SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1. Public Comment 2. Discussion/Action – Approve Minutes 3. Commissioner Repor

Agenda SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

April 14, 2020 Time: Apr 14, 2020 03:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/343305726

Meeting ID: 343 305 726

One tap mobile +16699009128,,343305726# US (San Jose)

Dial by your location +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)

Joan Smith Freeman, Chair Michael Kobseff, Delegate Mayor, City of Yreka County Supervisor, District 3

Ed Valenzuela, Vice Chair Lori Fleck, Delegate Brandon Criss, Alternate County Supervisor, District 2 Councilperson, City of Etna County Supervisor, District 1

Bruce Deutsch, Delegate Lisa Nixon, Delegate Susan Tavalero, Alternate Councilperson, City of Dunsmuir County Supervisor, District 4 Mayor, City of Weed

The Agenda is located at the following websites: www.siskiyoutransportation.com https://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/transportationcommission

1. Public Comment

2. Discussion/Action – Approve Minutes

3. Commissioner Reports

4. Informational Only – COVID-19 Information

5. Discussion/Action – FY 20/21 Local Transportation Commission

Recommended Budget

Resolution #20-02

PAGE 1 OF 2 6. Discussion/Action – 19/20 Overall Work Program Carryover

Resolution #20-03

7. Discussion/Action – Draft 20/21 Overall Work Plan

8. Discussion/Action – FY 2020-21 Local Streets and Roads Program SB 1

(RMRA) Project List

9. Discussion/Action – Federal Exchange for Regional Surface Transportation

Program Funds

Resolution #20-04

10. Discussion/Action – City of Weed Vista Drive Project

11. Informational Only – Aviation Plan Presentation

12. Informational Only – Ongoing reports

a. STAGE Report

b. Executive Director’s Report

13. Adjourn

POSTING: I declare a copy of this agenda was posted at Siskiyou County Transit Center office at 190 Greenhorn Road, Yreka, CA 96097 by April 10, 2020, by 5:00 PM. Agenda packets will be available for public review April 10, 2020 at Siskiyou County Transit Center office and online at www.siskiyoutransportation.com and https://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/transportationcommission.

NOTE: Public participation is encouraged. In compliance with Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132) and in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, if you plan on attending the public meeting and need a special accommodation because of a sensory or mobility impairment or disability, or have a need for an interpreter, please contact Stephanie Alward at 530-895-1109, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for those accommodations.

PAGE 2 OF 2 Agenda Worksheet

TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DATE: April 14, 2020

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 2

Approve Minutes

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUMMARY (Description of Issue):

Staff completed minutes from the March 10, 2020 Commission meeting. Minutes are included in this agenda packet for review by the Commission.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve minutes.

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission (RTPA) Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 3:00 p.m. Siskiyou County Transit Center 190 Greenhorn Rd, Yreka, California

The Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission meeting was called to order at 3:13 p.m. by Chair Joan Smith-Freeman in the Siskiyou County Transit Center Yreka, CA. The following Commissioners were in attendance:

Present: Joan Smith-Freeman 2020 Chair City of Yreka Delegate Ed Valenzuela 2020 Vice Chair County of Siskiyou Delegate Bruce Deutsch Commissioner City of Dunsmuir Delegate Lori Fleck Commissioner City of Etna Delegate Lisa Nixon Commissioner County of Siskiyou Delegate Susan Tavalero Commissioner City of Weed Alternate

Absent: Michael Kobseff Commissioner County of Siskiyou Delegate Brandon Criss Commissioner County of Siskiyou Alternate

Staff Present: Jeff Schwein SCLTC Executive Director Jason Ledbetter Deputy Director of General Services Angie Stumbaugh Staff Scott Billingsley Staff

Also Present: Marci Gonzalez Caltrans

Call to Order Chair Joan Smith-Freeman called the meeting to order at 3:13 pm.

1. Public Comments No public comments.

2. Discussion/Action – Approve January Minutes Vice Chair Ed Valenzuela motions to approve January minutes. Commissioner Bruce Deutsch seconds this motion. The January meeting minutes are approved.

Ayes: Smith Freeman, Valenzuela, Deutsch, Nixon Noes: None Absent: Kobseff, Abstain: Fleck

1 of 5

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission (RTPA) Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 3:00 p.m. Siskiyou County Transit Center 190 Greenhorn Rd, Yreka, California

3. Discussion/Action – STAGE Bus Schedule Improvements Transit Service Coordinator Scott Billingsley presents an overview of the changes made to the STAGE bus schedule. New services and stops have been added at the following locations: • Rain Rock Casino in Yreka • Eye clinic • Veteran services on Oberlin Road • YMCA – there are also future plans to add sheltered bus shelter at this stop • Emerald Garden apartments senior living • Big Springs mini-mart • Hoy Park in Weed • Lake Shastina Community Center • Lake Shastina Golf Course • Carrick • Weed Community Center

Vice Chair Ed Valenzuela asks about service to Castella, which is missing from the schedule included in the agenda packet. No new routes to Castella have been added to Castella, so they are not included in this schedule, however service to Castella still exists.

Commissioner Lisa Nixon asks about Fort Jones stop. It previously had been removed but has been re-added at about a 15 or 20 minute time change from original stop.

Commissioner Bruce Deutsch notes that the schedule is bus/driver-centric, not rider centric. Reading-wise, the schedule is difficult to understand. Scott Billingsley reassures the Commission that the schedule included in the packet is intended as an informational item for the Commission and will not be posted or distributed to the public. One of the future goals for STAGE in the near future is to improve readability and usability of the bus schedule and maps.

Ayes: Smith Freeman, Valenzuela, Deutsch, Fleck, Nixon Noes: None Absent: Kobseff Abstain: None

4. Discussion/Action – 2020 Summer Student Pass Program Transit Service Coordinator Scott Billingsley presents an overview of the planned 2020 Summer Student Pass Program. The 2020 program is proposed to run between June 1 and August 18, 2020, and the price would remain the same as the 2019 program at $20 per pass. STAGE is currently looking at ways to increase accessibility and sell more summer passes in the south county. Last year 36 passes were sold. All were sold either through

2 of 5

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission (RTPA) Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 3:00 p.m. Siskiyou County Transit Center 190 Greenhorn Rd, Yreka, California

the YMCA or the Transit Center, and STAGE is looking to increase accessibility for students in other parts of the County.

Vice Chair Ed Valenzuela suggests promoting and selling the 2020 Program passes at the Boys and Girls Club in Mt. Shasta. Chair Joan Smith Freeman motions to approve the 2020 Summer Student Pass Program, and Vice Chair Ed Valenzuela seconds the motion. The 2020 Program is approved.

Ayes: Smith Freeman, Valenzuela, Deutsch, Fleck, Nixon Noes: None Absent: Kobseff Abstain: None

5. Informational Only – Transit Vehicle Purchase Angie Stumbaugh provides an informational presentation on the planned transit vehicle purchase. Funding from the Local Transportation Funds (LTF) program and the State of Good Repair program will be utilized to purchase at least one new vehicle – a 16- passenger bus. Funding may also purchase a second 21-passenger bus.

Chair Joan Smith Freeman asks how smaller buses are working. Scott Billingley notes that some routes/times are borderline full, but the smaller buses have been adequate thus far. Small buses are used on all routes.

The 16-passenger bus cost is $117,000 and the 21-passenger bus cost is $181,000. There are smaller vehicles available; the smallest is an 8-passenger vehicle. The 8-passenger vehicle works for Happy Camp routes and gets better mileage but would not work for most routes. Commissioner Bruce Deutsch suggests utilizing a smaller bus for in-town trips in Dunsmuir for local riders that do not want to go to Weed or Yreka.

Commissioner Joan Smith Freeman suggests servicing trips to the Madrone Senior Center, which provides meals to seniors, in the future.

6. Informational Only – Information for the Next Free Fare Day, April 22nd, Earth Day, for all Riders Angie Stumbaugh provides an informational presentation on Free Fare Day. Utilizing funding through a 1718 grant, free transit fare will be available for all riders on Wednesday April 22nd to coincide with Earth Day. Flyers have been sent out. Staff will be going to the south county for more outreach. Vice Chair Ed Valenzuela suggests putting an ad in the paper. Staff decided not to, in lieu of Facebook, and physically going other places for outreach.

3 of 5

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission (RTPA) Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 3:00 p.m. Siskiyou County Transit Center 190 Greenhorn Rd, Yreka, California

7. Informational Only – FY 2020-21 Local Streets and Roads Program SB 1 (RMRA) Funding Eligibility Reminder Moved to Item 8. Commissioner Lori Fleck leaves at 4:00, and Commissioner Susan Tavalero stands in. The quorum is maintained. The Local Streets and Roads Program provides funding for local streets and roads for projects such as paving. The region receives about $220,000 per year which is then apportioned to the cities and the county. Projects from each jurisdiction must be submitted by April and approved by resolution for submission to the CTC, which is due May 1.

8. Information Only – Discuss proposed project for the 19-20 allocation of funding through the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Moved to Item 7. Angie Stumbaugh provides an informational presentation on the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP). Siskiyou County LTC will be receiving $78,000 of LCTOP funding, which will be used to offer free ridership for all College of the Siskiyous students, for service anywhere. Going forward, senior citizens (aged 50 years or older to align with AARP), veterans, and high school students will be covered under the LCTOP funding for free ridership. This is a new program. The free student ridership program was anticipated to cost $25,000, but is currently projected to cost $15,000, leaving room to accommodate other ridership. Staff really wants to move out to south county for outreach. Commissioner Susan Tavalero suggests the Weed Center, where about 80 seniors convene on Mondays for lunch. Half of the grant will go to free fares, and the other half will go to infrastructure such as stop identification, solar panels, etc.

9. Information Only – Aviation Plan Presentation The consultant preparing the Aviation plan, Aviation Management Consulting Group, could not make it to March SCLTC meeting, and plan is not quite presentable. The plan will be presented at the April 14 meeting.

10. Discussion/Action – LTC Staffing Contract Amendment When the Commission hired Green DOT, the County was acting as the administrative body, but full amount of money was not realized. Using only RPA funds, only $32,000 was available to cover the staffing contract. The Overall Work Program was amended and carryover RPA funds from the 18/19 FY were also applied. There is still a remaining funding gap, which will be appropriated form the County LTF funds. This item will make the contract whole in alignment with the proposed amount. Vice Chair Ed Valenzuela moves to approve, and Commissioner Lisa Fleck seconds. The motion is approved.

Ayes: Smith Freeman, Valenzuela, Deutsch, Nixon, Tavalero Noes: None Absent: Fleck, Kobseff Abstain: None

4 of 5

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission (RTPA) Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 3:00 p.m. Siskiyou County Transit Center 190 Greenhorn Rd, Yreka, California

11. Miscellaneous Jason Ledbetter presents a miscellaneous item – statement of state of county transportation. Siskiyou County is working with Green DOT to go out to RFP for the Short Range Transit Plan in the coming months. Green DOT will be working on identifying unmet transit needs. These will all contribute to the mission statement of improving ridership. Schedule readability will be improved. Farebox recovery must remain at 10%. STAGE will do a weekly internal audit.

Commissioner Lisa Nixon notes that the farebox recovery rate in Siskiyou County was the most worrying thing she say in audit reports.

Four shelter improvements are in queue: Fort Jones, then the Weed Community Center, Montague and Etna stops. The Etna stop is waiting on cost. Shelters must utilize work by public works, and public works will charge a fee. Once that cost is understood, the Etna shelter will move forward.

SCLTC Executive Director Jeff Schwein has miscellaneous items to present. Upcoming items include the aviation plan presentation during the April SCLTC meeting, as well as what we find out about senior bus purchases, and the Overall Work Program (OWP) for the 20/21 fiscal year. The unmet transit needs process will be coming quickly – the public hearing will be scheduled for May.

SCLTC Executive Director Jeff Schwein will be going to California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting in Santa Barbara next week. The CTC will be adopting the STIP and ATP Guidelines, and ATP applications will be released, which are important regionally and will impact Siskiyou County.

Marci Gonzalez suggests that instead of advertising in the newspaper, release a news item and it should be advertised for free.

Commissioner Susan Tavalero suggests Lake Shastina Service District for advertising to seniors.

Commissioner Bruce Deutsch moves to adjoin the meeting. Commissioner Susan Tavalero seconds, and the meeting is adjourned.

Meeting adjourned at 4:17. p.m.

Next meeting is April 14, 2020 at 3:00 p.m.

5 of 5

Agenda Worksheet

TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DATE: April 14, 2020

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 3

Commissioner Reports

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUMMARY (Description of Issue):

The Commission will report any relevant news items, including an update on food delivery during COVID-19 conditions.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Informational only.

Agenda Worksheet

TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DATE: April 14, 2020

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 4

COVID-19 Information

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUMMARY (Description of Issue):

As of March 24, 2020, all STAGE services have been suspended in response to COVID-19. Although an emergency rollout for service of 5 routes had originally been planned to begin on March 23, 3030, STAGE and County administration were inundated with concern from STAGE bus drivers and call out in response to the positive COVID-19 cases identified in Siskiyou County (2 cases confirmed as of the time of this decision – March 22, 2020).

Currently, 6 staff members are sheltering in place. With this news and new confirmed cases in Siskiyou County, the decision has been made to suspend bus service. At this time, a sparse team of drivers remains on-duty that has been transitioning into cleaning the bus fleet, helping with general cleaning and maintenance of Airport grounds. Office staff has reduced its time to a staggered schedule and will be working opposite each other making up the difference with sick/PTO. Office functions will remain normal, with one staff member focused on continuing airport lease agreements and the other focused on our budget and grants.

As it stands, Deputy Director of General Services Jason Ledbetter and Transit Services Coordinator Scott Billingsley will be present in office during normal business hours, daily, to direct traffic and work on the transition back to regular service when the time comes.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Informational only.

Agenda Worksheet

TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DATE: April 14, 2020

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 5

FY 20/21 Local Transportation Commission Recommended Budget

Resolution #20-02

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUMMARY (Description of Issue):

Executive Director Jeff Schwein will present the proposed FY 20-21 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission and Regional Planning Assistance Recommended Budgets to the Commission for approval.

The proposed Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission budget includes $40,776.67 from the Local Transportation Fund and $1,581.33 from interest, totaling $42,358.00

The budget includes a variety of operating expenditures as outlined in the attached worksheet.

Proposed revenues: $42,358.00 Total expenditures: $42,358.00 Net: $0.00

The proposed Regional Planning Assistance budget includes $230,000.00 in State Revenue and $124.00 from interest, totaling $230,124.00

The budget includes a variety of operating expenditures as outlined in the attached worksheet.

Proposed revenues: $230,124.00 Total expenditures: $230,124.00 Net: $0.00

The full budgeting worksheet is attached for review by the Commission. Staff is seeking direction from the Commission regarding the proposed budget.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Discuss and approve or request amendment to the proposed FY 20/21 operating budget.

Adopt Resolution #20-02.

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission 2505-303020

19/20 19/20 19/20 FY 2020/21 Account Account Name Description Adjusted As of 3/23/20 As of 6/30/19 Dept Request Budget

502200 Local Transportation California TDA - 1/4 cent of sales tax $ 21,120.00 $ 10,560.00 $ 21,120.00 $ 40,776.67

530100 Interest Allocated quarterly by Auditor's office $ 1,500.00 $ 896.33 $ 1,582.00 $ 1,581.33

530110 Net Inc (Dec) Fair Value $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Revenue: $ 22,620.00 $ 11,456.33 $ 22,702.00 $ 42,358.00

720000 Memberships $ 2,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,000.00

722000 Office Supplies Office Supplies $ 50.00 $ 10.35 $ 11.00 $ 50.00

723000 Professional & Specialized Services Professional & Specialized Services $ 31,000.00 $ 20,150.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 31,000.00

723100 Administration Administration paid to STAGE $ 2,000.00 $ - $ 1,200.00 $ 2,000.00

724000 Publications & Legal Notices Publications & Legal Notices $ 2,500.00 $ - $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00

728000 Special Dept Expense $ - $ - $ - $ -

729000 Transportation & Travel Transportation & Travel $ - $ - $ - $ -

729100 Gas & Diesel Gas & Diesel $ - $ - $ - $ -

751000 Cost Allocation Plan Fixed costs provided by Auditor's Office $ 2,154.00 $ 1,951.77 $ 2,155.00 $ 4,808.00

761010 Building & Improvements $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total Expenditures: $ 39,704.00 $ 23,612.12 $ 33,366.00 $ 42,358.00

1 April 14, 2020 Siskiyou County4/7/2020 LTC Meeting 3:33 PM Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission 2505-303020

Total Remainder Account FY 19/20 Left to Pay for Year to Pay FY 20/21 Annual Amount

502200 - Local Transportation $ 10,560.00 $ 10,560.00 $ 40,776.67 $ 40,776.67

530100 - Interest (See chart below.) $ 685.00 $ 685.00 $ 1,581.33

530110 - Net Inc (Dec) Fair Value Total Remaining: $ 11,245.00 Total Revenue: $ 42,358.00

720000 - Memberships Annual: $ - Annual: $ 2,000.00

Rural Counties Task Force $ 1,500.00 $ - $ 1,500.00

North State Super Region $ 500.00 $ - $ 500.00

722000 - Office Supplies Mthly Avg: Annual: $ - Annual: $ 50.00

Postage $ - $ - $ - $ 50.00

Office supplies $ - $ -

723000 - Prof & Specialized Services Annual: $ 5,850.00 Annual: $ 31,000.00

Annual Professional Audit E2000388 $ 26,000.00 $ 5,850.00 $ 26,000.00

Legal Services for Commission $ - $ - $ 5,000.00

Professional Audit - Mileage Estimate = $ 200 $ -

723100 - Administration Qtrly Avg: Annual: $ 1,200.00 Qtrly Avg: Annual: $ 2,000.00

Staff Time for SSTAC $ - $ 500.00

Indirect Costs for OWP Staff Time $ 1,200.00 $ 1,500.00

Sanitation Staff Time $ - $ -

Road Department Staff Time (ASM) $ -

724000 - Publications & Legal Notices $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Advertising for Annual Audits $ - $ - Advertising for SSTAC Vacancies Unmet Needs Advertising $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00

728000 - Special Dept Expense $ - $ - Refreshments for NSSR Meeting $ - $ -

751000 - Cost Allocation Plan $ - $ 202.56 $ 4,808.00

$ 67.52 $ 202.56

761010 - Building & Improvements Annual: $ - Annual: $ -

Contribution to Transit Center $ -

Total Remaining: $ 9,752.56 Total Expense for FY: $ 42,358.00

530100 - Interest 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr FY Total

FY 15/16 $ 497.65 $ 269.19 $ 352.66 $ 262.87 $ 1,382.37

FY 16/17 $ 269.09 $ 384.72 $ 275.00 $ 225.00 $ 1,153.81

FY 17/18 $ 340.30 $ 449.15 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 1,589.45

FY 18/19 $ 430.17 $ 433.95 $ 425.00 $ 400.00 $ 1,689.12

FY 19/20 $ 519.10 $ 377.23 $ 355.00 $ 330.00 $ 1,581.33 Estimate Estimate

April 14, 2020 Siskiyou County LTC Meeting

2 4/7/2020 3:33 PM Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission - Regional Planning Assistance 2506-303030

19/20 19/20 19/20 FY 20/21 Account Account Name Description Adjusted Budget As of 3/23/20 As of 6/30/20 Dept Request

530100 Interest Allocated quarterly by Auditor's office $ 200.00 $ 58.34 $ 183.00 $ 124.00

530110 Net Inc (Dec) Fair Value Adjustment $ - $ - $ - $ -

540800 State Other OWP Revenues $ 236,000.00 $ 15,379.39 $ 220,620.00 $ 230,000.00

560200 Miscellaneous Other Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total Revenue: $ 236,200.00 $ 15,437.73 $ 220,803.00 $ 230,124.00

712000 Communications $ 200.00 $ - $ 200.00 $ 200.00

722000 Office Supplies $ 500.00 $ 32.92 $ 468.00 $ 500.00

723000 Professional & Specialized Services $ 212,082.00 $ 161,804.70 $ 120,828.00 $ 198,750.00

723100 Administration $ 13,806.00 $ - $ 13,806.00 $ 27,262.00

724000 Publications & Legal Notices $ - $ - $ - $ -

725000 Rents & Leases - Equipment $ - $ - $ - $ -

726000 Rents & Leases - Buildings Fair Booth Fee for Public Outreach $ - $ - $ - $ -

728000 Special Departmental Expense Fair Premiums/Booth $ - $ - $ - $ -

729000 Transportation & Travel Planning Seminars/Meetings $ 2,662.00 $ 360.80 $ 1,992.00 $ 2,662.00

729100 Gas & Diesel $ 250.00 $ - $ 250.00 $ 250.00

729200 Training Registration Fees for Conferences $ 500.00 $ - $ 460.00 $ 500.00

730000 Utilities Moved to STAGE's budget $ - $ - $ - $ -

751000 Cost Allocation Plan Fixed Costs provided by Auditor's Office $ - $ - $ - $ -

762030 Fixed Assets - Intangible CAMS Software Purchase $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total Expenditures: $ 230,000.00 $ 162,198.42 $ 138,004.00 $ 230,124.00

1 4/7/2020 3:30 PM April 14, 2020 Siskiyou County LTC Meeting Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission - Regional Planning Assistance 2506-303030

Total Remainder Account FY 19/20 Left to Pay for Year to Pay FY 20/21 Annual Amount

530100 - Interest (See chart below.) $ 250.00 $ 183.00 $ 183.00 $ 124.00 $ 124.00

540800 - State Revenue $ 236,000.00 $ 220,620.00 $ 220,620.00 $ 230,000.00 $ 230,000.00

560200 - Misc Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Remaining: $ 220,803.00 $ 230,124.00 712000 - Communications $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 722000 - Office Supplies $ 500.00 $ 468.00 $ 468.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 723000 - Prof & Specialized Services Annual: $ 120,827.30 Annual: $ 198,750.00 MTC Annual Licenses $ - $ - $ 21,000.00 NCE - Annual Update $ 108,626.00 $ 40,041.95 $ - Short Range Transit Plan $ 35,300.00 Green Dot $ 94,700.00 $ 64,188.75 $ 142,450.00 Regional Aviation Plan $ - $ 16,596.60 723100 - Administration $ 13,806.00 $ 13,806.00 $ 13,806.00 $ 27,262.00 $ 27,262.00 724000 - Publications & Legal Notices $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 726000 - Rents & Leases / Buildings $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 728000 - Special Department Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 729000 - Transportation & Travel $ - $ 1,630.38 $ 2,661.52 $ 2,662.00 Tavalero $ 31.44 $ 94.32 Tavalero $ 377.28 Duetsch $ 50.00 $ 150.00 Duetsch $ 600.00 Fleck $ 32.02 $ 96.06 Fleck $ 384.24 CalACT Transit Conference $ 1,290.00 $ 1,300.00 729100 - Gas & Diesel $ - $ - $ 250.00 $ 250.00 729200 - Training $ 460.00 $ 460.00 $ 460.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00

Total Remaining: $ 137,391.68 Total Expense for FY: $ 230,124.00

$ 83,411.32 $ -

530100 - Interest 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr FY Total FY 13/14 50.51 109.18 70.00 50.00 $ 279.69 FY 14/15 100.55 78.36 54.15 52.00 $ 285.06 FY 16/17 $ 46.79 $ 126.34 $ 122.74 $ 222.49 $ 518.36 FY 17/18 $ (8.69) $ 147.64 $ 97.03 $ 164.84 $ 400.82 FY 18/19 $ 134.52 $ 260.51 $ 150.00 $ 100.00 $ 645.03 FY 19/20 $ 43.05 $ 15.29 $ 45.00 $ 20.00 $ 123.34 Estimate Estimate 2 of 2 4/7/2020 3:30 PM April 14, 2020 Siskiyou County LTC Meeting RESOLUTION NO. 20-02 SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Recommended Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission and Regional Planning Assistance Budgets for FY 2020/2021 as presented by staff; and

WHEREAS, this Commission concurs with the 2020/2021 budget as presented,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Siskiyou County Local Commission Transportation hereby approves the 2020/2021 recommended budget as presented in the amount of $ 42,358.00 in revenue and $42,358.00 in expenditures, and the Regional Planning Assistance Budget in the amount of $ 230,124.00 in revenue and $ 230,124.00 in expenditures.

th PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14 day of April, 2020 by the Local Transportation Commission of Siskiyou County by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ______Chairperson – Joan Smith Freeman Local Transportation Commission ATTEST:

______Jeff Schwein Executive Director Agenda Worksheet

TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DATE: April 14, 2020

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 6

19/20 Overall Work Program Carryover Amendment

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUMMARY (Description of Issue):

The Overall Work Program is an annual program that describes transportation planning activities the LTC plans to execute during the fiscal year and the funding source and amount applied to each activity.

The LTC requests that an Amendment should be applied to the 2019/2020 Overall Work Program (OWP) which will carryover $57,500.00 of unused Rural Planning Assistance (RPA) funds from the 2018/2019 OWP. These funds will be used to fund Work Element 2020-601 – Administration and Coordination. This Work Element includes tasks to be carried out by Green DOT Transportation Solutions, contracted to provide Executive Director services for the LTC. Sample tasks include attending LTC meetings and all meetings directly related to transportation planning, ongoing development and management of the Local Transportation and STAGE web pages, and preparing required reports, audits, and other correspondence. The Amended OWP is included in this packet for the Commission’s review.

This agenda item was previously approved during the December 2019 LTC meeting, but has been amended for the April 14, 2020 meeting to include Resolution #20-03.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve and adopt Resolution #20-03 for proposed amendment to the 2019/2020 OWP to carryover $57,500.00 of unused RPA funds from the 2018/2019 OWP.

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission

OVERALL WORK PROGRAM 2019-20 FISCAL YEAR

FOR THE CONTINUOUS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission

Date of Adoption: 6/11/2019 Amendment #1: 11/12/19

Page 1

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 II. ISSUES AND STATE FUNDING PRIORITIES...... 3 III. ORGANIZATION ...... 7 IV. WORK PROGRAM...... 7 Work Element 2020-601 - Administration and Coordination ...... 8 Work Element 2020-602 - Aviation Facilities ...... 10 Work Element 2020-602.1 – Regional Aviation Plan ...... 11 Work Element 2020-603 - Transportation Systems Planning ...... 12 Work Element 2020-603.1 - Roadway Pavement Management System – Annual Update ...... 14 Work Element 2020-604 - Transit Planning and Non-Motorized ...... 15 Work Element 2020-605 – Overall Work Program Oversight ...... 17 Work Element 2020-606 – Unmet Needs ...... 18 Work Element 2020-607 – Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ...... 19 V. Organizational Chart for Siskiyou County RTPA ...... 20 Summary of Expenditures for SISKIYOU COUNTY...... 20

Page 2

I. INTRODUCTION

Siskiyou County lies on the northern boundary of California, bordered by Oregon to the north, Del Norte and Humboldt Counties to the west, Trinity and Shasta Counties to the south and Modoc County to the east. The economic base of the County is a combination of agriculture, forest products and recreation.

According to the County Assessor’s Office Siskiyou County currently has 4,040,320 acres of land. Of these acres approximately 2,505,841 acres or 62% is owned by federal agencies such as the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lava Beds National Monument or the Bureau of Reclamation.

Information obtained from the California Department of Finance on estimated population as of January 2018 indicates a projected County population of 44,612. The table to the Dorris 966 left indicates the estimated population for incorporated cities in Siskiyou Dunsmuir 1,680 County.

Etna 744 The projected unincorporated County population of 24,084 is comprised of Fort Jones 739 numerous smaller communities such as Cecilville, Somes Bar, Greenview, Montague 1,428 Callahan, McCloud, Tennant, Macdoel, Hilt, Henley, Hornbrook, Grenada, Mt Shasta 3,385 Lake Shastina, Seiad Valley and Happy Camp. Tulelake 977 Weed 2,769 ** County Seat

Yreka** 7,840 Siskiyou County is approximately 6,287 square miles. A large portion of Unincorporated 24,084 Siskiyou County is owned by the federal government, which limits the amount of property tax available to the County.

