rogue valley international medford airport - Jackson County Oregon

WORKING PAPER THREE
THE Barnard Dunkelberg
Company TEAM
MASTER
PLAN
UPDATE
JACKSON
COUNTY
Airport Authority
ROGUE VALLEY
INTERNATIONAL
MEDFORD
AIRPORTMEDFORD, OREGON

WORKING PAPER THREE
July 2011
THE Barnard Dunkelberg
Company TEAM
Barnard Dunkelberg
Company
TULSA
Cherry Street Building
1616 East 15th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120-6027
Phone Number. 918 585 8844
FAX Number. 918 585 8857
DENVER
1743 Wazee Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone Number. 303 825 8844
FAX Number. 303 825 8855
Email Address. mark@bd-c.com
Precision Approach Engineering
Corvallis, Oregon
Leibowitz & Horton AMC
Seattle, Washington
MASTER
PLAN
UPDATE
JACKSON
COUNTY
Airport Authority
ROGUE VALLEY
INTERNATIONAL
MEDFORD
AIRPORTMEDFORD, OREGON

Contents
Contents
Illustrations
iii
iv
CHAPTER D. Development Concepts and Alternatives Analysis
Goals and Objectives for Development D.2
Runway 14/32 Instrument Approach Improvement Analysis D.3
Airside Development Concepts and Sketches D.5
Landside Development Concepts and Sketches D.17
Alternatives Environmental Screening D.29
Conceptual Development Plan D.31
iii

Illustrations
Figure D1 RUNWAY 14 AND 32 INSTRUMENT APPORACH AND MISSED
D.4
APPROACH AREA OF TERPS SCREENING
Figure D2 AIRSIDE ALTERNATIVE ONE, INIITAL RUNWAY 14L32R (ARC B-II) D.7
Figure D3 AIRSIDE ALTERNATIVE TWO, ULITIMATE RUNWAY 14L32R (ARC C-
D.10
II)
Figure D4 AIRSIDE ALTERNATIVE THREE, ULTIMATE RUNWAY 14L/32R (ARC
D.13
C-II) UTILIZES ALL OF INITIAL RUNWAY DEVELOPMENT
PAVEMENT
Figure D5 AIRSIDE ALTERNATIVE FOUR, ULTIMATE RUNWAY 13/31 (ARC C-
D.16
II) NO LAND ACQUISITION REQUIRED
Figure D6 TAXIWAY “C” DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL D.19
Figure D7 TAXILANE DEVELOPMENT OPTION D.20
Figure D8 TAXIWAY “C” DEVELOPMENT AREA LAYOUT CONCEPT ONE D.22
Figure D9 TAXIWAY “C” DEVELOPMENT AREA LAYOUT CONCEPT TWO D.24
Figure D10 TAXIWAY “C” DEVELOPMENT AREA LAYOUT CONCEPT THREE D.26
Figure D11 EASTSIDE LANDSIDE ACCESS CONCEPT D.28
Figure D12 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS SUMMARY D.30
iv

D. Development Concepts and Alternatives Analysis
INTRODUCTION. The purpose of this chapter is to present development alternatives and
development recommendations for Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport in
terms of concepts and reasoning. This chapter provides a description of the various
factors and influences, which will form the basis for the Airport’s long-term
development program.
In concert with the role of the Airport and community input received in the planning
process, several basic assumptions have been established that are intended to direct
the development of the Airport in the future.
Assumption One. The Airport will be developed and operated in a manner that is consistent with
local ordinances and codes, federal and state statutes, federal grant assurances, and federal agency
regulations (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation Security Administration, and
Environmental Protection Agency, among others).
Assumption Two. This assumption recognizes the role of the Airport. The Airport will continue to
serve as a facility that accommodates commercial passenger service activity, along with general
aviation activity, air cargo/freight activity, and a small amount of military activity.
Assumption Three. This assumption relates to the size and type of aircraft that utilize the Airport and
the resulting setback and safety criteria used as the basis for the layout of associated airport facilities.
Runway 14/32. The “Design Aircraft” for this runway was identified in the previous chapter as the
McDonnell Douglas MD-83. The MD-83 aircraft has an approach speed of approximately 144
knots and a wingspan of approximately 108 feet making the ARC for the aircraft D-III. However,
the runway also accommodates a number of large fire bomber/tanker aircraft with wingspans in the
Group IV category and the previous Airport Master Plan recommended protection for the potential
to upgrade the ARC for Runway 14/32 to ARC D-IV. Alternatives considered in this chapter will
continue to the protect for a future ARC of D-IV for Runway 14/32.
Future Runway 14L/32R. As mentioned in previous chapters, this runway has historically been
shown on the Airport Layout Plan for Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport and has been
D. 1

