lD a taA va ila b le N oD ig ita lD a taA va ila b le

M A PP A N E L S

U n m a p p e d

T h ep ind isp la ye do nth em a pisa na p p ro xim a te p o in tse le cte db yth eu se ra n dd o e sn o tre p re se n t a na u th o rita tivep ro p e rtylo ca tio n . T h ism a pco m p lie sw ithF E M A 'ssta n d a rd sfo rth eu seo f d ig ita lflo o dm a p sifitisn o tvo ida sd e scrib e db e lo w . T h eb a se m a psh o w nco m p lie sw ithF E M A 'sb a se m a p a ccu ra cysta n d a rd s T h eflo o dh a za rdin fo rm a tio nisd e rive dd ire ctlyfro m th e a u th o rita tiveN F H Lw e bse rvice sp ro vid e db yF E M A .T h ism a p w a se xp o rte do n2 / 4 / 2 0 2 1a t4 :4 2P Ma n dd o e sn o t re fle ctch a n g e so ra m e n d m e n tssu b se q u e n ttoth isd a tea n d tim e .T h eN F H La n de ffe ctivein fo rm a tio nm a ych a n g eo r b e co m esu p e rse d e db yn e wd a tao ve rtim e .

2 5 0

5 0 0

1 ,0 0 0

1 ,5 0 0

F e e t 2 ,0 0 0

1 :6 ,0 0 0

9 4 °2 2 '1 2 "W 3 8 °5 7 '2 7 "N

B a se m a p :U S G SN a tio n a lM a p :O rth o im a g e ry:D a tare fre sh e dO c to b e r,2 0 2 0

T h ism a pim a g eisvo idifth eo n eo rm o reo fth efo llo w in gm a p e le m e n tsd on o ta p p e a r:b a se m a pim a g e ry,flo o dzo n ela b e ls, le g e n d ,sca leb a r,m a pcre a tio nd a te ,co m m u n ityid e n tifie rs, F IR M p a n e ln u m b e r,a n dF IR M e ffe ctived a te .M a pim a g e sfo r u n m a p p e da n du n m o d e rn ize da re a sca n n o tb eu se dfo r re g u la to ryp u rp o se s.

LEE’S SUMMIT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

APPENDIX K - WETLANDS

APRIL 2021

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

Lee's Summit Wetlands

0.25

0.4

1:29,134 0.5

1 mi

0.8

1.6 km

Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

February 9, 2021

Wetlands

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Lake

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Other

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper

LEE’S SUMMIT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

APPENDIX L – ECHO ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE REPORT

APRIL 2021

G165 41XÿY5Z 4 69ÿ017786 Y5Z 4 69ÿ<3 589 9::59;<ÿ=>><ÿ<?99 @ÿ; 0A50@ÿ BCDEÿF>ÿG5?H=;<ÿ<@Iÿ=>><ÿ<?99 @Iÿ95 JKLJKÿ M$1ÿ M )ÿ$ 4 % )ÿ1 ' ÿ2 ÿ//,,NO0-P/0,ÿ QR ÿ$ 4 ÿ,.ÿ S &( ÿNTUPV/.-ÿ S 4 &( ÿWP0UN.OOPÿ S ÿ2 ÿ1 & ÿM$1ÿ (&% ) ÿÿ ( ÿ & ) ÿ > 78Z1 1 6ÿ5 Xÿ:7 74 5 Z1ÿ<3 589 <656361

$ $

87ÿ[Dÿ\1588]

G561ÿ7 ÿ=586ÿ 871Z6 7

,V^-N^-,/N

:3881 6ÿ:7 74 5 Z1ÿ<65638

F7ÿ_ 7456 7 ÿ X1 6 1X

`688ÿa 66ÿF:ÿ[7 ÿEB]

`688ÿa 66ÿ< 2 Z5 6ÿ_ 7456 7

78 54ÿ> 78Z1 1 6ÿ;Z6 7 8ÿ[Dÿ91588]

Y78 54ÿ> 78Z1 1 6ÿ;Z6 7 8ÿ[Dÿ91588]

A1 546 18ÿ 87 ÿY78 54ÿ> 78Z1 1 6ÿ;Z6 7 8ÿ[Dÿ91588]

>A;ÿ:5818ÿ[Dÿ91588]

A1 546 18ÿ 87 ÿ>A;ÿ:5818ÿ[Dÿ91588]

0123456789ÿ 78 56 7

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ! " ÿ ÿ# ÿ ÿ # ÿ ÿ ! " ÿ $ % & ÿ % ' ÿ (ÿ$ ' )ÿ ÿ $ $ ÿ ' ÿ *+$,,,,-../0 ÿ 1 ! ÿ2 3 4ÿ# ÿ ÿ 12# ÿ ÿ ! " 56618ÿ0123456789ÿ0177868

012ÿ451661786ÿ98 8 72 ÿ 49 ÿ 7ÿ98 725 178ÿ 2 8 7 6 ÿ 6ÿ451661786ÿ ÿ 7ÿ98 725 178ÿ 7 1 ÿ 6 6ÿ 9 ÿ 7ÿ98 725 178ÿ 75 1 8 ÿ 8 ÿ451661786ÿ ÿ 72 18!ÿ98 2 ÿ 4 9 ÿ 7ÿ98 725 178 M87N8ÿ ÿG27F 56

"#$%&%'()*(+',-ÿ/0#1#$',1%+'%$+ "#$%&%'()*(+',-ÿ/0#1#$',1%+'%$+ 6 5 Q

9 8 1 1 2 AA>>RSB?TAB>

098 7

<= >>>>?@@AB

O81 26 X

02 6

G 251 ÿ4 12 178ÿ

98 1 8ÿ 7 8 2

0 1 ÿ Yÿ

P 1 RCUTVA@?

