DOCSLIB.ORG

3D Terrain Virtual Databases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3D Terrain Virtual Databases 3D Terrain Virtual Databases MetaVR Continental US Plus Alaska and Hawaii (CONUS++) 3D Terrain MetaVR Africa, Asia, Australia & Oceania, Europe, North America, and South America 3D Terrain © 2018 MetaVR, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Virtual Reality Scene Generator, VRSG, and Metadesic are trademarks of MetaVR, Inc. Esri and ArcGIS are registered trademarks of Esri. Virtual Kismayo, Somalia Kismayo, Somalia Terrain Specifications Imagery coverage = 50 cm per-pixel Digital Globe (GeoEye-1) satellite imagery covering 1,017 sq km of the southern Somalia port city and are blended into 15 meters-per-pixel (mpp) natural view imagery Elevation coverage = SRTM void filled elevation source data. Cultural features MetaVR’s terrain is populated with hundreds of geographically specific culture models built from ground-level photographs taken on the streets of Kismayo. In addition to these geolocated and photographically specific models of buildings and other structures, several hundred other buildings were modeled by matching the structural footprints visible in the imagery as geographically typical models with culturally and architecturally accurate details. MetaVR’s virtual city contains varied terrain representative of important training environments, from a built-up port to dense urban streets to a sparsely populated outer region that includes a commercial airport. Virtual Afghanistan Village Imagery coverage The overall imagery resolution of the virtual terrain of the whole country is 2.5 meters per pixel. The terrain, built Cultural features with MetaVR’s Terrain Tools for Esri® ArcGIS®, includes an area of 1,120 sq. km of 60 cm Digital Globe commercial The village area has approximately 520 custom-built 3D structures that match the building satellite source imagery and 90 meter elevation posts. Within this area is the highly detailed 2 sq. km terrain of a footprints visible on the source imagery. All 3D content was created in Autodesk 3ds Max, 3D geospecific Afghan village. This terrain was made entirely from commercial, non-export controlled source data. and is referenced by the terrain’s cultural feature file at run time; the content is rendered by Virtual Reality Scene Generator ™ (VRSG™) at run-time as part of the terrain. Many of Elevation coverage the buildings are multi-level and contain modeled interiors. Open doorways, translucent The effective terrain elevation resolution is much higher in the village areas as the construction of inferred cultural windows, and stairways, contribute to making the structures within the virtual village features from the geospecific imagery such as courtyards, tree line, and crops further define the elevation relief. suitable for tactical scenarios. The textures of many cultural features are derived from This terrain is built entirely from commercial, non-export controlled source data. Using MetaVR’s terrain workflow publicly available photographs found on the Internet. Geospecific agricultural fields are also process, additional terrain areas can be readily constructed. modeled and can be tailored to represent various crop types over different seasons. Virtual 3D Baghdad Baghdad - Iraq Imagery coverage 60 cm per pixel of Baghdad, Iraq, and CIB 1 mpp imagery surrounding the area. Elevation coverage DTED 2. Cultural features Cultural elements of Green Zone area include thousands of photo-realistic buildings (residential, office, and commercial buildings, and mosques) bridges, overpasses, signs, sewer pipes, power lines, street lights, curbs, concrete and wire fences. Virtual Nellis Air Force Base (KLSV) - Nevada Virtual Nellis Air Force Base Imagery coverage Cultural features 0.30 meters per pixel (mpp) commercial imagery of the 163 high-resolution, geolocated models of hangars, Nellis airfield blended into 1 mpp overall. offices, storage facilities, and other buildings at the airfield, (48 unique geospecific models built from photos Elevation coverage taken onsite), a high-resolution F-16C aircraft model, Custom DEM overlaid on the source DEM to provide and the runway; neighborhood of 644 residential greater than 95% accuracy for runway elevations houses (2 unique models); cultural lights (336,264 total compared to FAA charts. light points), and runway signage; 363 geotypical volumetric trees. Virtual Luke Air Force Base (KLUF ) - Arizona Virtual Luke Air Force Base Imagery coverage Cultural features 1 mpp resolution of Arizona, 0.24-0.50 mpp of the Luke MetaVR’s terrain contains geolocated models of hangars, airfield and Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), 0.30 mpp offices, storage facilities, and other structures: 104 at of Luke AFB facilities, and Phoenix metro area. Luke AFB and 107 at the East Tactical Range (ETAC) at the BMGR (97 unique geospecific models built from Elevation coverage photos taken onsite), a unique high-resolution F-16C 1 arcsecond (30 meters per post) National Elevation Data aircraft model; runway models at Luke AFB and the (NED). Custom elevation model of Luke airfield that matches main ETAC airfield; 673 static vehicle and sign models; with at least 95% accuracy official airfield elevations. 