Professional Services Agreement Revised 10-30-01

Nantucket Memorial Airport

MASTER PLAN & SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAMSCOPE OF WORK

- REVISED DRAFT-March 11, 2013

Prepared By

Aviation Division343 Congress StreetBoston, MA 02210

for:Nantucket Memorial Airport Commission

14 Airport RoadNantucket, MA 02554

022613-2

DRAFT 3-11-2013 2

NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPORTMASTER PLAN & SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM - SCOPE OF WORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

BACKGROUND 4

TASK 1 - DEVELOP MASTER PLAN & SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM SCOPE OF WORK, BUDGETand PROJECT SCHEDULE

5

TASK 2 - PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM 6

TASK 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS/ FINANCIAL DATA/ AIRSPACE MAPPING 83A Airfield Inventory, Operations and Financial Data

3B Utilities System Survey/ GIS Mapping 3C Airspace GIS Mapping

TASK 4 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND BASELINE SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS

81111

154A – Existing Environmental Conditions

4B – Sustainability Baseline Analysis

TASK 5 - FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND AND FLEET MIX

1517

18

TASK 6 - FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 196A – Airside and Landside Facility Requirements

6B - Air Traffic Control Tower Siting Analysis

TASK 7 - ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

1921

21

TASK 8 - FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 23

TASK 9 - AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP) DRAWING SET 23

TASK 10 - FINANCIAL FEASABILITY 24

TASK 11 - MEPA FILING 25

TASK 12 - PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 27

DRAFT 3-11-2013 3

NOTE: The Following Attachments are to be part of the FINAL Scope:

ATTACHMENT 1– CURRENT AND FUTURE AIR SERVICE TRENDS – RLM and Assoc.ATTACHMENT 2 – AIRPORT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - PBATTACHMENT 3 – AERIAL GIS MAPPING – Sanborn MappingATTACHMENT 4 – GROUND SURVEY PLAN SCOPE OF WORK – Welch Survey, IncATTACHMENT 5 – UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SURVEY – BSI, Inc.ATTACHMENT 6 – NOISE MONITORING AND ANALYSIS - KM ChngATTACHMENT 7 – TRAFFIC COUNT SCOPE - JacobsATTACHMENT 8 – RARE SPECIES HABITAT SURVEY - GZA EnvironmentalATTACHMENT 9 – HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY - PALATTACHMENT 10 – PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHARTATTACHMENT 11 – PROJECT SCHEDULEATTACHMENT 12 - LABOR AND COST ESTIMATE

DRAFT 3-11-2013 4

NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN & SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM

BACKGROUNDNantucket Memorial Airport (ACK) completed its last full Master Plan in 1999. An updated Master Plan and AirportSustainability Program is needed to address a number of recently evolving issues at the airport:

An enhanced Public Outreach procedures should be developed and implemented (see Task 2);The changes in aviation activity at ACK and in air carrier and general aviation/corporate jet traffic, shouldbe analyzed (see Task 3);The airport’s on-going Environmental Compliance Program should be reviewed and expanded to includeAirport Sustainability procedures that result in more effective coordination and implementation ofsustainable practices (see Tasks 4A and 4B);Conduct origin and destination surveys of current airport users to better understand current traveldemand and air service needs (see Task 3A);Initiate FAA-18B GIS base mapping with an initial focus on surface facilities and underground utilitieslayers, as well as habitat management areas (see Task 3A);The need for improvements shown on the 2008 Airport Layout Plan (ALP) should be re-validated – forexample, the South Apron Extension to accommodate increased wingspans of the new corporate jet fleet;the function of the east taxiway to Runway 15-33; and the need for hangars vs. current demand, etc. Therecent changes to the ARFF, Terminal, and GA Buildings as well as Runway 15/33 extension should also beupdated (see Task 6A);Reevaluate the North Apron terminal area building functions, layout and space requirements (see Task 7);Assess and evaluate the condition of airfield pavements and develop a pavement rehabilitation plan (seeTasks 3A and 9);Assess and update the land use of all airfield parcels and abutter properties (see Tasks 3A and 9);The airport’s equipment inventory list should be updated (see Task 3A);Develop a Financial Feasibility Analysis and CIP Funding Program that builds upon the guidelines in FAA AC150/5070-6B, Sections 608, 1104, and 1203 thru 1206 (see Task 10).

Since the 1999 Master Plan the Airport has completed a number of projects, including:

Replace Runway 6-24 HIRLS, airport guidance signs, wind cone/segmented circle (ongoing);Constructed a 500 ft. extension to Runway 33 end (2012);Constructed a new GA/ Airport Administration Building (ongoing);RW15-33 LPV approach procedures sponsored by MassDOT Aeronautics (2011);Constructed a new ARFF Building (2009);Replaced Apron Floodlighting (2011);Constructed a major addition and rehab of the Passenger Terminal Building (2007-2010);Installed Auto Parking Fare Collection system (2010);Completed Air Traffic Control Tower Siting Studies with FAA AFTIL Lab, Atlantic City (2009-2010);Replaced edge lighting system for Taxiways A, B, C, D and E (2007);Installed airfield perimeter fencing (2005);Installed Runway 6 ILS Glide Slope Antennae, Ground Plane and Localizer equipment (2004);Rehabilitated Runway 6-24 pavement and upgraded Centerline and TDZ Lighting Systems (2004);Performed Runway Safety Area Study (2003);Rehabilitated portions of Taxiway F and completed South Apron pavement (2002);Constructed SRE Maintenance Garage (2002);Installed SMGCS and LAHSO Equipment (2001); andHosted two Blue Angels Air shows (2004 and 2006).

DRAFT 3-11-2013 5

TASK 1 - DEVELOP MASTER PLAN & SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM SCOPE OF WORK, BUDGET ANDPROJECT SCHEDULEAs part of the preparation of the Master Plan and Sustainability Program scope of work, Jacobs will undertake thefollowing tasks:

1. Scoping meetings: Jacobs staff will meet with the Airport Manager, key Airport Commission members andairport staff to discuss issues to be addressed in the Master Plan/Sustainability Program, as well as toidentify data available for use in developing the plan.

2. Prepare and circulate the scoping meeting notes.3. Compile and review pertinent background data about the Airport.4. Develop draft scopes and cost estimates, particularly for public outreach, air service and financial analysis,

subsurface utilities mapping and GIS base drawings.5. Solicit input and comments on the draft scope of work, and make revisions based on comments6. Develop a final scope of work, project schedule, and cost estimate for the Airport Master Plan.7. Coordinate the preparation of an Independent Fee Estimate (IFE)8. Prepare the FAA and MassDOT Aeronautics grant applications.

New FAA AIP Authorization Act and Emphasis on Airport Sustainability PlansThe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 recently extended FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP)through FY 2015 and made a number of changes to the AIP program. In particular, the new legislation requiresairport master plans to study:

"passenger convenience, airport ground access, and access to airport facilities", and"the feasibility of solid waste recycling at an airport, minimizing the generation of waste, operation andmaintenance requirements, the review of waste management contracts, and the potential for cost savings orrevenue generation."

The ACK Master Plan scope of work will incorporate those two provisions. In addition, the scope will meet therequirements of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, which states in part:

“…each master plan study must focus on the specific needs of the airport for which a plan is being prepared andthe scope of a study must be tailored to the individual airport. Therefore, in a given study certain master planningelements may be emphasized while others may not be considered at all.

The goal of a master plan is to provide the framework needed to guide future airport development that will cost-effectively satisfy aviation demand, while considering potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts. TheFAA strongly encourages that planners consider the possible environmental and socioeconomic costs associatedwith alternative development concepts, and the possible means of avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating impacts tosensitive resources at the appropriate level of detail for facilities planning.” (Source: Chap. 2, Para. 201, pg. 5)

Airport sustainability is also a key focus that FAA notes should be considered in the planning process. Sustainabilityis a broad term that encompasses a wide variety of practices applicable to planning, design, building and operatingairport facilities. By including these practices and principles in the planning process, airports can create asustainable “flight path” for making final planning and management decisions about future airport development.This will promote concept design, project development and mechanisms that will help the Airport Commission tominimize environmental impacts and optimize financial management of the airport. Lessons learned from the FAASustainable Airport Master Plan Pilot project have been incorporated into this scoping document.

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 1 ):Preliminary and draft scopes of work for Master Plan and Sustainability Program

DRAFT 3-11-2013 6

A detailed Master Plan and Sustainability Program Scope of Work, project schedule, and labor hour and costestimate

Scoping meeting/ IFE review notesFAA and MassDOT FY13 AIP grant application

TASK 2 – PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAMNantucket Airport is enhancing its interaction and communication with the airport’s constituents and stakeholders.An essential component of this effort will be an effective and well managed public outreach program. The NantucketMaster Plan/Sustainability Program will provide new mechanisms and forums that will allow meaningful andproductive public input and dialogue throughout the study. One key issue will be public coordination on the Airport’sSustainability Program. The Master Plan will discuss the Airport’s Island-wide benefits, while at the same timeinforming the public of the balance that must be struck between up-front capital expenditures and ongoingoperational costs that may be required to achieve specific environmental goals.

There are three levels of outreach to pursue: One targets those residents and businesses with intense interest in theoperations of the airport who will dedicate a significant amount of time to the Master Plan/Sustainability Programprocess. These are the highly invested stakeholders who can be counted on to provide thoughtful and timely input.Another outreach target will be interest groups who will have specific concerns and issues. These include the airlinesand airport tenants, environmental agencies such as the MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program andlocal resource groups such as the Nantucket Conservation Foundation NCF) and Nantucket Land Council (NLC). Thesegroups and individuals will be invited to participate at major milestones in the Sustainability Program. The thirdoutreach target is the general public who will be kept informed during the planning process and be givenopportunities to provide feedback.

A Working Group will be established which will be comprised of three sub-groups: an Airside Layout group; aLandside Improvements group; and an Environmental/Sustainability group. Jacobs will assist as directed with theoutreach to key stakeholders and decision makers whom the Airport identifies as candidates for the WorkingGroup. Jacobs will prepare an advertisement for publication in the local newspaper and on the Airport’s Websiteto solicit candidates for the Working Group. Jacobs will also prepare a brochure that describes the roles andresponsibilities of each subgroup, as well as the anticipated study milestones schedule. This brochure could alsobe used for wider dissemination to the public. Candidates for the Working Group should include representativesfrom the Airport, airport tenants and users, the Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission(NPEDC), local resource groups such as the NCF and NLC, as well as MassDOT, the FAA, and the general public.Such a broad membership will accommodate all of the stakeholders, provide a focus for each sub-group, and allowinteraction between the entire group when needed.

This public outreach program must also serve as an awareness raising and engagement process so that allstakeholders understand the legal requirements that the Airport must fulfill as the airport sponsor and operator,particularly in relation to the FAA Grant Assurances, Technical Orders, and Advisory Circulars. For example, it isvery important to clearly explain what the Airport cannot do, e.g. close the airport, impose absolute curfews,discriminate against airport users, or allow exclusive rights. The program will also describe Island-wide benefits ofthe airport to the local and state economies, emergency responses, medical evacuation and public rescue support,as well as its international role in aeronautical access. The opportunity to significantly broaden the traditionalMaster Plan process into a wider Airport Sustainability Program will also be a key feature of this effort. Jacobs willcoordinate with airport staff to create an “Airport Master Plan/ Sustainability Program- 101” PowerPointpresentation to support the early public education process. Jacobs will also assist the airport in notifying WorkingGroup members of upcoming meetings, distributing review materials, facilitating the Working Group meetings,preparing the meeting minutes and summarizing recommendations to the Client Group.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 7

In addition to the traditional planning workshops and public information meetings, the use of social media andelectronic polling devices will greatly enhance the outreach, communication, and education process. It isextremely important at the outset of a public outreach program (across all its dimensions) to set clear guidelinesand limits in terms of:

which topics are relevant to the Master Plan/Sustainability Program and which ones are not;who is responsible for maintaining and controlling media paths (e.g. the web site, Facebook page) during thestudy;the role of the participants (e.g. educational, technical resource and advisory);who are the decision-makers, when decision milestones will be reached and who will make those decisions.

Nantucket Airport currently has a web site, but could also develop a Facebook page or use Twitter, combined withother media (including a Master Plan/Sustainability Program web site, Skype or other types of video conferencing)to achieve an increased level of communications that was not possible a few years ago. Unique new votingdevices, which participants can use to “click-in” their preferences or responses to questions, are available tofacilitate interaction and instantly tabulate results at public meetings. Use of these new capabilities can:

collect and collate comments, information, and questions in a database;allow for questions/responses/ interaction and on-line forums in between regularly scheduled meetings;the development of discussion boards;sharing of technical information developed during the study;promotion of sustainability goals through reduced travel to meeting locations.

Jacobs also has a password protected web-based data management system (Projectwise) that allows all study teammembers to share information, work on tasks simultaneously, and interact in a secured environment.