P78!1 WTBUR@SST

"#$%&%'(ÿ;551,++ 6 5 Q

9 8 1 1 2 AA>>RSB?TAB>

Q 1 1 ÿ 5 < =<0 ÿP44 ÿ O<<9 ÿ09 G=

Q 1 1 ÿ0 2 66 ?@SAÿ 4ÿ=O P0 ÿ ZÿP44 ÿ O<<9 Zÿ<=ÿVB>VB

098 7

<= >>>>?@@AB

< =<0 ÿP44 ÿ O<<9 ÿ09 G=

?@SAÿ 4ÿ=O P0 ÿ ZÿP44 ÿ O<<9 Zÿ<=ÿVB>VBW??A>

"#$%&%'(ÿ*2/ÿ3*'#45#15ÿ2456+'1%#&ÿ/&#++%7%$#'%849ÿ/85,+ "#$%&%'(ÿ:;2/*ÿ3:81'0ÿ;-,1%$#4ÿ2456+'1( /&#++%7%$#'%84ÿ*(+',-9ÿ/85,+ 6 5 9 8 1 1 2 9 ÿ 7 9 ÿ 6 21 178 7ÿ ÿ2 72 6ÿ2 28

6 5 098 7

9 8 1 1 2 <= >>>>?@@AB

09 ÿ 7 BCAAA

09 ÿ 6 21 178 ÿ012ÿ 2 86 72 178

"#$%&%'(ÿD1%E,ÿ24781-#'%84 6 2 178ÿ 5

21F ÿ 5

4G0ÿ 21F ÿ9 7ÿ ÿ2 72 6ÿ2 28

16 8 ÿ 7ÿ 21F ÿ 51 6

[4781$,-,4'ÿ#45ÿ/8-J&%#4$, /8-J&%#4$,ÿ\84%'81%4]ÿK%+'81(ÿ3^ÿ(,#1+9

7 2 ÿ9

6 5

0 1 1 ÿ

75 1 8 ÿ<781 7218!ÿ 7ÿ ÿ2 72 6ÿ2 28

P ÿ0! 8

Q18 18!ÿ 1 ÿ 1 F

_àbcdeÿc̀ÿcaghcieÿgbdÿ̀jaÿijkàdlÿc̀ÿ_mnÿijophcgìdÿoj`cajbc̀qÿeabgadqcdeÿjbÿg``kghÿbdekhaer

/8-J&%#4$,ÿ*6--#1(ÿs#'# 0

7 2 ÿ9 <= >>>>?@@AB

22 8 ÿ ÿ 1!81 1 8 ÿ 78 75 1 8 tYGuÿ Y1! ÿG21721 ÿu17 178 7

D01,,HI,#1ÿ/8-J&%#4$,ÿK%+'81(ÿE(ÿL6#1',1

22 8 ÿ06ÿ= >?t>Vt?>?A

X 26ÿN1 ÿ ÿ 78 75 1 8 ÿ 7 ÿA? >

ÿP 6 ÿ 2 6 >?t>St?>?A

"#$#%#&'()*($+,')1--2%3#$&.#,/0)-$#0). 415ÿ7 415ÿ8 415ÿ9 415ÿ: 415ÿ; 415ÿ< 415ÿ= 415ÿ> 415ÿ? 415ÿ7@ 415ÿ77 415ÿ78A ÿ !34 ÿ0BC K @ 9 , 9 7 , 8 @ @ : , @ 7 K @ < , 9 @ , 8 @ @ = , @ 7 K @ ? , 9 @ , 8 @ 7 @ , @ 7 K 7 8 , 9 7 , 8 @ @ 7 , @7K@9,97,87 @ : , @ 7 K @ < , 9 @ , 7 > @ = , @ 7 K @ ? , 9 @ , 7 > 7 @ , @ 7 K 7 8 , 9 7 , 7 > @ 7 , @ 7 K @ 9 , 9 7 , 7 ? @ : , @ 7 K @ < , 9 @ , 7 ? @ = , @ 7 K @ ? , 9 @ , 7 ? 7 @ , @ 7 K 7 8 , 9 7 , 7 ? @ 7 , @ 7 DE FFFFGHHIJ O3 ÿ P 3 7 6

3 1 O3 ÿ P 3 7 6

3 1 O3 ÿP 376 31 O3 ÿ P 3 7 6

3 1 ÿ L6 7 MN 7ÿ! 6 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2

01234567ÿ91234 5 1 ÿ

31 ÿ ÿ 64 "#$#%#&

"2Q#&+

")%(R&ÿST

123&ÿ)UÿVR#0). Y)ÿX$#$ÿ(&R)(XQÿ(&#%(.&X

W&$XÿV*&.R2

T$#&

Z[\]^_`ÿ^[ÿ^\bc^d`ÿb]_ÿ[e\ÿdef[\_gÿb`ÿh^[ie]jbcÿ_[ie]d_j_[\ÿbd\^e[`hÿ^[ÿZklÿmec^d^_`ÿm_]\b^[^[nÿ\eÿ_[ie]d_j_[\ÿ]_`me[`_ÿ\eec̀o

L34567ÿ91234 5 1 ÿ

31 ÿ ÿ 64 "#$#%#& "2Q#&+ W$p,"&R#0). ")%(R&ÿST VR#0).ÿ123& q$Q&ÿY)r W&$XÿV*&.R2 q$Q&ÿY$+& SQQ%&X,s0-&XÿT$#& "&##-&+&.#Q,VR#0).Q "&##-&+&.#,VR#0).ÿT$#& s&X&($-ÿ'&.$-#2ÿVQQ&QQ&X Y)ÿX$#$ÿ(&R)(XQÿ(&#%(.&X