831,581 cultural lights of the greater Phoenix area as well as runway lights and runway signage at Luke AFB; and 103 geotypical volumetric trees. Vermont Air National Guard Airfield (KBTV) Virtual Vermont Air National Guard - Burlington International Airport Imagery coverage 1 mpp overall, 0.50 mpp imagery of the airfield and base facilities at Burlington International Airport Elevation coverage 60 meters per post spacing Cultural features MetaVR’s terrain contains 45 high-resolution, geolocated models of hangars, offices, storage facilities, and other buildings in the area, a high-resolution F-16C aircraft model, and the runway. In addition, the virtual terrain includes the commercial air terminal, and approximately 40 other models of elements at Burlington International Airport, such as geotypical volumetric trees, geospecific runway lights, street lights, and signs Leschi Town MOUT Site at Joint Base Lewis- McChord (JBLM) Virtual Leschi Town MOUT Site - Washington Imagery coverage Cultural features 3.3 geocell (147 km x 224 km) database built from 1 The 14 photorealistic MOUT building models have interiors, mpp color covering greater Seattle/Tacoma Area. multiple levels, and articulated doors. Elevation coverage MetaVR’s terrain also contains bridges, signs, sewer pipes, 100 meters per post elevation data. Microterrain was power transformers, street lights, curbs, barriers, built into the MOUT site using information derived tombstones, metal gates, concrete and wire fences, from site photographs provided to MetaVR. ventilation shafts, drain spouts, picnic tables, flag poles, manhole covers, electric utility panels, a culvert, a parking lot, a storage tank, and geotypical volumetric trees of varying types. Virtual National Training Center (NTC) - CA Virtual National Training Center (NTC ) Ft Irwin, Tiefort City, Bicycle Lake Imagery coverage 1 mpp color CONUS imagery with the following high- resolution inset imagery: .25 mpp imagery of the Bicycle Lake Army Airfield, .35 mpp imagery of Tiefort City, and .50 mpp of the Ft Irwin area. Elevation coverage The terrain was built with 30 mpp (NED1) and 90 mpp (DTED1) elevation data. Cultural features 772 geotypical buildings 89 photospecific/photorealistic buildings (Tiefort City) 865 geotypical desert vegetation 190 road segments 110 fence segments 200 utility poles and powerlines 133 cones and generators 115 barriers, portable toilets, surveillance cameras, and gas tanks (Tiefort City) Virtual Ft. Benning, McKenna MOUT Site Ft Benning, McKenna MOUT – Georgia Imagery coverage Cultural features 0.30 mpp imagery of the MOUT area (4 km x 4 km), 13 geolocated and photorealistic MOUT building coupled with overall 1 mpp imagery. models. This MetaVR terrain also contains roads, trees, 103 streetscape and other cultural elements: barriers, Elevation coverage tombstones, fences, manhole covers, 76-element 30 meters per post elevation data. Survey points were power-line network with utility poles and street lights, also brought into the VRSG environment via a cultural and 1,510 geolocated geotypical volumetric trees of feature data file and were used as guides to adjust varying types. placement of cultural elements. The resulting terrain database represents the true real-world coordinates of these elements to within a 0.1 meter tolerance. Aberdeen Test Center (ATC), Mulberry Point, MD Aberdeen Test Center (ATC), Mulberry Point, MD Imagery coverage 0.15 mpp imagery of the ATC area, coupled with overall .15 mpp imagery of the state of Maryland. Elevation coverage 8 meters per post elevation data coverage of the ATC area. Cultural features Contains geospecific 3D models of the Aberdeen Test Center (ATC). Contains over 20 geospecific photo-textured structures along with trees, powerlines and poles. Muir AAF (KMUI) – Fort Indiantown Gap, PA Muir Army Airfield (KMUI) – Ft Indiantown Gap Imagery coverage 0.30 mpp imagery of the Muir AAF area, coupled with overall 1 mpp imagery. Elevation coverage 3 meters per post elevation data and DTED-1 surrounding the area. Cultural features Contains a detailed geospecific model of the control tower, includes geotypical models of hangars, storage facilities, and other buildings at the airfield, model of the runway; 3 helipads, runway lighting, cultural lights and geotypical volumetric trees. Ft. Worth Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base/Carswell Field (KNFW) Fort Worth Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base/Carswell