In addition to communicating with those who are “plugged-in” to the Master Plan/Sustainability process, outreachto the general public will be done to keep them aware and informed of the progress of the planning and toprovide an opportunity for input. This dissemination of information to the general public can occur in several ofthe following formats:

Presentations at neighborhood groupsPresentations at Board of Selectmen and/or Planning Board meetingsDisplays at airport bulletin boards, Town Hall, libraryBill stufferComprehensive database of stakeholdersAirport Master Plan Website overhaul and updatesMedia releases at key milestones

All information, data, and communications transmitted via any one (or combination) of the techniques describedabove are in the public domain, which changes the concept of “open meeting” process. Appropriately managed,this will enable Airport Staff to maintain an effective public outreach/ participation/education program beyondthe end of the Master Plan/Sustainability Program’s planning efforts.

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 2):Jacobs will conduct three Public Meetings during the Nantucket Master Plan/Sustainability Program: the first atthe kick-off of Task 3A- Data Inventory; the second during Task 7- Alternatives; and the third during Task 11 -ENF/Impact Analysis. Jacobs will also conduct eight Subcommittee meetings during Tasks 3 through 11, plus twocoordination meetings with the NPEDC staff during Tasks 3 and Task 11. Jacobs will compile all public andWorking Group coordination meeting minutes, sign-in sheets and meeting agendas, records of meeting notices, all

DRAFT 3-11-2013 8

records of electronic interactions (via the project web site etc.), as well as copies of all presentations, commentsreceived, correspondence, etc. These records will be combined into a Public Information Materials database andpublished as part of the Master Plan Technical Report. Development of a “Tool Kit” will be part of this deliverableso that airport personnel can deliver presentations as needed.

TASK 3 – INVENTORY EXISTING AIRFIELD CONDITIONS/ FINANCIAL DATA/ AIRSPACE MAPPINGTASK 3A – AIRFIELD INVENTORY, OPERATIONS and FINANCIAL DATAThe Inventory phase will make maximum use of existing plans, data and studies prepared for Nantucket Airport,the NPEDC, the Town of Nantucket’s GIS Office, the FAA and MassDOT, as well as other sources. Jacobs willcontact the NPEDC and GIS staff through the ACK Airport Manager to obtain all current publications, GISdatabases, plans, policies, documents and relevant studies. Jacobs staff will meet with NPEDC and GIS Office staffto discuss relevant land use, resource database, air quality and ground water quality data, NHESP Complianceissues, traffic data needs, and SSA cargo commodities, as well as land use zoning information. Recently completedcivil and electrical engineering as-builts, the Airport Layout Plan, architectural and planning studies, and relevantpermitting efforts, as well as the Town’s recycling and waste reduction policies will also be collated and reviewed.

These plans and studies include (but are not limited to):a) Airport Master Plan, 1999b) ACK “Airport Layout Plan Update” – June 2010c) FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), 2012d) FAA Air Traffic Activity Data (ATADS)e) Economic Impacts of Massachusetts Airports, MassDOTf) Massachusetts Airport System Plan, MassDOTg) MassGIS and Nantucket GIS land use, demographic, and environmental datah) Rare species monitoring report and botanical field surveys, Epsilon 2003 data and GZA 2010-12 datai) Airport Vegetation Management Plan (and Adaptive Management Plan when available)j) Airport Conservation Management Plan and other Airport owned parcelsk) Wildlife Hazard Assessmentl) SPCC/Drainage Master Planm) Nantucket Comprehensive Community Plan, 2000n) Nantucket Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2005

Document Current Air Service and Assess Trends for Future TrafficNantucket is served by five airlines (Cape Air, Island Airlines, Delta, Jet Blue, and US Airways). The 2012 passengerenplanements were down 2 percent compared to calendar year 2011 when passenger enplanements decreasedalmost 11 percent over 2010. Of the Island’s five airlines, only Cape Air provides year-round service to BostonLogan, White Plains NY, New Bedford MA, Hyannis MA, and Martha’s Vineyard, as well as seasonal service toProvidence RI. Delta, JetBlue, and US Airways provide seasonal service to JFK Airport NY, Reagan National Airport,DC, and Newark. This task will:

1) Evaluate Airline Industry Trends and their Impact on Nantucket;2) Develop Data Base of Current Flight Operations (2002-2012);3) Evaluate Origin/ Destination Traffic;4) Assess Drive –Fly Traffic Arriving via Hyannis;5) Estimate International Traffic;6) Evaluate Future Needs for Schedule Aircraft Facilities;7) Evaluate General Aviation Demands; and8) Provide Input to Traffic Forecasts.

A detailed description of the approach, methodology and deliverables is contained in Attachment 1.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 9

Corporate GA OperationsACK’s aviation activity has increasingly been dominated by larger corporate General Aviation jet aircraft, plusproviding the facilities and services to handle their GA passengers. Larger corporate and private jets (G-550 and650, Cessna Sovereign and Citation Q, Hawker 1000, Boeing BBJ, Global Express, and B-757’s) have been operatinginto Nantucket during the summer season. At the lower end of the corporate scale, smaller corporate jets such asthe Cessna CJ series and Embraer Phenom, among others, as well as turboprops such as the TBM-70 and 850, KingAir 200, Pilatus PC-12, Piaggio and Cessna Caravan have seen increased operations. Jacobs will conduct a fleetsampling survey in the ACK Tower during a peak season August weekend to identify actual aircraft types.

Seasonal Apron Parking ConditionsAn important aspect of ACK’s seasonal aviation traffic is the volume of air carrier and corporate jets, particularlyflights by newer and larger wingspan jets, which have a significant impact on airport operations, facilityrequirements, and apron space during the peak summer season. The aircraft distribution and parking proceduresapplied by Nantucket Operations will be documented based on information provided by the airport, the controltower, and airport users. The analysis will describe the impact on airport operations and facilities, as well asaircraft ground control, taxiing, and parking procedures. It should be noted that, while these conditions areexacerbated during the June thru September summer season, the physical configuration of the existing apron andthe spatial requirements created by FAA Design Standards, are a year-round issue that must be addressed.

Capacities of Airport FacilitiesThis Task will identify the current capacities of the various functional elements of the airport, such as: runwayconfiguration and apron parking capacity; auto parking capacities for short and long term passenger parking, aswell as employee and rental cars; SRE garage and GSE storage building capacities; electrical system condition andcapacity; terminal passenger throughput capacity (screened and non-screened), bag screening processingcapabilities, baggage claim capacity, etc.; per AC 150/5070-6B, Sections 805 -811. This analysis of current capacityconstraints will set the baseline for assessing future needs in Task 6A.

Airport Financial DataIn accordance with AC 150/5070-6B, Sec 608, this task will compile and analyze ACK’s financial resources (seeAttachment 2). The inventory of financial data is consistent with FAA’s Grant Assurance No. 24, “to make theairport as self sustaining as possible” and will serve as the basis for the development of Task 10 FinancialFeasibility. The inventory of financial data will include gaining a thorough understanding of the financial aspects ofthe airport including, but not limited to the following.

a) Airport Business model – analysis of the financial structure of ACK, including the entity/airport sponsorresponsible for providing the local share for any Federal monies received.

b) Operating Revenues and Expenses – Review of revenue and expenses at ACK to gain an understanding ofthe current debt obligations.

c) Rates and Charges/Benchmarking Analysis – Review of the existing rates and charges structure at ACK andreview of fees that are paid by the commercial airlines and other aircraft operators that utilize ACK. Inaddition, a benchmarking study will be conducted of no more than 10 comparable airports (i.e., similarsize, type of service, proximity, etc). The benchmarking analysis will be utilized to determine potentialways to modify the fees collected by the commercial airlines and other users of the airport to gain anunderstanding of recommendations that could be made to increase ACK’s revenue stream.

d) Annual Leases with Airlines – Review of current lease agreements and summary of the existing leases andtheir expiration dates.

e) Corporate/GA Fees and Charges/Benchmarking Analysis – in the same way as the rates and charges, thecorporate and GA fees paid by the users at the airport will be benchmarked against other similar airports.This analysis will serve to develop potential changes to the fee structure that may be implemented to fundportions of the capital improvement program developed for the Master Plan/Sustainability Program.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 10

f) Capital Funding - Review of historical capital funding sources including bonds, Federal grants, and PFCs.Future commitments for PFCs will be compared to the forecasted PFC revenue stream to determine if PFCrevenues are adequate to meet anticipated capital needs.

g) Debt service for new Buildings – This will include a review of the existing debt obligations of the airportand analyze the flow of funds and any reserve requirements that have implications to the annual cash flowof ACK.

h) Budgetary trends – Review of historical budgetary trends and what factors have influenced plannedincreases and decreases in revenues and expenses, as well as variances that have occurred betweenbudget and actual financial results.

Airport GIS Base MappingJacobs will obtain new airport planimetric mapping to serve as the base map for the Airport Layout Plan. Inaddition, a GIS ground survey is needed to convert the Airport Property Line and the boundaries of the Airport’sBunker Area business parcels into a new GIS base plan. Finally, new aerial GIS mapping is needed for RW 6-24 tocomplement the LPV mapping for RW15-33 recently provided by MassDOT Aeronautics. This will enable a GIS BaseMap to be compiled for the entire airport. The base mapping will be collected in accordance with FAA AdvisoryCirculars 150/5300-18B (see Attachment 3). Contours will be generated at a 2-foot interval in non-wooded areas.Using the aerial photography, the following airport planimetric Features Groups from Advisory Circular 150/5300-18B that are visible and identifiable on the aerial imagery will be captured at a scale of 1” = 200’:

AirfieldAirspaceManmade StructuresSurface TransportationUtilityEnvironmentalNavigational Aids

A GIS airport boundary survey will be prepared showing boundary lines with metes and bounds descriptions,existing easements, monumentation, individual tax map and lot numbers, deed and plan references and abutternames with lot numbers (see Attachment 4). This information will be incorporated into the overall airport GISbase map.

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 3A):Technical memorandum (text and graphics) documenting and summarizing all of the pertinent data, including:

Existing Aircraft Fleet Mix, Critical Design Aircraft and Airport Reference Code (ARC);Air Carrier & Air Taxi Operations by Type of Carrier & Aircraft, between 1999-2012;Air Carrier & Air Taxi Passenger Enplanements by Carrier, destination & Aircraft, between 1999-2012;Evaluate Airline Passenger O&D Traffic and TrendsAir Service Analysis/Point-to-point Yield Data/potential Service RoutesGA/ Corporate Aircraft Operations between 1999-2012 and average stage length;Peak Season -2013 GA Operations/Activity by Aircraft Type;Airport Ownership and Management, including management tools such as Minimum Standards andBusiness Park rules and regulations;Airport Financial Feasibility Analysis Section, including:o Rates and Charges and Revenue Sourceso Airside/Landside Incomeso O&M Costso Annual Budgeto Establishment of a Rates and Charges Model

DRAFT 3-11-2013 11

Local Airspace, Traffic Patterns, and ATC Management Procedures;Airfield Pavement Condition Map;Airfield Electrical System Condition Assessment;Aircraft Parking Areas – capacity and condition assessment;Aircraft Fueling Facilities – capacity and condition assessment;Aircraft Rescue (ARFF) and Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) /Airport Maintenance Storageo ARFF Index/ Vehicleso Snow Removal Requirements/ Vehicles Existing vs. Advisory Circular recommendationso Ground Support Equipment Storage FacilitiesLandside Facilitieso Terminal Building/ Area– capacity and condition assessmento General Aviation/ Corporate Hangars– capacity and condition assessmento Airport Business Park Survey of Parcels/locate structureso Landside/ Parking/ Access Landside will include all bus, taxi, law enforcement, delivery vehicles etc.

Parking needs to include ALL aspects such as long-term, short-term, economy, employee, pilots, etco Non-aviation Land UsesAirside Facilities – capacity and condition assessmento Airfield (runway, taxiways, aprons, tie-down & transient aprons and safety areas)o NAVAIDSNantucket Zoning and Land Use PlansAirport GIS Base MapAirfield Perimeter Survey in GISExisting Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawing on GIS Base Plan

TASK 3B – UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SYSTEMS SURVEY/ GIS MAPPINGRelevant storm water drainage system and utilities data will be compiled for the Terminal Area and North Apronfrom existing plans and available data to create a Terminal Area Drainage & Underground Utilities Plan (seeAttachment 5). Recently completed engineering as-builts will be collated and reviewed to determine potentialgaps in drainage and utilities system data and to identify those portions of the drainage or utilities systems whichrequire additional underground survey. This effort will include hiring a firm (such as BSI) to physically locate allexisting ‘active/abandoned’ underground utilities in the Terminal Area and North Apron Area (e.g. lowvoltage/high voltage electric; tele-communications; water; sewer; drainage; propane gas tanks and feed lines). It isassumed, for estimating purposes, that two to three weeks of (BSI) survey time by a two-man crew will berequired to provide the needed drainage and underground utility data for the Terminal/North Apron Area, and totie the survey data into the PACS and SACS survey datum. This will enable conversion of the survey data to thestandard GIS survey mapping base. The field survey data will be compiled and combined with available drainageand utilities system plans into an Airport Drainage and Utilities System GIS Plan.

