DOCSLIB.ORG

Airport Master Plan Update Phase I Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Airport Master Plan Update Phase I Report Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Update Phase I Report Airport Master Plan Update Phase 1 Report Prepared for Lake Tahoe Airport By C&S Engineers, Inc. 2020 Camino Del Rio North Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92108 March 2015 FAA AIP No. 3-06-0249-033 “The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration as provided in the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. The contents of this report reflect the analysis and finding of C&S Engineers, Inc., who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted therein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable with applicable Public Laws.” The contents of this planning study are not intended for the purposes of navigation or as an alternative to published Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations or guidance. Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Update Phase I Report TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1-1 1.01 PLANNING SCOPE AND GUIDELINES ................................................ 1-2 1.02 THE PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................ 1-3 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................... 2-1 2.01 BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 2-1 2.01-1 Airport System Planning Role ................................................ 2-1 2.01-2 Surrounding Airports .............................................................. 2-3 2.01-3 Airport History .......................................................................... 2-3 2.01-4 Airport Setting ......................................................................... 2-4 2.01-5 Ownership and Operations ................................................ 2-13 2.01-6 Airport Economic Impact ................................................... 2-14 2.01-7 Emergency Services and Disaster Relief ........................... 2-16 2.02 INVENTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES ..................... 2-17 2.02-1 Airspace ................................................................................ 2-21 2.02-2 Airside Facilities .................................................................... 2-33 2.02-3 Landside Facilities ................................................................ 2-39 2.02-4 Support Facilities and Equipment ...................................... 2-45 2.02-5 Access, Circulation and Parking ........................................ 2-46 2.02-6 Utilities/Energy ...................................................................... 2-47 2.02-7 Waste Management and Recycling ................................ 2-48 2.03 REGIONAL SETTING AND LAND USE ............................................... 2-48 2.03-1 Climate and Topography ................................................... 2-48 2.03-2 Land Use and Zoning ........................................................... 2-53 2.04 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA ............................................................. 2-59 2.04-1 Population Trends ................................................................ 2-59 2.04-2 Industry, Employment, and Personal Income .................. 2-60 2.05 HISTORICAL AIRSPACE ACTIVITY .................................................... 2-61 2.05-1 Annual Operations .............................................................. 2-61 2.05-2 Commercial Service Activity .............................................. 2-65 2.05-3 Based and Itinerant Aircraft ............................................... 2-69 2.05-4 Design Aircraft ...................................................................... 2-70 2.05-5 Airport Design Standards .................................................... 2-71 2.06 POLICIES AND PLANS ................................................................... 2-75 2.07 FINANCIAL DATA ......................................................................... 2-77 2.07-1 Operating Revenues and Expenses .................................. 2-78 2.07-2 Capital Funding ................................................................... 2-79 i Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Update Phase I Report 2.08 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 2-81 2.09 SUSTAINABILITY BASELINE ASSESSMENT .......................................... 2-103 2.09-1 Defining Sustainability ........................................................ 2-103 2.09-2 Current Initiatives ............................................................... 2-105 2.10 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ........................................................... 2-108 2.11 KEY ISSUES ................................................................................ 2-109 CHAPTER 3 - FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND .................................... 3-1 3.01 FUTURE OPERATIONAL ROLE OF THE AIRPORT ................................... 3-1 3.02 GENERAL AVIATION DEMAND FORECAST ........................................ 3-1 3.02-1 Methodology .......................................................................... 3-1 3.02-2 Aviation Demand Forecast .................................................. 3-2 3.03 DEMAND FORECAST SUMMARY ...................................................... 3-5 3.04 COMPARISON WITH FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST ....................... 3-5 3.05 DESIGN AIRCRAFT ......................................................................... 3-6 CHAPTER 4 - FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND SUSTAINABILITY OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.01 AIRFIELD CAPACITY ....................................................................... 4-1 4.01-2 Annual Service Volume ......................................................... 4-3 4.01-3 Hourly Capacity ..................................................................... 4-3 4.02 AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS ................................................................. 4-4 4.02-1 Airport Design Standards and Critical Aircraft ................... 