II. ISSUES AND STATE FUNDING PRIORITIES

The Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission (SCLTC) is designated the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the County. This local entity monitors and coordinates project eligibility for state highway funding and public transportation. During preparation of the 2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) SCLTC increased project estimates on ten previously programmed projects. Due to project deferrals from previous cycles of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) the combined increase in costs on these ten projects was over $ 1.0 Million. With the passage of Senate Bill 1 we were able to reprogram various phases of three additional projects.

According to the California Department of Finance the County’s estimated population has decreased slightly. The County’s population density continues to average 7 persons per square mile. The minimal population coupled with the County’s rural character has prevented large land use development. In recent years we have experienced some minimal growth in certain sectors. Given the backlog of transportation infrastructure needs there is still a constant lack of adequate funding for ongoing repairs and upgrades. Although Siskiyou County has a low population density we still experience heavy truck traffic and thousands of visitors and tourists that travel to and through the County each year ultimately impacting the transportation system and generating a need for greater maintenance requirements on existing local roadways. Given the County’s position as the last stop along the I5 corridor our goal is to encourage travelers to stop here to spend money before they leave the state thereby increasing revenues for the State and the County. Page 3

An additional source of funding for minor road maintenance in Siskiyou County has been the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which is provided through the Transportation Development Act. This funding is of particular importance for the smaller communities that generate very little fuel tax money.

The transit operator continues to set aside a portion of the annual LTF allocation received for the replacement of the transit fleet. The Siskiyou County Short Range Transit Plan (adopted in January 2016) recommended an annual contribution to this reserve, which will provide match money for future purchases with grant funding. S.T.A.G.E. (Siskiyou County’s public transportation operation) recently entered into a contract to provide advertising on the side of the transit fleet. Fifty percent of the revenue generated from this contract has been directed to the rolling stock replacement fund. In addition the County recently started using an online public auction site to sell surplus vehicles. At the request of staff the Board authorized all funds from the sale of surplus buses to be directed to the rolling stock replacement fund. S.T.A.G.E continues to seek funding through the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program for bus stop improvements and programs to encourage ridership. They are also utilizing State of Good Repair funds towards the replacement of rolling stock. They continue to utilize grant funding from the Transit Security Grant Program to improve bus stops throughout the County. Since 2011 S.T.A.G.E. has invested $ 161,540 in bus stop improvements. These improvements have been funded by various grant and local funding sources.

As a result of Senate Bill 1 (SB1) the State Transit Assistance Program (STA) allocation for FY 2018/2019 was increased by approximately $ 91,000. The FTA Section 5311 funds continue to decrease each fiscal year, which provides essential operating assistance for the transit operation.

The rural nature of Siskiyou County assures that the primary mode of transportation is, and will continue to be, the automobile. Fuel prices continue to hover between $ 3.00 and $ 4.00 per gallon. Based on May 2018 data Siskiyou County’s unemployment rate was 5.5%. This is slightly higher that the State of California’s unemployment rate of 4.2% (June 2018). Many residents are transit dependent or rely on friends and family to transport them. The County transit system continues to play a critical role in meeting transportation needs of many of these residents, as well as the clients of various County Social Service agencies. According to the most recent Short Range Transit Plan 28.7% of our population is comprised of residents over the age of sixty. This creates the need for increased fixed routes and specialized paratransit transportation, particularly for service to medical facilities both in and out of the county. Many seniors travel to Redding, California or Medford, Oregon for medical care and traversing the mountain passes in the winter can create a hardship. Siskiyou County continues to work with Shasta Regional Transportation Authority on a grant application for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program in an attempt to get funding for bus service from Yreka to Redding and continuing on to the bay area. This request for services to either Redding or Medford still exists after many years.

Siskiyou County has seven public use airports located throughout the County. Butte Valley, Happy Camp, Scott Valley, Weed and Siskiyou County Airports are operated by Siskiyou County. Mott Airport is operated by the City of Dunsmuir. Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field is operated by the City of Montague with financial assistance from the City of Yreka for long term capital needs. None currently provide commercial passenger services. Previous attempts to establish scheduled service to various destinations have not been successful due primarily to the low population base in the County. Residents must travel to Redding, California or Medford, Oregon to access commercial passenger service. There are bases for firefighting aircraft, package delivery, bank courier services and general aviation operations out of the seven airports. The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors have recently been grappling with the loss of $ 300,000 in federal funding for two of the five County operated airports. They are currently working with the FAA on the possible closure of the Happy Camp Airport due to lack of funding and minimal use of the facility.

Page 4

The County and other entities operating airports within the region have faced an ongoing financial struggle with maintaining the various airport infrastructures due to a variety of factors including lack of supporting revenue in previous fiscal years, slow growth in the region, and limited opportunities for development. The annual credits from Caltrans Aeronautics equate to $ 60,000 for the region’s airport system. The lack of funding and failing infrastructure cannot be addressed until the County experiences substantial infrastructure improvements and increased economic growth.

The agencies who operate the local airports continue to struggle with acquiring the funds needed to match State and FAA grants in order to complete critical pavement projects on the airports. This ongoing issue has forced local agencies to prioritize the needs of the airports based on safety concerns. Caltrans Aeronautics matching AIP grant funds are critical to the completion of any capital improvement projects on the airports.

Page 5

Work Element

601 602 602.1 603 603.1 604 605 606 60

------

FY 2019/2020 - Federal Planning Factors

2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and X X X X X X X X X efficiency. 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized X X X users. 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized X X X users. 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of

people and freight. X X X X X X X 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, promote consistency between X X X X X X transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns. 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between X X X X X X X modes, people and freight. 7. Promote efficient system management and operation. X X X X X X X X X

8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. X X X X X X X X

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act Planning Factors: 9. Improve resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate X X X X X X X storm water impacts of surface transportation

10. Enhance travel and tourism X X X X X X X X X

Page 6

III. ORGANIZATION

The Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) representing Siskiyou County is the Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission (SCLTC). The six-member commission consists of four members (three seats and one alternate) appointed by the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and four members (three seats and one alternate) appointed by the Siskiyou League of Local Agencies, which is elected officials from the nine incorporated cities in Siskiyou County.

Siskiyou County’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is a working group with representatives from each of the nine cities, three tribal entities, Caltrans, Siskiyou County Public Works and SCLTC staff. The TAC meets as needed to discuss proposed projects for the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan and other transportation planning issues that affect our agencies and the region as a whole.

SCLTC coordinates its activities with various County Departments; as well as State, local and tribal entities. Citizens’ groups are encouraged to provide input through public hearings, such as the Unmet Transit Needs process, to solve specific transportation problems which are of concern to the community. The SCLTC expanded the public input process by updating the website to include a variety of items being heard by the Commission. In years past we added a variety of information to the Commission’s website.

In 1978 the SCLTC contracted with a consultant to update the 1976 Transportation Needs Study. An advisory group of County citizens and representatives from various transportation providers with a particular interest in, and knowledge of, public transportation need was formed. The advisory group, known as the Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC), consists of eleven members representing a diverse cross section of citizens from various geographic areas of the County. Specific membership composition is in conformance with state law.

IV. WORK PROGRAM

The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is the long term planning document that provides a 20+ year vision of the region’s transportation system. It is understood that the purpose of the continuing planning process is to ensure that the RTP is responsive to the changing needs and desires of the system’s users. However, with the increased emphasis by State government for coordination between counties and Caltrans in regard to Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP), Air Quality and Environmental Concerns and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Program, it is now necessary for RTP’s to be responsive to the States’ planning process in addition to being responsive to regional needs. SCLTC completed the update on the Siskiyou County Regional Transportation Plan, which was adopted by the Commission on May 10, 2016.

The 2019/2020 OWP covers a one year period. The work program defines the degree of planning efforts that will be expended for elements relating to the county’s transportation system. This OWP is subject to financial constraints, as there are limited resources (staff, time, funding) to address the wide range of complex issues.

Page 7

Work Element 2020-601 - Administration and Coordination

Purpose

To provide administrative support for the Transportation Planning Program, and coordinate activities between Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission, the State, Tribal Governments and local agencies.

Previous Work

1. Planning meetings with city, county and tribal entities to assist with transportation and goods movement planning. Some examples of previous work completed include attending SCLTC meetings and completing work based on direction from the Commission. 2. Meetings with other non-profit agencies to coordinate their transportation related projects with other entities within the region.

Task Product Frequency

1. SCLTC staff attends all LTC meetings; 1) LTC Agenda Packets and Monthly establishes work statements; contracts for Meeting Minutes outside consultants; supervises all support July 2019 personnel. 2) Finalized contracts for work of the SCLTC.

2. SCLTC staff attends meeting (in person or via Coordinated knowledge of Quarterly teleconference) directly related to planning process for staff. (Minimum) transportation planning.

3. SCLTC staff provides coordination between As Needed SCLTC, State and Local agencies, and other Public input from various Throughout the groups as necessary for continuous planning agencies on transportation needs Fiscal Year process. and future planning.

4. Ongoing development of the Local Coordination between the Transportation and STAGE pages on the SCLTC, members of the public, County website to allow for more public input Quarterly cities, tribal entities, County and throughout the year and for better Caltrans staff. dissemination of information.

5. Prepare required reports, audits and other Financial audits required by correspondence. law. 9/2019 through 3/2020 (Cost of audits paid from local funds. Staff time to work with consultant during the preparation is

Page 8

part of this item.)

6. Schedule and attend Technical Advisory RTIP Committee meetings to discuss roads & streets ATP Applications Quarterly and Active Transportation Program (ATP) Ongoing Oversight of STIP projects for future STIP cycles. Projects

7. Training of newly appointed Local Coordinated knowledge of Transportation Commissioners or other direct processes and requirements for Annually support staff. SCLTC.

8. SCLTC staff attends Caltrans Workshops Coordination between State and related to security and emergency Annually Local agencies. preparedness.

9. Effectively solicit input from the public, local government, Tribes, advisory groups and Documentation of Public organizations through local newspapers and Every 6 Months Participation Plan efforts. other informational media to promote a Public Participation Plan.

July, August, 10. Participate in public events and community Increased public outreach and September, functions to conduct surveys about ways to data collection March, April, increase ridership and other unmet needs. May, June

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total

Consultant $ 67,500 $ 67,500.00

Page 9

Work Element 2020-602 - Aviation Facilities

Purpose

To assist in airport planning studies leading toward upgrading and /or maintaining existing aviation services and increase in goods movement and multimodal transportation opportunities from and to the airports.

Previous Work

1. Completion of Aviation Element of updated Regional Transportation Plans. 2. Aviation Capital Improvement Program Update (2019).

Task Product Frequency 1. Work with stakeholders to assess the utilization of the County airports to establish a viable air transportation Planning guidance for future component to the Regional Transportation improvements on County Plan update scheduled for 2020. This Quarterly airports. could be accomplished by working with

local cities, the Siskiyou County Economic Development Council and other interested parties.

2. Insure the inclusion of airports in transportation plans involving the Capital improvement plans January 2020 multimodal movement of people and/or for County airports. freight.

3. Attend annual conferences (i.e. Association of California Airports or Update on legislation and SWAAE) to get updates on legislation funding programs for Airport September 2019 and possible grant opportunities related to Capital Improvement. airport improvement programs from the FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics.

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total

SCLTC Staff $ 2,500 $ 2,500

Page 10

Work Element 2020-602.1 – Regional Aviation Plan

Purpose

To develop a Siskiyou County Regional Aviation Plan will provide a comprehensive document to guide future decisions regarding the various public airports within Siskiyou County. The plan will assess the capital and financial needs that will be used to update the next Regional Transportation Plan. It will also assess strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the regions airport.

Previous Work

1. None.

Task Product Frequency Establish a regional aviation plan (similar to a Short Range Transit Plan) to evaluate the seven general aviation airports within the region. On Going through June Some of the items to be evaluated include: 2020. 1) Funding sources and strategies Development of the 2) Develop capital, financial and service The final draft final draft of the recommendations. and acceptance Siskiyou County 3) Draft plan to be presented to various of the Regional Aviation local entities. document is Plan. 4) Identify, develop and/or recommend expected to performance measures for each occur no later airport. than June 30, 5) Conduct sustainability evaluation for 2020. each airport. 6) Conduct airport options analysis.

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total

SCLTC Staff $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00

Consultant $ 108,626.00 $ 108,626.00

Total of All Agencies: $ 111,626.00

Page 11

Work Element 2020-603 - Transportation Systems Planning

Maintain and improve the ongoing regional transportation planning process to achieve a fully coordinated street and road system that includes freight movement planning within Siskiyou County and to promote the development of non-motorized facilities within the cities and county including airports.

Previous Work

1. Reviewed various Caltrans Transportation Concept Reports. 2. Developed and submitted the 2018 RTIP and the 2018 Revised RTIP. 3. Organized and attended TAC meetings. 4. Monitor programmed STIP projects. 5. Prepare/submit RTIP.

Task Product Frequency

Coordination with the 1. Analysis of development activities near and around County Planning Quarterly or county airports that potentially could interfere with Commission on proposed As Needed the safe operation of flight activities. projects in or around County airports.

2. Provide technical assistance explaining program List of Active Every 6 Months requirements so that the eligible participants can Transportation Program or when ATP apply for Active Transportation Act. Eligible projects for next STIP Cycle is open for participants may include local cities, county cycle. applications departments and other non-profit agencies

3. Coordinate transportation planning by attending SSTAC, TAC and League of Local Agencies meetings. Attend a minimum of one city council meeting per city to enhance lines of communication Public requests for regarding transit services, transportation and Streets & Roads and streets/roads projects. public transit needs. Quarterly Information sharing (League of Local Agencies includes representatives between agencies. from each incorporated city and any Community

Services Districts (CSD) in the County. They meet quarterly to discuss topics of interest to the cities and CSD’s. Members of the SCLTC are appointed by the City Selection Committee.)

Page 12

Annually updated 4. Continued development of data set for use in planning information for use in for future projects (transit, streets/roads, and Annually multimodal planning bike/pedestrian/trails). efforts.

5. Coordination and review of Caltrans Planning efforts Input on TCR’s Summer 2019 and documents.

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total

SCLTC Staff $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00

Total of All Agencies: $ 5,000.00

Page 13

Work Element 2020-603.1 - Roadway Pavement Management System – Annual Update

Phase I of the Pavement Management System included a full pavement analysis of all paved roadways within Siskiyou County. The initial phase was completed in the summer of 2015. Since then road conditions have deteriorated or roads have received treatments. This work element will include the third year of an existing three year contract to reassess approximately 260 miles of roadway data maintained in StreetSaver. This data will be used to provide updated street condition data to state and local agencies for future funding and/or projects in our region.

Previous Work:

1. Second round of surveys and updates to previous data completed fall 2018. 2. Initial survey of all paved roadways within region completed July 2015. 3. Completed a three year contract to perform an update on approximately 260 miles of roadways and updated information in StreetSaver. (Contract awarded March 7, 2017)

Task Product Frequency

1. Update the inventory of existing county and city and projected maintenance for future project funding.

Consultant Responsibilities: Update of pavement data - The consultant will gather updated pavement to provide information to condition data on approximately 260 miles of local agencies and CTC July 2019 ~ June roadways within the region. on streets/roads needs for 2020 - The consultant will update the pavement condition use with development of data in StreetSaver on behalf of the local Regional Transportation agencies. Plan and RTIP. - The consultant will update information in StreetSaver for any maintenance treatments implemented since July 2015.

2. Purchase annual licenses for StreetSaver to facilitate pavement data collection in region. StreetSaver is Updated Pavement Data used to compile current road data, which is used to for all paved roads in Annual provide Caltrans and the CTC information on needs region. within the region.

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total

SCLTC Staff $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00

Consultant $ 64,956.00 $ 64,956.00 StreetSaver Licenses – Metropolitan Transportation Commission $ 20,500.00 $ 20,500.00

Total of All Agencies: $ 86,456.00

Page 14

Work Element 2020-604 - Transit Planning and Non-Motorized

Purpose

To provide a coordinated transportation system that includes bikes and pedestrians and makes effective use of public, private and social service transportation facilities and is responsive to the needs of Siskiyou County residents.

Previous Work

1. Attended an LCTOP workshop and North State Transit meetings to identify ways to improve coordination between regions and between Community organizations. 2. Completed a Transit Asset Management Plan. 3. Completed bus stop improvements in Dunsmuir, Montague and Fort Jones. 4. Coordinated the completion of an easement for a permit shelter in Mt Shasta. 5. Coordinate with a local non-profit, Caltrans and other stakeholders on a pedestrian/bicycle project in the City of Yreka. 6. Coordinate with Caltrans, Karuk Tribe, and various Siskiyou County agencies on a complete streets project for the community of Happy Camp. 7. Coordinate with local agencies on transit services and necessary improvements to increase ridership.

Task Product Frequency

Coordination between cities 1. Encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian travel by and other agencies on a development of a safe and convenient system of County Bike Plan and Ongoing bicycle routes, trails, storage facilities and walkways. provide data on future needs for the RTP

2. Consult with all public and private transportation Coordination between Ongoing operators. transit providers.

Increased ridership and efficiency within transit 3. Work with various local agencies to implement operations. Provide data Ongoing changes proposed through Short Range Transit Plan. for future needs to be included in the RTP update.

4. Development of a long term fixed Bus Stop system, including transfer stations and elimination of flag Better connectivity between Ongoing stops with the goal to increase connectivity between all modes of transportation. transportation providers.

Page 15

5. Coordinate, consult, and collaborate with the Karuk Document Tribal Ongoing Tribe and Quartz Valley Indian Reservation. government-to-government relations.

Increased coordination 6. Attend meetings or conferences (i.e. Caltrans trainings) between transit agencies to gain knowledge from other agencies on successful and identify ways to Ongoing planning and coordination between counties. improve connectivity between areas.

7. Ongoing oversight of the Transit Asset Management Transit Asset Management Semi Plan as required by FTA. Plan Annually

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total

SCLTC Staff $ 7,918.00 $ 7,918.00

Total of All Agencies: $ 7,918.00

Page 16

Work Element 2020-605 – Overall Work Program Oversight

Purpose

To provide oversight of the Overall Work Program, preparation and submission of draft and final program documents, amendments and required quarterly reports.

Previous Work

1. Continuous process; including but not limited to: annual financial audits, triennial performance audits, drafting, adopting, and amending OWP, OWP quarterly reports and invoices, related correspondence, and preparation of monthly commission packets. 2. Preparation of draft and final Overall Work Program document each year. 3. Ongoing oversight of Overall Work Program. 4. Submission of quarterly reports and final report of expenditures.

Task Product Frequency

1. SCLTC staff will prepare, and SCLTC will adopt after Caltrans approval, a draft Draft and Final OWP for FY Draft – March 2020 and final Overall Work Program for FY 2020/2021 Final - June 2020 2020/2021.

2. Develop OWP amendment to incorporate Approved OWP amendment for October 2019 any carryover funds from FY 2018/2019. FY 2019/2020

3. SCLTC staff monitors the 2019/2020 Overall Work Program and insures 2019/2020 Quarterly OWP Quarterly 7/2019, 10/2019, prompt action in the filing of quarterly Invoices/Reports 01/2020, 04/2020 reports / requests for reimbursements.

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total

SCLTC Staff $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00

Total of All Agencies: $ 3,000.00

Page 17

Work Element 2020-606 – Unmet Transit Needs

Purpose

SCLTC oversees the required solicitation of input from the public on unmet transit needs. This includes a minimum of one annual hearing, ongoing public outreach through the Commission’s website, public events such as the Siskiyou Golden Fair and other community events and the annual SSTAC meeting to review and make recommendations to the Commission on the requests for service.

Previous Work

1. Ongoing tracking of requests for service. 2. Participation in Social Services Transportation Advisory Council activities. 3. Publish required advertising for unmet needs and the public hearing. 4. Submission of recommendations to the SCLTC after review of requests for service.

Task Product Frequency

1. Conduct and participate in County Unmet Documentation of Unmet 04/2020, 05/2020 Transit Needs process. Transit Needs

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds SCLTC Total

SCLTC $ 1,000 $ 3,500 $ 4,500

Page 18

Work Element 2020-607 – Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

This element includes the development and ongoing oversite of the Siskiyou County Regional Transportation Plan.

Previous Work

1. Developed and submitted the 2018 RTIP and STIP amendment request for the 2018 RTIP. 2. Monitor programmed STIP projects. 3. Prepare/submit RTIP.

Task Product Frequency

Continue working with 1. Prioritize rehabilitation and maintenance needs of agencies on prioritized July, August, the various jurisdictional road systems taking into listing of all County September, October, account maintenance delays due to funding Road Projects prior to November 2019 restrictions. development of 2020 RTIP

Completion of necessary 2. Work with local agencies and Caltrans to monitor documents to acquire completion of various transportation infrastructure Quarterly funding for various projects (i.e. STIP, ATP). projects.

3. Continue formal government-to-government relationships with the Karuk Tribe of California and Quartz Valley Indian Reservation through coordination, consultation, and collaboration to Coordinate involvement ensure early and continuous participation in local and participation of and state transportation planning and Quarterly Tribal entities in programming activities. Include tribal entities in Siskiyou County. project solicitations for the RTIP and TE programs. This will occur through regular correspondence and participating in transportation planning meetings with the tribal entities. July thru December 2019. 4. Coordinate with local agencies and Caltrans for Final submission Final 2020 RTIP development of the 2020 RTIP / STIP will be December 2019

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total

SCLTC Staff $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00

Total of All Agencies: $ 2,500.00

Page 19

V. Organizational Chart for Siskiyou County RTPA

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Executive Director 1 Staff

Membership

City Representatives: Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors: City of Etna Lorraine Fleck Brandon Criss City of Yreka Joan Smith Freeman Michael Kobseff City of Mt Shasta Timothy Stearns Ed Valenzuela City of Dunsmuir Bruce Duetsch Lisa Nixon

Advisory

Social Service Transportation Advisory Council One Year Term: (Expires 5/9/2019) Two Year Term: (Expires 4/4/2019) CTSA Vacant City of Weed Kelly McKinnis CTSA Brandon Criss Representative of Limited Means Ken Ryan Yreka Vacant Yreka Area Selma George College of the Siskiyous Doug Haugen

Three Year Term: (Expires 5/10/2019) Mt Shasta Nutrition Program Mike Rodriguez Yreka Nutrition Program Terrie Berentsen Yreka Andre Economopoulos Karuk Tribe Sandi Tripp

Caltrans Representative: Marcelino Gonzalez

Technical Working Group Executive Director - SCLTC Public Works Director - County Public Works Director – Dorris Public Works Director - Dunsmuir Public Works Director – Etna Public Works Director – Ft. Jones Public Works Director – Mt. Shasta Public Works Director – Montague Public Works Director – Tulelake Public Works Director – Weed Public Works Director – Yreka Caltrans Regional Planner Transit Manager – County Tribal Government Representatives U.S. Forest Service BLM Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service

Summary of Expenditures for SISKIYOU COUNTY

Page 20

Projected 2019-2020 Fiscal Year

Page 21

Joint Planning Activities within Siskiyou County Information Element FY 2018/19 Siskiyou County OWP

Activity Description Product(s) Funding Due Date

SCLTC will coordinate with State & Caltrans staff on the update and California Transportation Plan Federal Ongoing development of the California Funds Transportation Plan (CTP)

SCLTC staff will receive assistance State & from Caltrans with programming County RTIP Federal Ongoing documents for their RTIP Funds amendments

Cooperate with Caltrans to monitor Payment of Invoices for OWP State & SCLTC OWP work progress, RPA reimbursements as well as Federal Ongoing process OWP invoices for payment, various transit planning grants Funds including grant progress.

System Management  TCRs and TCR updates State & FY 19/20  CTIS database Federal and  ITMS database Funds Ongoing

District 2 Intelligent Transportation District 2 ITS Architecture Plan State & FY 19/20 System (ITS) Architecture updates and amendments relating Federal and to Siskiyou County Funds Ongoing

RTPA staff will cooperate with Participation by Tribes in the State & Caltrans in outreach and transportation Planning Process Federal Ongoing participation by Native American Funds Tribal Governments

Multi-modal Planning  Aeronautics State & Coordination  Bicycle Plan Federal Ongoing  Transit Planning Funds  Pedestrian  ADA Accessibility

RTPA staff will coordinate with  Public Participation State & Caltrans on miscellaneous,  Greenhouse Gas/ Air Quality Federal Ongoing transportation-related issues  Intergovernmental Reviews Funds

Page 22

RESOLUTION NO. 20-03 SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WHEREAS, $57,500.00 of unused Rural Planning Assistance Funds from the 2018/2019 Overall Work Program are available and have been applied to fund Work Element 2020-601 – Administration and Coordination, and

WHEREAS, this $57,500.00 of funds have been proposed for amendment into the 2019/2020 Overall Work Program, and

WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed the 2019/2020 Overall Work Program Amendment #1; and

WHEREAS, this Commission concurs with the plan as presented,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2019/2020 Overall Work Program Amendment #1 is hereby approved.

th PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14 day of April, 2020 by the Local Transportation Commission of Siskiyou County by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ______Chairperson – Joan Smith Freeman Local Transportation Commission ATTEST:

______Jeff Schwein Executive Director Agenda Worksheet

TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DATE: April 14, 2020

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 7

Draft FY 20-21 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUMMARY (Description of Issue):

The Overall Work Program (OWP) allocates State Subvention Formula Funds to specific regional transportation planning activities. The 2020/2021 OWP covers a one-year period. The work program defines the degree of planning efforts that will be expended for elements relating to the county’s transportation system. This OWP is subject to financial constraints, as there are limited resources (staff, time, funding) to address the wide range of complex issues.

Caltrans has reviewed the draft and provided comments to staff. As of the date of preparation of the agenda staff has not received the final approval from Caltrans on the enclosed draft, although draft comments have been received.

The 2020/2021 OWP programs $230,000 of Regional Planning Assistance funds. A few of the major projects staff will be focusing on during FY 2020/21 are development of the Regional Transportation Plan update and development of the Short Range Transit Plan update.

The Draft OWP has been included in this agenda packet for review by the Commissioners. A final OWP will be presented for adoption at a future Commission meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and discuss draft FY 20-21 SCLTC OWP.

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission

OVERALL WORK PROGRAM 2020-21 FISCAL YEAR

FOR THE CONTINUOUS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

Jeff Schwein, Executive Director Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission

Date of Adoption: x/xx/2020

Page 1

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 2 II. ISSUES AND STATE FUNDING PRIORITIES ...... 2 III. ORGANIZATION ...... 5 IV. WORK PROGRAM ...... 5 Work Element 2020-601 - Administration and Coordination ...... 6 Work Element 2021-602 - Aviation Facilities...... 8 Work Element 2021-603 - Transportation Systems Planning ...... 9 Work Element 2021-603.1 – Pavement Management System ...... 11 Work Element 2021-604 - Transit Planning and Non-Motorized ...... 12 Work Element 2021-604.1 – Short Range Transit Plan ...... 14 Work Element 2021-605 – Overall Work Program Oversight ...... 15 Work Element 2021-606 – Unmet Transit Needs ...... 16 Work Element 2021-607 – Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)...... 17 Work Element 2021-607.1 – Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2020 Update ...... 18 V. Organizational Chart for Siskiyou County RTPA ...... 19 Summary of Expenditures for SISKIYOU COUNTY ...... 20

Page 1

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

I. INTRODUCTION

Information obtained from the California Department of Finance on Dorris 890 estimated population as of January 2020 indicates a projected County Dunsmuir 1,559 population of 43,957. The table to the left indicates the estimated Etna 710 population for incorporated cities in Siskiyou County. Fort Jones 682

Montague 1,400 The projected unincorporated County population of 24,185 is comprised of Mt Shasta 3,237 numerous smaller communities such as Cecilville, Somes Bar, Greenview, Callahan, McCloud, Tennant, Macdoel, Hilt, Henley, Hornbrook, Grenada, Tulelake 989 Lake Shastina, Seiad Valley and Happy Camp. Weed 2,754 Yreka** 7,551 ** County Seat Unincorporated 24,185

Siskiyou County is approximately 6,287 square miles. A large portion of Siskiyou County is owned by the federal government, which limits the amount of property tax available to the County.