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 3B):Airport Drainage and Utilities System Plan (GIS graphics) documenting and summarizing all pertinent drainagesystem data, including:

Existing catch basin drain inlet rims, inverts and piping runs will be identified on a GIS plan;Existing sewer inverts and piping runs will be identified on a GIS plan;

Existing electrical, fiber optic, cabling and conduit location data will be identified on a GIS plan for Airfield andTerminal Area;

TASK 3C – AIRSPACE PROTECTION ZONE MAPPINGNantucket Memorial Airport faces potential adverse effects to its airspace from neighboring development. As thedevelopment of new tall structures, such as proposed wind turbines, continues to occur, the impact on theAirport’s protected airspace environment needs to be effectively monitored. This is consistent with FAA Grant

DRAFT 3-11-2013 12

Assurance No. 20: “to protect instrument and visual operations to the airport…and prevent the creation of futureairport hazards”.

Nantucket Memorial Airport has identified a need to develop an Airspace Protection Zone to preserve safe aerialnavigation into the airport under all-weather conditions. This Airspace Protection Zone is intended to coordinatethe airport’s protected airspace environment, as identified in the FAA’s Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77,“Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace” and Order 8260.3B “United States Standard for Terminal InstrumentProcedures (TERPS)”, with the Town’s strategic land use planning program. The objective is to establish localbuilding height and obstacle clearance criteria through an Airspace Protection Overlay Zone, in conjunction withthe Nantucket Planning and Economic Development District Commission (NPEDC).

CriteriaThe protected airspace surfaces applicable to Nantucket Memorial Airport (ACK) are established by multipleFederal Aviation Regulations, FAA Advisory Circulars and technical orders. These include the following:

Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace;Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 5300-13, Airport Design;Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 120-91;FAA Order 8260.3B, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPs);FAA Order 8260.54A, United States Standard for Area Navigation (RNAV)

In many cases the protected airspace surfaces overlie one another, resulting in one object penetrating multiplesurfaces. Each FAR and TERPS surface will be analyzed and developed separately via a GIS mapping process, asdescribed in the following subtasks.

Task 3C.1 - CoordinationJacobs will meet with the Airport, NPEDC, MassDOT Aeronautics and FAA staff to validate the protectedairspace surfaces to be analyzed at ACK. Jacobs will prepare a memo that summarizes the input from themeeting, the surfaces to be analyzed and whether the surface is:o required as part of the FAA Grant Assurances;o necessary to maintain or improve instrument approach minimums (but not required by the GrantAssurances.

The memo will be submitted for internal Airport review and incorporated into the final report. It isunderstood that FAA’s approval of the surfaces is not required for this task.

Task 3C.2 - Protected Airspace Surfaces to be MappedJacobs will develop the appropriate FAR Part 77, TERPs and other protected airspace surfaces, as definedbelow, for use in the mapping of airspace surrounding ACK. The surfaces will be created in 3D usingAutoCAD Map 3D 2009 by Autodesk for inclusion into a GIS based application using ESRI’s ArcGIS software.The surfaces to be analyzed and developed are:

FAR Part 77 Imaginary SurfacesThe applicable guidelines specified within FAR Part 77 encompass several surfaces: the primary, approach,transitional, horizontal and conical. The extent of these surfaces are based on the runway category (utilityor other-than-utility) and type of instrument approach (existing or planned, as shown on the current ALP)and visibility minimums to the runway.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 13

One Engine Inoperative Surface (Advisory Circular splay)This surface is described in detail in FAA Advisory Circular 120-91. The purpose of this surface is to providetakeoff and initial climb-out obstacle clearance based on one-engine-inoperative requirements relating toturbine engine powered airplanes. An area defined as the Obstacle Accountability Area (OAA) providesobstacle clearance by either 35-foot vertically or 200-feet laterally within the airport boundary or 300-feetlaterally outside the airport boundary. All obstacles within this surface must be cleared vertically. A 20-foot lateral buffer will be applied to the lateral edges of the surface to account for rounding errors. Thesurfaces developed within this study will be prepared using the area analysis method described inAdvisory Circular 120-91.

Localizer Final ApproachThis surface is described in TERPS Volume 1 Chapter 9. The purpose of this surface is to provide a clearfinal approach where no usable glidepath is available and only a localizer is utilized. A minimum requiredobstacle clearance of 250-feet is applied to the localizer final trapezoid which is depicted in Fig. 75 ofTERPS Volume 1 Chapter 9.

Precision Final ApproachThis surface is described in TERPS Volume 3 Chapter 3. It is comprised of 3 segments referred to as the“W”, “X” and “Y” surfaces. A clear Obstacle Clearance Surface (OCS) allows for the lowest approachminimums.

Missed Approach SegmentThis surface is described in TERPS Volume 3 Chapter 3. The missed approach segment is comprised ofthree sections: Section 1a, Section 1b and Section 1c. Section 1a of the missed approach surface begins atthe Decision Altitude (DA) point and overlies the Precision Final Approach Segment “W” and “X” OCS,extending 1,460-feet in the direction of the missed approach. Section 1b begins at the end of Section 1aand extends to a point 9,860.69 feet from the DA, and splays along the extended final course to a totalwidth of 1 nautical mi. Section 1c areas are secondary areas that begin at the DA point and splay to apoint on the edge and at the end of Section 1b at a slope of 7:1.

IFR Standard Departure SurfaceThis surface is described in TERPS Volume 4 Chapters 1 and 2. It is comprised of several sections based onmeeting a climb gradient of 200-feet per NM. The Obstacle Clearance Surface (OCS) slopes upward at40:1.

ILS Glidepath Qualification Surface (GQS)The GQS is the litmus test used by the FAA’s Flight Procedures Division to evaluate a runway end for anapproach with vertical guidance and as such, this surface must remain clear in order to have a publishedinstrument approach with vertical guidance. The GQS extends from the runway threshold along theextended centerline to the decision altitude (DA) point. It limits obstructions between the DA and therunway threshold.

Visual Portion of the Final Approach Segment – Standard and Straight-inThese surfaces defined in TERPs, evaluate whether night operations must be prohibited because of close-in obstructions, unlighted obstacles or if visibility minimums must be restricted. There are three differentsurfaces evaluated under these criteria:1. Standard 20:1 OCS – for runways which an aircraft is authorized to circle to land2. Straight-in 20:1 and 34:1 OCS – for runways with an approach procedure is aligned with the runway centerline

DRAFT 3-11-2013 14

The standard visual area begins 200-feet from the runway threshold at threshold elevation at a width of400-feet and extends out 10,000-feet to a width of 3,400-feet. The straight-in visual area also begins 200-feet from the runway threshold at threshold elevation at a width of 400-feet and extends out to theDecision Altitude (DA). This surface is evaluated with a 20:1 OCS and a 34:1 OCS.

LNAV Final ApproachThe LNAV (Lateral Navigation) Final Approach segment provides obstacle clearance for non-verticallyguided approach procedures. The surface is described in FAA Order 8260.54A Chapter 3.

LNAV Missed ApproachThis surface is described in FAA Order 8260.54A Chapter 3. The Missed Approach is a flat surface equal tothe minimum descent height minus 100-feet.

VNAV Final ApproachThe VNAV (Vertical Navigation) Final Approach segment provides obstacle clearance for vertically guidedapproach procedures using Baro-VNAV or WAAS VNAV for vertical guidance. The surface is described inFAA Order 8260.54A Chapter 4.VNAV Missed ApproachThis surface is described in FAA Order 8260.54A Chapter 3. The missed approach surface is a flat surfacecalculated using a series of formulas contained within Order 8260.54A.

VNAV Glidepath Qualification SurfaceThe GQS extends from the runway threshold along the extended centerline to the decision altitude (DA)point. It limits obstructions between the DA and the runway threshold. When obstructions exceed theheight of the GQS, an approach procedure with vertical guidance is not authorized.

Task 3C.3 - GIS FilesJacobs will import the 3D AutoCAD files into ESRI’s ArcGIS software to develop a comprehensiverepresentation of the protected airspace surrounding ACK. These airspace surfaces will be depicted so theprotected surface, surface height and surface geometry can be easily viewed using both ArcGIS softwareand freely available software (as described below). In addition, existing GIS data from MassGIS and theNPEDC will be combined to develop a base map from available data. It is anticipated that this will include:

Assessors parcel dataRoadways and streetsWater features – lakes, ponds, rivers, streamsDigital Elevation Model (provides terrain height)USGS quad sheetsAerial Imagery

New aerial planimetric mapping is not included in this scope. Analysis of existing or future vegetative orman-made objects is also not included within this effort. The protected airspace surfaces, surface heightand geometry will be developed in 3D GIS format. This will enable the identification of height restrictionsunder any protected airspace surface through the use of the electronic ArcGIS and ArcReader programs.

Task 3C.4 - Coordinate with FAA Flight ProceduresIn addition to the initial coordination with FAA to confirm the individual surfaces to be mapped, Jacobs willalso coordinate with FAA Flight Procedures in Atlanta, GA, to validate the 3D Mapping of the ProtectedSurfaces. Jacobs will update any inconsistent data and conduct two briefing sessions to review the work

DRAFT 3-11-2013 15

products: one with the FAA Airports staff in Burlington; and one with Airport and MassDOT Aeronauticsstaff at Nantucket.

Task 3C.5 - Interactive Data FilesInteractive datafiles will provide the Airport and NPEDC with the means of assessing height restrictionsand any potential impacts (object penetrations) to the protected airspace surrounding ACK. Theinteractive datafiles will be designed to provide the user with a quick and reliable graphic means ofidentifying potential obstructions to the protected airspace surfaces at ACK using the GIS database.ArcGIS will be used to tailor specific information about the Airport’s airspace surfaces and surroundinglocal features. The free software that will be used to view the interactive files is ArcReader.

The interactive data files will incorporate a series of layers depicting the protected airspace surfaces andlocal features surrounding Nantucket Airport. By clicking anywhere within the project area within ArcGISor ArcReader, the user will be able to identify the overlying protected airspace surface, its height in meansea level at that point, and clearly see the airspace geometry. Any underlying base map information suchas land use parcel data and ground topography (if available will also be included, providing an effectiveand flexible planning tool.

DOCUMENTATION and DELIVERABLES: TASK 3C – Airspace Mapping Technical ReportJacobs will prepare a technical memorandum explaining the protected airspace surfaces surrounding NantucketMemorial Airport. Recommendations will be included for an overlay zone with height restrictions based upon theprotected airspace surfaces developed in the above technical analysis. This will create the technical basis for anoverlay district to be prepared by the NPEDC for Town Meeting approval. That overlay district will enable theprotection of the airspace surfaces and minimize impacts that future development could have on aircraft arrivalsand/or departures at ACK.

The deliverable shall include a report (5 color copies), presented in 3-ring binders, which will facilitate futureupdates. Electronic deliverables shall consist of three DVD copies with .pdf copies of the final report, plus AutoCadand ArcGIS files. The deliverable will be a file format that can be viewed, queried and printed in ArcReader (freelyavailable). This will require the download and installation of this software by Airport and NPEDC staff prior toviewing.

Jacobs’ staff will hold one meeting with the Airport and NPEDC officials to review the ArcReader program and filescontained within. This meeting will act as a training session for those interested in using ArcReader to view theairspace surfaces and GIS base mapping that are prepared as part of this project. Jacobs will attend one additionalmeeting with NPEDC staff and the Nantucket Airport Manager to review and facilitate the preparation of anoverlay district bylaw by the NPEDC.

TASK 4 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS and SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSISTask 4A – EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONSThe existing Environmental Conditions on Nantucket Memorial Airport will be described pursuant to therequirements of Section 102(2), (c) of NEPA (Pl 91-190, 42 USC 4321 et. seq.) as outlined in 40 CFR 1500-1508. Theformat and subject matter included within this task will also conform to the requirements and standards set forthby the FAA as contained principally in Order 5050.4B and appropriate items in FAA Order 1050.1E. These include:

1. Air Quality2. Coastal Resources3. Compatible Land Use4. Construction Impacts5. Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) parcels

DRAFT 3-11-2013 16

6. Farmlands7. Fish, Wildlife, and Plants8. Floodplains9. Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste10. Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources11. Light Emissions and Visual Impacts12. Natural Resources and Energy Supply13. Noise14. Secondary (Induced) Impacts15. Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice16. Environmental Health and Safety Risks17. Water Quality18. Wetlands19. Wild and Scenic Rivers

As stated above, available data will be used to the extent possible to describe existing on site environmentalconditions. Some elements will need only a brief narrative to document the lack of impacts. Other categories willneed a more detailed discussion of sensitive resources, potential impacts, alternatives to minimize impacts, andproposed mitigation (see Task 11). Additional noise monitoring at off-airport locations is proposed for the peakmonth sampling period by KM Chng Environmental to support the preparation of new noise mitigation measuresfor the South Apron area, based on existing traffic levels and aircraft types (see Attachment 6). An assessment ofvehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic at four key intersections adjacent the Airport is proposed to quantify peakmonth traffic volumes accessing the Airport via the local roadway system. These turning movements will bemeasured during the AM, noontime, and PM periods on a weekday and Saturday during August (see Attachment7). In addition, new botanical field surveys will be conducted during the 2013 growing season by GZA and Jacobsstaff, consistent with MNHESP Compliance Conditions, for rare species noted in MNHESP’s potential habitat list.The data collected from the botanical surveys and from the existing vegetation management plan will beincorporated into the GIS files as individual data layers to facilitate permit compliance and future speciesmonitoring efforts (see Attachment 8). An archeological assessment will be performed by the PublicArchaeological Lab, Inc., based upon available research, to identify potential sites of historic or archeologicalconcern. Coordination with tribal historians will take place during the assessment (see Attachment 9).

