KANSAS CITY AVIATION DEPARTMENT. Chapter Five AIRPORT PLANS

Transcription

1 KANSAS CITY AVIATION DEPARTMENT Chapter Five AIRPORT PLANS

2 AIRPORT PLANs The alternatives discussed in the previous section were reviewed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Kansas City Aviation Department (KCAD), and with the Master Plan advisory committees as well as the public at a public information workshop. The feedback obtained was considered in developing the final recommendations for the airport. This chapter discusses those recommend-ations. The airport layout plan (ALP) is the set of planning drawings that must be approved by the FAA to be eligible for federal funding under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP). The reduced-size, color set of these drawings can be found in Appendix C. DESIGN STANDARDS Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport (MKC) is identified as a general aviation reliever airport in the FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). FAA Advisory Circular 150/ , Airport Design, outlines recommended design standards for airports. These design standards are based upon the airplane characteristics that the airport is expected to serve on a regular basis. Most critical to airport design are the weight, wingspan, and approach speed of the design aircraft. An airport's reference code (ARC) is based upon a combination of the aircraft approach category and the airplane design group (ADG). These were defined earlier in Chapter Three - Facility Requirements. The critical ARC for planning at MKC was determined to be a combination of D-Ill and B-IV. This includes the full range of general aviation aircraft currently operating and projected to continue to operate at the airport throughout the planning period.

3 Business jet aircraft include those up to ARC D-III. The runway should also consider the needs of the Lockheed Constellation This restored aircraft is currently based at the airport and is regularly flown by the Save-A Connie Foundation. The Constellation is an ARC B-IV aircraft. The D-Ill standards are the most demanding for the runway, while the B-IV aircraft is the most demanding for taxiways. Runway 1-19 should continue to be designed to meet the design criteria for D-Ill, while the taxiways serving it should be designed to meet ARC B-IV now and in the future. Presently, the most demanding business jet aircraft for pavement strength are the Global Express and the Gulfstream IV. These aircraft have dual wheel gear configurations and maximum takeoffweights of91,000 and 89,000 pounds, respectively. The Constellation 1049 has a maximum takeoff weight of 137,500 pounds on dual wheel gear. In the future, however, the most demanding aircraft can be expected to be aircraft such as, or similar to, the Boeing Business Jet (BBJ). This aircraft also has dual wheel gear and a maximum weight of 174,000 pounds. The secondary runway enhances airfield capacity, as well as being used for crosswind coverage for small aircraft. The runway also keeps the airport operating at times when Runway 1-19 may not be available. It is recommended that Runway 3-21 be maintained to B-II standards. It should be recognized, however, that aircraft in Categories C and D may need to use this runway on an infrequent basis when Runway 1-19 is not available. Therefore, consideration should be given to maintaining at least a 100-foot width on this runway in the future. AIRFIELD RECOMMENDATIONS The principal airfield recommendations focus first upon safety and capacity. It is of key importance to ensure that airport design standards are upheld to the maximum extent feasible, particularly in relation to the runway safety area (RSA). Other recommendations are provided to improve the efficiency and circulation on the airfield. The following subsections discuss the recommendations as they pertain to each runway, as well as the taxiway system. RUNWAY 1-19 Runway 1-19 is currently 7,001 feet long by 150 feet wide. Analysis in the previous chapters indicated that Runway 1-19 does not conform with FAA design standards for the RSA or the runway object free area (ROFA). The FAA recommends that the RSA for ARC D aircraft be cleared and graded 500 feet wide (centered on the runway) and extend 1,000 feet beyond both runway ends. The previous airport layout plan (ALP) recommended the displacement ofboth runway ends. That plan is one method for meeting the RSA standards, 5-2

4 ~~~~~ however, it would significantly reduce the operational length of the runway. From that base case, the alternative analysis in the previous chapter recommended an alternative that will maximize the available RSA, and better meet the length requirements of the business aircraft that utilize the airport on a daily basis. The recommended concept is depicted on Exhibit 5A. It includes short runway extensions on both ends. The first step is to grade the safety area to the maximum extent feasible off both ends. To the south, a graded safety area can be provided for 400 feet beyond the existing pavement end. A 100-foot pavement extension is also planned on this end, to assist in meeting the takeoff length requirements of the users. To the north, the runway safety area is planned to be graded for 600 feet beyond the existing runway end. This will require grading beyond the levee and into the Missouri River floodway. The safety area will be brought to existing grades prior to reaching the river bank. It will also have room to relocate the access roadway around the end of the RSA. To meet takeofflength requirements of the users, the runway will be extended 300 feet into the graded safety area. In order to maximize the extended RSA at 800 feet, the plan also includes a 500- foot displacement of the landing threshold from each new runway end. The result will be a total runway pavement length of 7,401 feet, with a landing distance available (LDA) of 6,401 feet in both directions. The accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA) will be 6,901 feet in both directions. The runway would provide 800 feet ofrsa beyond both ends of the runway. As proposed, the recommended plan would require up to 90,000 cubic yards of fill on the river side of the levee. Initial hydraulic analysis has indicated that the plan could be implemented with no rise in flood elevations. This will be analyzed in more detail during the environmental assessment (EA) and Corps ofengineers permit phases of the project. RUNWAY3-21 Runway 3-21 is 5,052 feet long by 150 feet wide and serves as a crosswind runway. The north end of the runway is currently displaced 693 feet to provide adequate obstacle clearance. Historically, the runway has served aircraft up to and including Approach Category D. As indicated earlier, Runway 3-21 meets FAA standards for crosswind coverage for small aircraft. It also provides some operational capacity, and serves as a back-up runway when Runway 1-19 is not available for any reason. Thus, the recommended plan is to maintain the runway at ARC B-II standards, but recognize its use, on an interim basis, by Categories C and D aircraft when Runway 1-19 is not available. 5-3