intended to be used primarily by smaller general aviation aircraft. However, in order to maximize
the potential safety and operational benefits of this runway, consideration should be given to
accommodating the majority of the general aviation fleet up to and including the business jet fleet.
The recommended future “Design Aircraft” for this runway is a small to medium sized business jet
such as the Dassault Falcon 900. It is also recommended that an ultimate ARC of C-II be considered
for this future runway in order to better accommodate the commercial aircraft fleet in the event that
the primary runway at the Airport needs to be closed for maintenance, rehabilitation, or an
emergency. An ARC of C-II would also allow the runway to accommodate more regular use by the
business jet aircraft fleet. This forward thinking concept would allow for ultimate flexibility and
operational readiness that could become a potential significant benefit to airlines and corporate flight
departments alike. If constructed, it is likely that this future runway would be a phased project with
the initial phase being built to ARC B-II standards (capable of regularly accommodating the majority
of the general aviation fleet up to and including many of the smaller business jets).
Assumption Four. The fourth assumption relates to the need for the Airport to accommodate aircraft
operations with great reliability and safety. This indicates that the Airport’s runway system should
be developed with instrument approach guidance capabilities, to accommodate the forecast
operations as safely as possible under most weather conditions.
Assumption Five. Because the amount of landside development area at any airport is at a premium,
the fifth assumption is that the plan for future airport development should strive to make most
efficient use of the available area for aviation-related activities, including general aviation facilities
and passenger terminal facilities. Aviation use areas should be developed to be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
Assumption Six. The sixth assumption focuses on the relationship of the Airport to off-airport land
uses and the compatible and complementary development of each. To the maximum extent
possible, future facilities will be designed to enhance the compatibility of the operation of the
Airport with the environs.
Goals and Objectives for Development
Accompanying these assumptions are several goals and objectives, which have been established for
purposes of directing the plan and establishing continuity in the future development of the Airport.
These goals and objectives take into account several categorical considerations relating to the needs
of the Airport, both in the short-term and the long-term, including safety, noise, capital
improvements, land use compatibility, financial and economic conditions, public interest and
D. 2

investment, and community recognition and awareness. While all are project oriented, some
obviously represent more tangible activities than others; however, all are deemed important and
appropriate to the future of the Airport.
The following goals and objectives are intended to guide the preparation of this Airport Master Plan
Update and direct the future expansion of the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport:
• Provide effective direction for the future development of the Airport through the
preparation of a rational, reasonable, and implementable plan.
• Prepare a plan that allows the Airport to fulfill the mission of facilitating and enhancing
regional aviation services by right-sizing to meet future demand.
• Accommodate the forecast aviation activity levels in a safe and efficient manner by
providing the necessary airport facilities and services.
• Ensure that the future development of the Airport will accommodate a variety of general
aviation activities, ranging from small general aviation users to corporate aviation, and
commercial aviation operators.
• Plan and develop the Airport to be capable of accommodating the future needs and
requirements of the City of Medford, Jackson County and the larger surrounding service
area and support regional economic development activity.
• Plan for potential property acquisition for approach protection and land use compatibility
purposes.
• Encourage and protect the public and private investment in land and facilities.
Runway 14/32 Instrument Approach Improvement Analysis
An instrument approach assessment has been prepared for the Rogue Valley International-Medford
Airport utilizing the approach clearance criteria in FAA Order 8260.3B, Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS) and FAA Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace focusing on the final and
missed approach courses to each runway end at MFR. Preliminary indications suggest that it may be
possible to enhance instrument approach capabilities to one or more runway ends. However,
revaluation of the initial assessment will be conducted as part of the final screening for the
Conceptual Development Plan. See the following figure D.1 that depicts the area of analysis.
D. 3