The Existing Environmental Conditions will provide the baseline for comparing the Ultimate Airside and LandsideImprovements (Task 8) with potential environmental impacts in support of a MEPA Environmental NotificationForm (ENF) filing in Task 11. Understanding existing environmental conditions and constraints can help informplanning decisions and facilitate future permitting. There is limited on-airport land available to offset futurehabitat impacts that hasn’t already been dedicated to habitat enhancement from previous project impacts. TheMaster Plan will document opportunities for off airport mitigation and habitat enhancement. The airport willcontinue to work with town agencies to explore opportunities for mitigation banking via comprehensive townwide permitting.

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 4A):Technical memos, with graphs, charts and graphics, will document the existing environmental conditions on and inthe vicinity of Nantucket Airport, particularly as they may affect future airport development:

Aircraft Noise Assessmento South Apron Noise Monitoring and Mitigation Analysis (Attachment 6 from KM Chng )o Update Noise Contour MappingVehicular Traffic (see Traffic Count scope, Attachment 7)Endangered and Threatened Species ( see Rare Species Habitat Survey scope from GZA, Attachment 8 )

DRAFT 3-11-2013 17

o Federal Specieso State SpeciesHistoric/ Archaeological/ Cultural Resources (Historic-Archaeological scope from PAL, Attachment 9 )Existing Vegetation Management PlanCZM/ Coastal BarriersSection 4(f) and 6(f) Lands

TASK 4B – SUSTAINABILITY BASELINE ANALYSISJacobs staff will coordinate with ACK Airport Management and MassDOT Aeronautics staff to develop a specificset of “Sustainability Baseline Categories” applicable to Nantucket’s facility and operations. These categories willinclude energy, waste, air quality and noise within environmental sustainability, as well as procurement andemployment in socio-economic sustainability. Jacobs and ACK Management will also identify potentialGreenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions sources (fixed asset and air traffic movements) and inventory elements for theSustainability Program’s baseline inventory phase. The Airport Sustainability Program will investigate the potentialfor increased energy efficiency, development and use of renewable energy, and potential opportunities to workwith third parties for siting and funding of renewable energy projects on the airport property. As required by theFAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, the Nantucket Airport Sustainability Program will also study "thefeasibility of solid waste recycling at the airport, minimizing the generation of waste, operation and maintenancerequirements, the review of waste management contracts, and the potential for cost savings or revenuegeneration." As well as referencing FAA and ACRP guidance and research on airport sustainability, Nantucket’sSustainability Program will refer to the Ithaca, NY, Airport Sustainability Plan for guidance in analyzing specificopportunities for energy reduction, recycling and waste reduction measures. Guidance will be included on longterm cost benefit analysis of any specific measures recommended in the Master Plan, and recognition of areaswhere any conflicting environmental initiatives may occur (e.g. porous pavement benefits weighed against the riskof a jet fuel spill).

The Sustainability Program will address the following elements:1. Develop a written Sustainability Policy or Mission Statement for the Airport, as well as a description of how it is

communicated to airport employees, tenants, and the community.2. Define appropriate and pertinent sustainability categories at Nantucket Airport in terms of:

a. Airport facilities and proceduresb. Socioeconomicsc. Environmental resources (e.g. emissions to air noise, water, air quality)

3. Conduct a current-practices assessment for each sustainability category, such as:a. Environmental resource usage (e.g., water consumption per year or per passenger, etc.)b. Transportation Demand Managementc. Energy conservation measuresd. Renewable energy initiatives (wind, solar, etc,)e. Socioeconomic f. Adaptive engineering opportunities (particularly for drainage system)

4. For each sustainability category, establish goals to manage the airport’s negative environmental impacts, e.g.Goal: To reduce energy consumption.

5. Identify a range of specific sustainability initiatives to help Nantucket Airport achieve each goal. For example:Goal: To reduce energy consumption via low-energy LED lighting retrofit.

6. Specific sustainable initiatives may include:Sub-metering to determine specific areas of energy consumption and potential for increased efficiencyImplement a “turn off your light and computer” campaign to raise awareness about unnecessary energyusage.Energy efficient window glazingEnergy efficient roofing systems

DRAFT 3-11-2013 18

Use LED “exit” signs and other LED lighting in buildings – as already done at ACK and in parking areas androadwaysFood waste reduction programGreen meetings initiatives to reduce travel and paper wasteSwapping out traditional vehicle fleet to electric fleet to reduce noise and Air quality impacts (possiblywith renewable energy generation initiatives)Establish airside lighting controls and procedures to turn off or reduce the intensity of airside lighting(runway, taxiway, apron lights, etc.) when not being used.Consider installation of building integrated and/or stand-alone solar photovoltaic panels.Consider installation of wind turbines, while avoiding obstructions or hazards to air navigation.

7. Incorporate Sustainability Initiatives within the Public Outreach Program, described above in Task 2.

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 4B):Technical memos, with graphs, charts and graphics, will document the existing environmental conditions on and inthe vicinity of Nantucket Airport, particularly as they may affect future airport development:

Air Quality- An energy audit of existing hangars, airport vehicles, and the passenger terminal may be requiredby MEPA/DEP under the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction initiative. Jacobs will review the recent NSTAR auditand coordinate with MEPA and DEP to scope the level of effort required for this analysis within thesubsequent EA/EIR for Nantucket.Groundwater Quality- Available DataStormwater Pollution Prevention- The Airport’s SWPPP and SPCC Plans will be reviewedEnergy Supply & Natural Resources/ Solar& Wind Sustainability AnalysisLight EmissionsSolid WasteHazardous MaterialsPermeable Pavement OpportunitiesSustainability Assessment - Summary MemoCarbon Neutral Airport Program data

TASK 5 - FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND AND FLEET MIXThe 1999 Airport Master Plan forecasts will be updated beginning with 2012 passenger enplanements and aircraftoperations database. Three forecast planning periods will be developed, as shown below. The current FAATerminal Area Forecast (TAF) runs through 2040, however, such a long range is considered to have a confidencelevel that is too low to be useful in this master plan update. The long-term period shown below (2021-2030) isconsidered to be an outlook as opposed to a firm forecast. The forecasts developed for this master plan updatewill be compared with FAA’s TAF, and if there is more than a 10% difference (+/-) the discrepancy will be explainedand submitted to FAA for approval.

Master Plan Update Forecast Periods

o Short-term: 2013-2015o Intermediate: 2016-2020o Long-Term: 2021-2030

The recent growth of corporate, air charter and non-scheduled air-taxi passenger activity has contrasted withdeclining trends in small general aviation piston aircraft activity, which needs to be analyzed. The recentintroduction of new, private air taxi and charter services will be reviewed for their operational and service needsat ACK. Aircraft operational data from Task 3A, as well as discussions with Airport Operations and Control Towerstaff, will be used as input to the future fleet mix analysis.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 19

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 5):A technical memo, with graphs, charts and graphics, will be prepared to review and analyze:

Aviation Forecasts in 1999 Airport Master PlanFAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for ACKFAA National Aviation ForecastsAir Carrier/ Air Taxi Operations at ACK, annually through 2030GA & Corporate Operations/ Trends by Type of Aircraft, annually through 2030Number and Type of Based Aircraft, annually through 2030Military Aircraft Operations, annually through 2030Peak Season Activity by Type of Operation and Aircraft TypePeak Month/Average Day/Peak Hour Activity by Type of OperationAir Carrier and Air Taxi Enplanements, annually through 2030Air Carrier and Air Taxi Operations by type of carrier and aircraft, annually through 2030GA/ Corporate/ Transient Operations/ Passengers, annually through 2030Future Critical Design Aircraft and Airport Reference Code (ARC) by Runway

TASK 6 – FACILITY REQUIREMENTSTASK 6A – AIRSIDE and LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTSNantucket’s future facility needs will consider a number of specific items, both airside and landside. The fleet mixupdate and capacities of airport facilities from Task 3A will be analyzed against the forecast needs from Task 5 andincorporate sustainability measures identified in Task 4B. This will enable an assessment of how the changingGA/corporate fleet impacts ACK’s airside facility needs (EG: an increase from King Air 200’s 54’-6” wingspan to aGulfstream-V-550 jet’s 98’-6” wingspan). In addition, Passenger Terminal tenants (Cape Air, Island Airlines, majorAir Carriers, and TSA) will be interviewed to assess specific spatial requirements, adequacy of existing leaseholdareas and areas where sustainability measures can be adopted. Lease incentives may be developed to encourageenergy reduction practices in tenants operations of leased space. The adequacy of the existing passenger securehold room facilities will be revalidated in light of service loadings by Jet Blue’s 100-passenger EMB-190’s and it’srecently-proposed increased jet passenger service. As required by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,the Master Plan will also study "passenger convenience, including various systems such FIDS, screening and otheroperating systems that impact the passenger, airport ground access, and access to airport facilities." AirfieldCapacity and Facility Needs will be established per AC 150/5070-6B, Sections 805 through 813. The needs forimproved facilities will be forecast over the 5, 10 and 20 year planning period to identify operational “triggerpoints” for future improvements. Trends in the corporate and air carrier fleet mix at ACK will be analyzed, as wellas large wingspan, heavy corporate jet operations, in relation to facility needs, with particular emphasis on thosefactors listed below:

Airside/ Airfield FacilitiesCritical Design Aircraft/ Design StandardsRunway Length RequirementsFAA Protected Surfaces and Design DimensionsClass C vs. Class D Air Traffic Control OptionsTaxiway Flow and “Hotspot” IssuesAircraft Parking Apron NeedsAirfield Electrical System condition and needsElectrical Vault capacity and upgrade needs

Runway/ Taxiway/ Apron FacilitiesRunway 33 Extension Utilization

DRAFT 3-11-2013 20

Proposed RW33 East Side TaxiwayProposed RW33 West Side TaxiwayAircraft Parking RequirementsPotential Bunker Area GA Apron & Hangars

Terminal Area FacilitiesPassenger Design Hour ForecastTerminal Spatial Needs Forecast/Check Point & Bag Screen needsPassenger Terminal - TSA and Tenant needsGA/ Corporate Spatial Needs ForecastGA Terminal Building – Split Operations Cost-EffectivenessBased Aircraft/ GA Hangar NeedsGA Apron/Bunker Area Relocation ConceptsAuto Parking (employee, rental overflow, passenger)Bicycle Access Requirements

Landside FacilitiesAirport as Island-wide ResourceFAA & Legal Constraints on Use of Airport LandGround Equipment Storage spaceSRE Maintenance space and conditionPotential Solar/ Wind Turbine Siting AreasLandside Build-out ScenarioCargoFlight School

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 6A):A technical memo, with graphs, charts and graphics, documenting:

Airfieldo Critical Design Aircraft Updateo Runway 15-33 Parallel Taxiwayo Taxiway Flow/Utilization/ SIMMOD Outputo Apron Layout/ Aircraft Parking Zoneso Airfield Electrical System and Vault Room needsLandside/ Terminal Areao Terminal Parking for Automobileso SRE/GSE Storage and Maintenance needso FBO/ GA/ Corporate Buildingo GA Hangar Expansiono Access Road Developmento Industrial Park Development/ Rules & Regulationso Land Use/ Surplus Land Planningo Solar/Wind Turbine Siting Areaso Auto parking/ Pedestrian & Bicycle AccessEnvironmental Planning/ Permitting Issueso Rare Species Habitat Issueso Groundwater/ Aquifer Implicationso Water Use/ Wastewater Issueso Noise Assessment and Land Use Compatibility Needso Permit Compliance/On-going Program Requirements checklist

DRAFT 3-11-2013 21

o Comprehensive Monitoring and Compliance Program scheduling

TASK 6B – AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER SITING ANALYSISNantucket Memorial Airport’s Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) has been the subject of multiple siting studies thatwere reflected on the Airport’s FAA-Approved Airport Layout Plan. The two most recent technical siting studieswere conducted on behalf of the Airport by FAA’s Airport Facilities Terminal Integration Laboratory (AFTIL) atAtlantic City, NJ. Jacobs will review these prior ATCT siting studies and summarize the technical findings andrecommendations in context with recent FAA correspondence to Nantucket Memorial Airport, as well as anyanticipated changes in the airfield’s configuration of taxiways or runway end locations. The following studies willbe reviewed:

1. Siting Study, Nantucket Air Traffic Control Tower for Airport Layout Plan Update, Edwards and Kelcey,Inc., June 2005

2. Approved Ultimate Airport Layout Plan, FAA signed 1-22-20093. Safety Risk Management Document, Comparative Safety Assessment for Airport Traffic Control Tower

Siting, Nantucket Memorial Airport, Federal Aviation Administration, Version .02, December 22, 20094. Safety Risk Management Document, Comparative Safety Assessment for Airport Traffic Control Tower

Siting, Nantucket Memorial Airport, Federal Aviation Administration, Version .05, May 26, 20105. Final Draft Version of Nantucket CSA, as referenced in email from Joe Sims, JDS Management Services,

Airport Facility Terminal Integration Laboratory (AFTIL), dated May 26, 20106. Airport Layout Plan Update, Nantucket Memorial Airport, Jacobs Aviation Division, June 20107. FAA Safety Risk Management Panel (SRMP)- Nantucket Taxiway, Meeting Minutes, Vince Palmby, FAA

Facilitator, February 28, 20128. ACK RW33 SW Taxiway, Memo to FAA from Dan Drake, Chairman, Nantucket Memorial Airport

Commission, dated March 15, 20129. Proposed Ultimate Airport Layout Plan, Nantucket Memorial Airport, June 201210. ACK ATCT Project- FAA Project Kickoff Meeting, Agenda, DRAFT Minutes and Actions, prepared by Steve

Duckett, ESA Program Implementation Manager – ATCT Replace, dated June 26, 201211. ACK ATCT FAA/Airport – Final Meeting Minutes, June 26- ATCT Modernize, email to Tom Rafter,

Manager, Nantucket Memorial Airport, from Bill Price, FAA Program Implementation Manager AJV-E37,Terminal Modernize and Sustain, Planning and Requirements Group, dated September 18, 2012

The above studies and meetings will be reviewed as an early-action item to determine whether the current ATCTheight is a restriction to planned future development, as shown on the revised Airport Layout Plan, dated June2012. That revised ALP was created following the February 28, 2012 FAA SRMP findings on the proposed RW33Southwest Taxiway. No other alterations to the airfield layout are known or anticipated to be recommended,based upon existing trends and safety needs at ACK. Early input from Tasks 5 and 6A will be used to validate theJune 2012 Proposed Ultimate ALP as representative of future runway ends and potential taxiway layouts. This willserve as the basis for confirming previous look-down analyses performed by AFTIL during the prior two ATCT CSAtechnical studies. That analysis will examine whether the current height of the ATCT has posed a risk under theexisting ATC operational environment or to planned improvements at Nantucket Memorial Airport.

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 6B):An early-action technical memorandum will summarize the whether the current ATCT height is a restriction toplanned future development at Nantucket Memorial Airport. (NOTE: A separate structural analysis to determinethe cost of elevating the ATCT cab by 29 feet is NOT included in this Task 6B)

TASK 7 – ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTSAlternative improvement concepts will be developed to meet the facility needs identified in the previous task.These improvement concepts will be developed to meet the facility needs in an efficient, cost-effective,

DRAFT 3-11-2013 22

sustainable manner while maintaining operational efficiency of the airfield. The improvement options must reflectthe environmental, financial, and regulatory framework within which the airport operates. This includes theSeptember 28, 2012 changes to FAA’s Airport Design Standards, AC 5300-13A, as they may affect airfield layoutdimensions, for example.

Alternative improvement concepts will be developed for the airfield facilities (taxiways, aprons and tie-downs) andthe landside support facilities (terminal building, auto parking area, wildlife/security fencing, GA parking, specialoperations area, fuel storage facilities, etc.). Taxiway improvements will reflect the need for operational safetyenhancements, such as enhanced airfield flow rates, reduced taxiway congestion and more efficient aircraftmovement routes, and compliance with FAA’s potentially changing airfield design standards. Apron and tie-downimprovement alternatives will reflect the seasonal nature of activity at ACK, with additional paved areas forextended parking and large-wingspan aircraft.

Jacobs will identify those factors that might restrict, impact, or modify potential improvement options. Each ofthese factors will be considered in determining the viability of the improvement concepts. Following confirmationof the critical design aircraft and its associated ARC, the need for future airport facilities will be evaluated inrelation to the following factors:

Operational capacity and efficiencyCompliance with FAA design standardsEnvironmental compatibilityCost (both capital improvement and life cycle) efficiencySustainability – in particular how each option meets or exceeds the targets set by the Airport. Theavailability of other state and federal grants, and various tax incentive programs will be factored into theanalysis.

These factors may also be considered as criteria for establishing the “trigger points” for new improvements, aswell as use in ranking and selecting the most appropriate improvement alternatives. Other factors that may beconsidered in the development of improvement concepts include the following:

Location, size, and configuration of on-airport areas available for both aviation and non-aviationdevelopment;Viability and ease of landside or airside access to potential improvement areas;Operational and air traffic safety considerations;Environmental conditions on and off airport; noise contours; rare habitat areas and buffer zones;FAA protected surfaces; obstacle free setbacks; height restrictions; design standards;Development costs and financial feasibility; andPhasing and constructability.

The conceptual layouts for the airside and landside improvements will be evaluated relative to their size,configuration, location, and adequacy to meet forecasted needs. These concepts will be reviewed with the AirportCommission and Client Group in a workshop format. Based upon the workshop results, a set of preferred conceptswill be carried into the Ultimate Airport Layout/ Terminal Area Improvement Plans in Task 8, below.

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 7):Technical memorandum, along with graphics, will be developed to clearly explain, analyze and compare thevarious alternative airfield and landside facility improvement concepts and the trigger-points that will create theneed for each improvement. Jacobs will review the improvements and evaluate the needs with the Working Groupand Airport Commission. The results of this coordination process and input will be used by the Client Group toselect the preferred options and finalize the Ultimate Layout Plan.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 23

TASK 8 – FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION PLANThe preferred airfield and landside facility improvements identified in the preceding tasks will be developed as theUltimate ALP for review with the Airport Commission and Advisory Committee. The Ultimate Airport Layout Planwill be consistent with recent changes to FAA’s Airport Planning Advisory Circular 5300-13A, Airport Design, andAC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans. The Nantucket ALP will be developed to a level of detail adequate tosupport Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) cost estimates. An Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP)will be developed to address the following specific issues:

Prioritize Improvement ProjectsCost Estimates for Five Year Capital Improvement PlanTrigger PointsIdentify Available Financial Resources

o FAA Airport Improvement Programo Passenger Facility Charges (PFC)o Airport Safety and Maintenance Programo State Transportation Bondso Miscellaneous State Grants, Loans and Bond Programso Airport Operating Revenueso Innovative funding sources

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 8):Technical memorandum, along with graphics, will be developed, as well as the Airport Capital ImprovementProgram (ACIP), and the Ultimate Airport Layout Plan. The ACIP will include each project’s eligibility for variousfunding sources, as well as the probability that funding will be received (especially in the first five years). This willcreate the basis for the Financial Feasibility Plan, which is further detailed in Task 10, below.

TASK 9 - AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP) DRAWING SETThe full set of ALP drawings will be prepared, focusing on the future ALP and future terminal area drawing. TheALP set will include the following drawings:

1. Existing Airport Layout Plan2. Airport Layout Plan3. Passenger Terminal Ramp4. South Ramp GA Plan5. North Ramp GA/Multi-Use Area6. Utility Plan: Airport Terminal Area7. Part 77 Airspace Surfaces8. 2020 Noise Contour Plan9. Pavement Management Plan10. Exhibit A: Airport Properties Map11. Runway 6-24 Plan and Profile12. Runway 15-33 Plan and Profile

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 9):At the conclusion of this task, the new set of ALP drawings will be submitted to the Airport for review. Uponreceipt of comments and revisions to the ALP set, the final set of ALP drawings will be submitted to the AirportCommission, MassDOT and the FAA for approval and signatures. Upon approval Jacobs shall deliver three(3) fullsize sets, three(3) 11”x17” copies and three (3) discs suitable for copying.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 24

TASK 10 – FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY PLANUtilizing the cost estimates provided by developed for the ACIP in Task 8, as well as the data and reviews ofinformation collected as part of the inventory process, the financial feasibility of the ACIP will be determined. Thefinancial analysis will involve collecting, organizing, and analyzing historical financial data; developing a financialmodel; identifying funding sources for the Master Plan and CIP projects; and preparing financial projections. Thefinancial analysis will also include any non-master plan projects in the implementation plan to determine thefinancial feasibility of all projects that are contemplated, not just those in the Master Plan (see Attachment 2).

The development of the financial feasibility plan will be an iterative process. As the ACIP is developed, it will beevaluated for financial feasibility and then adjusted so the final ACIP is financially feasible. The financial feasibilityplan will also address the existing fee structure at ACK and make a determination regarding when and if the feeswill need to be modified.

The following subtask will occur during the development of this chapter of the Master Plan.

Collect, Organize, and Analyze historical financial data – Develop a base of historic and current financialtrend data and information on the financial structure and financial position of ACK for use in consideringthe impact of proposed development recommendations on the overall financial position of the airport.

Historical financial data will be collected from the airport during the development of the financialinventory. This will include, but not be limited to airline revenue, nonairline revenue, operating andmaintenance (O&M) expenses, and debt service. Based on the historical data the airport’s financialstructure and operations will be reviewed. The review will also include an analysis of O&M expenses andrevenues by line item and cost/revenue center. Historical financial trends will be summarized andanalyzed by revenue and expense categories.

Develop Financial Model - Based on the historical financial data described above, a comprehensivefinancial model to simulate the financial structure and operations of ACK will be developed. The financialmodel will incorporate ACK’s cost/revenue center structure, existing non-airline revenue rate structure(parking rates, terminal concession fees, rental car concession fees, etc.), existing airline rates and chargesmethodology, current outstanding debt, and other key components of the airport’s financial operations.The financial model will be designed to enable the Team to prepare financial projections and performfinancial sensitivity analyses, as well as test the various ACIP iterations for financial feasibility

Funding Source Identification - The financial feasibility analysis will identify various development fundingoptions available to ACK, ranging from traditional sources such as FAA funding mechanisms and passengerfacility charges (PFCs) to various bonding alternatives and more innovative approaches involving publicprivate partnerships and facility privatizations, if necessary. The analysis will consider eligibility criteriaand program-related prioritization processes.

A summary of the estimated capital costs by project and fiscal year, in three categories: near-term (costsanticipated to be incurred within five years), medium-term (costs anticipated to be incurred within five to10 years), and long-term (costs anticipated to be incurred within 10 to 20 years of the study). For eachproposed capital project, PB will identify potential funding sources, based on the nature, eligibility criteria,and estimated timing of each project. The potential funding sources will include the following:

o Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants;o Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenue (both “Pay-As-You-Go” PFC revenue and PFC revenue

leveraged through the issuance of PFC-backed bonds);o Airport discretionary funds;

DRAFT 3-11-2013 25

o Bondso Customer Facility Charges (if applicable);o Other debt instruments such as commercial paper; ando Innovative financing alternatives, such as public-private partnerships and third-party development

opportunities.

The team will assess ACK’s ability to generate PFC revenue based on assumptions regarding the timing ofPFC approval and revenue per passenger. We will also evaluate airport’s ability to increase its leveragingof future PFCs through the issuance of additional PFC-backed bonds. An evaluation of the potential forthe receipt of additional AIP grants for the Master Plan projects will be provided. Debt funding capacitywill be analyzed to assess the financial feasibility of issuing additional bonds or other debt instrumentsbacked by airport revenues. In addition, the potential for creative financing strategies will be examined,such as third-party development opportunities, for capital projects that could be of interest to privateinvestors and/or developers.

The funding of the near-term costs will be analyzed in more detail than the medium- and long-term costs,due to the uncertainty of future funding and possible changes in the importance and the timing of themedium- and long-term projects.

Prepare Financial Projections/Analyses – The financial model will be utilized to prepare financialprojections. The model will be used to prepare projections of O&M expenses (by category and by costcenter), operating revenues (nonairline and airline), non-operating revenues, and annual debt servicerequirements. Projections of annual cash flow and annual discretionary cash balances, debt servicecoverage, airline cost per enplanement, and other key financial variables will be prepared.

The financial model will also be used to prepare analyses to evaluate the projected financial effects ofmodified assumptions about the funding of cost per enplanement that is considered to be too high. Ifnecessary, revision the capital project funding assumptions will be made accordingly and the financialprojections will be modified. Likewise, if annual debt service coverage is projected to be inadequate, thecapital project funding assumptions to determine an alternate funding plan will be revised to develop afinancial plan that will enable the airport to meet the debt service coverage requirements.

This task will culminate in a comprehensive funding plan and pro-forma cash flow and an assessment ofthe financial feasibility for the preferred alternative. The financial analysis will detail the proposed fundingplan by project, and will also summarize the total funding assumed from each funding source by fiscalyear, and in total.