4-4 4.02-2 Runway Orientation ............................................................... 4-8 4.02-3 Runway Length Analysis ...................................................... 4-11 4.02-4 Runway Width Analysis ........................................................ 4-13 4.02-5 Runway Pavement Strength ............................................... 4-13 4.02-6 Taxiway System .................................................................... 4-14 4.02-7 Instrumentation and Lighting ............................................. 4-15 4.02-8 Airfield Signage .................................................................... 4-15 4.02-9 Land Requirements .............................................................. 4-16 4.02-10 Airspace & Obstruction Analysis ........................................ 4-16 4.03 LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................. 4-17 4.03-1 Based Aircraft Storage ........................................................ 4-17 4.03-2 Transient Aircraft Storage .................................................... 4-18 4.03-3 Support Area Requirements ............................................... 4-19 4.04 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 4-22 4.04-1 Airfield .................................................................................... 4-22 4.04-2 Aircraft Parking ..................................................................... 4-23 4.04-3 Terminal ................................................................................. 4-23 4.04-4 Aircraft Fueling ..................................................................... 4-23 4.04-5 Landside (Parking, Access, Utilities) ................................... 4-23 4.04-6 Management Initiatives ...................................................... 4-23 ii Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Update Phase I Report 4.05 SUSTAINABILITY ............................................................................ 4-24 4.05-1 Goals ..................................................................................... 4-24 4.05-2 Potential Opportunities ....................................................... 4-25 TABLES TABLE 2-1 GASNA RECOMMENDED MINIMUM STANDARDS .................... 2-2 TABLE 2-2 NEIGHBORING AIRPORTS ............................................................ 2-5 TABLE 2-3 INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES .................................. 2-24 TABLE 2-4 RUNWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ....................................... 2-34 TABLE 2-5 TAXIWAY CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................... 2-36 TABLE 2-6 HANGAR COMPLEX INVENTORY .............................................. 2-43 TABLE 2-7 HISTORICAL ANNUAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ........................ 2-63 TABLE 2-8 BASED FIXED WING AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS ................. 2-69 TABLE 2-9 BASED HELICOPTER AIRCRAFT. CHARACTERISTICS ................ 2-69 TABLE 2-10 TRANSIENT AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS .............................. 2-70 TABLE 2-11 AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS (ARC B-II) .............................. 2-73 (NOT LOWER THAN 1 MILE VISIBILITY MINIMUMS)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness
    Appendices for the FEIS Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness Introduction This document describes the process used to evaluate the wilderness potential of areas on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). The March 2009 inventory conducted according to Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007 is the basis for this evaluation. The LTBMU was evaluated to determine landscape areas that exhibited inherent basic wilderness qualities such the degree of naturalness and undeveloped character. In addition to the wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must also provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment and area boundaries that could be managed as wilderness. It was determined that areas adjacent to existing wilderness and existing Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) were areas were most likely to have the characteristics described above. Other areas around the basin exhibited some of the required characteristics but not enough to be qualified for a congressional wilderness designation. Six areas were identified and evaluated. The analysis is based on GIS mapping of existing wilderness and inventoried roadless area polygon data, adjusted based on local knowledge. Three tests were used—capability, availability, and need—to determine suitability as described in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007. In addition to the inherent wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment. The area and boundaries must allow the area to be managed as wilderness. Capability is defined as the degree to which the area contains the basic characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness designation without regard to its availability for or need as wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Wildlife Program Annual Report Ecosystem Conservation Department Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
    2010 Wildlife Program Annual Report Ecosystem Conservation Department Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Written by Shay Zanetti (Wildlife Biologist), Leslie Farnham (Biological Science Technician), Sandra Harvill (Biological Science Technician), Debra Scolnick (Biological Science Technician), and Ellen Sherrill (Biological Science Technician) Reviewed by Stephanie Coppeto (Forest Wildlife Biologist) Approved by Holly Eddinger (Biological Program Leader) Table of Contents 1.0 CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL ............................................................................. 3 2.0 NORTHERN GOSHAWK .................................................................................... 10 3.0 OSPREY ................................................................................................................ 19 4.0 PEREGRINE FALCON......................................................................................... 23 5.0 GOLDEN EAGLE ................................................................................................. 24 6.0 BALD EAGLE....................................................................................................... 26 7.0 WILLOW FLYCATCHER .................................................................................... 28 8.0 BATS ..................................................................................................................... 32 ~ 2 ~ The Wildlife Group of the Ecosystem Conservation Department of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU or The Basin) and its partners conducted