"#$#&,W)R$-ÿ'&.$-#2ÿVQQ&QQ&X "t'ÿq)Q# q)+3ÿVR#0).ÿq)Q#

91 4315 1 67ÿ 31 31 6 4 78KT0*0#ÿuvTÿwu$#&(Qx&Xÿv)%.X$(2ÿT$#$Q&#yÿz{q uvTÿwu$#&(Qx&Xÿv)%.X$(2ÿT$#$Q&#yÿ"%|p$#&(Qx&XÿY$+& "#$#&ÿu$#&(ÿv)X2ÿY$+&ÿwSqS"ÿwS.#&*($#&X v&$Rxÿq-)Q%(&Q v&$Rxÿq-)Q%(&Qÿu0#x0. ')--%#$.#Qÿ')#&.#0$--2 u$#&(Qx&Xÿp0#xÿt"Vÿwt.X$.*&(&Xÿ"3&R0&Q w5VTÿw5&$RxÿVXX(&QQÿT$#$|$Q&yy w5VTÿw5&$RxÿVXX(&QQÿT$#$|$Q&yy q)+3-0$.R&ÿS.U)(+$#0).ÿ"2Q#&+yy u0#x0.ÿW$Q#ÿ}&$( W$Q#ÿ1p)ÿ}&$(Q 5&-$#&Xÿ#)ÿS+3$0(+&.# VR#yK-0Q#&XÿV~%$#0Rÿ"3&R0&Q Y)ÿX$#$ÿ(&R)(XQÿ(&#%(.&X

ÿ 6 4 ÿL435ÿN6 ÿ! 6 ÿ! 5 31ÿ 0O! "#$#& 5&3)(#ÿq2R-&

VQQ&QQ+&.#ÿ{.0#ÿST

VQQ&QQ+&.#ÿ{.0#ÿY$+&

u$#&(ÿq).X0#0).

q$%Q&ÿ ()%3QÿS+3$0(&X Y)ÿX$#$ÿ(&R)(XQÿ(&#%(.&X

T(0. 0.*ÿu$#&(ÿ{Q&

V~%$#0RÿW0U&

s0Qxÿq).Q%+3#0).ÿ{Q&

5&R(&$#0).ÿ{Q&

#x&(ÿ{Q&

4ÿ 67 ÿO316

6 15 1 ÿ 4 6 ')--%#$.# ).&

u0#x0.ÿY).$##$0.+&.#ÿ"#$#%QÿV(&$ Y)

Y).$##$0.+&.#ÿ"#$#%QÿV33-0R$|-&ÿ"#$.X$(XwQy

u0#x0.ÿ $0.#&.$.R&ÿ"#$#%QÿV(&$ }&Q

W&$X

'$(#0R%-$#&ÿ $##&(

q$(|).ÿ ).) 0X&

"%-U%(ÿT0) 0X&

$0.#&.$.R&ÿ"#$#%QÿV33-0R$|-&ÿ"#$.X$(XwQy 7Kz)%(ÿ ).&ÿw7?=?y

377 61 3 ÿ 7 6 ÿ01 1 34 ÿ 34 ÿ32ÿ 34 ÿ 5 67 ÿ 7 6 ÿ 1ÿ 31 ÿ 4ÿ 64ÿ6 ÿ! 15Sÿs$R0-0#2ÿST }&$( 1)#$-ÿV0(ÿt+0QQ0).Q

"%(U$R&ÿu$#&(ÿT0QRx$(*&Q

UUK"0#&ÿ1($.QU&(Qÿ#)ÿ' 1uQÿw'%|-0R-2ÿ p.&Xÿ1(&$#+&.#ÿu)( Qy Y)ÿX$#$ÿ(&R)(XQÿ(&#%(.&X

{.X&(*()%.XÿS. &R#0).Q 5&-&$Q&Qÿ#)ÿW$.X

3 ÿ 7 6 ÿ01 1 34 ÿ 3 67ÿ 7 6 ÿ61 ÿ 461 2 4 ÿ 1ÿ 31 ÿ ÿ 5 67ÿ61 ÿ 64 qx&+0R$-ÿY$+& Y)ÿX$#$ÿ(&R)(XQÿ(&#%(.&X

1)#$-ÿ .KQ0#&ÿ5&-&$Q&Q

1)#$-ÿ UUKQ0#&ÿ1($.QU&(Q

W K X Y R ÿS M

01234005ÿ01ÿ789

U!"d".ÿ: @ ;ÿ".d -.@". !ÿq3 "ÿ%UV)ÿ .="5"3ÿ-?ÿUVD67UU/]ÿU 0r3ÿ3 "". .Eÿ --!ÿ?- ÿUVÿ -. " .3'ÿU 0ÿ3"3ÿ I"3" .="5"3ÿ -ÿ =". ?;ÿE"-E :I ÿ " 3ÿ I ÿ@ ;ÿH . ÿ? I" ÿ -.3 =" -.ÿ- ÿ . !;3 3ÿ?- ÿ:- ". !ÿUVÿ -. " .3'ÿ1I" .="5ÿd !"3ÿb"!-Hÿ "ÿ?- ÿ I"ÿ6".33ÿb!- 8ÿE -:ÿ .ÿHI Iÿ I"ÿ? ! ;ÿ 3ÿ!- "='ÿ/- "ÿ I ÿ3"ÿ-?ÿ I"3"ÿ .="5"3ÿ=-"3ÿ.- ="3 E. "ÿ .ÿ " ÿ 3ÿ .ÿsUVÿ -@@ . ;sÿ- ÿsUVÿ? ! ;'sÿUVD67UU/ÿ: -d ="3ÿ3 "". .Eÿ!"d"!ÿ .= - 3]ÿ.- ÿ =" " @ . -.ÿ-?ÿ I"ÿ"5 3 ". "ÿ- ÿ b3". "ÿ-?ÿUVÿ -. " .3'ÿt- ÿ@- "ÿ .?- @ -.]ÿ3""ÿ I"ÿUVD67UU/ÿI-@"ÿ: E"' 3 8 ÿ ÿ ÿ01ÿ789