II. ISSUES AND STATE FUNDING PRIORITIES

According to the California Department of Finance the County’s estimated population has decreased slightly. The County’s population density continues to average 7 persons per square mile. The minimal population coupled with the County’s rural character has prevented large land use development. In recent years we have experienced some minimal growth in certain sectors. Given the backlog of transportation infrastructure needs there is still a constant lack of adequate funding for ongoing repairs and upgrades. Although Siskiyou County has a low population density we still experience heavy truck traffic and thousands of visitors and tourists that travel to and through the County each year ultimately impacting the transportation system and generating a need for greater maintenance requirements on existing local roadways. Given the County’s position as the last stop along the I-5 corridor our goal is to encourage travelers to stop here to spend money before they leave the state thereby increasing revenues for the State and the County.

Page 2 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

The rural nature of Siskiyou County assures that the primary mode of transportation is, and will continue to be, the automobile. Fuel prices continue to hover between $ 3.00 and $ 3.50 per gallon. Based on December 2019 data Siskiyou County’s unemployment rate was 6.3%. This is significantly higher that the State of California’s unemployment rate of 3.9% (December 2019). Many residents are transit dependent or rely on friends and family to transport them. The County transit system continues to play a critical role in meeting transportation needs of many of these residents, as well as the clients of various County Social Service agencies. According to the California Department of Finance, 34.5% of our population is comprised of residents over the age of sixty. This creates the need for increased fixed routes and specialized paratransit transportation, particularly for service to medical facilities both in and out of the county. Many seniors travel to Redding, California or Medford, Oregon for medical care and traversing the mountain passes in the winter can create a hardship. Siskiyou County continues to work with Shasta Regional Transportation Authority on a grant application for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program in an attempt to get funding for bus service from Yreka to Redding and continuing on to the bay area. This request for services to either Redding or Medford still exists after many years.

Page 3 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Work Element

601 602 603 603.1 604 604.1 605 606 607 607.1 ------

FY 2019/2020 - Federal Planning Factors 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling X X X X X X X X X X global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized X X X X X X users. 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized X X X X X X X users. 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of

people and freight. X X X X X X X X 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, promote consistency between X X X X X X X X transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns. 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and X X X X X X X X between modes, people and freight. 7. Promote efficient system management and operation. X X X X X X X X X X 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing

transportation system. X X X X X X X X

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act Planning Factors:

9. Improve resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or X X X X X X X X mitigate storm water impacts of surface transportation 10. Enhance travel and tourism X X X X X X X X

Page 4 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

III. ORGANIZATION

The Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) representing Siskiyou County is the Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission (SCLTC). The six-member commission consists of four members (three seats and one alternate) appointed by the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and four members (three seats and one alternate) appointed by the Siskiyou League of Local Agencies, which is comprised of elected officials from the nine incorporated cities in Siskiyou County.

IV. WORK PROGRAM

The 2020/2021 OWP covers a one year period. The work program defines the degree of planning efforts that will be expended for elements relating to the county’s transportation system. This OWP is subject to financial constraints, as there are limited resources (staff, time, funding) to address the wide range of complex issues.

Page 5 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Work Element 2020-601 - Administration and Coordination

Purpose

Previous Work

Task Product Frequency

1. SCLTC staff attends all LTC meetings; 1) LTC Agenda Packets and establishes work statements; contracts for Meeting Minutes Monthly outside consultants; supervises all support personnel. 2) Finalized contracts for work July 2020 of the SCLTC.

2. SCLTC staff attends meeting (in person or via Quarterly teleconference) directly related to Meeting Agenda & Summary (Minimum) transportation planning.

3. SCLTC staff provides coordination between As Needed Public input from various SCLTC, State and Local agencies, and other Throughout the agencies on transportation groups as necessary for continuous planning Fiscal Year needs and future planning. process.

4. Ongoing development of the Local Transportation and STAGE pages on the Media materials and County website to allow for more public input Quarterly documentation of posts.. throughout the year and for better dissemination of information.

5. Prepare required reports, audits and other Financial audits required by correspondence. 9/2020 through law. (Cost of audits paid from local funds. Staff time to 3/2021 work with consultant during the preparation is part of this item.)

Page 6 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

6. Schedule and attend Technical Advisory RTIP Committee meetings to discuss roads & ATP Applications Quarterly streets and Active Transportation Program TAC Agendas and Summaries. (ATP) projects for future STIP cycles.

7. Training of newly appointed Local Knowledge and meeting Transportation Commissioners or other direct Annually summaries. support staff.

8. SCLTC staff attends Caltrans Workshops Knowledge and meeting related to security and emergency Annually summaries. preparedness.

9. Effectively solicit input from the public, local government, Tribes, advisory groups and Documentation of Public organizations through local newspapers and Participation Plan efforts. PPP Every 6 Months other informational media to promote a Updates as necessary. Public Participation Plan.

July, August, 10. Participate in public events and community Surveys, event flyers, media September, functions to conduct surveys about ways to posts, advertising, etc. March, April, increase ridership and other unmet needs. May, June

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total SCLTC Staff $ 5,000 $5,000 SCLTC Contractor $47,000 $47,000

Total Work Element 601 $52,000 $52,000

Page 7 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Work Element 2021-602 - Aviation Facilities

Purpose

Previous Work

1. Completion of Aviation Element of updated Regional Transportation Plans. 2. Aviation Capital Improvement Program Update (2019).

Task Product Frequency 1. Work with stakeholders to assess the utilization of the County airports to establish a viable air transportation Planning guidance for future component to the Regional improvements on County Transportation Plan update scheduled for Quarterly airports. 2020. This could be accomplished by

working with local cities, the Siskiyou County Economic Development Council and other interested parties.

2. Insure the inclusion of airports in transportation plans involving the Capital improvement plans January 2021 multimodal movement of people and/or for County airports. freight.

3. Attend annual conferences (i.e. Association of California Airports or Update on legislation and SWAAE) to get updates on legislation and funding programs for Airport September 2020 possible grant opportunities related to Capital Improvement. airport improvement programs from the FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics.

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total SCLTC Staff $ 1,000 $ 1,000 SCLTC Contractor $ 500 $ 500

Total Work Element 602 $1,500 $1,500

Page 8 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Work Element 2021-603 - Transportation Systems Planning

Previous Work

1. Reviewed various Caltrans Transportation Concept Reports. 2. Developed and submitted the 2020 RTIP. 3. Organized and attended TAC meetings. 4. Monitor programmed STIP projects. 5. Prepare/submit RTIP.

Task Product Frequency

Coordination with the 1. Analysis of development activities near and around County Planning Quarterly or county airports that potentially could interfere with Commission on As Needed the safe operation of flight activities. proposed projects in or around County airports.

2. Provide technical assistance explaining program Every 6 Months List of Active requirements so that the eligible participants can or when ATP Transportation Program apply for Active Transportation Act. Eligible Cycle is open for projects for next STIP participants may include local cities, county applications – cycle. departments and other non-profit agencies Spring 2020

3. Coordinate transportation planning by attending SSTAC, TAC and League of Local Agencies meetings. Attend a minimum of one city council meeting per city to enhance lines of communication regarding Public requests for transit services, transportation and streets/roads Streets & Roads and projects. public transit needs. Quarterly Information sharing (League of Local Agencies includes representatives between agencies. from each incorporated city and any Community

Services Districts (CSD) in the County. They meet quarterly to discuss topics of interest to the cities and CSD’s. Members of the SCLTC are appointed by the City Selection Committee.)

Page 9 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Annually updated 4. Continued development of data set for use in information for use in planning for future projects (transit, streets/roads, Annually multimodal planning and bike/pedestrian/trails). efforts.

5. Coordination and review of Caltrans Planning efforts Input on TCR’s Summer 2020 and documents.

Funding By Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total SCLTC Staff $1,000 $1,000 SCLTC Contractor $5,600 $5,600

Total Work Element 602 $6,600 $6,600

Page 10 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Work Element 2021-603.1 – Pavement Management System

Monitor and assist local agencies with their pavement management systems, including software assistance.

Previous Work:

1. The Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission has previously assisted the local agencies with purchasing the software required to maintain their pavement management systems.

Task Product Frequency

Coordination at TAC 1. Work with local agencies to ensure pavement meetings, meeting Quarterly management systems are in place and maintained. minutes.

2. Coordinate the submittal of pavement management Correspondence Biannually data the to Statewide Needs Assessment.

Pavement Management 3. Software assistance for local agencies Annually Software

Funding by Source Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total SCLTC Staff $ 2,000 $ 2,000 SCLTC Contractor $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Local Agencies $ 21,000 $ 21,000

Total Work Element 603.1 $25,000 $25,000

Page 11 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Work Element 2021-604 - Transit Planning and Non-Motorized

Purpose

Previous Work

Task Product Frequency Coordination between 4. Encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian travel by cities and other agencies development of a safe and convenient system of on a County Bike Plan and Ongoing bicycle routes, trails, storage facilities and walkways. provide data on future needs for the RTP

5. Consult with all public and private transportation Coordination between Ongoing operators. transit providers.

Increased ridership and efficiency within transit 6. Work with various local agencies to implement operations. Provide data Ongoing changes proposed through Short Range Transit Plan. for future needs to be included in the RTP update.

7. Development of a long term fixed Bus Stop system, Better connectivity including transfer stations and elimination of flag between all modes of Ongoing stops with the goal to increase connectivity between transportation. transportation providers.

Page 12 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

8. Coordinate, consult, and collaborate with the Karuk Document Tribal Ongoing Tribe and Quartz Valley Indian Reservation. government-to- government relations.

Increased coordination 9. Attend meetings or conferences (i.e. Caltrans between transit agencies trainings) to gain knowledge from other agencies on and identify ways to Ongoing successful planning and coordination between improve connectivity counties. between areas.

10. Ongoing oversight of the Transit Asset Management Transit Asset Management Semi Plan as required by FTA. Plan Annually

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total SCLTC Staff $12,450 $12,450 SCLTC Contractor $12,500 $12,500

Total Work Element 604 $24,950 $24,950

Page 13 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Work Element 2021-604.1 – Short Range Transit Plan

Purpose

To assess transit and transit-related issues and needs in Siskiyou County and to provide a short-term (five-year) plan to of actionable items to address transit needs in the region.

Previous Work

1. Adopted the 2015 Short Range Transit Plan. 2. Ongoing adjustments to the schedules and fare structure. 3. Infrastructure development.

Task Product Frequency 1. Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) and solicit qualified Consultant Selection April 2020 consultant Establish Steering Committee, hold kick-off 2. Project initiation – kick-off meeting May 2020 meeting to refine project scope and schedule 3. Community and stakeholder outreach – establish August 2020 public outreach plan, conduct community workshops Executed community – January and focus groups, meet with Steering outreach events. 2021 Committee/SSTAC Existing conditions, fusing sources matrix, capital, financial and service April 2020 – 4. Develop Plan Components recommendations, April 2021 community outreach findings and needs analysis, presentation of draft Plan

Present and adopt final 5. Final Plan June 2021 Short Range Transit Plan update Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total SCLTC Staff $ 1,800 $ 1,800 SCLTC Contractor $1,200 $1,200 Consultant $35,300 $35,300

Total Work Element 604.1 $38,300 $38,300

Page 14 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Work Element 2021-605 – Overall Work Program Oversight

Purpose

To provide oversight of the Overall Work Program, preparation and submission of draft and final program documents, amendments and required quarterly reports.

Previous Work

Task Product Frequency

1. SCLTC staff will prepare, and SCLTC will Draft – March adopt after Caltrans approval, a draft and Draft and Final OWP for FY 2020 final Overall Work Program for FY 2020/2021 Final - June 2020 2020/2021.

2. Develop OWP amendment to incorporate Approved OWP amendment for October 2020 any carryover funds from FY 2018/2019. FY 2019/2020

3. SCLTC staff monitors the 2020/2021 Overall Work Program and insures 2020/2021 Quarterly OWP Quarterly 7/2020, 10/2020, prompt action in the filing of quarterly Invoices/Reports 01/2021, 04/2021 reports / requests for reimbursements.

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total SCLTC Staff $ 3,000 $ 3,000 SCLTC Contractor $18,000 $18,000

Total Work Element 605 $ 21,000 $ 21,000

Page 15 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Work Element 2021-606 – Unmet Transit Needs

Purpose

Previous Work

Task Product Frequency

1. Conduct and participate in County Unmet Documentation of Unmet 04/2020, Transit Needs process. Transit Needs 05/2020

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total SCLTC $ 1,000 $ 1,000 SCLTC Contractor $3,200 $3,200

Total Work Element 606 $4,200 $4,200

Page 16 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Work Element 2021-607 – Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

This element includes the development and ongoing oversite of the Siskiyou County Regional Transportation Plan.

Previous Work

1. Developed and submitted the 2020 RTIP and STIP amendment request for the 2020 RTIP. 2. Monitor programmed STIP projects. 3. Prepare/submit RTIP.

Task Product Frequency Continue working with 1. Prioritize rehabilitation and maintenance needs agencies on prioritized July, August, of the various jurisdictional road systems taking listing of all County Road September, into account maintenance delays due to funding Projects prior to October, November restrictions. development of 2020 2020 RTIP

Completion of necessary 2. Work with local agencies and Caltrans to monitor documents to acquire completion of various transportation Quarterly funding for various infrastructure projects (i.e. STIP, ATP). projects.

3. Continue formal government-to-government relationships with the Karuk Tribe of California and Quartz Valley Indian Reservation through coordination, consultation, and collaboration to Coordinate involvement ensure early and continuous participation in local and participation of and state transportation planning and Quarterly Tribal entities in Siskiyou programming activities. Include tribal entities in County. project solicitations for the RTIP and TE programs. This will occur through regular correspondence and participating in transportation planning meetings with the tribal entities.

4. Coordinate with local agencies and Caltrans for July thru December Final 2020 RTIP development of the 2020 RTIP / STIP 2020.

Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total SCLTC Staff $ 1,500 $1,500 SCLTC Contractor $7,800 $7,800

Total Work Element 607 $9,300 $9,300

Page 17 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Work Element 2021-607.1 – Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2020 Update

This element includes the development of the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan Update.

Previous Work

1. Adopted the 2016 Siskiyou County Regional Transportation Plan update.

Task Product Frequency

Establish Steering Committee, hold kick- 1. Project initiation – kick-off meeting off meeting to refine May 2020 project scope and schedule

2. Community and stakeholder outreach – establish public outreach plan, conduct community Executed community August 2020 – workshops and focus groups, meet with Steering outreach events. January 2021 Committee/TAC Existing conditions, community outreach findings and needs April 2020 – April 3. Develop Plan Components analysis, Financial, 2021 Policy and Action elements, presentation of draft Plan Funding by Source

Responsible Agency RPA Funds Total SCLTC Staff $2,500 $2,500 SCLTC Contractor $42,500 $42,500

Total Work Element 607.1 $45,000 $45,000

Page 18 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

V. Organizational Chart for Siskiyou County RTPA

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Executive Director 1 Staff - Contracted

Membership

Advisory

Social Service Transportation Advisory Council

One Year Term: Two Year Term: CTSA Vacant City of Weed Kelly McKinnis CTSA Brandon Criss Representative of Limited Ken Ryan Means Yreka Vacant Yreka Area Selma George College of the Siskiyous Doug Haugen

Three Year Term: Mt Shasta Nutrition Program Mike Rodriguez Yreka Nutrition Program Terrie Berentsen Yreka Andre Economopoulos Karuk Tribe Sandi Tripp

Caltrans Representative: Marcelino Gonzalez

Page 19 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Summary of Expenditures for SISKIYOU COUNTY

Projected 2020-2021 Fiscal Year

Page 20 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Joint Planning Activities within Siskiyou County Information Element FY 2020/21 Siskiyou County OWP

Activity Description Product(s) Funding Due Date

SCLTC will coordinate with Caltrans State & staff on the update and California Transportation Plan Federal Ongoing development of the California Funds Transportation Plan (CTP)

SCLTC staff will receive assistance State & from Caltrans with programming Regional RTIP Federal Ongoing documents for their RTIP Funds amendments

Cooperate with Caltrans to monitor Payment of Invoices for OWP RPA State & SCLTC OWP work progress, process reimbursements as well as various Federal Ongoing OWP invoices for payment, transit planning grants Funds including grant progress.

System Management TCRs and TCR updates State & FY 20/21 CTIS database Federal and ITMS database Funds Ongoing

District 2 Intelligent Transportation District 2 ITS Architecture Plan State & FY 20/21 System (ITS) Architecture updates and amendments relating Federal and to Siskiyou County Funds Ongoing

Multi-modal Planning Aeronautics State & Coordination Bicycle Plan Federal Ongoing Transit Planning Funds Pedestrian ADA Accessibility

RTPA staff will coordinate with Public Participation State & Caltrans on miscellaneous, Greenhouse Gas/ Air Quality Federal Ongoing transportation-related issues Intergovernmental Reviews Funds

Page 21 Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Overall Work Program 2020-21

Page 22 Agenda Worksheet

TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DATE: April 14, 2020

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 8

FY 2020-21 Local Streets and Roads Program SB 1 (RMRA) Funding Eligibility Reminder

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUMMARY (Description of Issue):

On April 28, 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 1, known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. To address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets and road system, SB 1: increases per gallon fuel excise taxes; increases diesel fuel sales taxes and vehicle registration fees; and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years. As of November 1, 2017, the State Controller began depositing various portions of these funds into the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) account.

The RMRA allocates $220,000 of funding to Siskiyou County annually, available for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local roads and streets system. Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds, responsible agencies must submit a list of proposed projects to the California Transportation Commission (CTC). All projects proposed to receive funding must be adopted by the SCLTC by resolution prior to submission to the CTC.

Project lists are due to the CTC by May 1, 2020.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review proposed projects. This list will be finalized at the TAC meeting on April 14 scheduled for 10 AM.

Agenda Worksheet

TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DATE: April 14, 2020

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 9

Federal Exchange for Regional Surface Transportation Program Funds

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUMMARY (Description of Issue):

On an annual basis, Siskiyou County (as a region) is apportioned funds from the Regional Surface Transportation Program. The State of California offers Regional Transportation Planning Agencies to exchange these funds from Federal funds to State funds to improve the flexibility for smaller agencies to use the funding. This funding is then distributed to local agencies in Siskiyou County for roadway, bicycle, pedestrian and transit projects.

The current apportionment available for exchange is FY 19/20 in the amount of $96,534. A call for projects for this funding will be issued to eligible agencies in Fall 2020.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize Executive Director to sign Agreement No. X20-6151(032) with the State of California. Adopt Resolution #20-04 assigning the State the 19/20 apportionment of RSTP/RSTBGP funds in the amount of $96,534 and in exchange, receiving same amount directly to the region as defined by Section 182.6(d)(2) of the California Streets and Highways Code.

RESOLUTION NO. 20-04 SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WHEREAS, the Surface Transportation Program (STP) allocates federal funding from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund,

WHEREAS, State funds offer greater flexibility to smaller agencies to use funding than Federal sources,

WHEREAS, Section 182.6(d)(2) of the California Streets and Highways Code allows for an exchange of Federal Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)/Regional Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (RSTBGP) funding for nonfederal State highway Account Funds,

WHEREAS, Siskiyou County (as a region) has been apportioned $96,534 of RSTP/RSTBGP funding for the 19/20 fiscal year,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Siskiyou County Local Commission Transportation hereby approves the exchange of FY 19/20 federal apportionment of $96,534 of RSTP/RSTBGP funding for the same amount of State of California funding and authorizes Executive Director Jeff Schwein to sign Agreement No. X20-6151(032) between the Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission and the State of California.

th PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14 day of April, 2020 by the Local Transportation Commission of Siskiyou County by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ______Chairperson – Joan Smith Freeman Local Transportation Commission ATTEST:

______Jeff Schwein Executive Director Agenda Worksheet

TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DATE: April 14, 2020

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 10

City of Weed Vista Drive Project

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUMMARY (Description of Issue):

The City of Weed is requesting an advance of STIP funding for the construction of the City’s Vista Drive rehabilitation project. The STIP funding is a match to leverage a Federal Economic Development Administration grant the City received in 2017. The project, which consists of a rehabilitation with rigid paving from the intersection of Vista Drive to the travel plaza entrance, was originally programmed in the 2014 STIP at a total construction cost of $544,000 which is programmed in the current Fiscal Year. The following STIP history shows the Construction allocation was delayed from FY 18/19 to June 30, 2020. Since this CON phase is in the current year of programming, the request for $544,000 is critical to the City and the region.

The project cost has escalated and the match funding now required is $1,144,000. This $600,000 increase is being requested by the City of Weed as a STIP advance of funds against future regional county shares. This is allowable by the State. The Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission Technical Advisory Committee will be discussing the project at their meeting on April 14, 2020 at 10 AM and will make a recommendation to the Commission.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Hear TAC recommendation and take action. Possible actions include:

1. Approve Weed request to advance $600,000 of STIP regional shares from 2022 STIP. 2. Deny Weed request to advance future STIP shares. 3. Other alternative presented at the TAC meeting. 4. Take no action.

Agenda Worksheet

TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DATE: April 14, 2020

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 11

Draft Siskiyou County Regional Aviation Plan Presentation

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUMMARY (Description of Issue):

In February 2019, the SCLTC contracted Aviation Management Consulting Group to develop a Regional Aviation Plan. The Regional Aviation Plan will encompass seven airports located in the County, and will provide the SCLTC a comprehensive and coordinated aviation plan that includes capital and maintenance needs and a financial plan for implementing these needs.

Jeff Kohlman, representing the Aviation Management Consulting Group, will provide an informational presentation on the Draft Regional Aviation Plan. The Draft Plan has been included in the agenda packet for review by the Commission.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Informational only.

Siskiyou County Regional Aviation Plan 2020-2024

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission

Prepared By

April 1, 2020 - DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission ...... 1 B. Purpose of Regional Aviation Plan ...... 1 C. Regional Aviation Plan Study Area ...... 1 D. Regional Aviation Plan Study Process ...... 2 E. Regional Aviation Plan Guiding Principles ...... 3 II. INFLUENDING FACTORS ...... 4 A. National Airport System ...... 4 B. California Airport System ...... 6 C. General Aviatino Airport Aeronautical Functions ...... 8 D. General Aviation Market Segments ...... 11 E. FAA Airport Design Standards and Reference Codes ...... 12 F. FAA Airspace Regulations ...... 13 G. FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances ...... 15 H. Siskiyou County Airports ...... 19 I. Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ...... 34 J. Airport Profiles ...... 34 K. Siskiyou County Aircraft and Pilots ...... 42 L. Siskiyou County Demographics ...... 43 M. Survey Results...... 44 III. PERFORMANCE MEASURES ...... 55 A. Introduction ...... 55 B. Activity ...... 55 C. Economic Support ...... 55 D. Public Service ...... 56 E. Efficiency ...... 56 IV. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ...... 58 A. Introduction ...... 58 B. Financial Challenge ...... 58 C. Increasing Revenues ...... 59 D. System Level Alternatives ...... 60 E. Efficiency ...... 56 V. FUNDING SOURCES ...... 65 A. Introduction ...... 65 B. Aeronautical Revenue Funding Sources ...... 65 C. Non-Aeronautical Revenue Funding Sources ...... 69 D. Capital Funding Sources ...... 70 VI. APPENDIX A: SURVEY ...... 76

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 i Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

TABLE OF CONTENTS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

FIGURES Figure 1: Siskiyou County Public Use, General Aviation Airports Figure 2: Airport Imaginary Surfaces Figure 3: Airspace Classifications Figure 4: Aeronautical Land and Improvement Uses Figure 5: Non-Aeronautical Land and Improvement Uses TABLES Table 1: Aircraft Approach Categories (AAC) Table 2: Aircraft Design Groups (ADG) Table 3: Runway Visual Ranges (RVR) Table 4: Siskiyou County Airports’ Attributes Table 5: Airports’ Capital and Revenue Funding Sources Table 6: Siskiyou County Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels Table 7: Butte Valley Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels Table 8: Happy Camp Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels Table 9: Scott Valley Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels Table 10: Weed Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels Table 11: Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field Aeronautical Activity Levels Table 12: Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels Table 13: Siskiyou County Airports’ General Aviation Products, Services, and Facilities Table 14: Siskiyou County Airport Agricultural Fields Table 15: Siskiyou County Airport Profile Table 16: Butte Valley Airport Profile Table 17: Happy Camp Airport Profile Table 18: Scott Valley Airport Profile Table 19: Weed Airport Profile Table 20: Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field Profile Table 21: Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport Profile Table 22: Number of Registered Aircraft Table 23: Number of Licensed Pilots Table 24: Siskiyou County Demographics Table 25: 20-Year Capital Requirements Table 26: Essential Services and Facilities Comparison

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 ii Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

TABLE OF CONTENTS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

ABBREVIATIONS AAC – Aircraft Approach Categories AC – Advisory Circular ADG – Aircraft Design Group AIP – Airport Improvement Program Airports – the seven public-use, general aviation airports located in the County ALP – Airport Layout Plan ALUC – Airport Land Use Commission ALUCP – Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan AMCG – Aviation Management Consulting Group ARC – Airport Reference Code Assurances – FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances AWOS – Automated Weather Observing Systems Caltrans – California Department of Transportation CASP – California Aviation System Plan CBD – Central Business District CEC – California Energy Commission CFR- Code of Federal Regulations County – Siskiyou County Division – Caltrans Division of Aeronautics FAA – Federal Aviation Administration FBO – Fixed Base Operator FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency FFY – FAA Fiscal Year FTA – Federal Transit Administration GPS – Global Positioning System IBank – California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank IFR – Instrument Flight Rules ILS – Instrument Landing System LPV – Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance M&H – Mead & Hunt MIRL – Medium Intensity Runway Lights MRO – Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul NDB – Non-Directional Beacon NPIAS – National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 iii Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

TABLE OF CONTENTS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

P3s – Public-Private Partnerships PAPI – Precision Approach Path Indicator PUC – California Public Utilities Code RAP – Siskiyou County Regional Aviation Plan RAP Team – Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt RDC – Runway Design Code REIL – Runway End Identifier Lights RNAV – Area Navigation RSA – Runway Safety Area RTPA – Regional Transportation Planning Agency RVR – Runway Visual Ranges SASO – Specialized Aviation Service Operators SCLTC – Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission SVFR – Special Visual Flight Rules USC – United States Code USFS – United States Forest Service VFR – Visual Flight Rules VOR – VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 iv Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INTRODUCTION SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

A. SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission (SCLTC) is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Siskiyou County (County). The SCLTC is based in Yreka and comprised of three delegates and one alternate appointed by the Board of Supervisors and the League of Local Agencies. The County is within the jurisdictional boundaries of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 2, located in Redding, California. The SCLTC, along with Caltrans District 2, fulfills the transportation planning responsibilities for the County. B. PURPOSE OF REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN This Siskiyou County Regional Aviation Plan (RAP) for 2020 through 2024, prepared on behalf of the SCLTC, will provide the SCLTC and the airport sponsors of the seven public-use, general aviation airports located within the County a comprehensive and coordinated aviation plan that identifies available revenue and funding sources, enhances existing revenue and funding sources, and prioritizes funding to sustain and enhance the “system of airports” in the County. In addition, the changing economic and demographic characteristics of the County has been considered in the RAP research, analysis, and outreach, which will assist in planning for the longer-term positioning of the airports within the County including capital and financial plans. C. REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN STUDY AREA The RAP study area encompasses seven public-use, general aviation airports located in the County (Airports), as follows: Butte Valley Airport (Airport Identifier: A32), Happy Camp Airport (Airport Identifier: 36S), Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field Airport (Airport Identifier: 1O5), Dunsmuir Municipal- Mott Airport (Airport Identifier: 1O6), Scott Valley Airport (Airport Identifier: A30), Siskiyou County Airport (Airport Identifier: SIY), and Weed Airport (Airport Identifier: O46). Figure 1: Siskiyou County Public-Use, General Aviation Airports