THE Barnard Dunkelberg Company TEAM
Runway 14
Approach
Runway 32
Approach
0
2,500
5,000 7,500
Approximate Scale 1” = 5,000’
10,000
Figure D1
Runway 14/32 Precision Instrument
Approach (PIR) + Missed Approach
MASTER PLAN
UPDATE
ROGUE VALLEY
INTERNATIONAL MEDFORD
AIRPORT
D.4

Airside Development Concepts and Sketches
Because all other airport functions relate to and revolve around the basic runway/taxiway layout,
airside development alternatives must first be carefully examined and evaluated. It is essential that
the initial development recommendations for the Airport be commensurate with the anticipated
needs and requirements of airport users; however, the long-term improvement of the facility must
also be considered and planned for to ensure the capability to accommodate potential activity levels.
The main objective of the planning recommendations presented herein is to identify future
development that will result in a runway/taxiway system capable of accommodating the forecast
aviation activity. The recommendations are described in the following sections. In the following
working paper, an environmental screening of the alternatives will be included ultimately leading to
a recommended CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN for Rogue Valley International-Medford
Airport.
Following a review of these airside development alternatives, the purpose of which is to fulfill major
facility requirements (basic runway configuration), recommendations for landside development are
presented. For purposes of this study, landside facilities consist of aircraft parking aprons, hangar
development areas, terminal area development, and airport access.
Airside Alternative One
As explained in the previous chapter, the runway length requirements of those aircraft using the
Airport on a regular basis are met with the existing length of Runway 14/32 and it is recommended
that this runway be maintained as is. The primary purpose of Alternative One is to increase the
safety and utility of the Airport by segregating traffic and providing separate runway facilities for
both large and small aircraft.
Alternative One includes the provision of a parallel runway east of Runway 14/32 designed to
Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II standards with dimensions of 4,600 feet by 75 feet. The runway
facility includes visual approaches to both ends and is located at a standard 700-foot separation from
Runway 14/32.
New Runway 14L/32R ARC B-II
• The Airport’s primary Runway (Runway 14/32) would remain in its existing
configuration.
• The instrument approach visibility minimums to Runway 32 would be upgraded to a ¾
mile visibility minimum and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) would increase in size.
D. 5

• The acquisition of approximately 24 acres of easement is recommended for the existing
RPZ to the approach end of Runway 14.
• A parallel runway (Runway 14L/32R) would be constructed at a 700-foot separation from
the primary runway designed to Airport Reference Code B-II standards with visual
approaches to both runway ends.
• The acquisition of approximately 5 acres of land would be required for the RPZ to the
approach end of Runway 14L.
Positive Qualities of Alternative One
• Provides an improved instrument approach from the south (to the Runway 32 end) of the
primary runway.
• Acquires appropriate land use controls for all RPZs.
• Provides a secondary runway for smaller aircraft, segregating large and small aircraft
operations and enhancing the safety and operational efficiency of the Airport.
Negative Qualities of Alternative One
• Requires land acquisition to construct the secondary runway.
• The secondary runway restricts the amount of developable land for aviation and nonaviation
purposes on the east side of the Airport. Protecting for ARC B-II, visual approach
standard building setbacks, approximately 62 acres of landside development area is
available on the east side of the Airport. If no secondary parallel runway is programmed,
approximately 133 acres of landside development area is available on the east side of the
Airport.
• Does not provide the ultimate recommended runway length of 7,360 feet from the
previous chapter for the secondary runway.
Alternative One is illustrated in the following figure entitled AISIDE ALTERNATIVE ONE INTIAL
RUNWAY 14L/32R (ARC B-II).
D. 6