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 10):The financial analysis for the Master Plan will be presented in summary spreadsheets and accompanying text thatwill describe the analysis, the conclusions, and recommendations. The text will explain the underlyingassumptions related to the projections of revenue and O&M expenses, as well as the proposed funding plan forthe preferred alternative will be presented, with an analysis of the financial feasibility of that alternative.

TASK 11 – MASSACHUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (MEPA ENF FILING)Jacobs staff will prepare a DRAFT Environmental Notification Form (ENF). Jacobs staff will conduct anenvironmental overview to quantify potential impacts that could be created by the likely foreseeable priorityimprovement projects, using the Task 4A Environmental Inventory as the base conditions. Jacobs airport designstaff will prepare appropriate conceptual design layout and mitigation plans to support the ENF review process.The following outline summarizes the expected environmental impact categories that are anticipated for the ENF.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 26

The anticipated level of effort is indicated for categories with possible impacts (+), and for no impacts (-). Certaincategories will have no anticipated impact, but documentation is expected to be required (0), as listed below:

(1) Noise (+) A noise analysis will be conducted as part of Task 4A (see also Attachment 6). Anyrecommendations by the Master Plan for new apron extension could require additional noise analysisand mitigation for potential impacts to neighboring receivers in a subsequent EA/EIR.

(2) Compatible Land Use (0) No Direct Impact, but analysis of adjacent land uses is anticipated.(3) Social Impacts (-) No Direct or Indirect Impacts are anticipated.(4) Induced Socioeconomic Impacts (0) Master Plan improvements will be analyzed to identify any

potential cumulative or secondary socio-economic impacts.(5) Air Quality (0) Analysis of any induced growth and subsequent air quality impacts will be documented. If

an air quality/energy audit is required in Task 4A by MEPA under the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reductioninitiative, Jacobs will determine the potential impacts and mitigation measures for future landsidedevelopment recommendations (see also Item 17, below).

(6) Water Quality (+) Storm water runoff and recharge mitigation is anticipated. ACK has a sole sourceaquifer. Review and update of the storm water plan as required.

(7) DOT Act, Section 4(f) (-) No Direct or Indirect Impacts are anticipated to public parklands.(8) Historic, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources (0) No Direct Impact is anticipated based

upon previous archaeological surveys, but a Phase 1 Archaeological analysis will be conducted in Task4A (see Attachment 9) .

(9) Biotic Communities (including both flora and fauna) (+) MA Endangered Species Act and NaturalHeritage and Endangered Species Program (MESA/NHESP) review and permit conditions are expected tobe required (see Item 10, below).

(10) Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna (+) MESA/NHESP review and permit conditionswill be required. Rare species inventories will be required by the NHESP and conducted in Task 4A. Anywildlife surveys will have their protocols coordinated with the NHESP and will be conducted inaccordance with accepted natural resources inventory guidelines applicable to the specific species ofconcern. Once confirmed by NHESP, new environmental field research will be conducted to identifypotential seasonal constraints for rare species habitat, and the Airport will be notified of suchconstraints (see Attachment 8). Data collected from these surveys will be utilized to assess potentialimpacts and recommend appropriate mitigation strategies for any affected rare species habitat. Off-airport and cooperative mitigation initiatives to offset impacts to rare species habitats will beinvestigated.

(11) Wetlands (-) No wetland resources are present, therefore NO Impacts are anticipated.(12) Floodplains (-) No floodplains are present, therefore NO Impacts are anticipated.(13) Coastal Zone Management Program (0) Nantucket is within the Coastal Zone Boundary, and therefore

subject to MA Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) review under the Federal Consistency Reviewprogram. CZM has several project initiatives including storm water management. However, nosignificant CZM impacts are anticipated.

(14) Coastal Barriers (-) No coastal barriers are present on the airfield, therefore NO Impacts are anticipated.(15) Wild and Scenic Rivers (-) No Wild and Scenic River is present, therefore NO Impacts are anticipated(16) Farmland (-) No farmlands are present, therefore NO Impacts are anticipated.(17) Energy Supply and Natural Resources (0) No Significant Impacts are anticipated, but quantification of

energy use is expected to be required. If alternative energy projects are proposed as part of the MasterPlan, benefits will be detailed in the ENF.

(18) Light Emissions (+) No Significant Impacts are anticipated, but quantification of existing light emissionsand mitigation measures are expected to be required.

(19) Solid Waste Impact (0) No Significant Impacts are anticipated, but quantification of solid wastegeneration is expected to be required.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 27

(20) Construction Impacts (0) No Significant Impacts are anticipated, but analysis of potential constructionimpacts and mitigation measures are expected to be required.

(21) Environmental Justice (-) Analysis of EJ communities based on latest census data. Impacts are notexpected

(22) Hazardous Materials (0) Analysis of any new locations of fuel farms and best practices for spillcontainment at the airport. NO impacts anticipated due to the master Plan improvements

(23) Traffic (0) Analysis of auto traffic impacts at key intersections and potential mitigationrecommendations. Pedestrian and cyclist impacts/benefits will be reviewed.

In each impact category, existing data will be used to the extent possible. Some elements will need only a briefnarrative to document the lack of impacts. Other areas will need a more detailed discussion of impacts,alternatives to minimize impacts, and proposed mitigation. The appropriate level of effort to be expended on eachimpact category will be established based upon Agency comments received during the Master Plan scopingprocess.

DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES (TASK 11):A DRAFT MEPA ENF and supporting documentation will be submitted to the Nantucket Airport Commission, theFAA, and MassDOT Aeronautics staff (the Client Group) for review and comment. The updated ENF applicationwill be submitted to the MEPA Unit at the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. A site visit and scopingmeeting with MEPA staff will be coordinated by Jacobs and ACK staff.

TASK 12 –PROJECT ADMINISTRATIONThis task includes the Project Management and Contract Administration for Nantucket’s Master Plan project, thegeneral coordination with ACK administration, MassDOT and FAA staff, as well as coordination with the TechnicalAdvisory Committees. Project administration tasks include:

Preparation of FAA and MassDOT Grant Applications;Subcontractor evaluations and subcontract preparation and negotiations;Preparation and submission of Reimbursement Vouchers, monthly Progress Reports and backup data,including monthly DBE documentation;General project team coordination providing periodic updates to the Airport and Client Group on projectstatus; andCoordination with Airport staff and Technical Advisory Committee on project review meetings.

In summary, the Project Administration Task consists of developing, communicating, managing, and executing thescope of work. Activities include sub consultant coordination, strategic and tactical planning of the projectworkflow, and efficient implementation of the project work plan. In response to client requests, the Scopeincludes frequent and timely coordination between Jacobs and the Airport, other federal, state and local officials,and the general public. Additionally, the project manager will coordinate with the appropriate sub-consultants toensure required staff availability on key project issues. Additionally, any MassDOT and FAA – DBE subconsultantgoal accomplishment forms that require subcontractor signatures for monthly progress reports will be completedas attachments to the project reimbursement requests as work activities under Project Administration work tasks.

Additional Project Administration activities include the development and maintenance of the prime contractbetween the Airport and Jacobs, development and maintenance of the sub-contracts between Jacobs and the Subconsultant members of Jacobs’ Master Plan Team, review and approval of sub-consultant invoices, assemblageand submittal of consultant team invoices, and development and maintenance of contract and project files.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 28

ATTACHMENT 1

DOCUMENT CURRENT AIR SERVICE AND ASSESS TRENDS FOR FUTURETRAFFIC

Scope of Work

Robin Lee Monroe & Associates(Formerly InterVISTAS, inc.)

DRAFT 3-11-2013 29

Document Current Air Service and Assess Trends for Future Traffic

1. Background/Situation Analysis

a) Trends in Airline EquipmentThe Nantucket Memorial Airport (“Airport”) faces several significant planning challenges. Most of itsscheduled services use 9-seat propeller aircraft. They operate on quick turnarounds and make minimaldemands on facilities. However, regional jets and small narrow body equipment such as the Embraer 190account for a growing share of arrivals. Where the Airport has had to accommodate a small but steady flow oftraffic, heretofore adequately accommodated by the terminal, passenger flows will now be concentrated atthe arrival and departure times of the larger aircraft. While the Airport may not necessarily handle moretraffic, the scheduled passenger flows will be much more “peaked”. Thus the Airport will need to plan allaspects of its terminal to handle the more concentrated throughput. The 9-seat aircraft that provide the bulkof Nantucket’s services are aging. Cape Air is seeking a replacement for its Cessna Aircraft with longer range.It expects to have the new aircraft in its fleet by 20161. These aircraft could provide nonstop services toadditional destinations. They also could affect operations and facility needs significantly, particularly if theyoffer more than the 9 seats on current aircraft.

b) Traffic Peaking A second challenge is the seasonal peaking of traffic. The Airport must plan around the traffic needs of the summer peak and will face continual pressures to make major investments to accommodate it.

c) Overall Industry Trends The airline industry itself poses many uncertainties. The recent US Airways-American merger has further reduced competition. The industry is still adjusting from the United-Continental, Delta-Northwest and Southwest-AirTran mergers. A major fear is that the higher level of concentration will lead to higher fares and reduced traffic growth.

Increasing fuel costs have greatly undermined the economics of 30-65 seat regional jets. Most airlines are reducing or eliminating their fleets of these aircraft. The 75 seat twin jet has become the de facto smallest size of commercially viable aircraft for many routes. However, even it can be difficult to operate profitably.

This trend will affect Nantucket in a unique manner. Most of the passengers flying to Nantucket, particularly from airports outside Cape Cod, are affluent. They can afford to pay premium prices for flights by high cost aircraft. Most jet routes to Nantucket involve very short stage lengths where any kind of jet aircraft, no matter how efficient, will generate very high operating costs. The short distance implies very low utilization, so variable flying costs may not be as significant as on longer routes. The La Guardia and Reagan airports have separate slot pools for small aircraft. The alternative to a New York-Nantucket flight is an unpleasant drive along a congested freeway, followed by a Hyannis-Nantucket flight or ferry trip. Under these conditions, the operating cost problems facing regional jets may not be as significant as at other airports. However, airlines will not retain a separate fleet of aircraft for a few, low volume, seasonal routes.

An effective Airport Master Plan must reflect both the factors affecting the airline industry at large and the seasonal nature of the Airport’s operations. The Master plan must consider existing services, particularly aircraft types, volumes, capacities, load factors and seasonal patterns, both route- and airline-specific. It must also consider how new routes or aircraft types could affect the Airport’s facility needs. Finally, it must consider the prospects for changing patterns of traffic, seasonality and routing.

1 Source: C. Robbins, Watertown Daily Times November 6 2012, Cape Air officials give positive report to OBP,

DRAFT 3-11-2013 30

2. Proposed MethodologyThe following tasks will be undertaken to as input to the overall Master Planning effort. The starred Tasks (*)represent meetings with the Oversight Committee/Team meetings.

*Task 1: Project Initiation MeetingAt the start of the project, RLM & Associates will participate with Jacobs in presenting, and answering questions tothe oversight committee on the methodology and potential results anticipated. At this time we will incorporateany input/requirements that the Committee and Jacobs Project Manager agree too.

Task 1a: InterviewsThe Jacobs Team will meet will key stakeholders in the Airport. These consultations will consider the marketfundamentals driving the Airport, and will be in addition to other consultations on Airport Facilities. Stakeholderswill include the Nantucket Island Chamber of Commerce, the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism,Nantucket Tourist Bureau, Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission, Cape Air and otherrelevant entities. These discussions will focus on the long term direction of Nantucket’s traffic. A major subject ofthe meetings with travel and tourism experts will be to develop an understanding of international traffic. At thesemeetings we will also discuss the format and results of any travel/tourism surveys which have been conducted foruses by the Chambers/Hotels etc. We will develop, using this information, and airline passenger surveys that RLMhas conducted before, a brief customized survey which will be oriented towards understanding origins and finaldestinations of passengers. This survey, (if the client selects to undertake it) will be conducted during the peaktravel period and the results will be incorporated into the RLM analysis after the completion of Task 5. The role ofRLM & Associates will be to draft the survey and work with an independent survey firm (who will be retainedunder separate contract) to administer the survey. The cost estimates provided for this scope of work include a)the preparation of the survey instrument, b) on call technical advice to the administrators of the survey (the surveycompany) and, c) interpretation/incorporation of the results of the survey into the final O&D traffic analysis. Thecost estimates DO NOT include the engagement fees and expenses of the survey firm. Should a survey be includedin the final scope of work, it will be the responsibility of the Airport to obtain permission from the airlines toundertake the survey.

Task 2: Evaluate Airline Industry Trends Relevant to NantucketThe Jacobs Team will evaluate the major trends affecting the airline industry and their relevance toNantucket. Items to be examined include but will not be limited to:

Economics of 35-65 seat regional jets and the nationwide shift to larger aircraft;Slot controls at the New York and Washington airports;Recent airline mergers;Impact of increasing fuel prices;Airline approaches to serving highly seasonal markets;Airline alliances;Airline network restructuring; andChanges in strategies at the major airlines serving the Airport and key prospects.