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 1 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INTRODUCTION SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Five of the seven Airports (Butte Valley Airport, Happy Camp Airport, Scott Valley Airport, Siskiyou County Airport, and Weed Airport) are owned and operated by the County and governed by the Board of Supervisors, which consists of five members. Montague-Yreka Rohrer Airport is owned and operated by the City of Montague and governed by the City of Montague City Council, which consists of three members. In addition, the City of Yreka provides financial assistance for long-term capital needs at the airport. Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport is owned and operated by the City of Dunsmuir and governed by the City of Dunsmuir City Council, which consists of five members. D. REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN STUDY PROCESS The SCLTC engaged the consultant team (RAP Team) of Aviation Management Consulting Group (AMCG) and Mead & Hunt (M&H) to conduct all necessary research, technical analysis, and community outreach to develop the RAP. After the collection, reviewing, and analyzing of the information provided by the SCLTC, the Airports’ airport sponsors, and members of the RAP Steering Committee on the Airports and the Airports’ community, market, aviation businesses, and non-commercial aeronautical entities, the RAP Team visited each of the Airports, met with stakeholders at each of the Airports, and held two stakeholder public meetings during the RAP Team site visits in June 2019. Following the site visit, the RAP Team:  Analyzed and conducted research pertaining to the aeronautical influencing factors (i.e., infrastructure characteristics and operational trends – based aircraft and aircraft operations) and non-aeronautical influencing factors (i.e., demographic, employment, and economic trends) for each of the Airports.  Developed system specific performance measures to analyze each of the airports in the study area from an activity and infrastructure perspective and to compare existing infrastructure to federal and state standards. Based on these results, the RAP Team conducted a demand analysis of airport-related land and improvement utilization to identify (1) current opportunities, (2) future aeronautical needs, and (3) excess improvements for each of the Airports.  Analyzed each of the Airports within the confines of the system to identify operational and infrastructure alternatives which may include reallocation of assets and or redirection of future funding.  Identified various funding sources and strategies for capital purchases, operational expenses, and service expansion for the Airports.  Conducted an analysis to (1) identify capital improvement projects to support future expansion, (2) identify capital improvement projects to maximize existing services, and (3) evaluate financial impacts of existing services for each of the Airports. In addition to the stakeholder public meetings held during the site visit, as part of the community outreach the RAP Team developed, distributed, and analyzed the results of an online survey (See Appendix A: Survey) of all aircraft owners and pilots with addresses in the County and conducted telephone interviews with key stakeholders at each of the Airports.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 2 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INTRODUCTION SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

E. REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLES The RAP Team established the following guiding principles for the RAP.  The RAP should give priority to safety and security, followed by financial feasibility, operational efficiency, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility  The RAP should be beneficial to all users of the Airports and the communities as a whole.  The RAP should preserve flexibility to permit changes to the plan as industry and local conditions warrant.  The RAP shall emphasize cost-effective solutions and shall consider the total cost of implementation when evaluating alternatives.  The RAP shall identify potential synergies between the future development, management, and operation of the Airports.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 3 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

A. NATIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prepares and submits the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) report to Congress every two years in order to maintain a plan for developing “a safe, efficient, and integrated system of public use airports adequate to anticipate and meet the needs of civil aeronautics, to meet the national defense requirements of the Secretary of Defense, and to meet identified needs of the United States Postal Service.” The following guiding principles and attributes are followed by the FAA and other Federal agencies in developing the national airport system and the associated public-use airports in order to meet the demand for air transportation.  Airports should be safe and efficient, located where people will use them, and developed and maintained to appropriate standards.  Airports should be affordable to both users and the Government, relying primarily on producing self-sustaining revenue and placing minimal burden on the general revenues of the local, State, and Federal governments.  Airports should be flexible and expandable and able to meet increased demand and accommodate new aircraft types.  Airports should be permanent with assurance that they will remain open for aeronautical use over the long term.  Airports should be compatible with surrounding communities, maintaining a balance between the needs of aviation, the environment, and the requirements of residents.  Airports should be developed in concert with improvements to the air traffic control system and technological advancement.  The national airport system should support a variety of critical national objectives, such as defense, emergency readiness, law enforcement, and postal delivery.  The national airport system should be extensive, providing as many people as possible with convenient access to air transportation, typically by having most of the population within 20 miles of a NPIAS airport. Of the 5,099 public-use airports, the NPIAS classifies 3,321 NPIAS airports by their service levels and the roles they play in the national airport system. The service level of an airport reflects the type of public service the airport provides to the local community/region and the nation. It is important to note that the term “airport” includes landing areas developed for conventional fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, seaplanes, and balloons (e.g., airports, heliports, seaplane bases, ultralight ports, glider ports, and balloon ports). The NPIAS airport service level categories are as follows:  Primary Service/Commercial Service Airports (380 airports as of 2017) have scheduled air carrier service for at least 10,000 enplaned passengers per year.  Non-Primary/Commercial Service Airports (126 airports as of 2017) have scheduled air carrier service for 2,500 to 9,999 enplaned passengers per year.  Non-Primary/General Aviation Airports (2,554 airports as of 2017) have no scheduled air carrier service or scheduled air carrier service for less than 2,500 enplaned passengers per year.  Non-Primary/Reliever Airports (261 airports as of 2017) relieve congestion at designated Primary Service Airports by redirecting general aviation aircraft operations from the Primary Service Airports.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 4 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Based on two studies conducted by the FAA in 2012 and 2014, the pivotal role general aviation airports play in the United States society, economy, and aviation system was evaluated. The studies aligned all NPIAS general aviation airports into four categories based on their existing activity levels, diverse functions, and economic contributions to their communities and the Nation, as follows:  National Airports (88 airports as of 2017) are located in metropolitan areas near major business centers, serves national and global markets, have very high levels of activity with many jets and multi-engine propeller aircraft, and averages about 249 total based aircraft (including 30 jets)  Regional Airports (492 airports as of 2017) are located in metropolitan areas near major business centers, serves regional and national markets, have high levels of activity with some jets and multi-engine propeller aircraft, and averages about 92 total based aircraft (including 3 jets)  Local Airports (1,278 airports as of 2017) typically are located near larger population centers (but not necessarily in metropolitan areas), serves local and regional markets, have moderate levels of activity with some multi-engine propeller aircraft, and averages about 34 total based propeller-driven aircraft and no jets  Basic Airports (840 airports as of 2017) are typically any located in rural areas, often serve critical aeronautical functions within local and regional markets, have moderate to low levels of activity, and averages about 10 total based propeller-driven aircraft and no jets NPIAS general aviation airports that do not fall in the above four categories remain as Unclassified Airports (243 airports as of 2017). These airports tend to have limited activity and have either no based aircraft or no more than 8 based aircraft. NPIAS airports are eligible to receive FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants for airport planning and construction, discussed further in Section: Funding Sources. General Aviation airports are eligible to be added to the NPIAS if the following requirements are met:  The airport is owned by an eligible public sponsor;  The airport has at least 10 based aircraft;  The airport is not within 20 miles of an airport in the NPIAS; and  The airport is part of a state or metropolitan airport system plan, or it is located on an adequate site to provide safe and efficient airport facilities.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 5 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

B. CALIFORNIA AIRPORT SYSTEM The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics (Division) prepares the California Aviation System Plan (CASP) The perception that airports are just places for airplanes every five years as the basis for implementing the State Aeronautics Act; to take‐off and land has long identifying the Division’s role in the State’s multimodal, interregional, been dismissed by aviation transportation system; and continuous aviation system planning. system planners. Instead, airports should more The CASP also provides an opportunity to educate users of the CASP on accurately be viewed as economic enterprise hubs, the following key points related to airport system planning: employment centers, mixed‐ use commercial business  Airports are not a single trip attractor or generator by one mode of centers, bulk cargo transfer travel. Airport access is a complex issue that needs to be centers, transit hubs, and more. acknowledged in larger multi-modal transportation system access – California Aviation System studies. These studies need to include inter- and intra-model Plan connectivity to airports.  Airports do more for their communities than house aircraft. They are business hubs that connect communities in ways traditional surface transportation cannot.  Defining what constitutes compatible land uses around airports and incorporating them into land use and transportation system planning and modeling efforts is important.  Redefining airports as potential employment centers and air cargo as a specialized form of goods movement is necessary to dispel the misconception that airports are simply a place for commercial passenger arrivals and departures.  It is important to include airports and land uses in the vicinity of airports when proposed development and road improvement projects are reviewed and evaluated regarding their impacts on health, safety, and the environment. The California Public Utilities Code (PUC) requires every county in California that has an airport operating for the benefit of the public to form an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The primary function of an ALUC is to “…ensure the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports…” This function is accomplished in two primary ways, including the preparation of an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and by reviewing local agency general and specific plans for consistency with the ALUCP. ALUCs play a vital role in protecting public-use airports from potential incompatible land uses through the preparation and utilization of the ALUCP. The ALUCP establishes the following essential elements:  Policies to minimize noise impacts on new land uses. The purpose is to discourage the development of land use encroachment within the influence area of an airport.  Procedures to alert persons or businesses that plan to relocate near an airport of aircraft overflights. This is primarily carried out through real estate disclosure.  Safety zones and polices to minimize hazardous conditions for new land uses. This purpose is to discourage the encroachment of land uses within the proximity of an airport, generally a two-mile radius around the airport.  Policies that minimize obstructions to navigable airspace. This protects people by minimizing hazard while in flight but is also vital for ensuring an airport can perform its vital economic role.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 6 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

The CASP classifies California airports in separate primary and sub categories based on the communities served by the airport, access the airport provides, population size or geographic location of region the airport serves, types of flying activities that occur, types and quantities of aircraft accommodated, and services provided. The CASP primary categories are as follows:  Limited Use Airports (33 airports as of 2019) provide limited access; are usually located in non-urban areas; may be used for a single purpose; have a few or no based aircraft; and provide no services.  Community Airports (94 airports as of 2019) provide access to other regions and states; are located near small communities or in remote locations; serve, but are not limited to, recreational flying, training, and local emergencies; accommodate predominantly single- engine aircraft under 12,500 pounds gross weight; and provide basic or limited services for pilots or aircraft.  Regional Airports (69 airports as of 2019) provide the same access as Community airports but may provide international access; are located in an area with a larger population base than Community airports, while serving a number of cities or counties; serve the same activities as Community airports but with a higher concentration of business and corporate aircraft activity; may accommodate most business, multi-engine and jet aircraft; may provide most services for pilots and aircraft including aviation fuel; and may have a published instrument approach and an air traffic control tower.  Metropolitan Airports (19 airports as of 2019) serve the same activities as Regional airports; are located in urbanized areas; provide for the same flying activities as Regional airports with an emphasis on business, charter, and corporate flying; accommodate all business jet services for pilots and aircraft, including jet fuel; has a published instrument approach and an air traffic control tower; and provide flight planning facilities.  Commercial Airports (27 airports as of 2019) receive scheduled passenger service and have 2,500 or more enplaned passengers per year. In addition, the following CASP subcategories are intended to emphasize prominent operational activities occurring at airports in a particular category further associating airports by function.  Agriculture: The use of an airport by aircraft for fertilizer application, seed dispersal, pest control, and crop-dusting. Used as a subcategory to designate a service provided at a Limited Use Airport or a prevalent activity at a Community Airport.  Business/Corporate: The use of an airport by an individual for transportation required by a business in which the individual is engaged (the pilot is not compensated), or the use of an airport by aircraft owned or leased by a company to transport its employees and/or property (professional pilot is compensated). Used to designate the prevalent service provided at a Regional or Metropolitan Airport.  Cargo: The use of an airport for transporting freight, mail, and/or packages over a specified route by air. Used as a category to designate the prevalent service provided at a Regional or Metropolitan Airport.  Firefighting: The use of an airport by aircraft for aerial firefighting operations. Used as a subcategory to designate a service provided at a Limited Use Airport or a prevalent activity at a Community Airport.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 7 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

 Medical Emergency: The use of an airport by fixed-wing air ambulance aircraft to transport medical patients, accident victims, transplant organs and vital supplies to hospitals, serves remote regions not practical to be served by helicopters. Used as a subcategory to designate a service provided at a Limited Use Airport.  Recreational: The use of an airport by pilots not engaged in corporate or business flying or formal instruction, includes recreational and tourist destination access. Used as a subcategory to designate the prevalent service provided at a Community, Regional, or Metropolitan Airport.  Recreational Access: The use of an airport by pilots for recreational destination access. Used as a subcategory to designate a service provided at a Limited Use Airport. The CASP outlines seven policy topic areas (and an additional 27 associated policies and 34 associated objectives), including Stewardship and Preservation (SP), Safety (SF), Mobility (MB), Airport Integration in Land Use Planning (PL), Economics (EC), Environment (EV), and Education and Research (ER). Following are only those policies that have direct applicability to the RAP.  SP-1: Encourage the development of private flying and the general use of air transportation  SF-1: Foster and promote safety in aeronautics  MB-1: Foster access for small and rural communities to the national air transportation system  MB-2: Improve access to aviation resources through appropriate multi-modal transportation initiatives  EC-1: Encourage the flow of private capital into aviation facilities  EC-2: Develop information programs to increase understanding of the role of aviation in the economic development of the State  EC-3: Promote the role of publicly owned or operated airports as a matter of statewide importance in the development of commerce and tourism C. GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT AERONAUTICAL FUNCTIONS Having a comprehensive system of general aviation airports in the United States supports national, regional, and local economies while also providing a safety net of airports to support emergency aircraft diversions when necessary due to mechanical problems, medical emergencies, deteriorating weather conditions, or other unforeseen circumstances. These connections are especially important to those 86.3 million people living in rural areas, where a general aviation, public-use airport may provide the only means of transportation thereby providing critical community access for aeromedical flights, disaster relief, search and rescue, aerial application of agricultural agents, time-critical delivery of medicine, tools, mail and other documents, and other key functions. Further, the diversity of general aviation, public-use airports serves the public interest by offering a base of operation or a location for transient operations for a variety of commercial and non- commercial aeronautical activities and functions, as follows: 1. Emergency Preparedness and Response Activities  Aeromedical Flights: Provides air transportation to patients in need of specialized medical care.  Law Enforcement Flights: Provides aerial platforms for local, state, or national agencies to monitor compliance with laws, enforce laws, and respond to emergencies.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 8 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

 Emergency Diversion Airports: Provides pilots with immediate alternatives to intended destination in the event of unexpected bad weather or flight emergency.  Disaster Relief and Search and Rescue Airports: Provides a staging area to support relief efforts wherever they are needed, including as a staging area for the all-volunteer Civil Air Patrol, whose members are often called upon to locate and facilitate the rescue of missing persons or others in need.  Critical Community Services Airports: Provides a staging area for the State and Federal Government agencies to provide critical community services, including as a staging area for the U.S. Forest Service and state firefighting agencies to fight fires. 2. Critical Community Access Functions  Remote General Aviation Airports: In some parts of the country, general aviation airports provide the only means of transportation. Without these airports, residents would be faced with isolation or would have to incur substantial time, money, and risk traveling by other means. Remote airports contribute to the national economy by reducing the resources needed to connect these communities to the national economy.  Non-Scheduled Charter Flights: When scheduled air service either is not available or inconvenient, businesses and individuals charter aircraft. These flights save time and make it possible to fly directly to places that cannot be reached by scheduled air service. 3. Non-Commercial Aeronautical Activities  Personal Flights: About a third of all Part 91 flying in the United States is for personal reasons, which may include practicing flight skills, personal or family travel, or personal enjoyment.  Business Flights: About 11 percent of all Part 91 flying in the United States is done by business owners and managers flying themselves to meetings or other events. Most of this flying is done with piston or turboprop aircraft.  Corporate Flights: About 12 percent of all Part 91 flying in the United States is done in aircraft owned by a business and piloted by a professional pilot. The majority of these flights are in jets and cover long distances, with some flying to intercontinental and international destinations. 4. Commercial Aeronautical Activities  Aircraft Fueling Services: Typically provided by fixed based operators (FBOs), which can either be owned and operated by a private entity or the airport sponsor, and includes full- service and/or self-service of Jet A or Aviation Gasoline.  Aircraft Ground Handling Services: Typically provided by FBOs and includes aircraft marshalling, towing, staging, and ancillary ground support functions including de-icing, pre- heating, ground power, air conditioning, aircraft cleaning, lavatory service, etc.  Aircraft Parking and Storage Facilities: Typically provided by FBOs and includes tie-down and hangar (which includes T-Hangar, executive hangar, corporate hangar, and community hangar storage).  Passenger and Crew Services: Typically provided by FBOs and includes baggage handling, ground transportation, catering, and concierge services.  Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Services: Typically provided by specialized aviation service operators (SASOs), which are typically owned and operated by a private entity, and includes airframe and power plant inspection, repair, and overhaul.  Part Sales: Typically provided by SASOs and includes the sale of airframe, powerplant, and avionics parts.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 9 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

 Aircraft Modification and Refurbishment Services: Typically provided by SASOs and includes the design, development, and installation of components for which a Supplement Type Certificate has been obtained and exterior and interior aircraft refurbishment including painting, reupholstery, etc.  Avionics Maintenance and Repair Services: Typically provided by SASOs and includes the installation and repair of aircraft electrical systems that provide communication capabilities, navigation information, and aircraft performance data.  Accessory and Propeller Maintenance and Repair Services: Typically provided by SASOs and includes the installation, repair, and overhaul of generators, pressurization valves, inverters, and lighting accessories and the installation, repair, and overhaul of propellers (including plating and balancing).  Ground and Flight Instruction Services: Typically provided by SASOs and includes both flight and ground training from the beginning (e.g., private pilot) through advanced ratings (e.g., airline transport pilot).  Aircraft Rental Services: Typically provided by SASOs and involves the rental of aircraft to certified airmen (including student pilots) for personal, business, or training purposes.  Aircraft Charter Services: Typically provided by SASOs and includes non-scheduled passenger and cargo air transportation services that are provided in accordance with 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135, 121, 125, 127, 133, 137 (FAA regulations pertaining to revenue producing “charter” operations).  Aircraft Management Services: Typically provided by SASOs and includes the management and operation of an aircraft on behalf of the aircraft owner on a contract basis and is typically provided in accordance with 14 CFR Part 91 (FAA regulations pertaining to “proprietary” transport or non-revenue producing operations).  Aircraft Sales: Typically provided by SASOs and includes the sale of new and/or pre-owned aircraft. 5. Commercial, Industrial, and Economic Functions  Agricultural Flights: Provides aerial application of fertilizer, fungicides, and pesticides to agricultural fields in an efficient manner over a large geographic area.  Aerial Surveying and Observation Flights: Provides aerial surveying for real estate developments, energy and utility companies (e.g., powerlines and pipelines), oil and mineral exploration companies, and municipalities (e.g., document tax maps). 6. Destination and Special Functions  Tourism and Access to Special Events: General aviation airports often enable access to areas otherwise inaccessible for recreation, including remote parks, mountainous areas, and islands. In addition, during special events (e.g., the Super Bowl, college championship playoffs or bowl games, major concerts, NASCAR races, etc.), general aviation airports are used by both charter carriers and private operators to supplement facilities and services at primary airports.  Sightseeing Flights: Provides sightseeing flights in local area to tourists and local residents.  Special Aviation Events: General aviation airports provides venues for special aviation events including airshows, balloon festivals, blimp rides, and skydiving shows.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 10 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

D. GENERAL AVIATION MARKET SEGMENTS The products, services, and facilities that are offered at general aviation airports have been predicated primarily on the demand created by five distinctly separate operating classifications within the, as follows: 1. Personal In many respects, aircraft owners and operators who have committed time and financial resources to this segment of the industry have done so because of a sheer love of aviation. The “romance factor”, which has enthralled both young and old alike, is a very important element in understanding the relationship between people and flying machines. The aircraft utilized for personal (and recreational) flying are typically based at public-use and private- use general aviation airports. For the most part, the aircraft used for personal flying are single-engine and light multi-engine piston-powered aircraft, although some larger aircraft, including turbine- powered aircraft, are also used for this purpose. This segment of the market is typically price oriented, seeking the best price for the commercial aeronautical products, services, and/or facilities. 2. Business The business segment of the general aviation market is viewed as an integral part to the long-term growth and development of the general aviation industry. The business segment is made up of aircraft owners flying their own aircraft for business purposes. For the most part, the aircraft used for business flying are high performance single-engine piston aircraft, multi-engine piston aircraft, single-engine turboprop aircraft, multi-engine turboprop aircraft, and small jet aircraft. This segment of the market is less price oriented than the personal segment, but is still price sensitive. 3. Corporate The corporate segment of the general aviation market is viewed as the more stable and growing part of the general aviation industry. The corporate segment is made up of aircraft owners that hire professional flight crews to fly the aircraft for business/corporate purposes. For the most part, the aircraft used for corporate flying are single-engine turboprop aircraft, multi-engine turboprop aircraft, and all sizes of jet aircraft. This segment of the market is least price sensitive as these companies understand the economic value of using general aviation aircraft and the value of time. 4. Commercial The commercial aviation segment is a significant economic engine as it represents companies that use general aviation aircraft for commercial purposes including flight instruction, air taxi (non-scheduled, on-demand), medical transportation (air ambulance), sightseeing, aerial observation (e.g., pipeline/power-line patrol/inspection), aerial application (e.g., agriculture, photography, firefighting, etc.), cargo, and much more. The commercial segment of the market is typically value oriented, seeking the best combination of service and price. 5. Government The government aviation segment is the smallest segment of general aviation. Government use of General Aviation aircraft include transportation of government personnel, non-government personnel, prisoners, and cargo; supporting law enforcement, emergency preparedness, disaster relief, wildlife and forest management, fighting forest fires, border patrol, surveillance and counterterrorism; and a host of other applications.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 11 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

E. FAA AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS AND REFERENCE CODES NPIAS airports are expected to adhere to current federal aviation standards for airport design. Furthermore, any grant by the FAA to a NPIAS airport for new or improved airside infrastructure must adhere to current standards, except as approved by the FAA. The Airport Reference Code (ARC) is an airport designation that signifies an airport’s highest Runway Design Code (RDC). The ARC is used for planning and design only and does not limit the aircraft that may be able to operate safely on an airport. The first component of the ARC, depicted by a letter, is the Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) and relates to an aircraft’s approach speed (operational characteristics). Table 1: Aircraft Approach Categories (AAC)

AAC Approach Speed A Approach speed less than 91 knots B Approach speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots C Approach speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots D Approach speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots E Approach speed 166 knots or more The second component of the ARC, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the Aircraft Design Group (ADG) and relates to either the aircraft wingspan or tail height (physical characteristics); whichever is most restrictive, of the largest aircraft expected to operate on the airport’s runway and taxiways adjacent to the runway. Table 2: Aircraft Design Groups (ADG)

ADG Tail Height (feet) Wingspan (feet) I < 20’ < 49’ II 20’ to <30’ 49’ to <79’ III 30’ to <45’ 79’ to <118’ IV 45’ to <60’ 118’ to <171’ V 60’ to <66’ 171’ to <214’ VI 66’ to <80’ 214’ to <262’ The third component of the ARC relates to the visibility minimums expressed by Runway Visual Range (RVR) values in feet. Table 3: Runway Visual Ranges (RVR)

RVR Instrument Flight Visibility Category (statute mile) VIS Visual approach use only 5000 Not lower than 1 mile 4000 Lower than 1 mile, but not lower than ¾ mile 2400 Lower than ¾ mile, but not lower than ½ mile 1600 Lower than ½ mile, but not lower than ¼ mile 1200 Lower than ¼ mile The design aircraft sets the airport’s design criteria. As approach speed increases, runway length must be longer, and taxiways must likewise be longer. As wingspan increases, taxiways must have greater separation. Similarly, the loaded weight of the design aircraft determines the criterion for runway strength (weight bearing capacity).