Airside Alternative Two
Alternative Two builds on the concept provided in Alternative One by upgrading the ARC for the
future parallel runway from B-II to C-II and providing a runway length capable of accommodating
more of the private business jet fleet and the commercial regional jet fleet. The primary purpose of
Alternative Two is provide a secondary runway at the Airport that is capable of serving both business
jet aircraft and commercial jet aircraft in the event that the primary runway (Runway 14/32) is
closed for maintenance. The secondary purpose of Alternative Two is to enhance the safety and
utility of the Airport by segregating traffic and providing separate runway facilities for both large and
small aircraft.
Alternative Two includes the provision of an upgraded parallel runway east of Runway 14/32
designed to Airport Reference Code (ARC) C-II standards with dimensions of 5,900 feet by 100
feet. The Runway 32 threshold to the future C-II runway is relocated approximately 965 feet from
its location in Alternative One. This threshold location keeps both RPZ’s on existing airport
property.
New Runway 14L/32R ARC C-II
• The Airport’s primary Runway (Runway 14/32) would remain in its existing
configuration.
• The instrument approach visibility minimums to Runway 32 would be upgraded to a ¾-
mile visibility minimum and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) would increase in size.
• The acquisition of approximately 24 acres of easement is recommended for the existing
RPZ to the approach end of Runway 14.
• A parallel runway (Runway 14L/32R) would be constructed at a 700-foot separation from
the primary runway designed to Airport Reference Code B-II standards (i.e. Alternative
One) with visual (or not lower than 1-mile) approaches to both runway ends.
• In this phased proposal, the initial parallel runway (Alternative One) would upgraded
from ARC B-II standard to ARC C-II standards and the Runway 32 threshold relocated by
approximately 965 feet.
• Approximately 965 feet of runway pavement would be removed or remarked as unusable.
• Approximately 17 acres of land acquisition would be required for the new runway.
D. 8

Positive Qualities of Alternative Two
• Provides an improved instrument approach from the south (to the Runway 32 end) of the
primary runway.
• Acquires appropriate land use controls for all RPZs.
• Provides a phased upgrade of the secondary runway recommended in Alternative One.
• Provides a secondary parallel runway capable of accommodating most classes of airport
users up to and including regional jet aircraft and increases the safety and operational
efficiency of the Airport.
Negative Qualities of Alternative Two
• Requires additional land acquisition than what is required for Alternative One to upgrade
the ARC for the secondary runway.
• The secondary runway restricts the amount of developable land for aviation and nonaviation
purposes on the east side of the Airport. Protecting for ARC C-II, visual approach
standard building setbacks, approximately 30 acres of landside development area is
available on the east side of the Airport.
• In order to keep the RPZ to the south of the secondary runway, approximately 965 feet of
pavement from the B-II secondary runway would be unusable.
• Although 5,900 feet is an acceptable runway length for the majority of the aircraft fleet
forecast to operate on the east side parallel runway, it does not achieve the goal of
providing the length of 7,360 feet identified in the previous chapter for the secondary
runway.
Alternative Two is illustrated in the following figure entitled AISIDE ALTERNATIVE TWO
ULITMATE RUNWAY 14L/32R (ARC C-II).
D. 9