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vol. 81 Monday, No. 142 July 25, 2016 Pages 48315–48686
    Vol. 81 Monday, No. 142 July 25, 2016 Pages 48315–48686 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:54 Jul 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\25JYWS.LOC 25JYWS asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER II Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Email [email protected] Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Phone 202–741–6000 issuing agency requests earlier filing.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Reuse in the West (2011)
    WATER REUSE IN THE WEST: STATE PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES A Report Compiled by the Western States Water Council Nathan S. Bracken, Legal Counsel July 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction …………………………………………..………………………………........... 3 State Summaries ……………………………………………………….................................. 4 Alaska ………………………………………………………………………………... 4 Arizona ………………………………………………………………………............. 4 California ……………………………………………………………………………. 11 Colorado ……………………………………………………………………………... 16 Idaho …………………………………………………………………………………. 19 Kansas ……………………………………………………………………………….. 22 Montana ……………………………………………………………………………... 26 Nebraska …………………………………………………………………………….. 27 Nevada ……………………………………………………………………………….. 29 New Mexico ………………………………………………………………………….. 30 North Dakota ………………………………………………………………………... 34 Oklahoma ……………………………………………………………………………. 35 Oregon ……………………………………………………………………………….. 36 South Dakota ………………………………………………………………………... 44 Texas …………………………………………………………………………………. 46 Utah ………………………………………………………………………………….. 50 Washington ………………………………………………………………………….. 53 Wyoming …………………………………………………………………………….. 60 Conclusion ……………………………...……………………………………………………. 62 Appendix A – Table of State Legal and Regulatory Frameworks……………………...... 64 Appendix B – State Reuse Project Inventories...……………………..………………….... 72 Arizona……………………………………………………………………………….. 73 California…………………………………………………………………………….. 80 Colorado……………………………………………………………………………… 81 Idaho………………………………………………………………………………….. 82 Nevada………………………………………………………………………………... 85 New Mexico…………………………………………………………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • Closure of Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana, and Realignment to Yuma
    ___ - CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND INDIANA AND REALIGNMENT TO YUMA PROVING GROUND ARIZONA li 'J.fI..,o. Pre.1. VOLUME 1 OF 2 *YE=. GI.".] Pre.1. TEXT G,...d Final ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT . I STATEMENT September 1991 - . CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND, INDIANA AND REALIGNMENT TO WMA PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA Prepared by: Reviewed by: Louisville District U.S. Amy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Materiel Command yy\C .- David E. Peixotto William 8. McCrath Colonel, Corps of Engineers Major General, US. Army Commander Chief of Staff Recommended for Approval by: Department of the Army Office of the Chief of Staff William A. Stofft Mabr General, General Staff Director of Management Approved by: Office of the Secretary of the Amy & 6,D& Lewis D. Walker Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Amy (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND, INDlANA AND REALlGNMENT TO Wh4A PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA LEAD AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S.Amy Materiel Command (AMC); TITLE OFTHE PROPOSED ACTION Closure of Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana and Realignment to Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona AFFECTED JURISDICTION: Jefferson Proving Ground: Jefferson, Jennings and 1Zipk-y Counties, Indiana. Yuma Proving Ground: Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona PREPARED BY David E. Peixotto, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Commander, US. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, P.O. Box 59, Louisville, KY 40201-0059 REVIEWED BY: William 8. McCrath, Major General, Chief of Staff, US. Army Matericl Command RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY Williim A. Stofft, Major General, General Staff, Director of Management, Office of the Chief of Staff, Department of the Army APPROVED BY Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Yuma Proving Ground HAER No. Klr-3 Yuma County HA£Lpv Arizona