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 12 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

F. FAA AIRSPACE REGULATIONS 1. Approach Slope Airspace A safe airport controls not just the spacing of runways and taxiways to avoid aircraft collisions, but also the surrounding airspace to keep it clear of obstructions that aircraft could strike during approach and takeoff. For safety’s sake, the FAA requires NPIAS airports to control this airspace to eliminate obstructions. In actuality, all public-use airports should control this airspace. The FAA defines these airport imaginary surfaces (approach slope surfaces) in the 3-dimensional airspace around airports, through which any protruding object would obstruct an aircraft on approach or takeoff, as follows:  Primary Surface: A surface aligned with and centered on the runway, extending 200 feet beyond the threshold in each direction.  Approach Surface: An inclined slope extending outward and upward from the ends of the primary surfaces. The innermost part of the approach surface overlaps with the runway protection zone.  Horizontal Surface: A horizontal plane centered on and 150 feet above the airport. The limits of the horizontal surface are the approach surfaces on the inside and a set distance from the runways, depending on the type of airport, on the outside.  Transitional Surface: An inclined slope between the primary or approach surfaces and any other surface.  Conical Surface: An inclined slope extending upward and outward from the outside edge of the horizontal surface. Figure 2: Airport Imaginary Surfaces

The FAA publishes instrument approaches for runways at airports, defining the type of instrument approach and the dimensions of the approach surface (especially the length from the primary surface) for each published approach. Instrument approaches can use either ground-based signals (ILS, VOR) or satellite-based signals (RNAV, GPS, LPV), with the newer satellite-based systems gaining increasing favor as they can be used without expensive and delicate installations at airports.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 13 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

2. Controlled Airspace The FAA and the Department of Defense control parts of the airspace over the United States according to a system of airspace classes. Controlled airspace is classified as follows:  Class A airspace covers the United States and includes all airspace from 18,000 feet to 60,000 feet, where larger jet aircraft typically fly. Aircraft flying in Class A airspace must operate under instrument flight rules.  Class B airspace is a circular airspace over and 30 nautical miles around the nation’s busiest airports, within which all aircraft must receive clearance and follow instructions from the airport traffic control tower. Class B airspace grows in diameter with increasing steps in elevation, to include approaching aircraft. As an example, San Francisco International Airport (San Francisco, California) is circled with overlying Class B airspace.  Class C airspace is a circular airspace over some of the larger, more congested airports that accommodate instrument landings and have airport traffic control towers. All aircraft within Class C airspace must communicate with and follow instructions from Air Traffic Control. As an example, Sacramento International Airport (Sacramento, California) is circled with overlying Class C airspace.  Class D airspace is a circular airspace over smaller, less congested airports that have airport traffic control towers and accommodate instrument landings. All aircraft within Class D airspace must communicate with and follow instructions from the tower when it is operating. As an example, Rogue Valley International Airport (Medford, Oregon) is circle with overlying Class D airspace.  Class E airspace is the space outside of other controlled airspace below 18,000 feet elevation and generally above 700 feet above the ground, within which aircraft may fly under visual flight rules without communicating with ground controllers, or under instrument flight rules while communicating with ground controllers. VOR or Victor airways, a system of air traffic routes radiating from very high-frequency omni-directional radar, are also Class E airspace.  Class G airspace is the remaining uncontrolled airspace that is generally close to the ground, where aircraft may fly under visual flight rules with no restriction. Special use and other controlled airspace types also exist, for example, around military and aerospace installations. Figure 3: Airspace Classifications

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 14 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

G. FAA AIRPORT SPONSOR ASSURANCES The rights and responsibilities of airport sponsors of federally obligated airports are based on Federal law and are codified at 49 United States Code (USC) Section 47107. In exchange for Federal airport development assistance (including the transfer of Federal property for airport purposes), airport sponsors make binding commitments to assure that the public’s interest in civil aviation will be served. An airport sponsor’s responsibilities are commonly referred to as the Airport Sponsor Assurances (Assurances). While the language of certain Assurances may be identical to or closely track the language of the statute, the Assurances are more expansive and reflect the FAA’s interpretation and application of the statute. The Assurances have the following general features:  Currently, there are 39 Assurances, several of which have multiple sub-parts.  A number of Assurances require satisfaction of other statutory provisions and/or FAA regulations, policies, and guidance. For example, Assurance 1 requires compliance with 26 distinct laws, including 49 USC, Subtitle VII (Aviation Programs). Assurance 34 requires that any AIP project conform to current FAA policies, standards, and specifications, including current FAA Advisory Circulars (AC).  The Assurances generally apply for 20 years. However, some Assurances apply into perpetuity as a result of separate statutory requirements. These include the prohibition on granting an exclusive right and the requirement to use airport revenue only for airport purposes. Additionally, the Assurances associated with the use and disposal or real property apply in perpetuity when the airport sponsor has received AIP funds in connection with the acquisition of property.  The penalties for not maintaining compliance with the Assurances can be severe. The FAA may withhold approval of a grant and may withhold payment under an existing grant agreement. The FAA also may seek injunctive relief in U.S. District Court. The following will serve as a guide to current FAA policy interpretation of Assurances which are commonly at issue for airport sponsors at federally obligated airports. Assurance 5 (Preserving Rights and Powers) requires that the airport sponsor of a federally obligated airport: “...will not take or permit any action which would operate to deprive it of any of the rights and powers necessary to perform any or all of the terms conditions, and assurances in the grant agreement without the written approval of the Secretary, and will act promptly to acquire, extinguish or modify any outstanding rights or claims of right of others which would interfere with such performance by the sponsor.” Put simply, an airport sponsor is prohibited from taking any action which could preclude it from complying with the Assurances. For example, an airport sponsor may not enter into a management agreement which would result in exclusive use or discrimination at the airport. Airport sponsors are strongly encouraged to use strong subordination clauses to ensure the ability to comply with Assurance 5 is not impacted. In addition to obligating the airport sponsor to preserve its rights and powers to carry out all grant agreement requirements, this assurance also places certain limitations on the airport sponsor’s use of airport land. Most real estate transactions require prior FAA approval, and airport sponsors are prohibited from encumbering airport property.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 15 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Assurance 22 (Economic Nondiscrimination) requires that the airport sponsor of a federally obligated airport: “...will make its airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms, and without unjust discrimination, to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical uses.” Assurance 22(a) “...may establish such equal and not unjustly discriminatory conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport.” Assurance 22(h) “...may...limit any given type, kind, or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or...to serve the civil aviation needs of the public.” Assurance 22(i) The Assurance does permit the airport sponsor to exercise control of the airport sufficient to preclude unsafe and efficient use of navigable airspace which would be detrimental to the civil aviation needs of the public. However, any airport sponsor restrictions on aeronautical activities based upon safety and efficiency must be adequately justified and supported, and they must be approved in advance by the FAA. In all cases, the FAA is the final arbiter regarding aviation safety and will make the determination regarding the reasonableness of any proposed measure to restrict, limit, or deny aeronautical access to the airport. The FAA considers it inappropriate to provide federal assistance for improvements to airports where the benefits of such improvements will not be fully realized due to inherent restrictions on aeronautical activities. Airport sponsors are required to operate federally obligated airports for the use and benefit of aeronautical users and to make those airports available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities on fair and reasonable terms, and without unjust discrimination. However, airport sponsors may adopt reasonable leasing/rents and fees policies, commercial minimum standards, and airport rules and regulations. Airport sponsors have an obligation to treat in a uniform manner those users making the same or similar use of the airport. However, an airport sponsor may treat similarly situated airport users differently, including rental rates, lease terms, etc., as long as those differences are not unjust. Assurance 22(f) provides that an airport sponsor: “…will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own employees (including, but not limited to, maintenance, repair, and fueling) that it may choose to perform.” The FAA considers the right to self-service as prohibiting the establishment of any unreasonable restriction on aircraft owners or operators regarding the servicing of their own aircraft and equipment. When airport users and airport sponsors disagree about whether or not a restriction is reasonable and a formal complaint is filed, the FAA becomes the final arbiter in the matter. Aircraft owners must be permitted to fuel, wash, repair, and otherwise take care of their own aircraft with their own personnel, equipment, and supplies. The airport sponsor, however, is obligated to operate the airport in a safe and efficient manner. The establishment of fair and reasonable rules, applied in a not unjustly discriminatory manner, governing the introduction of equipment, personnel, or practices which would be unsafe, unsightly, detrimental to the public welfare, or which would affect the efficient use of airport facilities by others, is not unreasonable.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 16 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Assurance 23 (Exclusive Rights) provides that the sponsor of a federally obligated airport: “...will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any persons providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public...” The fact that an aeronautical activity is provided by only one entity does not necessarily establish an exclusive rights violation. An exclusive rights violation is the denial by an airport sponsor to afford other qualified parties an opportunity to be an on-airport aeronautical service provider. Although federally obligated airports may impose qualifications and minimum standards upon those who engage in aeronautical activities, the FAA has taken the position that the application of any unreasonable requirement or standard that is applied in an unjustly discriminatory manner may constitute a constructive grant of an exclusive right. When airport users and airport sponsors disagree about whether or not a requirement is reasonable and a formal complaint is filed, the FAA becomes the final arbiter in the matter. Assurance 23 provides for two limited exceptions. An airport sponsor may choose to offer some or all aeronautical services itself and exclude other entities from competing with these services. This is referred to as the airport sponsor’s proprietary exclusive right. If an airport sponsor chooses to exercise its proprietary exclusive right to offer aeronautical services, it must do so with its own resources and its own employees; airport sponsors may not contract out their proprietary exclusive right. The second exception applies when the airport sponsor faces unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical challenges in accommodating more than one FBO (or SASO) to provide a service and adding a second FBO would result in a reduction in space leased to and actively used by the existing FBO. Assurance 24 (Fee and Rental Structure) provides that the sponsor of a federally obligated airport: “…maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing at that particular airport, taking into account such factors as the volume of traffic and economy of collection.” The airport sponsor’s obligation to make an airport available for public use does not preclude the airport sponsor from recovering the cost of providing the facility. The airport sponsor is expected to recover its costs through the establishment of fair and reasonable rents, fees, or other user charges that will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing at the particular airport. The FAA’s Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges (61 Federal Register 31994; June 21, 1996 as amended) provides comprehensive guidance on the legal requirement that airport rents, fees, and charges be fair, reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory. Federal law does not prescribe a single approach to rate-setting; airport sponsors may utilize a preferred methodology as long as that methodology is applied consistently to similarly-situated aeronautical users and conforms to other requirements outlined in the Policy. Ordinarily, the FAA will not investigate the reasonableness of a general aviation airport’s rents, fees, or charges absent evidence of a progressive accumulation of surplus aeronautical revenues.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 17 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Assurance 25 (Airport Revenues) provides that:

“All revenues generated by the airport and any local taxes on aviation fuel established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for the capital or operating costs of the airport; the local airport system; or other local facilities which are owned or operated by the owner or operator of the airport and which are directly and substantially related to the actual air transportation of passengers or property; or for noise mitigation purposes on or off the airport…” Assurance 25(a) Airport revenue (aeronautical and nonaeronautical rents, fees, and charges) must be used for the operational and capital costs of the airport, the local airport system, or other airport sponsor facilities that are directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property. Certain airports are exempted from this requirement because the law grandfathers certain arrangements that existed prior to September 3, 1982. The FAA’s Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue (64 Federal Register 7696; February 16, 1999) provides several examples of unlawful revenue diversion, as follows:  paying in excess of the value of goods or services the airport sponsor receives;  improper cost allocations;  charging less than fair market value rent to nonaeronautical users, including the airport sponsor itself;  directly subsidizing air carriers;  using airport revenue for general economic development activities;  paying for marketing and promotions not related to the airport;  loaning money to other entities at less than prevailing rates; and  using airport revenue to participate in some types of community events.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 18 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

H. SISKIYOU COUNTY AIRPORTS 1. Airport Attributes Following are the attributes of the public-use, general aviation airports located in the County and included in the RAP. Table 4: Siskiyou County Airports’ Attributes

Airport Attributes Siskiyou County Butte Valley Happy Camp Airport Name Airport Airport Airport FAA Airport Identifier SIY A32 36S City and State Montague, CA Dorris, CA Happy Camp, CA Distance/Direction from CBD 3 Miles NE 5 Miles SW 0 Miles SW Airport Sponsor County of Siskiyou County of Siskiyou County of Siskiyou Type of Airport Sponsor Public Public Public Board of Board of Board of Airport Governing Body Supervisors Supervisors Supervisors Type of Airport Governing Body County County County Type of Airport Operator County County County Airport Advisory Body No No No Number of Employees 0 0 0 Part of an Airport System Yes Yes Yes Type of NPIAS Airport General Aviation General Aviation General Aviation Type of General Aviation Airport Local Unclassified Unclassified California CASP Classification Community Limited Use Community Airport Reference Code (ARC) C‐III B‐I B‐I Existing Roles1 REC/CALFIRE REC REC/CALFIRE Current Master Plan May 26, 1987 May 26, 1987 May 26, 1987 Airport Size (acres) 1,000 234 64 Landing Fee Yes No No Number of Runways 1 1 1 Longest Runway (length and width) 7,490’ x 150’ 4,300’ x 60’ 3,000’ x 50’ Airport Beacon Yes Yes None Runway Lighting MIRL/PAPI/REIL None None Weight Bearing Capacity Single wheel: 60 Double wheel: 180 Single wheel: 30 Single wheel: 30 (in thousands of pounds) Double tandem: 270 Precision Approaches None None None Non‐Precision Approaches NDB or GPS‐A None None Air Traffic Control Tower No No No Other USFS tanker base

1 Existing Roles: REC - Recreational – transient link to local businesses, PB - Personal business, CORP - Corporate – link to local businesses, PKG - Small-package shipping, MED - Medical transport – based or occasional use, CALFIRE – Use of the airports by CalFire and/or contractor aircraft - based or occasional use, CHARTER – Commercial charter activity – links to local businesses or recreational uses

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 19 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 4: Airport Attributes (continued)

Airport Attributes Airport Name Scott Valley Airport Weed Airport FAA Airport Identifier A30 O46 City and State Fort Jones, CA Weed, CA Distance/Direction from CBD 3 Miles S 4 Miles NW Airport Sponsor County of Siskiyou County of Siskiyou Type of Airport Sponsor Public Public Board of Board of Airport Governing Body Supervisors Supervisors Type of Airport Governing Body County County Type of Airport Operator County County Airport Advisory Body No No Number of Employees 0 0 Part of an Airport System Yes Yes Type of NPIAS Airport General Aviation General Aviation Type of General Aviation Airport Local Basic California CASP Classification Community Community Airport Reference Code (ARC) B‐I B‐I Existing Roles2 REC/CALFIRE REC Current Master Plan May 26, 1987 May 26, 1987 Airport Size (acres) 53 344 Landing Fee No Yes Number of Runways 1 1 Longest Runway (length and width) 3,700’ x 50’ 5,000’ x 60’ Airport Beacon Yes Yes Runway Lighting MIRL MIRL Weight Bearing Capacity Single wheel: 12 Single wheel: 12 (in thousands of pounds) Precision Approaches None None Non‐Precision Approaches None RNAV (GPS) Air Traffic Control Tower No No Other USFS helitack base

2 Existing Roles: REC - Recreational – transient link to local businesses, PB - Personal business, CORP - Corporate – link to local businesses, PKG - Small-package shipping, MED - Medical transport – based or occasional use, CALFIRE – Use of the airports by CalFire and/or contractor aircraft - based or occasional use, CHARTER – Commercial charter activity – links to local businesses or recreational uses

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 20 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 4: Airport Attributes (continued)

Airport Attributes Dunsmuir Airport Name Montague Airport‐ Municipal‐Mott Yreka Rohrer Field Airport FAA Airport Identifier 1O5 1O6 City and State Montague, CA Dunsmuir, CA Distance/Direction from CBD 1 Mile W 3 Miles N Airport Sponsor City of Montague City of Dunsmuir Type of Airport Sponsor Public Public Airport Governing Body City Council City Council Type of Airport Governing Body City City Type of Airport Operator City City Airport Advisory Body No Yes Number of Employees 0 0 Part of an Airport System No No Type of NPIAS Airport N/A General Aviation Type of General Aviation Airport N/A Basic California CASP Classification Community Community Airport Reference Code (ARC) Unknown A‐I Existing Roles3 REC REC Current Master Plan ?? ?? Airport Size (acres) 90 126 Landing Fee No No Number of Runways 1 1 Longest Runway (length and width) 3,360’ x 50’ 2,800’ x 60’ Airport Beacon None None Runway Lighting MIRL None Weight Bearing Capacity Single wheel: 12 Single wheel: 12.5 (in thousands of pounds) Precision Approaches None None Non‐Precision Approaches None None Air Traffic Control Tower No No Other

3 Existing Roles: REC - Recreational – transient link to local businesses, PB - Personal business, CORP - Corporate – link to local businesses, PKG - Small-package shipping, MED - Medical transport – based or occasional use, CALFIRE – Use of the airports by CalFire and/or contractor aircraft - based or occasional use, CHARTER – Commercial charter activity – links to local businesses or recreational uses

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 21 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

2. Caltrans Inspection Deficiencies and Recommendations Following are the deficiencies identified and recommendations made by the Caltrans Division during the State most recent permit compliance inspection and FAA Airport Master Record update for the public- use, general aviation airports located in the County and included in the RAP. Siskiyou County Airport  The east side of the closed crosswind runway is being used as a glider parking ramp. As aircraft are parking on and gaining access to the runway from this area, runway holding position markings must be installed at 250 feet from the runway centerline. Markings must be applied as applicable for ARC C-III standards, in accordance with FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings, Chapter 3 and FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Table A7-8. This is a repeat discrepancy.  The west side of the closed crosswind runway is being used as a taxiway. A runway holding position marking must be installed on the taxiway at 250 feet from the runway centerline. The marking must be applied as applicable for ARC C-III standards, in accordance with FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings, Chapter 3 and FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Table A7-8.  Multiple rocks, greater than three inches in diameter, are located within the RSA. Please ensure that these rocks are removed or relocated beyond 250 feet lateral to the runway centerline in accordance with FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Table A7-9.  Runway markings are faded and must be re-marked in accordance with FAA AC 150/5340- 1L, Standards for Airport Markings, Chapters 2.  Many broken, missing, and discolored taxiway reflectors along the parallel taxiway. These reflectors must be installed or replaced with the standard blue taxiway reflectors in accordance with FAA AC 150/5345-390, Specifications for L-853, Runway and Taxiway Retro Reflective Markers. This is a repeat discrepancy.  The taxiway and ramp pavement is raveling and cracking and should be addressed in the near future to prevent further deterioration. Butte Valley Airport  The runway and taxiway markings are faded and must be remarked in accordance with FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings, Chapters 3 and 4.  The runway, taxiways, and ramp pavements are raveling and cracking and must be addressed in the near future to prevent further deterioration and to enhance operational safety. Happy Camp Airport  All Runway Hold Position Markings are faded and must be repainted in accordance with FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings, Chapter 3. Also, old Runway Hold Position Markings located closer to the runway are visible. These markings must be obliterated to reduce confusion and enhance operational safety.  Multiple trees, located north and northeast of the Runway 22 threshold, penetrate the 14 CFR Part 77, 20:1 Approach and 7:1 Transitional Surfaces and must be removed or topped.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 22 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

 Plants and brush are located within the Taxiway Object Free Area of the parallel taxiway. These plants, shrubs and any other objects should be removed within 44.5 feet either side of the taxiway centerline in accordance with FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Chapter 4 and Appendix 7.  Numerous trees, located southwest of the Runway 4 threshold, penetrate the 14 CFR Part 77, 20:1 Approach and 7:1 Transitional Surfaces and must be removed or topped.  A fence, brush, and trees north of the runway are located within approximately 120 feet of the runway centerline. These objects penetrate the FAR Part 77 Primary Surface (125 feet either side of the runway centerline and 200 feet prior to the runway), which must remain clear of obstructions above runway grade. These obstructions must be removed or relocated beyond the Primary Surface and do not conflict with the 14 CFR Part 77, 7:1 Transitional Surface.  The runway, taxiway, and ramp pavement continue to ravel and crack. The deteriorating pavement condition should be addressed in the near future to avoid pavement failure.  During the inspection, a United States Forest Service (USFS) pick-up truck was observed driving across the runway, through the infield, and down the parallel taxiway to the USFS facility on the south side of the airport. Multiple tire tracks were observed on the runway, taxiway, and infield indicating unauthorized vehicles regularly operate on and adjacent to the active runway. Airport tenants needs to be discouraged from operating on the runway and taxiways, in order to reduce the risk of a runway incursion. Scott Valley Airport  A fence located approximately 150 feet from the approach end of Runway 34 penetrates the Runway Safety Area (RSA). To meet RSA standards, the fence must be relocated to a distance of not less than 240 feet from the beginning of the runway or made frangible in accordance with FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Section 307 and Appendix 7. This is a repeat discrepancy. Alternatively, the runway threshold could be relocated and replace the existing displaced threshold, reducing the runway length to approximately 3,500 feet, to attain a 240-foot RSA and meet 14 CFR Part 77 standards. If this alternative is chosen, the airport’s approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and 5010 must be updated and mark the runway in accordance with FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings, Chapter 2, to reflect these changes. For this alternative, the runway lights must be relocated or installed in accordance with FAA AC 150/5340-30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids.  A Runway Hold Position Marking is missing for the run-up area located adjacent to the Runway 16 threshold. A Runway Holding Position Marking must be installed in accordance with FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings, Chapter 3.  FAA 5010-1 Form indicates that the runway is 50 feet in width, while it was measured at 60 feet in width. Form 5010-1 must be updated. Revise applicable pilot guides to reflect the current runway configuration. This is a repeat discrepancy.  The runway, taxiway, and apron pavements are beginning to ravel and should be addressed in the near future to prevent further deterioration.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 23 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Weed Airport  The runway holding position and runway lead-in markings are faded and must be remarked, in accordance with FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings, Chapters 2 and 3.  Several blue taxiway edge reflectors are missing along the parallel taxiway. Reflectors are to be replaced and the interval spacing cannot exceed 200 feet, in accordance with FAA AC 150/5340-301, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids, Chapter 2.  The yellow taxiway centerline markings for three closed stub taxiways must be removed, and the three yellow "X''s must be refreshed.  Extensive longitudinal, lateral, and alligator cracks along the taxiways and ramp must be crack sealed as soon as possible to avoid additional pavement damage.  Siskiyou County should consider installing a weather reporting station, such as an Automated Weather Observation System, that will enhance safety by allowing access to airport weather information during flight planning and while performing flight operations in the area. Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field Airport  No inspection reports provided Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport  No inspection reports provided 3. Airport Capital Improvement Projects Following are the existing airport capital improvement projects and proposed facilities at the public- use, general aviation airports located in the County and included in the RAP. Siskiyou County Airport  ALP Update (FFY 2021) - $150,000 Butte Valley Airport  No known capital improvement projects Happy Camp Airport  No known capital improvement projects Scott Valley Airport  Slurry Seal Taxiway & Apron (FFY 2019) - $150,000  ALP Update (FFY 2021) - $150,000 Weed Airport  Taxiway/Apron Rehab Reconstruction (FFY 2019) - $1,077,270  Electrical Upgrade (FFY 2020) - $300,000  ALP Update (FFY 2021) - $150,000 Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field Airport  No known capital improvement projects Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport  No known capital improvement projects

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 24 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

4. Airports’ Capital and Revenue Funding Sources Following are the existing Airports’ capital and revenue funding sources and the number of lessees at the public-use, general aviation airports located in the County and included in the RAP. Table 5: Airports’ Capital and Revenue Sources

Siskiyou Butte Happy Scott Montague Dunsmuir County Valley Camp Valley Yreka Municipal Agricultural Land Rent 1 0 0 1 ?? ?? Hangar Space Rent 7 0 0 2 ?? ?? Aeronautical Land Rent 11 1 1 16 ?? ?? Ramp Rent 0 0 0 1 ?? ?? Non‐Aeronautical 2 0 0 0 ?? ?? Land Rent Bunker Rent 4 0 0 0 ?? ?? Vehicle Parking Rent 1 0 0 0 ?? ?? Non‐Aeronautical 1 0 0 0 ?? ?? Improvement Rent User Fees Yes Yes Yes Yes ?? ?? State Grants Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Federal Grants Yes No No Yes No No

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 25 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

5. Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels Following are the aeronautical activity levels of the public-use, general aviation airports located in the County and included in the RAP. It is important to note that the aircraft operations and based aircraft data have been derived from the FAA Master Record 5010-1 Form data. This data is reported by each of the airport sponsors on an annual basis to the FAA. Airports without an air traffic control tower, aircraft operations counting mechanism, or other aircraft operation counting system typically makes estimates of these activity levels. Table 6: Siskiyou County Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Aircraft Operations4 Air Carrier5 0 0 0 0 0 Air Taxi6 150 150 150 150 150 General Aviation Local7 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 General Aviation Itinerant8 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Military9 100 100 100 200 200 TOTAL 13,750 13,750 13,750 13,850 13,850 Based Aircraft10 Single‐Engine 17 17 20 20 20 Multi‐Engine 1 1 0 0 0 Jet 0 0 0 0 0 Helicopter 0 0 0 0 0 Other (ultra‐light/glider) 7 7 7 7 7 TOTAL 24 24 27 27 27 Fuel Volumes Jet Fuel 0 0 0 0 0 Avgas 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0

4 Aircraft Operations, the number of aircraft takeoffs or landings at the airport. 5 Air Carrier Operations, aircraft operations associated with scheduled passenger and air cargo aircraft operations (14 CFR Part 121). 6 Air Taxi Operations, aircraft operations associated non-scheduled passenger and air cargo aircraft operations (14 CFR Part 135). 7 General Aviation Local Operations, aircraft operations associated with civil aircraft (excluding air carrier, air taxi, and military aircraft) that remain in the local traffic pattern, execute simulated instrument approaches or low passes at the airport, and the aircraft operations to or from the airport and a designated practice area within a 20−mile radius of the airport. 8 General Aviation Itinerant Operations, aircraft operations associated with civil aircraft (excluding air carrier, air taxi, and military aircraft), either IFR, SVFR, or VFR, that lands at an airport, arriving from outside the airport area, or departs an airport and leaves the airport area. 9 Military Operations, aircraft operations associated with military aircraft 10 Based Aircraft, an aircraft which has been or will be stored at the airport for more than 183 calendar days over a one year period (including days that the aircraft is operating off the airport and not paying based aircraft storage rents or fees at another airport).

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 26 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 7: Butte Valley Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Aircraft Operations Air Carrier 0 0 0 0 0 Air Taxi 0 0 0 0 0 General Aviation Local 50 50 50 50 50 General Aviation Itinerant 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Military 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 Based Aircraft Single‐Engine 1 1 1 1 1 Multi‐Engine 0 0 0 0 0 Jet 0 0 0 0 0 Helicopter 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 Fuel Volumes Jet Fuel 0 0 0 0 0 Avgas 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 Table 8: Happy Camp Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Aircraft Operations Air Carrier 0 0 0 0 0 Air Taxi 0 0 0 0 0 General Aviation Local 0 0 0 0 0 General Aviation Itinerant 150 150 250 250 250 Military 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 150 150 250 250 250 Based Aircraft Single‐Engine 0 0 0 0 0 Multi‐Engine 0 0 0 0 0 Jet 0 0 0 0 0 Helicopter 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel Volumes Jet Fuel 0 0 0 0 0 Avgas 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 27 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 9: Scott Valley Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Aircraft Operations Air Carrier 0 0 0 0 0 Air Taxi 104 104 104 104 104 General Aviation Local 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 General Aviation Itinerant 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Military 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104 Based Aircraft Single‐Engine 16 16 19 19 19 Multi‐Engine 0 0 0 0 0 Jet 0 0 0 0 0 Helicopter 0 0 0 0 0 Other (ultra‐light) 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 17 17 20 20 20 Fuel Volumes Jet Fuel 0 0 0 0 0 Avgas Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown TOTAL Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Table 10: Weed Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Aircraft Operations Air Carrier 0 0 0 0 0 Air Taxi 150 150 150 200 200 General Aviation Local 4,000 4,000 4,000 6,000 6,000 General Aviation Itinerant 6,000 6,000 6,000 10,000 10,000 Military 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 10,150 10,150 10,150 16,200 16,200 Based Aircraft Single‐Engine 12 12 12 12 12 Multi‐Engine 2 2 3 3 3 Jet 0 0 0 0 0 Helicopter 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 14 14 15 15 15 Fuel Volumes Jet Fuel Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Avgas Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown TOTAL Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 28 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 11: Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field Aeronautical Activity Levels

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Aircraft Operations Air Carrier 0 0 0 0 0 Air Taxi 0 0 0 0 0 General Aviation Local 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 General Aviation Itinerant 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Military 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 Based Aircraft Single‐Engine 23 23 23 23 23 Multi‐Engine 0 0 0 0 0 Jet 0 0 0 0 0 Helicopter 0 0 0 0 0 Other (glider) 2 2 2 2 2 TOTAL 25 25 25 25 25 Fuel Volumes Jet Fuel 0 0 0 0 0 Avgas Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown TOTAL Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Table 12: Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport Aeronautical Activity Levels

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Aircraft Operations Air Carrier 0 0 0 0 0 Air Taxi 0 0 0 0 0 General Aviation Local 500 500 500 500 500 General Aviation Itinerant 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 Military 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 Based Aircraft Single‐Engine 7 7 10 5 6 Multi‐Engine 0 0 0 0 0 Jet 1 1 1 0 0 Helicopter 1 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 9 8 11 5 6 Fuel Volumes Jet Fuel 0 0 0 0 0 Avgas 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 29 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

6. Airport General Aviation Products, Services, and Facilities Following are the general aviation products, services, and facilities at the public-use, general aviation airports located in the County and included in the RAP. The information is based on public sources and interviews with the airports’ FBOs and SASOs.