Airside Alternative Three
Alternative Three also builds on the concept provided in Alternative One by upgrading the ARC for
the future parallel runway from B-II to C-II and providing a runway length capable of
accommodating more of the private business jet fleet and the commercial regional jet fleet. The
primary purpose of Alternative Three is provide a secondary runway at the Airport that is capable of
serving both business jet aircraft and commercial jet aircraft in the event that the primary runway
(Runway 14/32) is closed for maintenance. Alternative Three differs from Alternative Two in that it
seeks to maximize the use of the initial runway pavement and to maximize the operational capability
of the C-II runway by utilizing declared distances to provide greater operations lengths (specifically
greater takeoff length to the north).
Alternative Three includes the provision of a parallel runway east of Runway 14/32 designed to
Airport Reference Code (ARC) C-II standards with dimensions of 6,865 feet by 100 feet. The
runway facility includes visual (or not lower than 1-mile) approaches to both ends and is located at a
standard 700-foot separation from Runway 14/32.
New Runway 14L/32R ARC C-II with Declared Distances
• The Airport’s primary Runway (Runway 14/32) would remain in its existing
configuration.
• The instrument approach visibility minimums to Runway 32 would be upgraded to a ¾
mile visibility minimum and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) would increase in size.
• The acquisition of approximately 24 acres of easement would be required for the existing
RPZ to the approach end of Runway 14.
• A parallel runway (Runway 14L/32R) would be constructed at a 700-foot separation from
the primary runway designed to Airport Reference Code B-II standards and visual (or not
lower than 1-mile) approaches to both runway ends. (i.e. Alternative One)
• In this phased development, the initial parallel runway (Alternative One) would be
upgraded from ARC B-II standards to ARC C-II standards and the Runway 32 threshold
displaced by approximately 965 feet. The displacement would serve as a “takeoff to the
north only” portion of runway pavement.
• The runway would be remarked with a displaced threshold and the following declared
distances would be published. The declared distances would be as follows:
o Takeoff to the North = 6,865’
o Landing to the North = 5,900’
D. 11

o Takeoff to the South = 5,900’
o Landing to the South = 5,900’
• Approximately 17 acres of land acquisition would be required for the new runway as
illustrated in Alternative 3.
Positive Qualities of Alternative Three
• Provides an improved instrument approach from the south (to the Runway 32 end) of the
primary runway.
• Acquires appropriate land use controls for all RPZs.
• Provides a phased upgrade of the secondary runway recommended in Alternative One.
• Provides a secondary runway capable of accommodating most classes of airport users up to
and including regional jet aircraft and increases the safety and operational efficiency of the
Airport.
• Maximizes the operational capability of the secondary runway by providing a takeoff
distance to the north of 6,865 feet.
Negative Qualities of Alternative Three
• Requires additional land acquisition than what is required for Alternative One to upgrade
the ARC for the secondary runway.
• The secondary runway restricts the amount of developable land for aviation and nonaviation
purposes on the east side of the Airport. Protecting for ARC C-II, visual approach
standard building setbacks, approximately 30 acres of landside development area is
available on the east side of the Airport.
• Requires FAA approval for the use publication of declared distances (displaced threshold)
in order to achieve the recommended C-II runway length of 6,865 feet.
Alternative Three is illustrated in the following figure entitled AISIDE ALTERNATIVE THREE
ULITMATE RUNWAY 14L/32R (ARC C-II) UTILIZES ALL FO INTIAL RUNWAY
DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENT.
D. 12

Airside Alternative Four
The primary purpose of Alternative Four is to provide a secondary runway at the Airport that is
capable of serving the majority of aeronautical users in the event that Runway 14/32 has to be closed
for maintenance or other reasons. Because the second runway is not proposed for capacity purposes,
this alternative considers an intersecting runway layout with the co-location of the Runway 14 and
Runway 13 thresholds. This layout essentially provides a “V” type runway configuration. While
such a configuration is not as beneficial as a parallel runway configuration, the advantage of the “V”
configuration is that it allows for the provision of the secondary runway with little, if any, required
land acquisition.
As stated previously, Alternative Four includes the provision of a second runway (Runway 13-31)
through a “V” runway configuration where the approach ends of Runways 13 and 14 are co-located
and the RPZs to each runway overlap. In this alternative, Runway 13/31 is designed to Airport
Reference Code (ARC) C-II standards with dimensions of 6,800 feet by 100 feet. The runway
facility includes visual approaches to both ends.
New Runway 13/31 (ARC C-II)
• The Airport’s primary Runway (Runway 14/32) would remain in its existing
configuration.
• The instrument approach visibility minimums to Runway 32 would be upgraded to a ¾-
mile visibility minimum and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) would increase in size.
• Approximately 24 acres of easement would be required for the existing RPZ to the
approach end of Runway 14.
• A secondary runway (Runway 13/31) would be constructed in a “V” configuration with
the thresholds of runway ends 13 and 14 co-located. In this alternative, Runway 13/31
would be initially constructed to ARC C-II standards.
• No land acquisition would be required for the new runway in Alternative 4.
Positive Qualities of Alternative Four
• Provides an improved instrument approach from the south (to the Runway 32 end) of the
primary runway.
• Acquires appropriate land use controls for all RPZs.
• Provides a secondary runway capable of accommodating most classes of airport users up to
and including regional jet aircraft.
D. 14