ÿ 8 ! "ÿ$ " ÿ% $ÿ&'() +,-."ÿ/010ÿ2 "3"!ÿ $ /010ÿ0 ÿ1-5 3ÿ6 . " ÿ7 38 /010ÿ7"3: - ;ÿ< , =ÿ>.="5ÿ%<>) 1 ?? ÿ -5 @ ; B" =ÿ . ÿ>.= - D:" ?.=ÿ -5 @ ; 7 38ÿ$ . E"@". ÿ ! .ÿ%7$ )ÿ -5 @ ; < , =-3ÿG 3 "ÿ -5 @ ; G 3 "H " ÿ2 3 I E"ÿ -5 @ ;

5 KL ÿ Mÿ01ÿ789

ÿNL O ÿPQ RÿS 8

&*'& &4'& &9 &9'( &&'A CC'4 &&'( C&'F *&'F &J'4

T "HÿUVD67UU/ÿ7":-

W K X Y R ÿS M ÿ Mÿ2 89 8XÿN Yÿ Zÿ[

1I 3ÿ3" -.ÿ: -d ="3ÿ="@-E :I ÿ .?- @ -.ÿ "E = .Eÿ I"ÿ -@@ . ;ÿ3 -.= .Eÿ I"ÿ? ! ;'ÿU6<+ÿ -@:! . "ÿ= !-."ÿ "ÿ.- ÿ3?? ". ÿ -ÿ=" " @ ."ÿHI" I" ÿd -! -.3ÿ ÿ ÿ: ! ÿ? ! ;ÿI =ÿ."E d"ÿ @: 3ÿ-.ÿ:b! ÿI" ! Iÿ- ÿ I" ".d -.@". 'ÿD 3 3ÿ "ÿb 3"=ÿ:-.ÿ I"ÿ&949ÿa'D'ÿ6".33ÿ .=ÿ&99\f&949ÿ0@" .ÿ6-@@ . ;ÿD d";ÿ(fu" D@@ ;ÿ .=ÿ "ÿ "ÿ -ÿ I"ÿ"5 ". ÿ I ÿ I"ÿ? ! ;ÿ! ="ÿ .=ÿ!-.E ="ÿ! 3 "=ÿb"!-Hÿ "ÿ - " 'ÿU 0v3ÿ3: ! : - "33 .Eÿ@" I-=-!-E;ÿ -.3 =" 3ÿ I"ÿ-d" ! :ÿb" H"".ÿ I"ÿ3"!" "=ÿ = ÿ .=ÿ I"ÿ ".33ÿb!- 83ÿ%?- ÿa'D'ÿ6".33 ="@-E :I 3)ÿ .=ÿ ".33ÿb!- 8ÿE -:3ÿ%?- ÿ06Dÿ="@-E :I 3)ÿ .ÿ=" " @ . .Eÿ I"ÿ="@-E :I 3ÿ3 -.= .Eÿ I" ? ! ;'ÿt- ÿ@- "ÿ=" !ÿ b- ÿ I 3ÿ@" I-=-!-E;]ÿ3""ÿ I"ÿ2t7ÿ2 ÿ2 -. ;' 8 Y ÿ2 Y

1- !ÿ " 3-.3 -:! -.ÿ2".3 ; " ". ÿ$ .- ; <-3"I-!=3ÿ .ÿ0 " <-3 .Eÿa. 3ÿ .ÿ0 " <-3"I-!=3ÿ-.ÿ b! ÿ033 3 . " " 3-.3ÿc"!-Hÿ -d" ;ÿB"d"! X Y Re 7 = 3ÿ-?ÿD"!" "=ÿ0 " 6". " ÿB =" 6". " ÿB-.E =" B .=ÿ0 " G " ÿ0 " 78 K ÿ Y 9 g8ÿhÿi

R 9 ÿ j B"33ÿ I .ÿk4(]999 k4(]999ÿfÿk&(]999 k&(]999ÿfÿk(9]999 k(9]999ÿfÿkF(]999 l " " ÿ I .ÿkF(]999

&\]CA4 JJC^3_'@ ' 4J` 49]44* 49]A&( 4FA (]&AJ *ÿ@ ' *A'J\4F& fJC'*F((J J(` (` \FJÿ%\'\&`) A&\ÿ%A'9\`) &]4CAÿ%&9'J(`) 4]AFJÿ%4A'**`) C]F4Jÿ%C\'9*`)