    Yuma Proving Ground HAER No. klr-3 Yuma County HA£LPv Arizona * WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Departmentt of the Interior Washington',' DC 20013-7127 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Yuma Proving Ground AZ-5 Location: In southwestern Arizona in Yuma County/ east of the Colorado River. Date of Construction: Established in 1942. Owner: Department of the Army Significance: Yuma Proving Ground was established during World War II by the Corps of Engineers for the testing of a new floating bridge. In 1951, the facility shifted in emphasis to become a testing center for many types of Army equipment, from tanks to water purification units, Historical Report Prepared by: William Brenner, 1984 Prepared for Transmittal by: Robie S. Lange, HABS/HAER, 1985. Yuma Proving Grounds HAER No. A2-5 page 5, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Yuma Proving Ground, part of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, occupies 838,174 acres in southwestern Arizona. The installation conducts artillery, aircraft, and desert mobility tests, as well as various environmental tests. It contains a highly instrumented multipurpose aircraft armament testing range, vehicular test courses, amphibious testing areas, and a large gunnery range. The origins of the proving ground date from 1942, when the land it now occupies was included in Maneuver Area B of General George S. Patton's Desert Training Center, renamed the California-Arizona Maneuver Area in 1943. One of the training center's six temporary division tent camps, Camp Laguna, was located on the site of the present Mobility Test Area. In early 1943, the Army Corps of Engineers began testing a new floating bridge on the Colorado River below Imperial Dam, several miles northwest of Camp Laguna.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project Policy
    This study was prepared under contract with the Arizona Department of Commerce with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. Policy Guidebook Arizona military regional compatibility project July 2006 Prepared for: Prepared by: This document was prepared under contract with the Arizona Department of Commerce with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................1-1 2. OVERVIEW OF ARIZONA’S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS .....................................................................2-1 3. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY...............................................3-1 4. REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE .................................................................................4-1 5. TRENDS AND ISSUES ...........................................................5-1 6. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR COMPATIBLE LAND USE..................................................................... 6-1 On behalf of the Arizona Department of Commerce, sincere appreciation is extended to the dedicated staff from communities, counties and military installations across the state of Arizona who participated in the development and research of
    [Show full text]
  • KODY LOTNISK ICAO Niniejsze Zestawienie Zawiera 8372 Kody Lotnisk
    KODY LOTNISK ICAO Niniejsze zestawienie zawiera 8372 kody lotnisk. Zestawienie uszeregowano: Kod ICAO = Nazwa portu lotniczego = Lokalizacja portu lotniczego AGAF=Afutara Airport=Afutara AGAR=Ulawa Airport=Arona, Ulawa Island AGAT=Uru Harbour=Atoifi, Malaita AGBA=Barakoma Airport=Barakoma AGBT=Batuna Airport=Batuna AGEV=Geva Airport=Geva AGGA=Auki Airport=Auki AGGB=Bellona/Anua Airport=Bellona/Anua AGGC=Choiseul Bay Airport=Choiseul Bay, Taro Island AGGD=Mbambanakira Airport=Mbambanakira AGGE=Balalae Airport=Shortland Island AGGF=Fera/Maringe Airport=Fera Island, Santa Isabel Island AGGG=Honiara FIR=Honiara, Guadalcanal AGGH=Honiara International Airport=Honiara, Guadalcanal AGGI=Babanakira Airport=Babanakira AGGJ=Avu Avu Airport=Avu Avu AGGK=Kirakira Airport=Kirakira AGGL=Santa Cruz/Graciosa Bay/Luova Airport=Santa Cruz/Graciosa Bay/Luova, Santa Cruz Island AGGM=Munda Airport=Munda, New Georgia Island AGGN=Nusatupe Airport=Gizo Island AGGO=Mono Airport=Mono Island AGGP=Marau Sound Airport=Marau Sound AGGQ=Ontong Java Airport=Ontong Java AGGR=Rennell/Tingoa Airport=Rennell/Tingoa, Rennell Island AGGS=Seghe Airport=Seghe AGGT=Santa Anna Airport=Santa Anna AGGU=Marau Airport=Marau AGGV=Suavanao Airport=Suavanao AGGY=Yandina Airport=Yandina AGIN=Isuna Heliport=Isuna AGKG=Kaghau Airport=Kaghau AGKU=Kukudu Airport=Kukudu AGOK=Gatokae Aerodrome=Gatokae AGRC=Ringi Cove Airport=Ringi Cove AGRM=Ramata Airport=Ramata ANYN=Nauru International Airport=Yaren (ICAO code formerly ANAU) AYBK=Buka Airport=Buka AYCH=Chimbu Airport=Kundiawa AYDU=Daru Airport=Daru
    [Show full text]
  • YPG Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) 2017