Table 13: Siskiyou County Airports’ General Aviation Products, Services, and Facilities Airport Name Siskiyou County Butte Valley Happy Camp Airport Airport Airport FAA Airport Identifier SIY A32 36S Number of FBOs 1 0 0 Number of SASOs 0 0 0 General Aviation Products and Services Aviation Fuels Jet Fuel Full‐Service/Self‐Service Price N/A N/A N/A Avgas Full‐Service/Self‐Service Price N/A|$5.85 N/A N/A Mogas Full‐Service/Self‐Service Price N/A N/A N/A Aircraft Services None None None Aircraft Ground Handling None None None Airframe MRO None None None Powerplant MRO None None None Propeller MRO None None None Radio and Instrument MRO None None None Paint None None None Interior None None None Other General Aviation Services None None None Aircraft Rental None None None Flight Training None None None Aircraft Management None None None Aircraft Charter None None None Aircraft Sales None None None Other Agriculture Crew and Passenger Services None None None Other General Aviation Facilities General Aviation Terminal Unknown None None Community Hangars 4 None None Corporate Hangars ? None None Executive Hangars ? None None T‐Hangars 10 None 3 Tiedowns 20 None 13 Shade Tiedowns 0 None None Other None None None

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 30 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 13: Siskiyou County Airports’ General Aviation Products, Services, and Facilities Airport Name Scott Valley Weed Airport Airport FAA Airport Identifier A30 O46 Number of FBOs 1 1 Number of SASOs 0 0 General Aviation Products and Services Aviation Fuels Jet Fuel Full‐Service/Self‐Service Price N/A $5.29|N/A Avgas Full‐Service/Self‐Service Price N/A|$5.75 N/A|$5.89 Mogas Full‐Service/Self‐Service Price N/A N/A Aircraft Services None None Aircraft Ground Handling None None Airframe MRO None None Powerplant MRO None None Propeller MRO None None Radio and Instrument MRO None None Paint None None Interior None None Other General Aviation Services None None Aircraft Rental None None Flight Training None None Aircraft Management None None Aircraft Charter None None Aircraft Sales None None Other Crew and Passenger Services None None Other General Aviation Facilities General Aviation Terminal Yes Yes Community Hangars 1 (?) 1 Corporate Hangars None None Executive Hangars 7 13 T‐Hangars 9 4 Tiedowns 10 30 Shade Tiedowns None None Other None None

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 31 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 13: Siskiyou County Airports’ General Aviation Products, Services, and Facilities Airport Name Montague Dunsmuir Airport‐Yreka Municipal‐Mott Rohrer Field Airport FAA Airport Identifier 1O5 1O6 Number of FBOs 1 0 Number of SASOs 1 0 General Aviation Products and Services Aviation Fuels Jet Fuel Full‐Service/Self‐Service Price N/A N/A Avgas Full‐Service/Self‐Service Price N/A|$5.85 N/A Mogas Full‐Service/Self‐Service Price N/A N/A Aircraft Services None None Aircraft Ground Handling Minor None Airframe MRO Minor None Powerplant MRO Minor None Propeller MRO None None Radio and Instrument MRO None None Paint None None Interior None None Other General Aviation Services None None Aircraft Rental None None Flight Training None None Aircraft Management None None Aircraft Charter None None Aircraft Sales None None Other Crew and Passenger Services None None Other General Aviation Facilities General Aviation Terminal Yes None Community Hangars 1 2 Corporate Hangars None None Executive Hangars 13 13 T‐Hangars 2 None Tiedowns 15 17 Shade Tiedowns None None Other None None

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 32 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

7. Airport Non-Aeronautical Uses Following are the known non-aeronautical uses at the public-use, general aviation airports located in the County and included in the RAP. Inspections of hangars and improvements were not conducted. Therefore, there may be additional unknown non-aeronautical uses of Airports’ land and improvements. Siskiyou County Airport  There are 27 separate agricultural fields identified on the airport that are either currently being used or may be available for use. Currently, the County is leasing 790 acres of land to 4C Farming – Dan Chase and Family for growing cops of oats, wheat, hay, alfalfa, and/or barley. Table 14: Siskiyou County Airport Agricultural Fields Field Acreage Notes Field 1 12.1 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 2 53.6 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 3 34.1 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 4 14.2 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 5 138.2 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 6 1.5 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 7 3.1 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 8 26.6 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 9 1.0 Retained Field 10 69.0 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 11 42.2 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 12 100.3 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 13 28.4 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 14 35.4 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 15 31.2 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 16 5.7 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 17 6.4 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 18 11.0 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 19 25.3 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 20 7.0 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 21 38.5 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 22 6.5 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 23 7.5 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 24 42.1 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 25 ?? ?? Field 26 19.3 Lessee: 4C Farming Field 27 23.8 Lessee: 4C Farming  Other known non-aeronautical uses of the airport include land rental (Siskiyou County agency) bunker rentals (Siskiyou County agency and other municipalities), vehicle parking (private entity), and a gym (private entity).  The County has also advertised 450 acres of airport land currently designated for agricultural fields as available for industrial development.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 33 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Butte Valley Airport  There are no known non-aeronautical uses of the airport.  There is substantial airport land available for non-aeronautical uses, but with limited infrastructure.  While the airport land is currently not being utilized for agricultural purposes, there is land across highway 97 that is being used for agricultural purposes. Happy Camp Airport  There are no known non-aeronautical uses of the airport.  There is limited land that is available for non-aeronautical uses. Scott Valley Airport  Currently, the County is leasing 33 acres of land to Hanna Brothers for agricultural purposes.  There are no other known non-aeronautical uses of the airport.  There is limited land (including the 33 acres of agricultural land) that is available for non- aeronautical uses. Weed Airport  There are no known non-aeronautical uses of the airport.  There is land available for non-aeronautical uses, but with limited infrastructure. Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field Airport  There are no known non-aeronautical uses of the airport.  There is land available for non-aeronautical uses, but with limited infrastructure. Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport  There are no known non-aeronautical uses of the airport.  There is no land available for non-aeronautical uses. I. SISKIYOU COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN The Siskiyou County Airport Land Use Commission (SCALUC) was established in June 1988. The current Siskiyou County Airport Land Use “Incompatible land uses Compatibility Plan (ALUC) was adopted by the SCALUC on July 10, 2001, around airports are considered the largest and is out of date. imminent and continuous threat to California The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook recommends that aviation...” ALUC’s undergo a comprehensive review and update every five years. – California Aviation System Therefore, it is recommended that the SCALUC undertake a review and update of the current ALUC to ensure that the compatibility criteria and policies adequately reflect current public health and safety concerns and needs. J. AIRPORT PROFILES The prior tables in this section provide a side-by-side comparison of the Airports’ influencing factors. The following airport profiles consolidates this information on an airport by airport basis.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 34 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 15: Siskiyou County Airport Profile

Property Fixed Base Operations Services 4 miles northeast of Montague, California FBO RPQ in May 2019 had no selectees – not staffed Acres: 1,080 Fuel: 100L and Jet A (Self-Serve Only) Nonaviation uses/potential – Moderate Pilots lounge / flight planning Airfield ROLES Airport Elevation: 2,651.1’ Recreation/personal business, USFS Fire attack, Runway: 17/35 7,490’ X 150’ Corporate use, Medical transport, Sailplanes. Airport Reference Code: C-III Taxiway Design Group 3 (50’ wide) Pavement Strength: in pounds (Gear Type) 60,000(S), Number of Operations – 13,650 180,000(D), 270,000(DTWG) Based Aircraft – 25 Lighting Seasonal USFS Fire Base – Helicopters and Single Engine Runway Lighting: Medium Intensity Runway Lights Air Tankers. Occasionally larger tankers as needed. Glideslope Guidance: Precision Approach Path Indicators Runway End Identifier Lights: Runway 17 and 35 Rotating Beacon Airport Generated Revenue Navigational Aids / Instrument Approaches Fiscal Year 2018-2019: $75,600 Wind Indicator, Non-Directional Beacon / GPS-A Approach, Planned Capital Improvement Approach minimums 1200’ ceiling with 1 ¼ mile visibility. Year Project Total Costs 2021 ALP Update $150,000 Location: Fuel island, FBO, and USFS apron on the west 2022 Taxiway Rehab Design $150,000 side of Airport midfield, adjacent to Airport road. 2023 Taxiway Rehab Design $3,000,000 Aircraft Parking Capacity: Tie downs – Two areas with 23 tiedown spaces; West Side Hangars: 9 T-Hangars, 4 box hangars; South Side Hangars: 8 hangars located on Topography: Flat valley bowl with rising terrain to the west closed runway. and north.

Industrial: East Side: Storage and materials laydown yard Access: I-5 runs north to south along Klamath River valley 5 located on closed runway. miles to the west. From Yreka, Highway 263 (CA Hwy 3) Agricultural: Ag land lease on infields and east, west, and east to Yreka Ager Road, then northeast to Shelley Road. south side of runway. From Montague, Airport Road north.

Land Use Jurisdictions: Siskiyou County The Runway 35 Safety Area has a road in it. The Runway 17 Runway Protection Zone has a road in it. Nearby Land Uses: Unirrigated grassland, agriculture, cattle Taxiway Geometry at Runway 17 threshold grazing, no Incompatible land uses in the vicinity of airport, no The property under the RPZ is not owned by the Airport. terrain or obstructions along extended runway centerline.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 35 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 16: Butte Valley Airport Profile

Property Agricultural applicators 5 miles south of Dorris, California Recreation/personal business Acres: 234 Nonaviation uses/potential - Low Number of Operations – 1,050 Airfield Based Aircraft – 0 Airport Elevation: 4,243.1 MSL Runway: 16/34 - 4,300 x 60’ Airport Reference Code: B-I (Small) FINANCIAL Taxiway Design Group: N/A Airport Generated Revenue Pavement Strength: In Pounds (Gear Type) Fiscal year 2018-2019: ????????? 30,000 (Single) Lighting Planned Capital Improvements Rotating Beacon None identified Runway Lighting: Medium Intensity Runway Lights Glideslope Guidance: None Navigational Aids / Instrument Approaches Topography: Located in the center of Butte Valley basin with Wind indicator rising terrain predominantly to the northeast and southwest. Only visual approaches Access: 25 miles south on Hwy 97 from Klamath Falls, Oregon; approximately 5 miles south of Dorris, California; BUILDING AREA approximately 40 miles north on Hwy 87 from Weed, Location: Access via Highway 97, Gravel road California; about 45 miles from Interstate 5.

Aircraft Parking Capacity: Tiedowns – 6 tiedowns, Land Use Jurisdiction: Siskiyou County one hangar, segmented circle. Nearby Land Uses: Dry scrub land, agriculture. No incompatible land uses. Development Constraints: Road- and fence-controlled The Runway 16 RPZ has roads through it. obstructions 350’ and 520’ from the runway ends. The Runway 34 RPZ has Highway 97 through it. The Taxiway lighting is nonstandard.

No fixed base operator Fuel: None

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 36 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 17: Happy Camp Airport Profile

No fixed base operator Property Fuel: None West of central Happy Camp, CA Acres: 64 Recreation/personal business Nonaviation uses/potential - Low Fire attack base Airfield Airport Elevation: 1,209 MSL Number of Operations – 150 Based Aircraft – 1 helicopter Runway: 16/34: 3,000’ x 50’ Airport Reference Code: B-I (Small) Taxiway Design Group: 1A (20’ wide) Pavement Strength: In Pounds (Gear Type) Airport Generated Revenue 30,000 (Single) Fiscal Year 2018-2019: $8,600 Lighting Runway Lighting: none Planned Capital Improvement Glideslope Guidance: none Rotating Beacon None identified. Navigational Aids / Instrument Approaches Topography: Located on the north side of a narrow valley Wind Indicator associated with the Klamath River. There is rising forested Visual Only terrain in all directions. BUILDING AREA Location: Access from Highway 96 via Airport Road. Access: Adjacent to the center of Happy Camp, CA and is accessible via Highway 96. It is 65 miles from Interstate 5 Aircraft Parking Capacity: 4 tiedown spaces, 4 helicopter spaces, 1 hangar, 3 buildings. Land Use Jurisdiction: Siskiyou County NONSTANDARD CONDITIONS The parallel taxiway separation centerline to Nearby Land Uses: Mixture of single-family residential and centerline is 80’ B-I (Small Standard is 150’. commercial uses. Mini storage facility north of the airfield. The Holding Position separation from centerline is Commercial uses within the approach to Runway 22 70’; the B-I (Small) standard is 125’ The Runway 4 RPZ has an access road through it. Development Constraints: Trees less than 200 feet east of The Runway 22 RPZ has trees. Runway 4 threshold. Lower Airport Road 620’ from end of There is an aggregate yard in the Taxiway Safety Runway 4. Possible through the fence use from storage areas Area. to the west. Steep terrain on either side of runway.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 37 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 18: Scott Valley Airport Profile

Recreation/personal business Property USFS Fire attack 2.6 miles south of Ft Jones, CA Acres: 53 Nonaviation uses/potential - Low Number of Operations – 8,104 Airfield Based Aircraft – 17 Seasonal USFS Fire Base – Helicopters (although most now staged Airport Elevation: 2,728.0’ MSL on ag lands adjacent to airport) Runway: 16/34: 3,700 x 50’ Airport Reference Code: B-I (Small) Taxiway Design Group: N/A Pavement Strength: In Pounds (Gear Type) Airport Generated Revenue 12,000 (Single) Fiscal Year 2018-2019: $19,100 Lighting Runway Lighting: Medium Intensity Runway Planned Capital Improvement Lights Glideslope Guidance: None Year Project Total Costs Rotating Beacon 2020 Pavement Slurry Seal $75,000 2021 Navigational Aids / Instrument ALP Update $150,000 Approaches Wind Indicator Topography: Located on a flat valley floor with sharply rising terrain Only visual approaches within two miles to the north, east, and southeast. BUILDING AREA Location: Fuel island, Aprons, and USFS Access: South from Fort Jones on Eastside Road, then west and apron on the east side Airport, adjacent to south on Island Road. North from Etna on Hwy 3 to Serpa Lane, then Island Road. south on Island Road.

Aircraft Parking Capacity: Tie downs – Two Land Use Jurisdiction: Siskiyou County areas with 12 tiedown spaces; East Side Hangars: 9 T-Hangars, 7 box hangars; West Nearby Land Uses: Irrigated cropland, rural residences. No Side: dry grass lands. No development. incompatible land uses in approaches. NONSTANDARD CONDITIONS The RPZs have dirt access roads through Development Constraints: Tree obstruction 710’ away and 160’ left of them. The RPZ area is not all owned by the the extended runway centerline. Farm access roads at either end of Airport. the runway.

No fixed base operator Fuel: 100LL (Self-Serve)

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 38 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 19: Weed Airport Profile

Property Fixed Base Operations Services 4.5 miles NW of Weed, California Eagles Nest Aviation Acres: 344 Fuel: 100L and Jet A (Self-Serve & Full Service) Nonaviation potential - Limited Pilots lounge / flight planning Airfield Courtesy Car Airport Elevation: 2,942.7’ MSL Runway: 14/32: 5,000’ x 60’ Recreation/personal business Airport Reference Code: B-I (Small) USFS Fire attack Taxiway Design Group: 1 (25’ wide) Corporate use Pavement Strength: In Pounds (Gear Type) Medical transport 12,000 (Single) Lighting Number of Operations – 10,150 Runway Lighting: MIRL Based Aircraft – 12 Glideslope Guidance: Visual Approach Seasonal USFS Fire Base – Helicopters and Single Engine Air Slope Indicators Tankers. Rotating Beacon Navigational Aids / Instrument Approaches Airport Generated Revenue Wind Indicator Fiscal Year 2018-2019: $49,600 RNAV GPS Runway 14 Approach minimums 500’ ceiling with 1-mile Planned Capital Improvement visibility Year Project Cost 2019 Taxiway Rehab Construction $1,077,270 BUILDING AREA 2021 ALP Update $150,000 Location: Fuel island, FBO, and USFS apron on the southwest side of the Airport, 2022 Electrical Upgrade $350,000 adjacent to Airport road.

Aircraft Parking Capacity: Tie downs – Two Topography: Located on a flat valley floor with rising terrain to the west areas with 32 tiedown spaces; West Side and east. The closest hills are about 4 miles to the west. Hangars: 4 T-Hangars, 13 box hangars; East Side: dry grass lands (no Access: I-5 runs north to south immediately to the west of the Airport development). with off-ramp access from both sides of the highway. NONSTANDARD CONDITIONS Land Use Jurisdiction: Siskiyou County RPZ has a road through it, Nonstandard Nearby Land Uses: Undeveloped land, irrigated cropland, highway rest taxiway lighting. stop. No incompatible land uses in approaches.

Development Constraints: Controlled obstruction (Road) 900’ north along the extended runway centerline.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 39 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 20: Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field Airport Profile

Property Fixed Base Operations Services 0.6 mile west of Montague California Acres: 90 Steelman Aviation Nonaviation potential - Limited Minor Airframe Minor Powerplant Airfield Aircraft rental, Glider, Aircraft tow, Instruction Airport Elevation: 2517 MSL Fuel: 100LL (Self-Serve) Runway: 15/33: 3,360’ x 50’ Runway 5/23 (Turf): 2,080’ x 100’ ROLES Airport Reference Code: B-I (Small) Recreation/personal business Taxiway Design Group: 1B (30’ wide) Small-package cargo Pavement Strength: In Pounds (Gear Type) Gliders 12,000 (Single) Law enforcement Lighting Runway Lighting: MIRL Number of Operations – 3,800 Glideslope Guidance: VASI Based Aircraft – 23, (2 gliders) Rotating Beacon Right Traffic to Runway 15 & Runway 23 Navigational Aids / Instrument Approaches FINANCIAL Wind Indicator Segmented Circle Airport Generated Revenue Only visual approaches Fiscal Year 2018-2019: ???????? BUILDING AREA Planned Capital Improvement Location: Access from Highway 3 (Montague Road), west of None identified the City of Montague. Aircraft Parking Capacity: 8 tiedown spaces, 2 helicopter spaces. East Side of Runway: 2 T hangars, 5 box hangars, Topography: Located between three hills with rising FBO office. West Side of Runway (Through the Fence): 9 terrain immediately to the east and west. Box hangars, Industrial, storage. Access: 1 mile west of the City of Montague on Montague Road. 5 miles east of Yreka on Montague NONSTANDARD CONDITIONS Road. 5 miles east of Interstate 5. The portion of parallel taxiway separation centerline to Land Use Jurisdiction: City of Montague centerline is 110’ B-I (Small); the standard is 150’. The Holding Position separation from centerline is 92’; B-I Nearby Land Uses: Dry grassland, grazing, Agriculture. (Small) standard is 125’. No incompatible land uses in the approaches. Through the fence taxilane access does not connect to the Development Constraints: Montague Road through the runway end (FAA Guidelines). Runway 33 RPZ. There is a creek bed on the west side The Runway 33 RPZ has road through it 350’ from the of the runway. runway end. The Land under the RPZ is not fully owned/easement.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 40 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Table 21: Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport Profile

Property No fixed base operator 2.5 south from Mt Shasta, California Fuel: None Acres: 126 Nonaviation uses/potential - low Recreation/personal business Airfield Airport Elevation: 2517 MSL Number of Operations – 2,200 Runway: 14/32: 2,800’ x 60’ Based Aircraft – 9, (1 Helicopter, 1 Jet) Airport Reference Code: B-I (Small) Taxiway Design Group: 1B (25’ wide) Pavement Strength: In Pounds (Gear Type) 12,500 (Single) Airport Generated Revenue Lighting (3-year avg) 2016-2019: $23,973 Runway Lighting: None Glideslope Guidance: VASI Rotating Beacon Planned Capital Improvement Navigational Aids / Instrument Year Project Cost Approaches 2020 Aircraft Apron Reconstruct (Phase 1 design) $150,000 2020 Runway-Taxiway Reconstruction $2,840,000 Wind Indicator 2021 Aircraft Apron Reconstruct (Phase 1 Construct) $1,380,000 Segmented Circle 2022 Aircraft Apron Reconstruct (Phase 2 design) $80,000 Only visual approaches Right Traffic to Runway 14 due to terrain 2023 Aircraft Apron Reconstruct (Phase 2 Construct) $750,000

Location: Access via Mott Airport Road. Topography: Located in mountainous foothills southwest of Mount Shasta with rising terrain immediately to the east and high mountain Aircraft Parking Capacity: 17 tiedown spaces, terrain in all directions. 13 small box hangars, 2 large box hangars, 1 Access: 5 miles north of the center of the City of Dunsmuir, 1 mile from building/business office. Interstate 5. Land Use Jurisdiction: City of Dunsmuir Daytime use only Nearby Land Uses: Forested foothills, residences 250 feet west of Runway 14/32 RPZs have roads through them runway centerline. No development in approaches. Runway 32 Runway Safety Area grading Development Constraints: Access road through the Runway 14 (terrain) RPZ/rising terrain, Mott Airport Road though the Runway 32 RPZ in Segmented circle within the Runway OFA rising terrain. Mott Airport Road parallels the west side of the runway Trees penetrate approach slope 1900’ from with residences on west side. Steep rising terrain to east. runway end Access road enters directly onto taxiway/apron

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 41 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

K. SISKIYOU COUNTY AIRCRAFT AND PILOTS Following are the number of registered aircraft and licensed pilots in the United States, State of California, and Siskiyou County. The information is based on FAA registered aircraft owners’ data and FAA licensed pilots’ data.

Table 22: Number of Registered Aircraft

Average Registered Market Location Population per 1,000 Aircraft Share persons United States 329,450,000 310,004 0.94 State of California 39,510,000 25,756 0.65 8.3%

Siskiyou County 43,530 110 2.53 0.4%

While there are more registered aircraft per 1,000 persons in Siskiyou County than in the State of California or the United States, because there are more airports in the County than most counties with similar populations, this dilutes the value of the higher number of registered aircraft per person.

Table 23: Number of Licensed Pilots

Average Licensed Market Location Population per 1,000 Pilots Share persons United States 329,450,000 627,181 1.90 State of California 39,510,000 64,605 1.64 10.3%

Siskiyou County 43,530 129 2.97 0.2%

While there are more licensed pilots per 1,000 persons in Siskiyou County than in the State of California or the United States, because there are more airports in the County than most counties with similar populations, this dilutes the value of the higher number of licensed pilots per person.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 42 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

L. SISKIYOU COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS Table 24: Siskiyou County Demographics

Item Information Demographics Population 43,530 (0.32% decline) Median Age 47.9 Median Household Income $40,884 (6.13% 1‐year growth) Per Capita Income $17,570 Poverty Rate 20.7% Number of Employees 16,544 (1.87% growth) Unemployment 6.3% Housing Units 24,214 (65.6% owner occupied) Housing Median Value $176,600 Educational Characteristics High School (or higher) 90% Bachelor Degree (or higher) 22.5% Educational Institutions Community College Yes – College of the Siskiyous State College / University No Private College / University No Employment Segments (largest) Health Care & Social Assistance 2,530 employees (15.3%) Retail Trade 2,003 employees (12.1%) Ag, Forestry, Fishing, & Hunting 1,765 employees (10.7%) Educational Services 1,654 employees (10.0%) Transportation Infrastructure Principal Arterials Interstate 5 connects Siskiyou County to Redding and Sacramento, California to the south & Medford and Portland, Oregon to the north State Route 139 connects Siskiyou County with Modoc and Lassen Counties to the east US Route 97 connects the communities of Dorris and Mt. Hebron with Klamath Falls and Bend, Oregon State Route 89 connects Siskiyou County with Shasta, Tehama, Plumas, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, Eldorado, Alpine, and Mono counties Railroad None Public Transit Siskiyou Transit and General Express (STAGE) Weather / Climate Temperatures Summer High: 89o F (July); Winter Low 27o F (January) Precipitation Average annual precipitation: 29“ rainfall; 24”snowfall

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 43 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

M. SURVEY RESULTS A total of 162 surveys were sent to registered aircraft owners and licensed pilots located in Siskiyou County. The survey had a total of 59 responses, which provides statically relevant response rate with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. Q. Do you have an aircraft based (either permanently or seasonally) at a public-use, general aviation airport in Siskiyou County? 59 responses

Answer Count Percent 1. Yes 36 61.02% 2. No 23 38.98%

Q. Identify which airport your aircraft is based at (either permanently or seasonally). 39 responses

Answer Count Percent 1. Butte Valley Airport (A32) - Permanently 0 0.00% 2. Butte Valley (A32) - Seasonally 0 0.00% 3. Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport (1O6) - Permanently 2 5.13% 4. Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport (1O6) - Seasonally 0 0.00% 5. Happy Camp (36S) - Permanently 0 0.00% 6. Happy Camp (36S) - Seasonally 5 12.82% 7. Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field (1O5) - Permanently 3 7.69% 8. Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field (1O5) - Seasonally 0 0.00% 9. Scott Valley Airport (A30) - Permanently 6 15.38% 10. Scott Valley Airport (A30) - Seasonally 1 2.56% 11. Siskiyou County Airport (SIY) - Permanently 12 30.77% 12. Siskiyou County Airport (SIY) - Seasonally 2 5.13% 13. Weed Airport (O46) - Permanently 6 15.38% 14. Weed Airport (O46) - Seasonally 2 5.13%

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 44 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Q. What type of aircraft storage facility do you rent/utilize at the airport selected? 39 responses

Answer Count Percent 1. Apron 0 0.00% 2. Tiedown 3 7.69% 3. T-Hangar 7 17.95% 4. Shade Hangar 0 0.00% 5. Executive Hangar 13 33.33% 6. Corporate Hangar 1 2.56% 7. Community Hangar 6 15.38% 8. Other 9 23.08%

Q. Would you like to rent/utilize a different type of aircraft storage facility? 39 responses

Answer Count Percent 1. Yes 4 10.26% 2. No 35 89.74%

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 45 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Q. What type of aircraft storage facility would you like to rent/utilize? 36 responses

Answer Count Percent 1. Apron 1 2.78% 2. Tiedown 1 2.78% 3. T-Hangar 6 16.67% 4. Shade Hangar 0 0.00% 5. Executive Hangar 11 30.56% 6. Corporate Hangar 2 5.56% 7. Community Hangar 2 5.56% 8. Other 13 36.11%

Q. What type of aircraft do you own and/or operate? 37 responses

Answer Count Percent 1. Piston Single Engine 25 67.57% 2. Piston Multi Engine 2 5.41% 3. Turboprop Single Engine 1 2.70% 4. Turboprop Multi Engine 0 0.00% 5. Jet (less than 12,500 pounds MTOW) 0 0.00% 6. Other 9 24.32%

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 46 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Q. Do you rent or operate aircraft at a public-use, general aviation airport in Siskiyou County? [These responses are from survey respondents that do not have an aircraft based (either permanently or seasonally) at a public-use, general aviation airport in Siskiyou County] 11 responses

Answer Count Percent 1. Rent 7 63.64% 2. Operate 4 36.36%

Q. Identify which airport you primarily rent or operate aircraft from. [These responses are from survey respondents that do not have an aircraft based (either permanently or seasonally) at a public-use, general aviation airport in Siskiyou County] 3 responses

Answer Count Percent 1. Butte Valley Airport (A32) 0 0.00% 2. Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport (1O6) 0 0.00% 3. Happy Camp (36S) 1 33.33% 4. Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field (1O5) 1 33.33% 5. Scott Valley Airport (A30) 0 0.00% 6. Siskiyou County Airport (SIY) 0 0.00% 7. Weed Airport (O46) 1 33.33%

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 47 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Q. How do you operate aircraft out of the airport selected? 36 responses

Answer Count Percent 1. Part 91 30 83.33% 2. Part 91K 0 0.00% 3. Part 135 1 2.78% 4. Other 5 13.89%

Q. Is your primary residence in or near Siskiyou County? 36 responses

Answer Count Percent 1. Yes (in Siskiyou County) 34 94.44% 2. Yes (near Siskiyou County) 1 2.78% 3. No 1 2.78%

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 48 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Q. How close is your primary residence to the airport selected? 35 responses

Answer Count Percent 1. 1 to 5 miles 12 34.29% 2. 5 to 10 miles 8 22.86% 3. 11 to 15 miles 6 17.14% 4. 16 to 20 miles 2 5.71% 5. 21 to 25 miles 2 5.71% 6. 26 to 30 miles 0 0.00% 7. 31 to 35 miles 2 5.71% 8. 36 or more miles 3 8.57%

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 49 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Q. Please rate each of the following airport attributes based on their importance for the reason you use the airport selected.