The analysis will consider the comparative economics of different classes of aircraft. The Team will not attempt toestimate airline-specific or route-specific costs. Each airline employs its own costing methodologies, and theseapproaches are considered commercially sensitive. However, the Jacob’s analysis will help identify key prospectsor any routes that may be particularly at risk.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 31

Task 3: Profile Current Flight OperationsThe Jacob’s Team will assemble ten years of scheduled operations data for the Airport. Specifically, they willdevelop a database that shows the airline, route, direction (inbound or outbound), type of aircraft, monthly orseasonal frequencies, seat capacities, passengers carried and freight/mail carried. The Team will summarize andcondense this data as appropriate. The Airport will be provided with the database.

The data will be provided according to the flight segment. The bases (Department ofTransportation C28DS, C28DM) do not capture the “true” origin or destination for connecting passengers; only theflight loads. The Team will be able to calculate passenger totals by origin/destination airport for flights that makemultiple stops.

Task 4: Evaluate Origin-Destination TrafficThe Jacob’s Team will download quarterly origin-destination traffic for the Nantucket Memorial Airport. Thisdata will show the number of passengers by quarter, whether they are originating or terminating at Nantucket,the origin or destination, fare paid and carrier. This data will show the “true” origin and destination for anypassengers traveling on a single ticket.

It will not recognize passengers who connect to a second flight on another ticket. For example,a passenger flying by Cape Air to Boston who connects to a Virgin Atlantic flight to London will be considered aNantucket-Boston passenger. The link to London will be “lost.” Cape Air already has an alliance with JetBlue, andother airlines serving Nantucket have extensive international flights. The current system of fares already stronglyencourages single-ticketing. We therefore believe that this information gap will not undermine the usefulness ofthis analysis.

Task 5: Analysis and Incorporation of Survey ResultsUpon completion and receipt of results of the survey, the information obtained will be analyzed and incorporatedinto the overall traffic O&D analysis.

Task 5a: Evaluate Drive-Fly Traffic Arriving HyannisMany passengers drive to the Hyannis Airport and board flights for Nantucket. This Drive-Fly traffic could affectthe outlook for additional flights between Nantucket and major cities. One component could gain at the expenseof the other, and would have no effect on the Airport’s total traffic. However, such a shift could affect the timingof services, the mix of aircraft and destinations and the Airport’s facility requirements.

The Jacobs Team will evaluate the Drive-Fly traffic. The Team will survey the parking lot at the Hyannis Airport andnote states of origin shown on the license plates. By applying the proportions to the total traffic at Hyannis, theJacob’s team will calculate the true origins of the Drive-Fly passengers.

Task 6: Measure International TrafficA passenger who travels on two separate tickets is very difficult to trace by any methodology. International trafficis a particular challenge. Many visitors to the United States visit multiple destinations. Foreign tourists who visitNantucket might also visit New York City, Boston, Washington and other points. While part of Nantucket’seffective demands, they will not necessarily use scheduled air services in any way that can be readily modeled.

The Jacob’s team will estimate international demands for air services at Nantucket. A major purpose of ourinterviews with the tourist organizations of Massachusetts and Nantucket will be to determine the number ofinternational visitors. The Nantucket hotels will be requested to provide information about their numbers ofinternational visitors.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 32

*Task 6a: Interim Project Summary/Presentation of Results to Oversight CommitteeA draft summary of the preliminary findings to this point in the project will be prepared and presented to theStudy Team/Oversight Committee. Comments, concerns and questions will be addressed during this meeting andthe draft report revised (if needed) accordingly.

Task 7: Evaluate Future Needs for Scheduled Aircraft FacilitiesThe Jacob’s Team will integrate the findings of previous steps into an analysis of the prospects for major changesin scheduled services. The analysis will address future traffic levels, aircraft types, load factors, routes and otheraspects that could drive facility needs. The team will pay particular attention to the prospects for flights toadditional major cities.

The analysis will address the full range of aircraft types relevant to the Airport. It will consider new routes andcarriers. For example, both Canadian airlines Porter Air Lines and WestJet operate the Q400. Both operateseasonal and low frequency scheduled services to cities such as Burlington, Mont Tremblant (a ski resort north ofMontreal) and Myrtle Beach. Toronto’s Billy Bishop Airport is seeking preclearance for U.S.-bound passengers.Other domestic destination could also be feasible, and could create affect facility needs at the Airport.

Task 8: Evaluate General Aviation DemandsThe Jacob’s Team will evaluate the needs of general aviation. The team will purchase a database of all commercialand general aviation aircraft using the Airport for a four month period. The Team will then consolidate andanalyze this data to identify important patterns of use. Our discussions with Flight Aware have indicated that onemonth of data would cost about three hundred dollars.

Task 9: Provide Input to ForecastsThe analysis of scheduled and general aviation services in the preceding steps will contribute to the trafficforecasts. The scheduled and general aviation analysis will be summarized according to:

Major determinants of traffic growth;Probable growth in scheduled passengers;Evolution of general aviation, in terms of traffic volumes, destinations and aircraft types;Changes in scheduled airline fleet mixes, capacities and ramp footprints;Changes in seasonal demand and operations patterns;Probable evolution of new services. Timings of new flights and facility implications.

*Task 10: Draft Report/Presentation of Results/FindingsRLM & Associates will draft a final report for presentation to the Oversight Committee and, make additionalrecommendations re: opportunities for additional air service, based upon the work completed.

Starred tasks (*) indicate client meetings.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 33

ATTACHMENT 2

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY PLAN

Scope of Work

Parsons Brinckerhoff

DRAFT 3-11-2013 34

SCOPE OF SERVICES and COMPENSATIONFinancial Analysis

Nantucket Memorial AirportAIRPORT MASTER PLAN & SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM

The work scope for Parsons Brinckerhoff will focus on the financial data inventory and financial feasibility of thepreferred development alternative and the definition of the final Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) ofthe Master Plan and Sustainability Program (Master Plan) for the Nantucket Memorial Airport (ACK). This workwill be performed in accordance with applicable FAA guidelines and will be closely coordinated with the ACKmanagement. In general, the financial feasibility will address potential funding sources, projections of revenuesand expenditures over the 20-year planning period, as well as the impact of the proposed projects on airline ratesand charges and any requirements for debt service coverage.

Parsons Brinckerhoff will utilize cost estimates provided by Jacobs as the basis for the development of the fundingplan for projects contained in the recommended ACIP. The financial analysis will involve collecting, organizing,and analyzing historical financial data; developing a financial model; identifying funding sources for the MasterPlan and CIP projects; preparing financial projections; coordinating information with other team members; andworking with ACK management to obtain FAA concurrence on the financial plan. The financial analysis will alsoinclude any non-master plan projects in the implementation plan to determine the financial feasibility of allprojects that are contemplated, not just those in the Master Plan. Special focus will be given to the generation ofrevenues at ACK and a benchmarking study aimed at identifying options and making recommendations regardingchanges to the rate structure at ACK will also be performed and included in the financial feasibility analysis.

Task 1: Financial Inventory/Rates and Charges Benchmarking & Recommendations

In accordance with AC 150/5070-6B, Sec 608, this task will examine ACK’s financial resources. The inventory offinancial data will serve as the basis for the development of Chapter 10 Financial Feasibility. The inventory willinclude gaining a thorough understanding of the financial aspects of the airport including, but not limited to thefollowing.

i) Airport Business Model – analysis of the financial structure of ACK, including the entity/airport sponsorresponsible for providing the local share for any Federal monies received.

j) Operating Revenues and Expenses – Review of the revenue and expenses of the ACK and anunderstanding of the current debt obligations of ACK.

k) Rates and Charges/Benchmarking Analysis – Review of the existing rates and charges structure of ACK andfees are paid by the commercial airlines and other aircraft operators that utilize ACK. In addition, abenchmarking study will be conducted of no more than 10 comparable airports (i.e., similar size, type ofservice, proximity, etc). The benchmarking analysis will be utilized to determine potential way s to modifythe fees collected by the commercial airlines and other users of the airport to gain an understanding ofrecommendations that could be made to increase ACK’s revenue stream.

l) Annual Leases with Airlines – Review the current lease agreements and provide a brief summary of theexisting leases and their expiration dates.

m) Corporate/GA Fees and Charges/Benchmarking Analysis – in the same way as the rates and charges, thecorporate and GA fees paid by the users at the airport will be benchmarked against other similar airports.This analysis will serve to determine changes to the fee structure that may be implemented to fundportions of the ACIP developed for the Master Plan.

n) Capital Funding - Review of historical capital funding sources including bonds, Federal grants, and PFCs.Future commitments for PFCs will be compared to the forecasted PFC revenue stream to determine if PFCrevenues are adequate to meet anticipated capital needs.

o) Debt service for new Buildings – This will include a review the existing debt obligations of ACK and analyze

DRAFT 3-11-2013 35

the flow of funds and any reserve requirements that have implications to the annual cash flow of ACK.p) Budgetary trends – Review of historical budgetary trends and what factors have influenced planned

increases and decreases in revenues and expenses, as well as variances that have occurred betweenbudget and actual financial results.

The rates and charges/benchmarking analysis will provide options that will be utilized during the development ofthe financial feasibility chapter to ensure there are adequate funds to support the local share for capital projectsfunded by the FAA and for other ACK capital projects.

Task 1 Documentation and Deliverables: Provide a section for inclusion in the technical memorandum for theairport inventory. The section will include an overview of the following:

Rates and Charges and Revenue SourcesAirside/Landside IncomesO&M CostsAnnual BudgetRecommendations of changes to the existing rates and charges methodology

Task 2: Facilities Implementation Plan

Parsons Brinckerhoff will develop a funding plan for the Master Plan’s Ultimate ACIP. Several iterations of thisfunding plan may need to be developed as project may shift due to the availability of funds. The iterations of thefunding plan and project timing will reflect the following issues:

Prioritize Improvement ProjectsCost Estimates for Five Year Capital Improvement PlanTrigger PointsAvailability of Financial Resourceso FAA Airport Improvement Programo Passenger Facility Charges (PFC)o Airport Safety and Maintenance Programo State Transportation Bondso Miscellaneous State Grants, Loans and Bond Programso Airport Operating Revenueso Innovative funding sources

Task 2 Documentation and Deliverables: Drafts and final of the Ultimate ACIP will include each project’s eligibilityfor various funding sources, as well as the probability that certain funding will be received (especially in the firstfive years).

Task 3: Financial Feasibility PlanUtilizing the cost estimates provided by Jacobs developed for the ACIP, as well as the data and reviews ofinformation collected as part of the inventory process, the financial feasibility of the ACIP will be determined. Thefinancial analysis will involve collecting, organizing, and analyzing historical financial data; developing a financialmodel; identifying funding sources for the Master Plan and ACIP projects; and preparing financial projections. Thefinancial analysis will also include any non-master plan projects in the implementation plan to determine thefinancial feasibility of all projects that are contemplated, not just those in the Master Plan.

The development of the financial feasibility plan will be an iterative process. As the ACIP is developed, it will be

DRAFT 3-11-2013 36

evaluated for financial feasibility and then adjusted so the final ACIP is financially feasible. The financial feasibilitywill also address the existing fee structure at ACK and make a determination regarding when and if the fees willneed to be modified.

The following subtasks will occur during the development of this financial feasibility plan for the Master Plan.

Collect, Organize, and Analyze historical financial data – Develop a base of historic and current financialtrend data and information on the financial structure and financial position of ACK for use in consideringthe impact of proposed development recommendations on the overall financial position of the airport.

Historical financial data will be collected from the airport during the development of the financialinventory. This will include, but not be limited to airline revenue, nonairline revenue, operating andmaintenance (O&M) expenses, and debt service. Based on the historical data the airport’s financialstructure and operations will be reviewed. The review will also include an analysis of O&M expenses andrevenues by line item and cost/revenue center. Historical financial trends will be summarized andanalyzed by revenue and expense categories.

Develop Financial Model - Based on the historical financial data described above, a comprehensivefinancial model to simulate the financial structure and operations of ACK will be developed. The financialmodel will incorporate ACK’s cost/revenue center structure, existing non-airline revenue rate structure(parking rates, terminal concession fees, rental car concession fees, etc.), existing airline rates and chargesmethodology, current outstanding debt, and other key components of the airport’s financial operations.The financial model will be designed to enable the Team to prepare financial projections and performfinancial sensitivity analyses, as well as test the various ACIP iterations for financial feasibility

Funding Source Identification - The financial feasibility analysis will identify various sources developmentfunding options available ACK, ranging from traditional sources such as FAA funding mechanisms andpassenger facility charges (PFCs) to various bonding alternatives and more innovative approachesinvolving public private partnerships and facility privatizations, if necessary. The analysis will considereligibility criteria and program-related prioritization processes.

A summary the estimated capital costs by project and fiscal year, in three categories: near-term (costsanticipated to be incurred within five years), medium-term (costs anticipated to be incurred within five to10 years), and long-term (costs anticipated to be incurred within 10 to 20 years of the study). For eachproposed capital project, PB will identify potential funding sources, based on the nature, eligibility criteria,and estimated timing of each project. The potential funding sources will include the following:

o Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants;o Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenue (both “Pay-As-You-Go” PFC revenue and PFC revenue

leveraged through the issuance of PFC-backed bonds);o Airport discretionary funds;o Bondso Customer Facility Charges (if applicable);o Other debt instruments such as commercial paper; ando Innovative financing alternatives, such as public-private partnerships and third-party development

opportunities.