    [Show full text]
  • El Dorado County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
    El Dorado County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2018 Adopted by FEMA, March 2019 EDC Board Of Supervisor's Adoption, April 23, 2019 This Page Left Intentionally Blank Executive Summary The purpose of hazard mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards. El Dorado County developed this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update to make the County and its residents less vulnerable to future hazard events. This plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 so that El Dorado County would be eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs. The County followed a planning process prescribed by FEMA, which began with the formation of a hazard mitigation planning committee (HMPC) comprised of key County representatives, and other regional stakeholders. The HMPC conducted a risk assessment that identified and profiled hazards that pose a risk to the County, assessed the County’s vulnerability to these hazards, and examined the capabilities in place to mitigate them. The County is vulnerable to several hazards that are identified, profiled, and analyzed in this plan. Floods, levee failures, wildfires, and severe weather are among the hazards that can have a significant impact on the County. Based on the risk assessment, the HMPC identified goals and objectives for reducing the County’s vulnerability to hazards. The goals and objectives of this multi-hazard mitigation plan are: Goal 1: Minimize risk and vulnerability of El Dorado County to the impacts of natural hazards and protect lives and reduce damages and losses to property, economy, public health and safety, and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Checklist Form
    INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NORTH FORK ANGORA CREEK RESTORATION AND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT WASHOE MEADOWS STATE PARK T T T F F F A A A R R R D D D April 30, 2013 State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Sierra District, Resources Office Tahoe City, California NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT: NORTH FORK ANGORA CREEK RESTORATION AND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT LEAD AGENCY: California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS: The Initial Study (IS) for this Negative Declaration (ND) is available for review at: • Sierra District Headquarters Department of Parks and Recreation 7360 West Lake Blvd. Tahoma, CA 96142 • South Lake Tahoe Library 1000 Rufus Allen Blvd. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 • California State Parks Internet Website www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=981 This project will stabilize headcuts and restore floodplain connectivity along the North Branch of Angora Creek and it’s infeeders and construct a foot bridge over Angora Creek. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has been prepared by DPR to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed North Fork Angora Creek Restoration and Bridge Replacement Project at Washoe Meadows State Park (WMSP), El Dorado County, California. A copy of the IS is attached. Questions or comments regarding this IS/ND may be addressed to: Cyndie Walck California State Parks [email protected] North Fork Angora Restoration Project Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), DPR has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration for the proposed project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of DPR.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Wildlife Program Annual Report Lake Tahoe Basin Management
    2008 Wildlife Program Annual Report Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Ecosystem Conservation Department Written by Shay Zanetti (Wildlife Biologist), Rena Escobedo (Wildlife Biologist), Blake Taylor (Biological Science Technician), and Ellen Sherrill (Biological Science Technician) Reviewed by Victor Lyon (Wildlife Biologist) Approved by Holly Eddinger (Forest Biologist) Page 1 of 50 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Species Addressed Summary..........................................................................3 1.1 California Spotted Owl...................................................3 1.2 Northern Goshawk……………………………………..11 1.3 Osprey………………………………………………...…17 1.4 Bald Eagle……………………………………………….21 1.5 Golden Eagle……………………………………………25 1.6 Barred Owl…….………………………………………..24 1.7 Peregrine Falcon………………………………………..25 1.8 Willow Flycatcher………………………………………26 1.9 Small Mammals………………………………………....30 1.10 Bats………………………………………………………33 1.11 Mountain Beaver………………………………………..36 2.0 Acknowledgements…………………………………………….36 3.0 References………………………………………………………37 Appendix 1……………………………………………………………..40 Appendix 2……………………………………………………………..41 Appendix 3……………………………………………………………..42 Appendix 4……………………………………………………………..43 Appendix 5……………………………………………………………..44 Appendix 6……………………………………………………………..45 Appendix 7……………………………………………………………..46 Appendix 8……………………………………………………………..47 Appendix 9……………………………………………………………..48 Appendix 10…………………………………………………………....49 Page 2 of 50 1.0 SPECIES ADDRESSED Summary of 2008 Survey Effort and Results California Spotted Owl: 29 survey areas, 11 spotted owls (3
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