• Maximizes the operational capability of the secondary runway by providing a takeoff
distance to the north of 6,800 feet.
• Does not require land acquisition for the provision of the secondary C-II runway.
Negative Qualities of Alternative Four
• Restricts the operational capacity of a two runway Airport due to the intersecting runways
in the “V” configuration.
• Has the potential to negatively impact safety because of the intersecting runway
configuration.
• The secondary runway restricts the amount of developable land for aviation and nonaviation
purposes on the east side of the Airport. Protecting for ARC C-II, visual approach
standard building setbacks, approximately 42 acres of landside development area is
available on the east side of the Airport.
• Under some circumstances, the configuration proposed in Alternative Three does not
allow for the entire secondary runway to be usable in the event that the primary runway
has to be close for maintenance or for other reasons.
Alternative Four is illustrated in the following figure entitled AIRSIDE ALTERNATIVE FOUR
ULTIMATE RUNWAY 13/31 (ARC C-II) NO LAND ACQUISTION REQUIRED.
D. 15

Landside Development Concepts and Sketches
In general, landside facilities consist of terminal area development, aircraft parking aprons, support
facility development, hangar development areas, and airport access. The overall objective of landside
development planning at the Airport is the provision of facilities that are conveniently located and
accessible to the community, and that accommodate the specific requirements of airport users. The
current primary landside development area at Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport is located
west of Runway 14/32. The secondary landside development area for consideration in this section is
the area east of Runway 14/32. The recommended reservation of space for a potential future parallel
runway significantly reduces the size of this eastside development area. However, this development
area could potentially be expanded through the acquisition of undeveloped land adjacent to airport
property and bounded by the Medco Haul Road.
Westside Development Concepts and Sketches
This side of the Airport is very close to full build out with only a few small areas left for
development. The commercial passenger terminal building, concourses, and parking areas were all
recently reconstructed and consequently, will not be a focus of this chapter.
As discussed in previous chapters, the planned closure of Runway 9/27 at Rogue Valley
International-Medford Airport creates opportunities for aircraft circulation improvements, general
aviation aircraft parking improvement and additional aircraft storage development. A number of
landside development concepts were considered for the area near the approach end of Runway 9.
The primary aircraft circulation improvement common to all the concepts is the currently planned
conversion of Runway 9/27 into a Design Group III taxiway creating a “loop” taxiway system
designed to enhance the operation of fire boomer/tanker type aircraft using the interagency U.S.
Forest Service tanker base located northeast of Medford Air Service. While this “loop” taxiway will
increase the operational capacity and efficiency of the tanker base, it does create some operational
challenges for Medford Air Service in terms of maneuvering, parking and servicing general aviation
aircraft. They “loop” taxiway system also create a landside access issue by creating a need to have a
vehicle access road cross Taxiway “C” to access the infield area within the “loop” taxiway. Three
landside development concepts are presented in the following sections.
Tanker Base Taxiway Loop System
Following the approval from FAA to close Runway 9/27 at Rogue Valley International-Medford
Airport, a plan was developed to improve the circulation and operational efficiency of the U.S. Forest
Service taker base. The Forest Service aircraft currently access the slurry loading pads via Taxiway
“C” which extends west from parallel Taxiway “A”. The “loop” taxiway system plan proposes to
D. 17

straighten Taxiway “C” so that it extends perpendicular to Taxiway “A” and then turns to the south
connecting to future Taxiway “B”. Future Taxiway “B” is a converted portion of Runway 9/27 that
extends southeast and connects with Taxiway “A”. This proposed layout is illustrated in the
following figure entitled TAXIWAY “C” DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. Some further
taxiway/taxilane development considerations for this area include the potential closure of Taxiway
“B3” and the potential extension of the taxilane running parallel to Taxiway “A”. These additional
considerations are shown in the following illustration entitled TAXILANE DEVELOPMENT
OPTION.
D. 18