NX ÿ Y 9 g8ÿhÿS 8 ÿ j 6I != ".ÿ(ÿ;" 3ÿ .=ÿ;-.E" $ .- 3ÿ4Fÿ;" 3ÿ .=ÿ;-.E" 0=! 3ÿ4Aÿ;" 3ÿ .=ÿ-!=" D". - 3ÿ\(ÿ;" 3ÿ .=ÿ-!=" 4Y ÿ Y 9 g8ÿhÿS 8 ÿ j GI " 0? .f0@" . < 3: . f+ E . 03 .^ ? ÿ>3! .=" 0@" .ÿ>.= . + I" ^$ ! ! 09 Y 8ÿm O ÿ S 8 ÿnoÿpÿ 9 ÿhÿS 8 ÿ j B"33ÿ I .ÿJ Iÿl =" J Iÿ I -EIÿ4& Iÿl =" < EIÿD I--!ÿ2 :!-@ D-@"ÿ6-!!"E"^&f;" c'D'^c'0'ÿ%c I"!- ÿ-?ÿD ". "^c I"!- ÿ-?ÿ0 3)ÿ- ÿ$- "

4]FFJÿ%F`) F]9CCÿ%&F`) 4J]C*Fÿ%F*`) *]9C4ÿ%44`) &&]99(ÿ%A*`) &]A44ÿ%44`) 4]4&Cÿ%C`) C\Cÿ%&`) J\ÿ%9`) 4]49Fÿ%C`) 44&ÿ%'\(`) C(Aÿ%&'\F`) C]9*Jÿ%&*'((`) (]&JJÿ%*9'AJ`) F]&CCÿ%C&'&*`)

LEE’S SUMMIT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

APPENDIX M – RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

APRIL 2021

Lee's Summit Municipal Airport (LXT): Master Plan Update ‐ Public Comment & Responses # Date Received

Name

5/13/2020

William White

docabe@gmail.com

5/15/2020

Jeremy Bonnesen

jeremy.bonnesen@lsr7.net

5/18/2020

Cynthia Frantsen

clf46_@hotmail.com

5/19/2020

Pamela Schleiden

Rrschleiden@att.net

5/27/2020

5/28/2020

5/30/2020

5/31/2020

Lynda Holder

Dustin Heider

Daniel Thomas (USAF Ret.)

Patricia Sexson

Lholder3t@gmail.com

heider.dustin@gmail.com

thomas616@twc.com

psexson@att.net

Comment Please strongly consider adding a control tower. The airport now has the traffic to justify this.

Response We appreciate your comment. As part of the master planning process aviation forecasts will be prepared. The forecasts will assist with the justification of the need for a tower. Should a tower be warranted, the master plan will also assist with identifying a recommended location and funding opportunties to help offset construction and operational costs. Please consider talent pipeline considerations that STA and UCM at The Missouri Innovation We appreciate your comment. The City of Lee's Summit supports the growth of Campus. We would like to collaborate with the City on the Airport Master Plan. To align strategic aviation into the schools and has conducted outreach within the educational planning for STA's Aerospace Academy for various industries within the aviation workforce sector community. To facilitate ongoing dialog, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the that include Aviation Pilot, Avionics, Unmanned Pilot, Aviation Maintenance, Aerospace Aiport Master Plan and Business Plan updates was expanded to include Engineering, and Military Aviation. This program would feed from over 30 high schools in the KC representation by Lee's Summit R‐7 School District. area and is partnering with many aviation businesses and organizations as well as colleges and training programs. I live close to the airport and love watching various aircraft fly in and out. Regularly attend EAA We appreciate your comment. As part of the business planning portion of the Airport breakfasts and annual open house. It would be great to have a mom and pop type of cafe on the Master Plan, facilites such as these will be evaluated and planned for. Typically café's airport grounds. I lived in Payson, Arizona and their airport had the Crosswind Cafe! Convenient for are private ventures at airports, the City welcomes development at the airport. airport customers and fun for locals, too. I am hoping flight routes and altitudes will be more fully addressed as larger aircraft are We appreciate your comment. The Airport Master Plan is focused on planning accommodated. We live just east of Legacy Park and the number of daily low Aircraft flying necessary facilities to meet the needs of existing and potential future airport users. overhead is disheartening. We don’t want to be “that” city with noisy aircraft overhead all day long. The manner in which aircraft operate on approach and departure from the airport is dictated by FAA approach and departure procedures that were orginally developed in the early 1970's. The City has limited control over aircraft operations. However, under previous environmental efforts, noise contours were developed and based on the aircraft operations and types operating, no neighborhoods were adversely impacted by the noise contours deemed unacceptable by the FAA. Airport staff does encourage pilots to be good neighbors whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly friendly guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐ info/fly‐friendly I live in the flight line of the airport and the noise is a bother to me and my neighbors as well. I We appreciate your comment. The City of Lee's Summit, Missouri Department of would love to see the airport located out on 50 Hiway where the noise would not affect residential Transportation, and the Federal Aviation Administration have significant financial residents. investment in the current facility. When grants are received for airport projects, grant assurances were signed requiring the City maintain operation, use and maintenance of the airport. The airport staff does encourage pilots to be good neighbors whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly friendly guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐info/fly‐friendly As a local corporate pilot for a large company in KC and a Lee's Summit resident, I am excited for We appreciate your comment. As part of the master plan, facilites and airfield the continued developments at LXT. As you have seen over the last year since the runway has been equipment such as these will be evaluated and planned for. lengthened, business aviation/jet traffic has increased. As I think it is planned, but not sure, I believe it is imperative to have a new FBO/GA facility. This would be a modern FBO facility with attached Hangar space, a well known Jet Fuel vendor, updated passenger waiting facilities, updated/modern crew louncge and flight planning, de‐ice capability, large ramp space, etc. Maybe even allowing a National FBO chain/vendor like Atlantic, Millionaire, or Signature to come in would increase traffic even more. Another thing that would be nice if land layout allows is an ILS approach allowing arrivals to lower minimums than GPS/RNAV. Thank you and excited to continue to see LXT grow! Do your plans focus on developing a regional airport as part of a string of regionals across country to facilitate more private and business access to our local communities and perhaps become a more convenient air travel hub for outlying communities such as Harrisonville, Blue Springs, Raymore, etc: and definitely Lees Summit? Lees Summit could become the crossroads for other regional airports from border to border and coast to coast.