    2009/2010 MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT USDA FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT January 2012 1 Table of Contents Chapter I – Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3 Chapter II – Lake Tahoe Clarity ......................................................................................... 5 II.1 Heavenly Mountain Resort....................................................................................... 5 II.2. Best Management Practices (BMP) Monitoring ..................................................... 6 II.2.a. Best Management Practice Evaluation Program (BMPEP) ................................. 6 II.2.b. Temporary BMP Monitoring ................................................................................ 7 II.3 Roads and Trails Monitoring.................................................................................... 8 II.3.b Trails Decommissioning and BMP Upgrades Monitoring .................................... 8 II.4 Urban Erosion Control Grant Program Monitoring ............................................... 10 II.5 Meyers Landfill Monitoring and Maintenance ...................................................... 11 Chapter III – Aquatic, Meadow, and Riparian Ecosystems .............................................. 14 III.1 Aquatic Amphibian, Reptile, and Plant Status and Trend Monitoring ................. 14 III.1.a Aquatic Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring ............................................. 14 III.1.b Aquatic
    [Show full text]
  • Bomb Squad Called to Lakeview Commons,19
    Bomb squad called to Lakeview Commons A pressure cooker similar to what was used in the Boston Marathon bombing was blown up in South Lake Tahoe on Sunday night by the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection Fire District bomb squad. South Lake Tahoe police officers wasted no time in calling in the neighboring agency to take care of the suspicious device after what happened in Boston, where three people were killed and more than 260 were injured by homemade pressure cooker bombs. The apparatus — which was actually a ricer cooker — was found at Lakeview Commons on June 30 after the Race the Lake of the Sky stand up paddleboard races concluded. Tahoe Douglas Fire Department’s bomb robot at Lakeview Commons on June 30. Photo/Jonathan Moore Eric Guevin with Tahoe Douglas Fire told Lake Tahoe News the cooker was found by a bear-proof garbage can, but it looked like it didn’t fit — so people left it by the side. He said the robot was sent in for recon, but it was not possible to get an X-ray of the cooker. That is why it was decided to blow up the device on scene. Food was all that was inside. Knowing what happened 3,000 mile away, authorities decided to blow up the cooker onsite instead of taking it elsewhere. Traffic on Highway 50 was diverted for about an hour. Pedestrians were also blocked from the area for their safety. — Lake Tahoe News staff report 19 firefighters die in Arizona wildland blaze Publisher’s note: The Angora Peak crew from Lake Valley Fire Protection District is in Arizona on standby and the Lake Tahoe U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Gold Belt. Geographic Relations
    DESCRIPTION OF THE GOLD BELT. GEOGRAPHIC RELATIONS. shore was apparently somewhat west of the Oro and the Mariposa slates, are found only on post-Juratrias upheaval, and that their age, present crest, and the sea extending westward the western flank of the Sierra Nevada. During therefore, is early Cretaceous. The principal gold belt of California includes received Paleozoic sediments which now consti­ the earlier part of the Juratrias period portions SUPERJACENT SERIES. a portion of the Sierra Nevada lying between the tute a large part of the central portion of the of the Great Basin were under water, as is shown parallels of 37° 30' and 40° north latitude. It is range. by the fossiliferous beds of that age in Eldorado OEETACEOUS PEEIOD. bounded on the west by the Sacramento and San At the close of the Carboniferous the Paleozoic Canyon south of Virginia City and in the Hurn- Since no beds of early Cretaceous age are Joaquin valleys, and on the east by a diagonal land area of western Nevada subsided, and dur­ boldt Mountains, but nowhere from the foothills known in the Sierra Nevada, it is presumed that line extending from about longitude 120° 40' in ing the larger part of the Juratrias period it was of the Sierra Nevada to the east base of the during the early Cretaceous all of the present the neighborhood of the fortieth parallel to lon­ at least partly covered by the sea. At the close Wasatch, if we except certain beds near Genesee range was above water. gitude 119° 40' in the neighborhood of parallel of the Juratrias the Sierra Nevada was upheaved Valley, are any deposits known which are of late During the late Cretaceous the range subsided 37° 30'.
    [Show full text]
  • LAKE TAHOE Ri Ee Ck 431 80 Tru Truckee
    Excerpt from Geologic Trips, Sierra Nevada by Ted Konigsmark ISBN 0-9661316-5-7 GeoPress All rights reserved. No part ofthis book may be reproduced without written permission, except for critical articles or reviews. For other geologic trips see: www.geologictrips.com 140 - 89 Trip 4. ver LAKE TAHOE Ri ee ck 431 80 Tru Truckee 267 Incline Village Fallen Leaf Lake 89 Angora Lakes Carson Emerald Bay 28 Bliss State Park 28 Truckee River Tahoe City Lake 50 D Tahoe 89 Range Volcanic rocks S D U D Basement rocks i e U r r a Fault: U D N Rubicon Pt. U, Up block e 207 v Stateline D, Down block a d a South Lake Tahoe 5 Miles Echo Peak S Meyers 89 50 Diagrammatic Cross Sections S N Sediments Tahoe City Lake Tahoe Volcanic rocks Tahoe block Basement W Sierra Nevada Carson Range E Emerald Bay Sierra Lake Tahoe Carson Nevada Range block Tahoe block block - 141 Trip 4 LAKE TAHOE Faults, Glaciers, and Lakes Lake Tahoe is the largest and deepest lake in the Sierra Nevada, and certainly one of the most scenic. On this trip we’ll take a look at how the lake was made, and how glaciers played an important role in the formation of many of the other lakes and scenic features in the Tahoe area. The first step in the formation of Lake Tahoe began during the Plio- Pleistocene uplift of the Sierra Nevada. When the crust in the Tahoe area was uplifted and stretched, it broke into several large blocks.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at: www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected].
    [Show full text]