Westside Layout Concept One
This concept converts the northwest portion of Runway 9/27 into a Design Group III taxiway and
provides additional aircraft and helicopter parking as well as additional aircraft storage areas.
• Close Taxiway “B3” and remove pavement.
• Realign Taxiway “C” and convert a portion of closed Runway 9/27 into Taxiway “B”.
• Extend the taxilane running parallel to Taxiway “A” between Taxiway “C” and “B”.
• Upgrade a portion of the taxilane extending north from Taxiway “C” to Airport Design
Group (ADG) III standards.
• Extend Nebula Way across Taxiway “C” to provide access to the infield area.
• Construct aircraft parking apron, helicopter parking positions and aircraft storage units
(T-hangars and box hangars) in the infield area on an as needed basis.
• Construct three large corporate type aircraft storage hangars with associated vehicular
parking accessed via Milligan Way.
This proposed concept is shown in the following illustration entitled TAXIWAY “C”
DEVELOPMENT AREA LAYOUT CONCEPT ONE.
D. 21

Westside Layout Concept Two
This concept converts the northwest portion of Runway 9/27 into a Design Group III taxiway and
provides additional aircraft and helicopter parking as well as additional aircraft storage areas.
Concept Two provide three additional helicopter parking positions over what was provided in
Concept One.
• Close Taxiway “B3” and remove pavement.
• Realign Taxiway “C” and convert a portion of closed Runway 9/27 into Taxiway “B”.
• Upgrade a portion of the taxilane extending north from Taxiway “C” to Airport Design
Group (ADG) III standards.
• Extend Nebula Way across Taxiway “C” to provide access to the infield area.
• Construct aircraft parking apron, helicopter parking positions and aircraft storage units
(T-hangars and box hangars) in the infield area on an as needed basis.
• Construct three large corporate type aircraft storage hangars with associated vehicular
parking accessed via Mulligan Way.
This proposed concept is shown in the following illustration entitled TAXIWAY “C”
DEVELOPMENT AREA LAYOUT CONCEPT TWO.
D. 23

Westside Layout Concept Three
This concept converts the northwest portion of Runway 9/27 into a Design Group III taxiway and
provides additional aircraft and helicopter parking as well as additional aircraft storage areas.
Concept Three seeks to maximize aircraft and helicopter apron space over what was provided in
Concepts One and Two.
• Close Taxiway “B3” and remove pavement.
• Realign Taxiway “C” and convert a portion of closed Runway 9/27 into Taxiway “B”.
• Upgrade a portion of the taxilane extending north from Taxiway “C” to Airport Design
Group (ADG) III standards.
• Extend Nebula Way across Taxiway “C” to provide access to the infield area.
• Construct aircraft parking apron, helicopter parking positions and aircraft storage units
(T-hangars and box hangars) in the infield area on an as needed basis. This option
provides more aircraft and helicopter parking apron and fewer aircraft storage hangars.
• Construct three large corporate type aircraft storage hangars with associated vehicular
parking accessed via Mulligan Way.
This proposed concept is shown in the following illustration entitled TAXWWAY “C”
DEVELOPMENT AREA LAYOUT CONCEPT THREE.
D. 25