We appreciate your comment. The role of the airport within the local, regional, and national airport system is being evaluated as part of the master planning process. Recent improvements have helped Lee's Summit Municipal Airport (LXT) position itself within the midwest aviation region. From the FAA's perspective, LXT is already a regional airport and a designated reliever to Kansas City International Airport.

I am 100% opposed to the airport at its current location. Planes fly directly over my home on an approach from the north to the north/south runway. And they are frequently flying too low. To have an airport in such close proximity to dense residential, commercial development, as well as hospitals, schools and highways is a disaster waiting to happen. It should never have been built, and it should never have been expanded.

6/4/2020

Layne Burt

layneburt@gmail.com

6/4/2020

Dwayne Barber

driverofmg@yahoo.com

6/4/2020

Jordan Quayle

Jordan818181@hotmail.com

6/4/2020

6/5/2020

William Turnbough

Becca Oldham

william.m.turnbough@gmail.com

Jobo2009@gmail.com

6/5/2020

David Mort

davidkmort@gmail.com

6/9/2020

Leonard Cacchio

lenny_cacchio@hotmail.com

First off I would like to say I love the Airport and the business it brings to the area. My main concern We appreciate your comment. The manner in which aircraft operate on approach being in the incoming flight path is what we are doing to keep planes/jets/helicoptors from and departure from the airport is dictated by FAA approach and departure approaching the airport too low and creating excessive noise on approach especially if the volume procedures that were orginally developed in the early 1970's. The City has limited of flights is going to increase over time. control over aircraft operations. It should be noted that as aircraft evolve, they are becoming more efficient and engine noise is being reduced. Airport staff does encourage pilots to be good neighbors whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly friendly guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐ info/fly‐friendly Kc has a shortage of hangers, increase the number of hangers and drop the cost of hanger rent. We appreciate your comment. The forecasts being prepared as part of the planning process will facilitate an assessment of hangar facility needs. I am concerned about the increased and low flying traffic. My neighbor and I watched as two We appreciate your comment. As part of the master planning process the increase in planes almost collided above our houses in Lakewood. It is very concerning that they are clearly not aircraft operations will be documented. If a facility such as an Airport Traffic Control calling in their positions as planes are way to close to one another quite frequently. We are also Tower is justified the City plans on pursuing such a facility to enhance operational concerned about the increased noise as well as the damage that it does to our homes. I have capabilities. Airports assume certain obligations in exchange for grant funding recent videos of a jet and a chinook flying well below the 500ft requirement when over residential through the Airport Improvement Program. As part of this process grant assurances housing and my neighbor has one of a Blackhawk as well. I am also concerned with the late night are signed, one of which states “the airport will be available for public use on and early morning traffic. Last week KCMOPD decided to start practicing around midnight and reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination”. The FAA interprets this continued to do so for about an hour. I believe they were practicing touch and goes while directly grant assurance as a general prohibition on preventing operations or users at the circling over my house. It woke my entire family up. It is tome for rules to be put in place. The Airport. Grant assurances generally apply for twenty years from the date of the courtesy rules are clearly not working. I would be to share some of the videos. Also, I think it is time grant. Airports receiving grant funding annually therefore are subject to the grant to consider someone manning the airport to manage/dictate plane positions. assurances on a rolling 20‐year basis. That said, airport staff does encourage pilots to be good neighbors whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly friendly guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐info/fly‐friendly

Thanks for gathering the public’s feedback. I live in relative close proximity to the airport. On one hand I worry about increased noise. On the other hand if it was possible to add a commuter airline with service to large cities like Chicago, memphis, New York, etc that I could use for business so I don’t always have to drive up to KCI

We appreciate your comment. Airport staff does encourage pilots to be good neighbors whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly friendly guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐info/fly‐friendly. Commuter airlines would represent a commercial service operation. The airport is not a Part 139 certified airport and therefore commercial operations are prohibited. As a reliever to Kansas City International Airport, LXT can accept commercial operations that are diverted or in the event that the airport is a designated alternate.

I have lived here all of my life. It was fun to watch the small planes come and go. It’s gotten out of We appreciate your comment. The manner in which aircraft operate on approach hand since expansion. I have also heard that there isn’t a good regulation of landing/take offs. I feel and departure from the airport is dictated by FAA approach and departure like the city will not care until a house or people are hit. It’s a residential area. Maybe there is a procedures that were orginally developed in the early 1970's. The City has limited different location somewhere that could be expanded for further runways and larger jets. This does control over aircraft operations. However, as part of the master planning process aviation forecasts will be prepared. The forecasts will assist with the justification of not seem like a smart plan and to expand even further is not okay. You don’t have any space for mistakes. A plane landed on the highway just recently! Last week I saw two planes almost collide. I the need for a tower. Should a tower be warranted, the master plan will also assist wish I had gotten a video. Then the next day 3 plans were going down to land one after another. with identifying a recommended location and funding opportunties to help offset Seemed very unsafe from where I stood. I really hope the city listens to the residents. Don’t want construction and operational costs. The tower would be considered an operational for a major accident. Please. We live very very close. I was never worried growing up, but the new enhancement for LXT. Airport staff does encourage pilots to be good neighbors whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly friendly changes and lack of what appears... lack of organization... expansion would not be in the best interest is safety is of concern. guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐info/fly‐friendly.