Question Count Score 1. Location to Local Residence 33 2.061 2. Location to Business/Customers 23 3.174 3. Pilot and Passenger Facilities/Amenities 29 2.897 4. Aircraft Storage (Availability) 32 1.875 5. Aircraft Storage (Pricing) 27 1.852 6. Number and Type of Approach Procedures 23 3.217 7. Number and Type of Departure Procedures 23 3.217 8. Approach Lighting 26 2.808 9. AWOS 28 2.821 10. Runway Length 31 3.097 11. Runway Width 32 3.312 12. Runway Weight Bearing Capacity 31 3.935 13. Fueling Service (Availability) 28 1.893 14. Fuel Service (Pricing) 28 2.429 15. Aircraft Maintenance & Repair (Availability) 27 3.111 16. Aircraft Rental (Availability) 33 4.182 17. Flight Training (Availability) 33 3.848

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 50 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Q. What impact would the following scenarios have on the number of aircraft landings you have at the airport selected? 33 responses

Question Score 1. Increased Runway Length 1.394 2. Increased Runway Width 1.303 3. Increased Runway Weight Bearing 1.394 Capacity 4. New or Enhanced IFR Approach 1.848 Procedures 5. New or Enhanced IFR Departure 1.818 Procedures 6. Addition of Approach LIghting 2.000 7. Addition of AWOS 2.182 8. Addition of Fueling Services (if none) 2.121 9. Addition of Aircraft Maintenance (if none) 2.000 10. Addition of Aircraft Rental (if none) 2.424 11. Addition of Flight Training (if none) 2.576

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 51 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Q. What impact would the following scenarios have on the number of aircraft landings you have at the airport selected? 33 responses

Question Score 1. Decreased Runway Length 2.424 2. Decreased Runway Width 2.394 3. Decreased Runway Weight Bearing Capacity 2.000 4. Loss of Fueling Services (if any) 3.091 5. Loss of Aircraft Maintenance (if any) 2.061 6. Loss of Aircraft Rental (if any) 1.970 7. Loss of Flight Training (if any) 2.121

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 52 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Q. Airport Management and Operations: Please provide your rating in each of the following areas for the airport selected. 32 responses

Question Score 1. Communications with Airport Management/Staff 3.312 2. Responsiveness of Airport Management/Staff 3.562 3. Attitude of Airport Management/Staff 3.531 4. Airport Safety 2.812 5. Airport Security 3.344 6. Airport Maintenance 3.812 7. Perceived Support for Airport (State) 3.719 8. Perceived Support for Airport (Airport Owner/Operator) 3.625 9. Perceived Support for Airport (Community) 3.438

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 53 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

INFLUENCING FACTORS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Q. Airport Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services: Please provide your rating of the following categories for the airport selected. 31 responses

Question Score 1. Aircraft Storage (Availability) 3.419 2. Aircraft Storage (Type, Level, and Quality) 3.419 3. Aircraft Storage (Pricing) 3.226 4. Airport Infrastructure (Airside) 3.452 5. Airport Infrastructure (Landside) 3.710 6. Pilot and Passenger Facilities/Amenities (Availability) 3.710 7. Pilot and Passenger Facilities/Amenities (Type, Level, and Quality) 3.774 8. Vehicle Parking (Availability) 2.806 9. Vehicle Parking (Type, Level, and Quality) 3.097 10. Avgas Fuel (Availability) 2.903 11. Jet Fuel (Availability) 3.516 12. Aircraft Maintenance (Availability) 4.387 13. Aircraft Maintenance (Type, Level, and Quality) 4.387 14. Aircraft Rental (Availability) 4.774 15. Aircraft Rental (Type, Level, and Quality) 4.774 16. Flight Training (Availability) 4.548 17. Flight Training (Type, Level, and Quality) 4.548

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 54 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

PERFORMANCE MEASURES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

A. INTRODUCTION Performance criteria were developed to allow each Airport’s contribution to Siskiyou County’s aviation system to be objectively defined. B. ACTIVITY For the Airports to effectively serve their based and transient aircraft users, each individual airport should have adequate operational capacity. There are several activity performance measures to determine demand levels against this operational capacity.  Aircraft Operations: Based on the aircraft operations information for each Airport provided in Section: Influencing Factors, it does not appear that there is currently an issue for any of the Airports having adequate operational capacity related to airfield use. However, since the Airports currently have no adequate mechanism to count or track aircraft operations, utilizing aircraft operations as a clear measure of demand is problematic. The airport sponsors may want to consider existing technology that can be utilized to track aircraft operations.  Based Aircraft: Based on the based aircraft information for each Airport provided in Section: Influencing Factors, it does not appear that there is currently an issue for any of the Airports having adequate operational capacity related to aircraft storage. However, there does appear to be some limitations to the ability of certain airports accommodating future based aircraft either due to lack of unused aircraft storage facilities, lack of infrastructure to develop additional aircraft storage facilities, or specific mechanisms to track interest in additional aircraft storage facilities.  Fuel Volumes: For those airports that have aviation fuels available (Siskiyou County, Scott Valley, Weed, and Montague), it does not appear that there is currently an issue for these airports having adequate operational capacity related to aircraft refueling. However, airports without the availability of aviation fuels severely hampers meeting the demand for existing based and transient users as well as increasing the demand for use of the airports. C. ECONOMIC SUPPORT There is no question that general aviation airports are, or can be, economic engines for local communities. This includes direct, on-airport economic impact and indirect, off-airport economic impacts. This economic benefit begins with an airport having certain level of services at the airport. At a minimum, this begins with the availability of fuel and ground transportation. When airport users, especially transient users, have access to fuel and ground transportation services, the role that airports play in supporting the economy is increased. It is important to note that an airport is typically not the final destination for transient aircraft users. In most situations, the transient aircraft user has a final destination in near proximity to the airport. In the industry, we call this “the last mile.” If airport sponsors and FBOs do not have an ability to facilitate ground transportation for transient aircraft users to go “the last mile” then it is highly likely that the airports ability to attract transient aircraft users is limited. The best way for an airport sponsor to measure an airport’s economic impact is to conduct an economic impact study. This study measures the economic factors including the total number of jobs and associated wages on the airport and the economic activity generated in the surrounding community.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 55 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

PERFORMANCE MEASURES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

D. PUBLIC SERVICE Airport access for public service activities are essential to realize the full value of a general aviation airport, especially for rural communities. The tracking of the type and number of these public service flights is an excellent measurement of the value of each of the public-use, general aviation airports included in the RAP. These type of public service flights are as follows:  Aeromedical flights  Law enforcement flights  Disaster relief flights  Search and rescue flights  Firefighting and suppression flights  Transient military flights E. EFFICIENCY 1. Airside Infrastructure and Facilities An airport’s airside infrastructure and facilities define which types of aircraft can utilize the airfield and its relative attractiveness as a place to base one’s aircraft. The key facilities are:  Runway length  Pavement strength  Runway edge lighting system and rotating beacon  Landing aids  Aircraft parking apron  Storage hangars  Aviation fuels: 100-octane low lead (100LL) and Jet A The performance criteria will be based on whether the facility is currently available or has been planned to be added. 2. Nonstandard Conditions Nonstandard conditions include airfield features that do not meet current FAA design standards. It also includes obstructions to the airspace needed for safe operation of the airport. Nonstandard conditions were identified from examinations of the airport layout plan for each airport and review of the annual safety inspection letters prepared by the Caltrans Division. The performance criteria will be based on whether nonstandard conditions exist. If they exist, criteria will depend on whether the airport sponsor currently has a plan in place to eliminate or mitigate them. 3. Instrument Approach Procedures For the Airports to effectively support the local economies, each airport must be accessible. For airports to be accessible from the air, the primary airports within the system should have a precision approach or an approach with vertical guidance and other airports could have a non-precision approach. Instrument approach procedures developed by the FAA allow properly trained pilots with appropriately equipped aircraft to land at an airport through cloud cover and when forward visibility is below specified minimums. Even when whether conditions to not require the use of instrument approach procedures, use of these procedures improve safety during landings at night.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 56 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

PERFORMANCE MEASURES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

The availability of an instrument approach procedure increases the value of an airport as a source of transportation. It is particularly important in serving flights related to business. Qualitatively, instrument approach procedures with lower ceiling and forward visibility minimums are usually of greater utility than those with higher minimums. With evolving satellite technology, options for airports to have a published approach are more diverse. However, there are other requirements that airports must also meet before an approach can be approved; it is these additional requirements that occasionally prohibit an airport from having a published approach. 4. Landside Facilities Landside facilities support pilots and passengers before and after flights. At a minimum, this would consist of some form of restroom. Ideally this would include a full-service fixed base operation that offers maintenance, flight training, fuel, and charter flights.  Fixed base operation  Specialized aviation service operation  Pilots lounge  Restrooms The performance criteria is if any of these facilities are available or whether provision is made for them. 5. Road Access and Parking Vehicle access is needed to connect pilots and passengers (and potentially cargo) to the surface transportation system. The point of access should be clearly defined by signage. Parking should be adjacent to the transient parking apron. Additional parking near based aircraft hangars may also be useful, depending upon the airport’s layout and size. The performance criteria is based on whether the airport has adequate, convenient parking for both transient and based aircraft. If adequate, convenient parking is not currently provided, do plans exist to provide it? 6. Non-Aeronautical Development Only the largest general aviation airports generate sufficient revenues from aeronautical uses to fund both operational and capital needs. Therefore, most general aviation airports need revenues from on-airport non-aeronautical uses to be self-sufficient. The performance criteria is based on whether the airport has existing non-aeronautical uses or the capacity to accommodate them. 7. System Coverage Ideally, Siskiyou County would possess a system of airports spread throughout the County in order to provide convenient access to the air transportation system for all its residents. FAA Order 5090.5, Formulation of the NPIAS and the ACIP, uses the criteria for entry of an airport into the NPIAS of 30 miles radius from the nearest NPIAS airport. That is, the FAA considers 30 miles as the convenient driving distance to a Basic airport. A Basic airport is an airport principally used for personal flying, using propeller-driven aircraft, which typically has minimal infrastructure. The performance criteria is whether an airport is at least 30 road miles from another airport. For this system plan, it is not required that the airport meet the requirements to be listed in the NPIAS.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 57 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

A. INTRODUCTION This Alternative Analysis section presents the Siskiyou County airport system-level alternatives for consideration by each of the Airport’s airport sponsors. The analysis begins with an overview of the common challenge of generating sufficient operating revenues to operate and maintain a rural general aviation airport. Possible means of increasing airport revenues are described in this section and concludes with a review of possible County airport system-level alternatives. B. FINANCIAL CHALLENGE General aviation airports with small numbers of based aircraft and nominal use by transient aircraft typically do not generate sufficient funds to provide for the airport’s operational and capital financial needs. The exceptions to this “rule” are usually those airports that are able to lease land and improvements not required for aeronautical activities to entities engaged in non-aeronautical activities. Sometimes a specialized use, such as a fire attack base, will generate revenues from land leases, landing fees, and fuel flowage fees to contribute towards an airport’s goal of being financially self-sufficient. Table 25 presents the estimated capital expenditures necessary to maintain the pavements at each of the seven airports over the next 20 years. These costs assume that pavement maintenance will occur at standard intervals. These estimates should be considered order-of-magnitude costs. Some estimates are based upon very limited data on pavement condition and historical maintenance activities. Costs for maintenance of lights, electrical systems, and other utilities are not included due to lack of data.

Table 25: 20-Year Capital Requirements

Airport 20-Year Costs Local Share

Butte Valley* $6,830,000 $683,000 Dunsmuir $8,180,000 $818,000 Happy Camp $7,210,000 $721,000 Montague* $10,810,000 $1,081,000 Scott Valley* $10,060,000 $1,006,000 Siskiyou County $52,250,000 $5,225,000 Weed $18,070,000 $1,807,000 * Not eligible to receive FAA grants, but is eligible for State grants.

The costs for these paving projects are eligible for grant funding from the FAA and/or State of California; however, State grant funding is much more limited than FAA AIP grants.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 58 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

C. INCREASING REVENUES It is desirable for airports to be as financially self-sustaining as possible. Where this is not possible, municipalities (e.g., cities and counties) that own and operate airports must utilize general fund revenues to operate and maintain the airport. General fund revenues are finite, and many competing programs seek access to these funds. This Section discusses strategies for increasing the revenues generated by airports. Sources of capital funds are presented in the following section, Funding Sources. With limited exceptions (discussed below) growth in an airport’s activity levels is generated by economic activity in the communities they serve. Airports serving communities that are not growing economically are less likely to experience growth than those serving communities with growing economies. Caltrans’ California County-Level Economic Forecast 2017-2050 forecasts little economic growth for Siskiyou County. If this forecast proves to be correct, economic activity in the communities served by the airports in Siskiyou County will have limited ability to foster growth in airport activity and associated revenue generation. Six possible strategies for increasing airport- generated revenue are presented as follows. 1. Increase Aviation Activity Four of the airports in Siskiyou County have self-fueling facilities. Increasing aircraft operations could be expected to increase aviation fuel sales and related airport revenues. Given the expectation of limited broad economic growth, the potential generators of this growth are external to the County. Four potential generators of increased aircraft operations are:  Increase landside and airside attractiveness of airport  Add or expand aviation events that engage airport and local community  Attract new commercial aeronautical activities  Add specialized aviation uses  Add business in community that would utilize the airport 2. Increase Attractiveness Minor improvements requiring relatively low investment may increase the attractiveness of an airport by transient pilots. An example mentioned during the project’s initial outreach meeting was an airport car. An airport car is a vehicle made available at no cost to visiting pilots. The only requirement is for the vehicle to be refueled after use. Sometimes prior arrangement is needed to obtain access to the vehicle. 3. Aviation Events Siskiyou County Airport hosts sailplane events annually; the tow planes associated with these events boost aviation fuel sales. Events like this benefit the tourist economy through associated lodging and meals. This type of event could be expanded at Siskiyou County Airport. Similar events could be held at the other three airport that have self-fueling. Events could be general fly-ins or aircraft model- specific fly-ins. These events are typically sponsored by a local pilots’ group or local service organization. An associated breakfast is sometimes arranged as a fund-raiser for local causes. Airport owners can generate new or expanded events two ways. First, they can host the events themselves. Alternately, they can encourage these events by maintaining reasonable requirements for insurance and other cost-related factors. Advertising the availability of their facilities for events would encourage these events.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 59 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

4. Aviation Business Some aviation businesses (known as fixed base operators or FBOs) have loyal clientele who fly long distances because of the perceived quality of service. Attracting one of these businesses to an airport would increase revenues by boosting fuel sales and adding lease revenues. Periodically advertising the availability of leaseholds or facilities would support the potential for adding an FBO. 5. Specialized Use Attracting an aviation-related specialized use would increase use of the airfield, with associated increases in fuel sales, and add leasehold revenue. Examples include public service uses such as the fire attack bases operated by Cal Fire and the U.S. Forest Service. Other uses would be those tied to aviation research activities. Drone-related research is a current example. Siskiyou County Airport is the most likely venue for these uses due to its runway length and land available for leaseholds. However, these uses are likely to need sewer, water, and other utilities to support them. Directly promoting the availability of facilities to potential clients would be the most direct way of attracting one of these uses. 6. Aviation-connected Business A segment of businesses directly utilizes aviation for transport of staff or their products; economic development activities should include targeting this class of businesses, and including proximity to airports in promotional materials would also be appropriate. Due to their runway length, Siskiyou County Airport and Weed can accommodate the widest range of aircraft; however, any airport with available land and full utilities is potentially attractive as a site for this class of business. D. SYSTEM LEVEL ALTERNATIVES 1. Maintain Airports in Current Roles Under this alternative, the seven Airports would retain their current roles. Maintaining the Airports in their current roles does not necessarily mean that no growth or improvements would occur; rather, this means that any changes at an airport would be consistent with its current roles. Change would be incremental and follow the current pattern. Choosing this alternative implies acceptance of the ongoing operational costs and the anticipated capital costs noted above. 2. Maintain Airports Essential to Core Services All seven Airports in Siskiyou County provide utility to the aviation system. Even if an airport offers no services and consists of only a runway and parking apron, it provides a connection to the air transportation system. It is equivalent to a road in that it links one location to the rest of the world. However, if financial constraints make it infeasible to maintain all Airports in the system, guidance is needed to determine which Airports will/should be maintained by the local agency that owns and operates them. This section provides this guidance.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 60 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Even if an airport is no longer maintained by the county or municipalities that currently own and/or operate them, it does not necessarily mean that the airport will close. Options for continuing operation of the Airports by other means is discussed later in this section. Essential services are as follows:  Medical transport is an essential service; it is critical to the maintenance of the health and welfare of the citizens of Siskiyou County and its visitors. There are two elements to medical transport: emergency response and inter-hospital transfers. Helicopters are used for responding to emergency transport needs. Helicopters do not require airports for this. Medical transport company staff indicated that they use airports only if they are conveniently close to accident sites. It is more common for helicopters to use roads or other improvised landing areas to reach their patients. They commonly land at the hospital that will receive the patient. Airports are only needed for medical transport from a local hospital (Fairchild Medical Center or Mercy Medical Center) to hospitals in other areas. All of these flights are made using fixed-wing aircraft. Only Siskiyou County Airport has been used for these flights; therefore, only maintenance of Siskiyou County Airport is required to provide medical transport as an essential service.  Suppression of wildfires is an essential service; aircraft play a role in fire suppression operations by Cal Fire and the U.S. Forest Service. Currently, three air-attack facilities exist in Siskiyou County: an air tanker base at Siskiyou County Airport and helitack bases at Scott Valley and Happy Camp. All airports may be used as temporary staging areas for fire suppression activities. Typically, these temporary operations use helicopters; only the operations at Siskiyou County Airport routinely use fixed-wing aircraft. Happy Camp and Scott Valley are operated by Siskiyou County under a lease from the U.S. Forest Service. Even if Siskiyou County no longer operated the airports, the Forest Service would be free to continue to operate the helitack bases whether or not the associated runways remained active. Therefore, only maintenance of Siskiyou County Airport is required to provide aerial fire suppression as an essential service.  Provision of aircraft maintenance services is an essential service; general aviation aircraft require an airworthiness inspection at least once each year. This inspection, as well as maintenance and repair services, are usually provided by an FBO or SASO. Currently only Weed and Montague have an FBO. These services serve both based and transient aircraft. Although maintenance services are essential, it is not essential that more than one airport in Siskiyou County have these services. However, given the financial tenuousness of FBOs at small airports, redundancy within the Siskiyou system is critical. Therefore, it is considered essential that both Weed and Montague be maintained. However, should either airport lose their FBO and not replace it within five years, the airport would no longer be considered essential based on this criterion.  Provision of aviation fuels is an essential service. Piston-powered aircraft use 100 octane low lead fuel (100LL), and turbine-powered aircraft (jets, turboprops and most helicopters) use Jet A fuel. Currently 100LL is available at Siskiyou County Airport, Montague and Weed, and Scott Valley. Jet A is only available at Siskiyou County Airport and Weed. Although desirable, it is not essential to have fuel service at every airport. What is essential is that the fuel is available 24 hours per day and that both 100LL and Jet A are available. To provide redundancy, it is considered essential that both Siskiyou County Airport and Weed be maintained to provide this service.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 61 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

 A lighted runway is an essential facility. This makes airports potentially available 24 hours per day, although weather conditions can reduce this availability. Currently, three airports have runway edge lights: Siskiyou County, Montague, and Weed. Geographic diversity is important to provide access to various areas within Siskiyou County. Siskiyou County and Montague are in the northern half of the County and Weed is in the southern half. One in each region is essential. Airports with longer runways can accommodate a greater range of aircraft, and Siskiyou County has a longer runway than Montague. Therefore, maintaining it to serve the northern region is considered essential. Weed is essential to serve the southern region.  Aircraft storage hangars are essential facilities; they protect aircraft from sun damage to paint, interiors, and instruments. They also provide greater security. Hangars are desirable facilities at all airports, and all the airports in Siskiyou County have at least one hangar. The hangar at Butte Valley is not occupied. Although hangars are essential facilities, by themselves they are not a reason to classify an airport as essential to the system of airports in Siskiyou County.

Table 26: Essential Services and Facilities Comparison

Medical Wildfire Aircraft Aviation Fuels Lighted Aircraft

Airport Transport Suppression Maintenance 100LL Jet A Runway Storage Butte Valley* X Dunsmuir X Happy Camp X Montaque* X X X X Scott Valley* X X X Siskiyou County X X X X X Weed X X X X X Airports Essential to Core Services: Based upon the preceding analysis, it is concluded that four airports are essential to providing core services to the system of airports in Siskiyou County:  Montague-Yreka  Scott Valley  Siskiyou County  Weed It is important that the agencies that own these airports maintain these airports so that they may continue to support aviation activities in Siskiyou County. Airports with Community Benefits: Three airports were identified as not being essential to providing the core services for the system of airports in Siskiyou County:  Butte Valley  Dunsmuir  Happy Camp

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 62 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

This does not mean that they have no value to the communities they serve; rather, it means that their continued operation is less critical to the County’s system than the four airports identified as essential. If the local agencies who operate these airports cannot provide the financial resources to maintain these airports, there are three possible alternative means of keeping them in operation:  Sell the airport to private parties.  Form an airport district.  Return the airport to the USFS to operate (applicable to Happy Camp and Scott Valley). Selling the airport to private parties would shift the obligation for its maintenance and operation from the local public agency. The private parties could be the users (based aircraft owners and/or frequent transient users) or a third party. Creating an airport district would retain public ownership while shifting the cost to a special-purpose agency. This district would be formed under the provisions of PUC, Division 9 – Aviation, Part 2 – Airport Districts (§22001 et seq.) Given the limited income-producing capability of the four airports, it is anticipated that the district would need to have taxing authority. The tax levee would be designed to provide funds for the period maintenance needed to keep the facility operational. Creating the district and authorization of the tax levee would require an affirmative vote of those within the proposed district boundaries. Returning the airport to USFS operation is possible at Happy Camp. Both airports are operated by Siskiyou County under a lease from that federal agency. Although the fire suppression operations conducted by the Forest Service are principally helicopter-based, the agency may wish to retain the option of operating fixed-wing aircraft from those airports. This would need to be negotiated as part of the lease abandonment. 3. Expand Role of Selected Airports Each airport was evaluated for the potential to have its role expanded into new roles. These roles could involve either aeronautical or a compatible nonaviation uses. While it is possible that each of the airports might attract a new use that would expand its role, certain characteristics are judged to be necessary to make an expansion in role plausible. The most basic requirement is that an airport must have land available for new leaseholds. It must be possible to access available land without entering the airfield operations area (i.e., aprons, taxiways or runways). Basic utilities, such as water, sewage treatment, and electricity) must be available. To be considered a candidate for an expanded aeronautical use, an airport must be able to accommodate a wide variety of aircraft. This would mean a runway with a length of at least 5,000 feet. Having pavement strength to accommodate large aircraft (i.e., over 12,500 pounds) would also be needed to support an expanded aeronautical use. However, unlike runway length, it is considered reasonable to assume that an airport could increase it pavement strength. To be considered a candidate for nonaeronautical uses, an airport needs to be within 20 minutes driving time of Interstate 5. There also must be a community within 20 minutes driving time to provide needed employees.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 63 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Currently none of the seven airports fully meets these criterial for the reasons summarized below. The airport with the most promise is Siskiyou County. However, providing a sewage treatment system has been a long-standing need for the airport. It has not been resolved due to the high cost and technical difficulty of providing a treatment system.  Butte Valley – limited land, lacks sewer and water, distant from interstate, lacks nearby employment base, runway length limits size of aircraft that could use the airport.  Dunsmuir – limited land, runway length limits size of aircraft that could use airport.  Happy Camp – limited land, distant from interstate, runway length limits size of aircraft that could use the airport.  Montague – available land has poor street access, runway length limits size of aircraft that could use the airport.  Scott Valley – distant from interstate, runway length limits size of aircraft that could use the airport.  Siskiyou County – lacks sewer treatment capacity.  Weed – limited land.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 64 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

FUNDING SOURCES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

A. INTRODUCTION Separate and apart from federally-obligated, public-use airports having the obligation, by and through the FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances, to “maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing,” the financial and operational survival of general aviation airports are dependent on the identification and utilization of multiple revenue and capital funding sources to develop, operate, and maintain the airport. This section will identify and review some common funding sources that may be available to the public-use, general aviation airports located in the County and included in the RAP, including aeronautical revenue funding sources, non-aeronautical revenue funding sources, and capital funding sources. B. AERONAUTICAL REVENUE FUNDING SOURCES 1. Aeronautical Land and Improvement Rents In addition to the primary function of operating and managing the airfield infrastructure of the airport (e.g., runways, taxiways, and associated aprons), most airport sponsors can be, and should be, considered a real estate management company. The single greatest asset that an airport sponsor has to generate revenues is the land surrounding the airfield. The highest and best use of this land is aeronautical activities. Therefore, the single greatest revenue funding sources for an airport are typically the (1) leasing of airport land and/or improvements for aeronautical use. In Figure 4, some examples of aeronautical land and improvement uses are identified. Figure 4: Aeronautical Land and Improvement Uses

Aircraft Storage FAA Improvements FBO Improvements SASO Improvements Improvements and and Facilities and Facilities and Facilities Facilities •Control tower •General aviation •Aircraft maintenance •Ramp (including •Approach equipment terminal building and repair tiedown spaces) •Navigation •Offices •Avionics and •Shadeports equipment •Shops instruments •T‐hangars •Storage •Aircraft rental •Executive/box •Aircraft hangars •Flight training hangars •Ramp •Aircraft charter •Community hangars •Vehicle parking areas •Aircraft management •Corporate hangars •Fuel storage •Specialized services •Maintenance hangars

Following are descriptions of the available models for airport sponsors to generate revenue funding sources from the “leasing” of airport land.  Traditional Lessor Model: Real estate development at airports typically follow the traditional model whereby the airport sponsor enters into a land lease for a set term and for a market land rent. Although this approach offers the airport a steady and predictable income stream, any opportunity to share in the more lucrative sublessee rent is left exclusively for the developer. When an airport sponsor is taking no risk in a development project, the traditional lessor/lessee model approach is appropriate.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 65 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

FUNDING SOURCES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

 Equity Participation Model: In situations where private enterprise may not be in a position to make an investment or the opportunity does not return a sufficient return on investment for the private enterprise, the airport sponsor could swap a portion of the land rent in exchange for a share of future revenue streams. In addition, when entrepreneurial airport sponsors are willing to assume some development risk, they can have the opportunity to enhance cash flow from development projects by contributing the land in return for retaining an equity stake in the developed property. Contributing an asset (such as land) in exchange for equity is referred to as equity participation.  Direct Ownership Model: Depending on the airport sponsor’s circumstances, the direct ownership model is a valid option for consideration. However, direct ownership increases the airport sponsor’s risk. Focusing on the development of land for commercial real estate provides a good illustration of the factors that must be taken with the direct ownership option. Direct ownership involves the airport sponsor assuming the role of developer and, therefore, the obligations and risks inherent in that role. The airport sponsor owns the entire project and receives all the profits. Should the project fail to meet projections, the airport sponsor assumes the losses of the failed project, as opposed to being a traditional lessor. Given that most airports are not tax paying enterprises, such losses do not provide a tax incentive to them, as they might to a tax paying private party. The second significant risk is the financing. Should the project fail to generate sufficient cash flow to amortize debt, the airport sponsor is responsible for all shortfalls. The reward for assumption of all these risks is the receipt of 100% of the profits of successful developments. Accordingly, solid financial forecasts are crucial to any analysis of the viability of a project to determine whether such profits are likely to be sufficient to make the risk worthwhile. 2. Aeronautical Fees Based on AMCG’s industry experience and supported by the information contained in the firm’s proprietary industry database (which is utilized to track, monitor, and analyze general aviation aeronautical fee data and trends), AMCG has identified current industry practices related to general aviation aeronautical fees. It is important to note that, in AMCG’s opinion, certain industry practices are not necessarily representative of best practices11. Within this context, a summary of these findings which, in AMCG’s opinion, are representative of current industry practices for establishing general aviation aeronautical fees follows:  Fuel Flowage Fees: Fuel flowage fees are currently the most common general aviation fee implemented by airport sponsors to recover the costs associated with operating and maintaining the airport for use by aeronautical users. Fuel flowage fees are typically collected directly by the airport sponsor on a monthly basis. When a fuel flowage fee is charged by an airport sponsor, fueling entities (including both commercial and non-commercial entities) are typically required through a lease agreement or permit to collect and/or pay a fuel flowage fee for each gallon of fuel sold or dispensed at the airport. Fuel flowage fees are typically paid on a “cents per gallon” basis and typically range from $0.05 to $0.40 per gallon.