Eastside Development Concept
This side of the Airport includes the east apron, which is a heavy-weight ramp (200,000 lbs dual
wheel and 400,000 lbs dual tandem wheel main landing gear). The east ramp is access via Taxiway
“A4” east of Runway 14/32 and is approximately 66,400 square feet. The eastside development area
extends to the airport boundary adjacent to the Medco Haul Road. It is also important to note that
the proposed Highway 62 bypass corridor runs adjacent to Medco Haul Road east of the Airport.
The construction of this proposed bypass will likely restrict access to the entire eastside of the
Airport (including the inactive Foreign Trade Zone) and all other on-airport areas set for long-term
aviation development that require on-site vehicular access from the east. Consequently, it is
recommended that the Airport consider the provision of an on-airport perimeter road and a
potential public road corridor to protect eastside access at Rogue Valley International-Medford
Airport. Proposed on-airport perimeter and potential public road routings are shown in the
following illustration entitled EASTSIDE ACCESS CONCEPT.
Additional landside development concepts for the east side of the airport will be provided in the later
sections of this chapter following the receipt of input on the alternatives presented in this working
paper with the Study Committee, airport staff, the public and the FAA.
D. 27

Alternatives Environmental Screening
The above airside and landside alternatives were developed to meet anticipated airport needs over the
20-year planning period. However, given the multitude of environmental considerations, presented
in the Inventory of Existing Conditions chapter, the alternatives should be screened in an effort to
assess the potential environmental impacts of each proposed option. That screening analysis will
consider all environmental resource categories as defined by FAA environmental orders, however, it
will pay particular attention to those environmental resources of local importance. Those resources
were presented at the end of the Inventory of Existing Conditions chapter and are summarized in the
following illustration entitled ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.
D. 29

Airport ort Boundary
Boundary
THE Barnard Dunkelberg
Company TEAM
Wilson Rd
VEGETATION LEGEND
Survey Segments
Approximate Extents of Cooks
Lomation (Lomatium Cookii)
NOTE: 2010 Survey.
35A
WETLANDS LEGEND
E Vilas
Wetlands
Rd
E Pine St
Hamrick Rd
Table Rock Rd
6B
6B
33A
139A
Airport Boundary
141A
Wetlands (Locally Significant)
NOTE: 2002 Local Wetlands Inventory. 62
FLOODPLAIN LEGEND
Medco Haul Rd
Flood Zone A
Flood Zone B
Crater Lake Hwy
NOTE: The data associated with the FEMA
Floodplain Map has never been updated to
reflect the relocation of Midway/Upton Creek
east of the runway.
35A
SOILS LEGEND
6B
33A
35A
76A
97A
127A
Beall Ln
139A
141A
151C
Agate-Winlo Complex,
0 to 5 Percent Slopes
Coker Clay,
0 to 3 Percent Slopes
Cove Clay,
0 to 3 Percent Slopes
Pacific Hwy
Gregory Silty Clay Loam,
0 to 3 Percent Slopes
5
Kerby Loam,
0 to 3 Percent slopes
Medford Silty Clay Loam,
0 to 3 Percent SLopes
Padigan Clay,
0 to 3 Percent Slopes
Phoenix Clay,
0 to 3 Percent Slopes
Provig-Agate Complex,
5 to 15 Percent Slopes
Merriman Rd
Table Rock Rd
97A
Airport Rd
Biddle ddle Rd Rd
76A
Lawnsdale Rd
127A
76A
33A
Commerce Dr
6B
33A
35A
6B
Approximate Scale 1” = 2,000’
FIGURE D12 Existing Environmental
Considerations Summary
Crater Lake Hwy
127A
6B
151C
Carter Lake Ave
SOURCE AERIAL: © 2011 Google Maps.
MASTER PLAN
UPDATE
ROGUE VALLEY
INTERNATIONAL MEDFORD
AIRPORT
D.30

Conceptual Development Plan
TO BE ADDED
(This section will be written after the Working Paper is presented to the study committees and the
public to allow for proper feedback to the County and the Consultant. This step provides for
proper vetting and conceptual revisions from Jackson County, the Study Committee, the Public-at-
Large, and the FAA, as appropriate in the crafting of the Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) for
Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport.)
D. 31

WORKING PAPER THREE
THE Barnard Dunkelberg Company TEAM
MASTER
PLAN
UPDATE
JACKSON
COUNTY
Airport Authority
ROGUE VALLEY
INTERNATIONAL
MEDFORD
AIRPORTMEDFORD, OREGON