I’m tired of hearing and seeing planes all the time over my house and subdivision. Any expansion, We appreciate your comment. The City of Lee's Summit, Missouri Department of either in physical stature or airplane type, will erode property values of one of the most coveted Transportation, and the Federal Aviation Administration have significant financial neighborhoods in LS. Is it in the airports interest to tank property values of this area so it can investment in the current facility. When grants are received for airport projects, eventually acquire the land on the cheap for expansion or buffer or whatever? It doesn’t need to be grant assurances were signed requiring the City maintain operation, use and maintenance of the airport. Airport staff does encourage pilots to be good neighbors bigger, it needs to be moved. There’s plenty of land in other places that impact less people. Nowhere in the visioning document does it mention anything about “best interests of nearby whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly friendly residents”! Those are the folks impacted the most...every single day! Pursing this without that in guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐info/fly‐friendly mind is selfish greed. Enforce the existing "Fly Friendly" rules. If the plan is to expand the airport to enable larger jets to We appreciate your comment. Airport staff does encourage pilots to be good use it, consider that those of us who live nearby will need better reasons to accept it than the neighbors whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly reasons offered last time it was expanded. friendly guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐info/fly‐friendly. That said, users of the airport, for the most part, want to be good neighbors. If specific overflights are of concern we encourage you to reach out to airport staff to see if conversations with the pilot would be beneficial.

6/15/2020

6/18/2020

6/22/2020

7/12/2020

Dirk Becker

D. Ayl

John Ford

Matt Walterbach

dbecker1777@gmail.com

ddeischer23@yahoo.com

jsf106@gmail.com

mwalterbach6@gmail.com

7/12/2020

Dan Hurst

danhurst@danhurst.com

7/14/2020

Rick McDowell

rmdowell@leessummit.org

7/17/2020

Tim Paulson

Tim.paulson@emerysapp.com

7/21/2020

Beth Buller

bullerbeth@aol.com

I think one of the biggest concerns I have had being a private pilot flying into Lee's Summit (KLXT) is We appreciate your comment. Improved instrumentation will be evaluated as part of that some of the pilots do not use radios. Rarely have I had a problem landing at KLXT however the facility requirements and alternatives development. having Visual Guidance for each of the runways would improve safety at night. No thank you. Not really a fan of how noisy it is already. Maybe you could invest in quieter planes? We appreciate your comment. It should be noted that modern‐day aircraft continue to be constructed in such a manner that engine noise is reduced. As aircraft and fleets continue to evolve, these quieter aircraft should replace older/louder aircrafts. Airport staff does encourage pilots to be good neighbors whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly friendly guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐info/fly‐friendly I like the improvements made to date and the airport is quickly becoming known for its excellent customer service, which attracts traffic and business. The Master plan is too complex to comment on but, my wishes for the future are as follows... a) Safety ‐ it is my opinion that the amount of traffic justifies a control tower, or a virtual control tower before we have a serious accident with conflicting air traffic. Several near‐misses in the past year alone. b) Construction of shade‐ports. c) Construction of a parking lot for Hangar One (already planned).

We appreciate your comment. The staff and City recognize the importance of LXT to the community and its role to current and potential businesses. As part of the master planning process, aviation forecasts will be prepared. The forecasts will assist with the justification of the need for a tower. Should a tower be warranted, the master plan will also assist with identifying a recommended location and funding opportunties to help offset construction and operational costs. The tower would be considered an operational enhancement for LXT. Facilities such as shadeports, additional parking, and hangars are being studied as part of the Master Plan.

Please do not do anything to increase further airport traffic. Recently, the uptick in air activity is much more noticeable, specifically the helicopters.

We appreciate your comment. The City has limited control over aircraft operations. However, under previous environmental efforts, noise contours were developed and based on the aircraft operations and types operating, no neighborhoods were adversely impacted by the noise contours deemed unacceptable by the FAA. Airport staff does encourage pilots to be good neighbors whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly friendly guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐info/fly‐friendly. It should also be noted that many of the helicopter operations at the airport are now a result of medical helicopters providing a direct service to the community. These medical helicopters not only provide ambulatory services for those in need, but also provide timely transportation of organ transplants.

I am a L.S. resident, living in Lakewood. I am opposed to increasing the air traffic in the surrounding We appreciate your comment. Airports assume certain obligations in exchange for area of our airport. The purpose of our airport was and is for convenience, not for financial gain. grant funding through the Airport Improvement Program. As part of this process Non‐residents of L.S. should really not be using the airport! That was not its intent. Please stop the Grant Assurances are signed, one of which states “the airport will be available for increase in airport operations in this area. The added noise..and danger...are a devaluation of our public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination.” The FAA interprets this grant assurance as a general prohibition on preventing operations or home properties, not to mention the sheer annoyance. users at the airport. Therefore, regardless of residence within Lee's Summit, the airport is open to aeronautical users able to operate at LXT. Grant assurances generally apply for twenty years from the date of the grant. Airports receiving grant funding annually are therefore subject to the grant assurances on a rolling 20‐year basis. That said, the airport staff does encourage pilots to be good neighbors whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly friendly guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐info/fly‐friendly

The LS Airport is a critical part of sustainable postive growth for Lee's Summit. There have been We appreciate your comment. The staff and City recognize the importance of LXT to several companies utilizing the regional airport since it recent expansion. The airport is a positive the community and its role to current and potential businesses. part of our busuiness community. Having a healthy business airport assists Emery Sapp and Sons, Inc and myself as a resident of LS in We appreciate your comment. The staff and City recognize the importance of LXT to conducting and growing business in and around LS. This is an asset that creates opportunities both the community and its role to current and potential businesses. for development and additional revenues for LS Concerned about how much busier it’s been the last few years. More noise and long into the night. We appreciate your comment. The aircraft landing on the adjacent highway was an Also, have been several close calls and planes landing on highways. Need to be aware of the isolated incident and was the result of engine failure. The staff and City are neighborhoods around you and busy highways. I want the airport to remain a LS airport and not a committed to development of the Airport for the benefit of Lee's Summit. There are substitute for KCI. no discussions or intent to provide commercial flights that would make LXT a substitute for KCI.