    -+ INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN U.S. ARMY YUMA PROVING GROUND YUMA AND LA PAZ COUNTIES, ARIZONA Update for: Fiscal Years 2017-2022 September 2017 Prepared by U.S. Army Garrison Yuma Proving Ground Environmental Sciences Division 301 C Street Yuma Proving Ground Yuma, Arizona Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN U.S. Army Garrison Yuma Proving Ground Update for: FY 2017–2022 Reviewed by: Reviewed by: Digitally signed by GLOVER.JOHN.A.1284210391 Digitally signed by GLOVER.JOHN.A.1 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, DRISCOLL.PATRICK. DRISCOLL.PATRICK.JOSEPH.1231990557 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, ou=USA, cn=GLOVER.JOHN.A.1284210391 cn=DRISCOLL.PATRICK.JOSEPH.1231990557 284210391 Date: 2017.08.09 14:50:51 -07'00' JOSEPH.1231990557 Date: 2017.08.15 15:09:26 -07'00' JOHN GLOVER PATRICK J. DRIS&OLL Acting Chief, Environmental Director, Public Works Sciences Division Reviewed by: Reviewed by: Digitally signed by Digitally signed by GONZALES.FRANCISCO.E.JR.1155703560 GONZALES.FRANCIS DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, HALLAHAN.ROBER HALLAHAN.ROBERT.J.1229262730 cn=GONZALES.FRANCISCO.E.JR.1155703560 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, CO.E.JR.1155703560 Date: 2017.08.17 11:34:42 -07'00' ou=USA, cn=HALLAHAN.ROBERT.J.1229262730 T.J.1229262730 Date: 2017.08.22 09:26:13 -07'00' FRANCISCO E. GONZALES, JR. ROBERT J. HALLAHAN Attorney Advisor, Office of Installation OPSEC Officer Command Judge Advocate Approved By: Digitally signed by ROGERS.GORDON.
    [Show full text]
  • PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT for AVIATION SUPPORT SERVICES U.S. ARMY YUMA PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA CONTRACT: W9124R-13-C-0004 (Revi
    PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT FOR AVIATION SUPPORT SERVICES U.S. ARMY YUMA PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA CONTRACT: W9124R-13-C-0004 (Revision 08: 25 August 2015) Aviation Support Services Performance Work Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page C.1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 3 C.2.0 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................... 23 C.3.0 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND SERVICES........................................................ 30 C.4.0 CONTRACTOR FURNISHED PROPERTY............................................................... 31 C.5.0 REQUIREMENTS AND TASKS ................................................................................ 32 C.6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 37 C.7.0 TECHNICAL EXHIBITS ............................................................................................. 39 Technical Exhibit 1 – Ground and Flight Operations ......................................................... 39 Technical Exhibit 2 – Aviation Maintenance ..................................................................... 41 Technical Exhibit 3 – Airfield Services .............................................................................. 54 Technical Exhibit 4 – Deleted ............................................................................................. 65 Technical Exhibit 5 – DD Form 254 Department of Defense
    [Show full text]
  • IATA Airports
    IATA Codes for the United States of America N.B. To check the official, current database of IATA Codes see: http://www.iata.org/publications/Pages/code-search.aspx City State IATA Code Airport Name Web Address Aberdeen SD ABR Aberdeen Proving APG Phillips Army Air Field Grounds(Aberdeen) Abilene TX ABI Abilene DYS Dyess Air Force Base Abingdon VJI Virginia Highlands Ada ADT Ada Municipal Adak Island AK ADK Adrian ADG Lenawee County Afton AFO Afton Municipal Afton NRI Grand Lake Regional Aiken AIK Aiken Municipal Ainsworth ANW Ainsworth Municipal Akhiok AKK Akhiok Akiachak AK KKI Akiak AK AKI Akron AKC Akron Fulton International Akron AKO Colorado Plains Regional Akuton AK KQA City State IATA Code Airport Name Web Address Alakanuk AK AUK Alamogordo NM ALM Alamogordo HMN Holloman Air Force Base Alamosa CO ALS Albany OR CVO Albany NY ALB Albany OR QWY Albany GA NAB Albany NAS Albany ABY Southwest Georgia Regional Albert Lea AEL Albert Lea Municipal Albuquerque NM ABQ Aleknagik AK WKK Aleneva AED Aleneva Alexander City ALX Thomas C Russell Field Alexandria LA AEX Alexandria AXN Chandler Field Alexandria ESF Esler Regional Alexandria Bay AXB Maxson Airfield Algona AXG Algona Municipal Alice ALI Alice International Aliceville AIV George Downer Allakaket AK AET Alliance NE AIA Alma AMN Gratiot Community Alpena MI APN Alpine ALE Alpine Casparis 2 City State IATA Code Airport Name Web Address Municipal Alton/St Louis ALN St Louis Regional Altoona PA AOO Altoona–Blair County http://flyaltoona.com/ Airport Altus LTS Altus Air Force Base Altus AXS
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Field Logs