11 For the purposes of this document, best practices are defined as the most effective and practical methods or techniques for achieving an objective while making the optimal use of the airport’s assets and resources.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 66 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

FUNDING SOURCES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

 Through Put Fees: While throughput fees have not always been charged by airport sponsors to recover the costs associated with using an airport sponsor owned fuel storage facility by commercial and non-commercial aeronautical users, this fee is becoming more common to ensure equitable treatment of similarly situated operators. This fee is designed to recover the investment, capital costs, and operating costs related to an operator utilizing an airport sponsor owned fuel storage facility. Throughput fees are typically paid on a “cents per gallon” basis for each gallon of fuel sold or dispensed by a commercial or non-commercial operator utilizing the airport sponsor owned fuel storage facility. Throughput fees are typically collected directly by the airport sponsor on a monthly basis.  Transient Aircraft Fees: Historically, transient aircraft fees have not been charged by airport sponsors to general aviation aircraft operators. However, airports are beginning to consider transient aircraft fees as a method to augment the loss of fuel flowage fees in the event a transient aircraft operator does not purchase fuel or fuel is not sold at the airport. When charged, transient aircraft fees are typically based on an average uplift mechanism (airport specific or industry standard) and the existing fuel flowage fee at the airport. Typically, transient aircraft fees are charged in accordance with an established schedule (i.e., aircraft within designated size ranges pay the same fee) and a minimum fee may be specified. In some cases, piston aircraft can be exempt from transient aircraft fees. Transient aircraft fees may be collected directly by the airport sponsor or the airport sponsor may have an agreement with a commercial operator to collect and remit transient aircraft fees. The agreement may allow the commercial operator to retain a portion of the transient aircraft fees collected as compensation for services rendered by the commercial operator. The amount retained is often referred to as an administrative fee.  Landing Fees: Historically, landing fees have not been charged by airport sponsors to general aviation aircraft operators. Due to advancements in technology, more airports are beginning to charge landing fees as an alternative to, or in addition to, fuel flowage fees. Additionally, airport sponsors may charge a landing fee for certain activities occurring at the airport. When charged, landing fees are most commonly based on aircraft weight and a “cents per 1,000 pounds” approach using historic costs and the annual gross landed weight for all aircraft using the airport. In the alternative, landing fees can be charged in accordance with an established schedule (i.e., aircraft within designated weight ranges pay the same fee) and a minimum fee may be specified. In some cases, based aircraft and/or aircraft under a specified weight (e.g., 5,000 pounds MGLW) can be exempt from landing fees. Landing fees may be collected directly by the airport sponsor or the airport sponsor may have an agreement with a commercial operator to collect and remit landing fees. The agreement may allow the commercial operator to retain a portion of the landing fees collected as compensation for services rendered by the commercial operator. The amount retained is often referred to as an administrative fee.  Transient Parking Fees: Transient parking fees are common throughout the industry and typically charged for the use of airport sponsor owned ramp areas for aircraft parking. Fees may be charged for day use (which is sometimes referred to as a ramp fee), overnight, and/or monthly use (which is commonly referred to as tiedown fee and charged to based aircraft). While more commercial operators (e.g., Fixed Base Operators – FBOs) charge ramp fees for general aviation aircraft parking on a commercial operator’s leased premises, this type of fee

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 67 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

FUNDING SOURCES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

is not as common for airport sponsors, except when a commercial operator is operating and/or managing a ramp area on behalf of the airport sponsor. Typically, transient parking fees are charged in accordance with an established schedule (i.e., aircraft within designated weight and/or size ranges pay the same fee) and a minimum fee may be specified. In the alternative, transient parking fees may be charged on a “cents per 1,000 pounds” approach and a minimum fee may be specified. Transient parking fees may by collected directly by the airport sponsor or the airport sponsor may have an agreement with a commercial operator to collect and remit transient parking fees. The agreement may allow the commercial operator to retain a portion of the transient parking fee collected as compensation for services rendered by the commercial operator. The amount retained is often referred to as an administrative fee.  Based Aircraft Fee: Historically, based aircraft fees have not been charged by airport sponsors to general aviation based aircraft. However, more airports are beginning to consider based aircraft fees as an alternative to fuel flowage fees or to augment landing fees if based aircraft are exempt from the landing fee. When charged, based aircraft fees are most commonly based on aircraft weight and a “cents per 1,000 pounds” approach (similar to landing fees). In the alternative, based aircraft fees can be charged in accordance with an established schedule (i.e., aircraft within designated weight and/or size ranges pay the same fee). Based aircraft fees may be collected directly by the airport sponsor or the airport sponsor may have an agreement with a commercial operator to collect and remit based aircraft fees. The agreement may allow the commercial operator to retain a portion of the based aircraft fees collected as compensation for services rendered by the commercial operator. The amount retained is often referred to as an administrative fee.  Percentage of Gross Receipts: Over the years, a percentage of gross receipts fee has become less common. In those instances where a percentage of gross receipts is charged, revenue related to fuel sales to based and transient users are typically exempt from inclusion, especially when fuel flowage fees are charged by the airport sponsor. In addition, other general aviation sales (e.g., aircraft sales, parts, and accessories) may also be exempt due to the product (as opposed to service) nature and the high dollar amounts typically involved. According to the Airport Development Acceleration Act (Anti-Head Tax Act) of 1973, a percentage of gross receipts cannot be charged for aircraft charter activities since such activities are subject to a ticket or segment tax. The amount of the fee and any exceptions or exemptions is typically stipulated in the lease agreement between the airport sponsor and the commercial operator. Percentage of gross receipts fees are typically collected directly by the airport sponsor on a monthly or annual basis.  Commercial Aeronautical Permit Fees: Commercial aeronautical permit fees are becoming more common to recover the administrative time and costs of the airport sponsor pertaining to inspection and audit of commercial operators. When charged, commercial aeronautical permit fees are typically charged on a monthly or annual basis depending on the type of aeronautical activity being conducted. Commercial aeronautical permit fees are typically based on a flat amount that must be paid to obtain a permit to operate a commercial business at the airport. The operating permit typically expires on an annual basis, thus requiring commercial aeronautical permit fees to be paid annually for renewal. Commercial aeronautical permit fees are typically collected directly by the airport sponsor on a monthly or annual basis.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 68 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

FUNDING SOURCES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

C. NON-AERONAUTICAL REVENUE FUNDING SOURCES 1. Non-Aeronautical Land and Improvement Rents While most airport land has certain restrictions related to non-aeronautical use, the FAA recognizes that in order for certain airports to fulfill their obligation of making the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing that it is sometimes necessary for the FAA to release the airport sponsor of these restrictions when certain lands and improvements are not needed in the near term for aeronautical use. Therefore, another excellent revenue funding source for airports can be the (1) leasing of airport land for the development of lessee owned improvements for non-aeronautical use and (2) leasing of land and improvements and facilities owned by the airport sponsor for non-aeronautical use by lessees. It is important to remember that, generally, the FAA must approve any non-aeronautical use of airport land and improvements designated for aeronautical use purposes. In Figure 5, some examples of non-aeronautical land and improvement uses are identified. Figure 5: Non-Aeronautical Land and Improvement Uses

Recreational Commercial Office and Storage Other

•Campground •Convenience store •Educational •Advertising •Entertainment center •Hotel or motel institution billboards •Golf course •Rental car facility •Industrial park •Agriculture and •Hunting and fishing •Restaurant •Office building forestry •Hiking and biking •Shopping (retail) •Storage units •Cellular telephone towers •Skate park center •Technology park •Oil, gas, or mineral •Race (go‐cart) track •Automobile •Warehouse exploration, dealership •Vehicle Parking •Gaming production, or •Gasoline station •RV and boat storage extraction •Car wash •Public safety or emergency services

2. Non-Aeronautical Fees Based on AMCG’s industry experience and supported by the information contained in the firm’s proprietary industry database (which is utilized to track, monitor, and analyze general aviation non- aeronautical fee data and trends), AMCG has identified current industry practices related to general aviation non-aeronautical fees. It is important to note that, in AMCG’s opinion, certain industry practices are not necessarily representative of best practices. Within this context, a summary of these findings which, in AMCG’s opinion, are representative of current industry practices for establishing general aviation non-aeronautical fees follows:  Access Fees: Historically, access fees have not been charged by airport sponsors to general aviation users. However, more airports are implementing security measures and beginning to charge access fees. Typically, access fees are charged in accordance with an established schedule on a monthly or annual basis. Depending on the approach and infrastructure, the access fee may be charged for individual access (for an airport badge, gate card, keys, or other instrument) or for vehicle access (vehicle permit or another

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 69 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

FUNDING SOURCES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

instrument). Access fees are typically collected directly by the airport sponsor upon issuance of the badge, gate card, keys, permit, and/or other instrument. Additionally, access fees are typically collected on an annual basis.  Non-Aeronautical Activity Fees: Historically, non-aeronautical activity fees have not been charged by airport sponsors. However, consistent with FAA requirements, more airports are implementing a non-aeronautical activity fee program to charge for the non-aeronautical use of airport property. Typically, non-aeronautical activity fees (e.g., special events fees, commercial filming fees, use fees, etc.) are charged on a case-by-case basis depending on the length of time, impact to airport operations, necessity of additional staffing, and number of people accessing the airport. Non-aeronautical activity fees are typically collected directly by the airport sponsor upon issuance of a permit for the non-aeronautical use of airport property. D. CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES Obtaining sufficient capital funds to maintain and improve the Airports is the central challenge for the Siskiyou County system of airports. This section identifies aeronautical and non- aeronautical sources of capital funds. Generally, only the aeronautical oriented grant programs will fund airfield maintenance projects. However, a number of capital funding sources are available to subsidize new improvements. 1. Federal Aviation Administration For most public airports, the Airports Improvement Program (AIP), administered by the FAA, is the principal source of capital funds for airport development projects. Airports must be listed in the NPIAS to be eligible to receive AIP grants. Airports with no based aircraft or that are located within 20 minutes driving time of a larger airport typically do not qualify for being in NPIAS. This is the reason Montague, Butte Valley, and Happy Camp are not in the NPIAS. Most capital projects at general aviation airports are eligible for AIP funding. Common projects are as follows:  maintenance of existing or construction of new runways, taxiways, taxilanes, electrical systems, and drainage systems;  construction of security or wildlife exclusion fencing;  construction of navigation or landing aids such as: rotating beacons, Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOS), Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI), and runway edge lights;  preparation of airport master plans and airport layout plan updates; and  preparation of federal environmental documents associated with grant-eligible projects. Airports must submit a five-year airport capital improvement program (ACIP) to the FAA annually. This submittal is used to define both the projects and the funding being sought, along with the requested grant amounts. Annual discussions between the airport and FAA staff are used to align airport requests with FAA priorities.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 70 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

FUNDING SOURCES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

AIP grant funds are distributed in two ways, as described below. In California, FAA grants require a 10% match. This is commonly met by a combination of local funds and a grant from the California AIP Matching Grant program (discussed below).  Entitlement Funds: General aviation airports in NPIAS are annually allocated $150,000 in FAA grant funds. These funds can be aggregated for four years before they expire. It is possible to transfer these funds between airports operated by the same agency or to transfer them to another agency that operates a NPIAS airport.  Discretionary Funds: For projects that require funds beyond those available from the entitlement program, airports can compete for discretionary funds. NPIAS airports in Siskiyou County will be competing with grant requests from airports in northern California administered by the FAA’s San Francisco Airports District Office. For large grant requests, there is normally a three-year lead time to get the grant programmed. 2. California Division of Aeronautics The California Division of Aeronautics administers four programs that can be used for capital funding. The funds are allocated by the California Transportation Commission from revenues received from State aviation fuel taxes.  Annual Credit Grant: Publicly-owned, public-use General Aviation airports in California, other than those designated as a reliever airport, are annually allocated a $10,000 Annual Credit Grant. This grant may be used for eligible capital improvements and/or towards the operation of the airport. These funds can be used for a much wider range of aviation-related expenses than FAA grants or other State grants. This grant program is structured as a reimbursement program (e.g., no match is required).  AIP Matching Grant: Public-use General Aviation and Reliever airports in California are eligible to receive an AIP Matching Grant up to 5% matching funds required to obtain an FAA AIP grant (this equates to 4.75% of the total project amount). The AIP Matching Grant reduces the airport sponsor’s matching amount from 10% to 5.25% of the FAA AIP grant. A significant complication of this program is that the airport sponsor cannot apply for this grant until it receives an FAA AIP grant award letter. These funds are limited and commonly are not sufficient to provide matching funds for all agencies that request them. This forces airport sponsors to accept the FAA AIP grant offer before knowing that an AIP Matching Grant will be available.  Acquisition and Development Grant: Funds for the Acquisition and Development Grant program derive from State aviation funds not allocated for the Annual Credit Grant or AIP Matching Grant programs. State law indicates that these funds may be used for acquisition and development of airports and ALUCPs. In practice, most of the funds are used for maintenance of airfield pavement or similar basic projects. Grants are limited to $500,000 annually, with a 10% airport sponsor match required. For a project to be eligible, it must be submitted though the State’s Capital Improvement Plan program.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 71 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

FUNDING SOURCES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

 Loan Program: Funds from this California Airport Loan Program may be broadly used for construction and land acquisition projects that benefit a public-use, general aviation airport or improve its financial self-sufficiency. Historically these loans have been commonly used to construct revenue-generating facilities such as aviation fueling stations and hangars. However, they may also be used to provide the local match for AIP grants. Funding varies with the available balance in the Local Airport Loan Account. This is a revolving fund in which the principal and interest payments received on loans are used to fund new loans. 3. Other Federal Funding Sources Several federal agencies administer grant programs. The ones most likely to be relevant to airports are described below.  Federal Transit Administration (FTA): The FTA administers a large number of grant programs (see https://www.transit.dot.gov/grants) related to various types of transit systems. Some programs are directly administered by FTA and some are administered by states. A few of these programs directly target rural areas and small cities. The potential value of these grants is to connect airports to adjacent communities. Grants could be used to develop stops at airports or expand bus service to airports. These are competitive grants.  Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance Programs: The Economic Development Administration administers the Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance Programs. These competitive grants can be used for capital investments as well as economic planning and revolving loan programs. Grants can be awarded for amounts from $100,000 to $3 million. The principal limitation is that construction grants must show how jobs will be directly created by the grant-funded project. The potential value for the airports is in providing facilities for a prospective tenant that have documentable jobs once constructed. Siskiyou County Airport is the most plausible site for a project of this size, because of the amount of land available for development.  U.S. Forest Service Grants: The USFS has grant programs that have a limited potential to be of value to airports located in forested areas. For example, a project that replaces trees that were obstructions with trees with lower heights at maturity could be successful in obtaining a grant. The program with the highest grant potential is the National Urban and Community Forestry Challenge Cost Share Grant. The amount available in recent years has ranged from $500,000 to $900,000 annually.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 72 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

FUNDING SOURCES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): FEMA has a grant program that funds projects that will reduce impacts of future disasters. The program is funded under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. In 2019, a grant from this program was awarded to the City of Willits for the removal of trees that penetrated the airspace around its airport. Airports with adjacent forested areas, such as Happy Camp and Dunsmuir, might be able to obtain grants for similar purposes.  U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development: The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development office administers several programs of potential relevance to the airports in Siskiyou County. The programs most likely to be of value are:  Community Facilities Direct Loan and Grant Program: This program has the potential to fund public-use facilities, such as a general aviation terminal, at the Siskiyou County Airport. Since a wide variety of projects could qualify for this grant, there may be other ways that this source could be used.  Rural Energy for American Program: This program might fund the development of a solar farm at any airports which have sufficient land.  Business and Cooperatives Program: This program could be used to support development of a business, aviation-related or nonaviation, on airports with available land.  Rural Utilities Service: This program could possibly be used to fund needed improvements to the wastewater treatment at Siskiyou County Airport. The challenge would be demonstrating job creation. 4. Other State of California Funding Sources Several state agencies administer grant programs that could be used for infrastructure development. The ones most likely to be useful for airports in Siskiyou County are described below.  State Water Resources Control Board: The State Water Resources Control Board operates a number of grant and loan programs that can be used for water and wastewater treatment projects. These funds could help provide needed improvements to water and wastewater treatment at the Siskiyou County Airport. Programs include:  Proposition 1 Small Community Wastewater grants  Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program loans  Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program loans  Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loans

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 73 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

FUNDING SOURCES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

 California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank): IBank operates a loan program through its Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Program. Loans are available to fund a variety of infrastructure projects. A project must promote economic development that attracts, creates, and sustains long-term employment opportunities. Potential projects include sewer and water systems, general aviation terminal/fixed base operation buildings, and aircraft storage hangars.  California Energy Commission (CEC): The CEC offers two loan programs for energy efficiency and energy generation projects. One program has no interest rate, while the other is one percent. This program can be used to fund energy generation projects, such as solar farms. Program funds can also be used to purchase water and wastewater treatment equipment. 5. Local Agency Capital Funding Sources For completeness, it is appropriate to note that Siskiyou County and the two municipalities that operate airports have two general sources of funds that can be applied to airport operating and capital needs.  General Fund Revenues: In many cases, general aviation airports receive subsidies from the airport sponsor to cover operating deficits or provide matching funds required to receive federal and state grants. Some airports may also receive subsidies from other municipalities or counties that benefit from the presence of the airport. Tax revenues that contribute to the agency’s general fund can be used for airport capital projects. Airport projects must compete with the wide range of services and facilities operated by these agencies.  Bond Revenues: Local agencies can issue various types of general obligation or revenue bonds for capital investments. Bonds are expensive to develop and are typically only cost- effective for large capital projects. They are not well suited for airfield maintenance projects. They could be relevant if a project would produce significant revenue or tax benefits to the local agency.  Special Taxing District: Some general aviation airports receive funding through property taxes, both directly and indirectly. An airport may be granted direct taxing authority through state legislation when a stand-alone entity, such as an airport authority, is established to own and operate an airport. In other situations, airports may indirectly benefit from the taxing authority of the airport sponsor, such as a municipality or county, when a portion of the taxes collected by the airport sponsor are designated for the airport. For example, the Truckee Tahoe Airport District, which owns and operates Truckee Tahoe Airport in Truckee, California, receives a share of property taxes collected within the district.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 74 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

FUNDING SOURCES SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

6. Private Capital Funding Sources Although there are many sources for private grants or donations, most focus on general community programs and facilities. They could be combined with larger funding sources that include employment generation.  McConnell Fund: The McConnell Funds are managed by the Shasta Regional Community Foundation. Many of the projects funded are upgrades and repairs (such as a new roof) to existing facilities that serve the public. It could potentially be used to upgrade the pilots’ lounge/general aviation terminal buildings.  Company Donations: While less common, private donations may also be a source of funding. Donations can be used as matching funds to help secure a grant or as capital for projects, vehicles, equipment, tools, and materials that may not be eligible under federal and state grant programs. Larger businesses that service Siskiyou County have occasionally provided donations for community-oriented projects. These have included banks with offices in Siskiyou County and Pacific Power. Wealthy families with ties to Siskiyou County are also a potential source of donations. For example, a local businesswoman offered to donate $10,000 to the Norwalk-Huron County Airport in Norwalk, Ohio, to be used as matching funds to help secure an AIP grant. In North Carolina, businesses benefiting from the presence of the Raleigh Executive Jetport at Sanford-Lee County donated money to furnish and decorate rooms in a new general aviation terminal building. A plaque in each room acknowledges the donation and recognizes each contributor. In all cases, the challenge will be to define an airport-related project that is meaningful to the company or family. These sources, unlikely to be a sole source for major capital improvements, could, however, support smaller projects.  Public-Private Partnerships (P3s): P3s take many forms. A common example involves a private operator bidding for control of certain assets of a public enterprise. The bidder calculates a net present value for the assets to be acquired and enters into a long-term lease with the public enterprise (e.g., the airport sponsor). The lease term must be sufficiently long to allow the bidder to amortize the upfront payment in full and enjoy a reasonable rate of return. Due to the reliability of the cash flow and the more favorable rates of return, P3s have become popular with pension and insurance funds. Sponsor grants a private entity the right to design, build, maintain, operate, or finance buildings or infrastructure. Many options exist regarding division of responsibilities for construction, financing, management, and payment to the sponsor who maintains ownership of the particular asset.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 75 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

APPENDIX A: SURVEY SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

The Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission (SCLTC) has engaged the services of Aviation Management Consulting Group (AMCG) and Mead & Hunt (M&H) to conduct all necessary research, technical analysis, and community outreach to develop a Regional Aviation Plan 2020-2024 (RAP) for all public-use airports located in Siskiyou County (County). The RAP will provide the SCLTC a comprehensive and coordinated aviation plan whereby the airport sponsors of the seven public-use, general aviation airports located within the County can identify all available revenue and funding sources, enhance existing revenue and funding sources, and prioritize funding to sustain and enhance the “system of airports”.

The results from this survey will better assist AMCG and M&H in understanding the needs and desires of current and future based aircraft customers and local users of the seven public-use, general aviation airports located in the County. The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. While your participation in this survey is completely voluntary, your opinion and input is valued. Your survey responses will be strictly confidential and data from this survey will only be reported in aggregate. Your information will be coded and will remain confidential. If you have any questions, do not hesitate contacting Jeff Kohlman (Managing Principal, AMCG) at 303.792.5203 or [email protected].

Thank you very much for your time and support. Please start with the survey now by clicking on the Continue button below.

Do you have an aircraft based (either permanently or seasonally) at a public-use, general aviation airport in Siskiyou County? 1. Yes 2. No

Do you rent or operate aircraft at a public-use, general aviation airport in Siskiyou County? 1. Rent 2. Operate

Identify which airport you primarily rent or operate aircraft from. 1. Butte Valley Airport (A32) 2. Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport (1O6) 3. Happy Camp (36S) 4. Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field (1O5) 5. Scott Valley Airport (A30) 6. Siskiyou County Airport (SIY) 7. Weed Airport (O46)

Identify which airport your aircraft is based at (either permanently or seasonally). 1. Butte Valley Airport (A32) - Permanently 2. Butte Valley (A32) - Seasonally 3. Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport (1O6) - Permanently 4. Dunsmuir Municipal-Mott Airport (1O6) - Seasonally 5. Happy Camp (36S) - Permanently 6. Happy Camp (36S) - Seasonally 7. Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field (1O5) - Permanently 8. Montague-Yreka Rohrer Field (1O5) - Seasonally 9. Scott Valley Airport (A30) - Permanently 10. Scott Valley Airport (A30) - Seasonally 11. Siskiyou County Airport (SIY) - Permanently 12. Siskiyou County Airport (SIY) - Seasonally 13. Weed Airport (O46) - Permanently 14. Weed Airport (O46) - Seasonally

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 76 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

APPENDIX A: SURVEY SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

What type of aircraft storage facility do you rent/utilize at the airport selected? 1. Apron 2. Tiedown 3. T-Hangar 4. Shade Hangar 5. Executive Hangar 6. Corporate Hangar 7. Community Hangar 8. Other ______

Would you like to rent/utilize a different type of aircraft storage facility? 1. Yes 2. No

What type of aircraft storage facility would you like to rent/utilize? 1. Apron 2. Tiedown 3. T-Hangar 4. Shade Hangar 5. Executive Hangar 6. Corporate Hangar 7. Community Hangar 8. Other ______

What type of aircraft do you own and/or operate? 1. Piston Single Engine 2. Piston Multi Engine 3. Turboprop Single Engine 4. Turboprop Multi Engine 5. Jet (less than 12,500 pounds MTOW) 6. Other

How do you operate aircraft out of the airport selected? 1. Part 91 2. Part 91K 3. Part 135 4. Other

How many average landings per month do you make at the airport selected?

Is your primary residence in or near Siskiyou County? 1. Yes (in Siskiyou County) 2. Yes (near Siskiyou County) 3. No

How close is your primary residence to the airport selected? 1. 1 to 5 miles 2. 5 to 10 miles 3. 11 to 15 miles 4. 16 to 20 miles 5. 21 to 25 miles 6. 26 to 30 miles 7. 31 to 35 miles 8. 36 or more miles

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 77 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

APPENDIX A: SURVEY SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Please rate each of the following airport attributes based on their importance for the reason you use the airport selected.

Absolute Very Somewhat Less Not N/A Necessity Important Important Important Important Location to Local Residence ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Location to Business/Customers ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Pilot and Passenger Facilities/Amenities ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Aircraft Storage (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Aircraft Storage (Pricing) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Number and Type of Approach Procedures ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Number and Type of Departure Procedures ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Approach Lighting ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ AWOS ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Runway Length ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Runway Width ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Runway Weight Bearing Capacity ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Fueling Service (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Fuel Service (Pricing) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Aircraft Maintenance & Repair (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Aircraft Rental (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Flight Training (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

Please identify any additional airport attributes that should be rated and provide a rating for the airport selected.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 78 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

APPENDIX A: SURVEY SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

What impact would the following scenarios have on the number of aircraft landings you have at the airport selected?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Increased Runway Length ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Increased Runway Width ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Increased Runway Weight Bearing Capacity ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ New or Enhanced IFR Approach Procedures ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ New or Enhanced IFR Departure Procedures ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Addition of Approach Lighting ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Addition of AWOS ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Addition of Fueling Services (if none) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Addition of Aircraft Maintenance (if none) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Addition of Aircraft Rental (if none) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Addition of Flight Training (if none) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

Please identify any additional scenarios that would positively impact the number of aircraft landings you have at the airport selected and the level of impact.

What impact would the following scenarios have on the number of aircraft landings you have at the airport selected?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decreased Runway Length ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Decreased Runway Width ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Decreased Runway Weight Bearing Capacity ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Loss of Fueling Services (if any) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Loss of Aircraft Maintenance (if any) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Loss of Aircraft Rental (if any) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Loss of Flight Training (if any) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 79 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

APPENDIX A: SURVEY SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Please identify any additional scenarios that would negatively impact the number of aircraft landings you have at the airport selected and the level of impact.

Airport Management and Operations: Please provide your rating in each of the following areas for the airport selected.

Excellent Good Average Below Poor average Communications with Airport Management/Staff ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Responsiveness of Airport Management/Staff ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Attitude of Airport Management/Staff ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Airport Safety ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Airport Security ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Airport Maintenance ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Perceived Support for Airport (State) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Perceived Support for Airport (Airport Owner/Operator) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Perceived Support for Airport (Community) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

Please identify any additional airport management and operation categories that should be rated and provide a rating for the airport selected.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 80 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt

APPENDIX A: SURVEY SISKIYOU COUNTY REGIONAL AVIATION PLAN

Airport Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services: Please provide your rating of the following categories for the airport selected.

Excellent Good Average Below Poor average Aircraft Storage (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Aircraft Storage (Type, Level, and Quality) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Aircraft Storage (Pricing) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Airport Infrastructure (Airside) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Airport Infrastructure (Landside) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Pilot and Passenger Facilities/Amenities (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Pilot and Passenger Facilities/Amenities (Type, Level, and Quality) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Vehicle Parking (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Vehicle Parking (Type, Level, and Quality) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Avgas Fuel (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Jet Fuel (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Aircraft Maintenance (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Aircraft Maintenance (Type, Level, and Quality) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Aircraft Rental (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Aircraft Rental (Type, Level, and Quality) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Flight Training (Availability) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Flight Training (Type, Level, and Quality) ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

Please identify any additional airport infrastructure, facilities or services that should be rated and provide a rating for the airport selected.

Please provide any additional comments and/or suggestions either related to the airport you selected or the other airports located in Siskiyou County.

Please identify any Siskiyou County businesses or government agencies that you believe benefit from one of the airports located in Siskiyou County.

Client: Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission DRAFT 04/01/2020 81 Consultant Team: Aviation Management Consulting Group and Mead & Hunt Agenda Worksheet

TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DATE: April 14, 2020

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 12

Ongoing Reports

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SUMMARY (Description of Issue):

A STAGE representative will report on activities affecting the administration and operations of the transit system.

The Executive Director will report on activities affecting transportation funding and programs in the region and beyond.

Communications Received: Del Norte Transportation Commission-Collaboration on preparation of Regional Transportation Plan.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Informational only.