8/14/2020

Pat Adair

larry‐adair@comcast.net

9/5/2020

Greg Arens

greg.arens@hotmail.com

3/2/2021

Kurt Glaesemann

kurt.glaesemann@pnnl.gov

3/2/2021

Greg Roberts

regulatormo@comcast.net

We appreciate your comment. The City has limited control over aircraft operations. The planes fly directly over our home. We would not appreciate additional flights including jets. This is a residential community, not businesses that are in the flight path. We are not prepared for a However, under previous environmental efforts, noise contours were developed and larger expansion that would disrupt our neighborhoods. based on the aircraft operations and types operating, no neighborhoods were adversely impacted by the noise contours deemed unacceptable by the FAA. The City and Staff also have no plans to extend the runway and most planning efforts are focused on landside developments to make use of land already available to the Airport. We appreciate your comment. The City has limited control over aircraft operations. I am a resident of Lakewood at 3719 NE Beechwood Drive, directly under the flight path of the However, under previous environmental efforts, noise contours were developed and north side of the airport. I have been monitoring airport activity and expansion over the last 13 years. I have asked the city to be very careful in expanding this airport, one without a tower or based on the aircraft operations and types operating, no neighborhoods were protocol when the aircraft fly directly over a major residential neighborhood. adversely impacted by the noise contours deemed unacceptable by the FAA. The City With recent expansion, increase in air traffic and increased scale of plane to include jets, I would and Staff also have no plans to extend the runway and most planning efforts are like to see some basic guidelines the future of the Lees Summit Airport. focused on landside developments to make use of land already available to the 1. Limited training after 9 pm. No training after 10 pm. The amount of helicopter practice that has Airport. taken place between 11pm and 1 am over the last few years is alarming. The pilot courtesy guidelines are not working. As part of the master planning process aviation forecasts will be prepared. The 2. Basic air control between 8 am and 8 pm. Now with jet traffic, helicopters, military traffic and forecasts will help determine whether a tower is warranted, and the master plan will hobbyists, planes are literally flying in all directions and we’ve seen many times planes take off and assist with identifying a recommended location and funding opportunties to help land in opposite directions over our homes. offset construction and operational costs. 3. No jet landing after 11 pm for noise and security purposes. 4. Formal noise abatement protocol for jets while taking off to the south and landing over the It should also be noted that many of the helicopter operations at the airport are now Lakewood neighborhood. a result of medical helicopters providing a direct service to the community. These 5. Security onsite 24/7. We have no idea what is coming into or leaving our airport on private medical helicopters not only provide ambulatory services for those in need, but also planes. With jet traffic this is troubling. provide timely transportation of organ transplants. Above all, I ask that whatever planes you put in place for the future that you consider protecting quality of living of the residents directly impacted by continued airport expansion. This airport is no longer a fun little hobby airport. It’s become an air traffic mess over our homes. Failure to protect residents could prove expensive. As a scientist, I strongly feel that a location for regular meetings of aerospace related non‐profit educational groups such as AFJROTC, CAP, and Scouting when AE related.

I would hope the master plan would make the Lee’s Summit airport a stand out in the region. Make We appreciate your comment. The staff and City recognize the importance of LXT to us an airport people want to fly into. A place to rival some of the nicer FBO’s in the area. Most of the community and its role to current and potential businesses. As part of the the FBO’s are nice but not wow like some I have flown into. I also you have a large space for business planning portion of the Airport Master Plan, facilites such as a Flight School meetings that the schools and organizations can use that could accommodate the technology that and a family restaurant will be evaluated and planned for. is out there. Where groups could bring in projectors and such. The city not provide them, but have a place to use them. A meeting room the civil air patrol, schools could use, or could be used by local businesses. A couple of class room type rooms would be great to. This way the city could offer space where a flight school could come in offer flight lessons and the classroom room stuff needed. I would like to see an airport that fits the needs of the private pilots and be a beacon for the business that use small jets. I feel the airport has a enough land it can be used to rival the other general aviation airports in the area. I also think partnering with a restaurant would be awesome. Have a nice restaurant to bring people in from the city and a destination for pilots to fly into for a meal. I would enjoy talking more if you would like.

The jets that come in for landing are low and loud and directly over our house. It has been very disturbing and unexpected. We were lead to believe this would not be the case and are disappointed at this intrusion into our lives.

3/11/2021

Jennylynne Gragg

graggstudios@yahoo.com

We appreciate your comment. As part of the business planning portion of the Airport Master Plan, facilites such as these will be evaluated and planned for.

We appreciate your comment. The manner in which aircraft operate on approach and departure from the airport is dictated by FAA approach and departure procedures that were orginally developed in the early 1970's. The City has limited control over aircraft operations. However, under previous environmental efforts, noise contours were developed and based on the aircraft operations and types operating, no neighborhoods were adversely impacted by the noise contours deemed unacceptable by the FAA. Airport staff does encourage pilots to be good neighbors whenever possible through verbal interaction and through use of the fly friendly guidelines here: https://cityofls.net/airport/pilot‐info/fly‐friendly