    APPENDIX A FIELD LOGS APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-1 Test Pit- 141EP001 – Orientated: West - East Length – 13 ft; Width – 3 ft; Depth – 9 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-2 Test Pit- 141EP002 – Debris in Bottom and sidewalls. Orientation: West - East Length – 35 ft; Width – 10 ft; Depth – 15 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-3 Test Pit-141EP002 – Encountered debris included glass bottles, burned paper and wood, rusted metal, decomposing aluminum, wire, ceramics, brick, plastic, ash, and pipes. Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-4 Test Pit- 141EP003 – Orientation: West - East Length – 60 ft; Width – 5 ft; Depth – 15 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-5 Test Pit- 141EP003 – Encountered debris included glass bottles and jars, metal wire, construction debris, burned wood, plastic bread wrappers. Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-6 Test Pit- 141EP004 – Debris in bottom and sidewalls Orientation: South - North Length – 25 ft; Width – 6 ft; Depth – 13 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-7 Test Pit-141EP004 – Encountered debris included glass bottles, broken glass, rusted metal, wire, burned paper and wood, and plastic. Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-8 Test Pit-141EP005 – No debris, waste, or contamination observed. Orientation: West - East Length – 12 ft; Width – 3 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-9 Test Pit-141EP006 – No debris, waste, or contamination observed. Orientation: East - West Length – 13 ft; Width – 4 ft; Depth – 10 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph – B-10 Test Pit-141EP007 – Surface debris and staining in sidewalls. Orientation: East - West Length – 13 ft; Width – 3 ft; Depth – 8 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-11 Test Pit-141EP007 – Encountered abundant surface debris and a dark grayish brown stained zone in sidewall intermixed with asphalt chunks.
    [Show full text]
  • Docket No. FAA-2016-7055; Airspace Docket No
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/25/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-17558, and on FDsys.gov 4910-13 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7055; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-11] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area R-2306F; Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish restricted area R-2306F in the vicinity of Laguna Army Airfield at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. The proposed restricted area would allow the Department of the Army to maximize the existing fixed infrastructure to support hazardous test programs and segregate these activities from non-participating aircraft at Yuma Proving Ground (YPG). These programs include ground and airborne testing of non-eye-safe lasers, high energy radars and the development of unproven weapons systems. The restricted airspace would ensure the safe testing and evaluation of these programs without impacting non-participating aircraft and the general public. DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12- 140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-7055 and Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-11, at the beginning of your comments.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 Governor's Military Facilities Task Force Report
    The Report of the Governor’s Military Facilities Task Force Executive Order 2003-18 State of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano December 2003 The Report of the Governor’s Military Facilities Task Force FOREWORD The following final report of the Governor’s Military Facilities Task Force answers every element of Executive Order 2003-18, dated May 27, 2003. This report is the result of seven months of in-depth study, extensive research, and careful consideration of perspectives offered by many individuals and interest groups. The Task Force took special note of and reached out to local officials, installation commanders, land owners, and land developers. While not all recommendations offered to the Task Force were accepted, all received full consideration. The resulting specific recommendations reflect the following four themes: 1. Preserve and grow Arizona’s network of military installations to satisfy the long- term needs of the Department of Defense and maximize the benefit to Arizona’s economy. 2. Maximize actions at the local level. 3. Establish and sustain solid State and federal support. 4. Recognize and leverage existing statues, initiatives, and effective efforts. Although the 27 recommendations are presented in an action-oriented format, they should also be considered as offering solution sets based upon common themes. For example, recommendations numbered 2, 5, 7, 12, 26, and 27 taken together, represent a formidable set of tools to effectively deal with the private rights of landowners within the affected areas surrounding Arizona’s military installations. Absent implementation, these recommendations will be useless. Consequently, the Task Force has recommended the development of a Military Affairs Commission to aggressively pursue the full adoption of the Task Force’s recommendations.
    [Show full text]