The team will assess the options ACK’s ability to generate PFC revenue based on assumptions regardingthe timing of PFC approval and revenue per passenger. We will also evaluate the ACK’s ability to increaseits leveraging of future PFCs through the issuance of additional PFC-backed bonds. An evaluation of the

DRAFT 3-11-2013 37

potential for the receipt of additional AIP grants for the Master Plan projects will be provided. Debtfunding capacity will be analyzed to assess the financial feasibility of issuing additional bonds or other debtinstruments backed by airport revenues. In addition, the potential for creative financing strategies will beexamined, such as third-party development opportunities, for capital projects that could be of interest toprivate investors and/or developers.

The funding of the near-term costs will be analyzed in more detail than the medium- and long-term costs,due to the uncertainty of future funding and possible changes in the importance and the timing of themedium- and long-term projects.

Prepare Financial Projections/Analyses – The financial model will be utilized to prepare financialprojections. The model will be used to prepare projections of O&M expenses (by category and by costcenter), operating revenues (nonairline and airline), non-operating revenues, and annual debt servicerequirements. Projections of annual cash flow and annual discretionary cash balances, debt servicecoverage, airline cost per enplanement, and other key financial variables will be prepared.

The financial model will also be used to prepare analyses to evaluate the projected financial effects ofmodified assumptions about the funding of cost per enplanement that is considered to be too high. Ifnecessary, revision the capital project funding assumptions will be made accordingly and the financialprojections will be modified. Likewise, if annual debt service coverage is projected to be inadequate, thecapital project funding assumptions to determine an alternate funding plan will be revised to develop afinancial plan that will enable the airport to meet the debt service coverage requirements.

This task will culminate in a comprehensive funding plan and pro-forma cash flow and an assessment of thefinancial feasibility for the preferred alternative. The financial analysis will detail the proposed funding plan byproject, and will also summarize the total funding assumed from each funding source by fiscal year, and in total.

Task 3 Documentation and Deliverables: The financial analysis for the Master Plan will be presented in summaryspreadsheets and accompanying text that will describe the analysis, the conclusions, and recommendations. Thetext will explain the underlying assumptions related to the projections of revenue and O&M expenses, as well asthe proposed funding plan for the preferred alternative will be presented, with an analysis of the financialfeasibility of that alternative.

BUDGETThe budget for this assignment is presented in the following table. The table presents proposed staff, hours,billing rates, and overall budget of $75,000 to complete the scope of services outlined above.

HoursTask 1 Task 2 Task 3 Total

Tracy Beach Project Manager $153 100 40 100 240 $36,751TO BE NAMED Analyst $100 120 8 140 268 $26,695Matthew Bieschke QA/QC $308 4 - 4 8 $2,467Barton Gover QA/QC $146 4 4 8 16 $2,334TO BE NAMED Project Accountant $106 4 4 8 16 $1,690

Total Labor $69,938

Direct Expenses $5,062

TOTAL BUDGET $75,000

Staff Member Role BudgetHourly

Rate

DRAFT 3-11-2013 38

ATTACHMENT 3

AERIAL GIS MAPPINGScope of Work

Sanborn Aerial Mapping

DRAFT 3-11-2013 39

DRAFT 3-11-2013 40

DRAFT 3-11-2013 41

DRAFT 3-11-2013 42

DRAFT 3-11-2013 43

ATTACHMENT 4

GROUND SURVEY PLANSCOPE OF WORK

Welch Survey, Assoc. - WBE

DRAFT 3-11-2013 44

DRAFT 3-11-2013 45

DRAFT 3-11-2013 46

DRAFT 3-11-2013 47

ATTACHMENT 5

SUBSURFACE UTILITIES SURVEY

Scope of Work

(To be prepared by BSI Engineering, Inc.)

DRAFT 3-11-2013 48

ATTACHMENT 6

Additional Noise Measurements and Assessment

SCOPE OF WORK

KM Chng Environmental

DRAFT 3-11-2013 49

Additional Noise Measurements and AssessmentNantucket Memorial Airport

KMC Proposal No. P13-01-002

Scope and Approach

KM Chng Environmental Inc. (KM Chng) will obtain additional noise measurements at NantucketMemorial Airport to supplement the noise measurements that we performed in August 2011, and 2012 aspart of the South Apron Extension Project. As a result of that noise study, Nantucket Airport implementedprocedures to reduce the amount of time that jet aircraft are allowed to idle in the apron area prior totake-off. These additional noise measurements will be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of theseprocedures. KM Chng will also duplicate the 24-hour noise measurements that were obtained at the tworesidential locations (residence at the end of Okorwaw Avenue, and residence at 31 Monohansett Road)adjacent to the proposed area of the South Apron Extension. KM Chng’s proposed scope of workconsists of the following tasks:

Task 1: Baseline and Ground Operations Noise Measurements

The noise-monitoring program that KM Chng performed in August 2011 and 2012 will be repeated inAugust 2013 to determine the existing noise levels at receptor locations near the proposed South Apronextension. Long-term 24-hour noise measurements will be obtained at the same two residential locations(the residence at the end of Okorwaw Avenue, and the residence at 31 Monohansett Road) adjacent tothe proposed area of the South Apron Extension.

These noise measurements will include the hourly Leq(h), Lmax, and L90 noise levels to provideadditional documentation of the existing background noise levels in this area. These noisemeasurements will also be used to establish the baseline for analysis of the noise effects from aircraftoperations in the South Apron Extension area. Noise measurements will be obtained using CEL Model593 (or equivalent) precision integrating sound level meters that meet ANSI Standards for Type Iaccuracy and quality.

As a result of the noise study performed in 2011, Nantucket Airport implemented procedures to reducethe amount of time that jet aircraft are allowed to idle in the apron area prior to take-off. As a result,short-term noise measurements similar to those obtained in 2011 and 2012 will be obtained to evaluatethe effectiveness of these procedures. Noise measurements will be obtained near the existing apronarea that will consist of a continuous time history of the Lmax noise levels along with the identification ofthe aircraft activities that occur within the apron area and the take-off and landing operations at theAirport.

Task 2: Noise Analysis

The results of the 2013 noise measurements will be compared to the 2011 and 2012 noisemeasurements to determine the changes in noise levels at Nantucket Airport. This comparison will bemost useful in evaluating the effectiveness of the procedures implemented by the Airport to reduce the

DRAFT 3-11-2013 50

amount of time that jet aircraft are allowed to idle in the apron area.

Task 3: Reporting

The results of the noise measurements at Nantucket Memorial Airport will be documented in a technicalreport. A draft report will be submitted to Jacobs and Nantucket Airport for their review and comment.Any comments will be addressed and their results reflected in the final technical report.

Task 4: Public MeetingKM Chng will attend up to three meetings (Airport Commission Meeting, Neighborhood Meeting, andGeneral Public Q & A Meeting) to provide all necessary technical support to Jacobs and NantucketAirport regarding the results of our noise assessment.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 51

ATTACHMENT 7

AUTO TRAFFIC COUNT

Scope of Work

Jacobs Engineering, Inc.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 52

PROJECTNAME:

Nantucket Memorial AirportNantucket, MA

PROJECTNUMBER: TBD

CLIENT: *NAME*ADDRESS: Nantucket Memorial Airport

14 Airport RoadNantucket, MA 02554

SCOPE OFSERVICES:

Traffic engineering services to perform a traffic impact assessment for the Nantucket MemorialAirport in Nantucket, Massachusetts.

It is our understanding that Nantucket Memorial Airport desires a traffic assessment to assessthe impacts of the airport located on 14 Airport Road in Nantucket, Massachusetts.Services are more specifically identified below:

A. Traffic Engineering Services

1. Representation at up to two Project Initiation/Kick-off Meetings. One with the client andother members of the design team; and another with the local commissions.

2. Finalization of the intersections which comprise the study area roadway network, currentlythis study area will consist of the three (3) locations listed below:

Airport Road at the Nantucket Memorial Airport Entrance Airport Road at the Nantucket Memorial Airport Exit Old South Road at Airport Road

This will include a field inventory and verification of conditions at the study area locations.

3. Jacobs will summarize the latest 3 years worth of available crash data at the study arealocations to analyze trends and highlight potential safety deficiencies. This data will bebased on crash data published by either the Massachusetts Highway Department usingRegistry of Motor Vehicles collision records or Nantucket Police Department records basedon availability.

4. Obtain turning movement and vehicle classification counts (TMC) during a typical weekdaymorning and evening peak periods at the locations determined within the study area.Additionally no less than two (2) 24-hour automatic traffic recorder counts (ATR) will beconducted at locations to be identified to observe vehicular volumes over an extendedperiod. The counts will be performed during the peak tourism season (August). The specificlocations of the TMCs and ATRs will be verified based on input from the client but areexpected to include the three previously listed intersections for the TMCs and the roadwaysegments of Airport Road in the vicinity of the Nantucket Memorial Airport driveways andOld South Road in the vicinity of Airport Road for the ATRs.

5. Conducting a review of historic growth patterns within the vicinity of the proposed site. The

DRAFT 3-11-2013 53

existing traffic volumes will be compared to the historic volumes observed within the studyarea. The operations of the study area intersections will be analyzed based on the existingfield conditions and historic and current traffic volumes.

6. The results of these tasks will be presented in a draft technical report. This draft report willbe published for client review and comment. Client comments will then be addressed in aFinal Technical Report for submittal to the required state and local agencies. A draft versionof this report is scheduled to be delivered for client review by September 2013.

7. Finally, Jacobs will attend a maximum of ten (10) meetings. These meetings may consist ofcoordination meetings and/or informational presentations with the client project team,community groups, state and local agencies and other similar groups.

A detailed cost breakdown is provided below:

Cost Breakdown

Task 1 (15 hours) .................................................................................... $2,550

Task 2 (9 hours) ...................................................................................... $1,150

Task 3 (6 hours) .........................................................................................$800

Task 4 (Subcontracted) ........................................................................... $3,500

Task 5 (12 hours) .................................................................................... $1,500

Task 6 (28 hours) .................................................................................... $4,000

Task 7 (40 hours) .................................................................................. $10,000

Total: Traffic Counts Task ................................................................. $23,500

Note: After ten (10) meetings, additional meetings will be priced at $1,000.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 54

ATTACHMENT 8

RARE SPECIES HABITAT SURVEY

SCOPE OF WORK

Goldberg Zoino Environmental, Inc.

DRAFT 3-11-2013 55

DRAFT 3-11-2013 56

DRAFT 3-11-2013 57

DRAFT 3-11-2013 58

DRAFT 3-11-2013 59

DRAFT 3-11-2013 60

DRAFT 3-11-2013 61

ATTACHMENT 9

HISTORIC/ ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SCOPE OF WORK

(To be added from PAL, Inc.)

DRAFT 3-11-2013

ATTACHMENT 10

PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART

NANTUCKET MASTER PLAN

DRAFT 3-11-2013

Nantucket Airport Master PlanNantucket Airport Master Plan

Master Plan Team

ACK Airport CommissionTom Rafter, ACK Manager

Anne McKinnonPublic Outreach

Bill RichardsonProject Manager

Meredith de CarbonnelEnvironmental Scientist, Jacobs

Erin HaughField Botanist, GZA

Steve BerardoPrincipal Planner

Heath MarsdenGIS/ Airspace Planner

Dave ChamberlainPrincipal-in-Charge

Steve FlecchiaProject Engineer

Aerial MappingSanborn

Airfield SurveyWelch Assoc.

Utility SurveyBSI Eng.

Noise MonitoringKM Chng Assoc.

ArchaeologyP.A.L. Inc.

FAA MassDOTAeronautics

DRAFT 3-11-2013

ATTACHMENT 11

PROJECT SCHEDULE

NANTUCKET MASTER PLAN

DRAFT 3-11-2013

**-----*---------*---Public Outreach

EnvironmentalEnvironmentalOverviewOverview

FinancialFinancialFeasibility PlanFeasibility Plan

3.3. ImplemenImplemen--tationtation Plan/ ALPPlan/ ALP

Alt. ConceptsAlt. ConceptsPotential ImpactsPotential Impacts

2.2. ATCTATCTSitingSiting/Facility/Facility

NeedsNeeds

Forecasts/ FleetForecasts/ FleetMixMix

EnvironmentalEnvironmentalSustainabilitySustainability

1.1. Inventory/ GISInventory/ GISMapping/ AirMapping/ Air

Service TrendsService Trends

Summer

‘14

Spring ‘14Winter ’13Fall ‘13Summer‘13Phase/Task

ACK Master Plan ScheduleACK Master Plan Schedule

DRAFT 3-11-2013

ATTACHMENT 12

LABOR AND COST ESTIMATE

NANTUCKET MASTER PLAN

(To be prepared by Jacobs for FINAL Scope)