5 To meet Category D design standards would require the same RSA standards as Runway The resulting displacements to meet this standard would reduce the effective runway length to less than 4,000 feet. This length would not be suitable for the aircraft for which it would be designed. For this reason, the plan considers meeting ARC B-11 standards. The current runway width of 150 feet exceeds ARC B-11 standards. FAA standards indicate a width of75 feet for ARC B-II aircraft. The cost of maintaining the existing width may not be eligible for federal grant funding from the FAA. It is recommended that a cost benefit analysis be completed once Runway 3-21 requires maintenance. At this time, a decision can be made whether to keep the runway at its current width or to narrow it to 75 feet. The obstructions m the runway approaches were reviewed utilizing "treetop" photogrammetry. Current displaced threshold criteria from FAA AC 150/ through Change 7, Airport Design, was utilized to review the existing displacements. It was determined that the 693-foot displacement on Runway 21 is still applicable. The 490-foot displacement of the Runway 3 threshold, however, could be moved back to a 350-foot displacement and still meet obstacle clearance criteria for current mm1mums. This recommendation is still subject to FAA airspace review and approval. As a result, the Runway 21 LDA is 4,359 feet and the ASDA is the full 5,052 feet. Runway 3 would provide 4,402 feet of LDA and 4,752 feet of ASDA. These lengths would be more than adequate to meet the needs of most ARC B-11 aircraft, as well as be adequate for infrequent Categories C and D business jets. Runway 3 currently provides the airport's lowest visibility minimums. It should be noted, however, the FAA could revoke the approaches for Categories C and D at such time as the runway requires major rehabilitation or other improvements. TAXIWAY IMPROVEMENTS The current taxiway system at the airport is inefficient and can be confusing to transient pilots. The recommended plan includes modifying the taxiway system as depicted on Exhibit 5A. This includes adding some new taxiways and removing several existing taxiways to enhance efficiency and safety. Runway 1-19 is served by a quasiparallel taxiway (Taxiway G). The plan recommends extending Taxiway G from the southern apron to the northern end of the runway in a more parallel fashion. As depicted, the northern end of the taxiway would angle to the northeast to avoid the precision object free area (PO FA). The plan calls for the construction of a new westside parallel taxiway extending from Taxiway F to the ends ofrunways 19 and

6 Object Free Area (OFA) ~ : l. Runway Safety Area (RSA) Existing Runway Protection Zone (PRZ) Ultimate RPZ Building Restriction Line (BRL) Short Term Planning Horizon Intermediate Term Planning Horizon Long Term Planning Horizon Pavement to be Removed

7 Several taxiways are planned for removal or modification. The closure or modification of the taxiways is designed to Improve airfield capacity and efficiency. Taxiways planned for closure include Taxiway E, the eastern portion of Taxiway D (from Runway 1-19 to the apron), Taxiway C, and the angled portion of Taxiway F between the west parallel and Runway The plan includes modifying Taxiways H and H -1 to better serve as a high speed exit and minimize confusion. As depicted, the proposed taxiway system would reduce maintenance costs while increasing airfield efficiency and reducing the potential for pilot confusion. LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS Recommended landside improvements include those associated with roads, hangars, and relocation of the fuel farm. As proposed, the plan will provide the opportunity to meet projected demands. The Runway 1-19 RSA improvements will include extending the north RSA beyond the levee and into the floodway of the Missouri River. This will also require the relocation of Lou Holland Drive. As depicted, the road would be routed around the extended RSA, along the riverbank, then northeast to merge back into the existing road alignment. The plan also recommends relocating the existing fuel farm to the southwest side of the airport. The existing fuel farm is located in the runway protection zone (RPZ) for Runway 19. FAA standards indicate that fuel farms not be located in the RPZ. The proposed site is adjacent and south of the Save-A Connie Foundation hangar. The recommended plan includes additional hangar development on both the east and west sides of the airport. Hangar development on the east side will fill in undeveloped sites. The proposed westside development includes the redevelopment of area presently protecting the terminal VOR (TVOR). As depicted, the plan would include a new road leading from Lou Holland Drive. T-hangar development is proposed south of the existing T hangars. The capital improvement program includes drainage improvements. Many of the projects consider replacement or repair of the airport relief wells, while additional storm drainage improvements are included as well. Also included is the relocation of the north pump station to accommodate the extended RSA. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Once the specific needs and improvements for the airfield have been established, the next step is to determine a realistic schedule and costs for implementing the plan. This subsection examines the overall cost of development and a demand-based schedule for airport improvements. The development schedule can be initially established by dividing the improvement needs into three planning horizons of short term, intermediate term, and long range. For the airfield, 5-5

8 the key activity indicator is aircraft operations. For hangar development, based aircraft will be the indicator. Table 5A summarizes the operational milestones for each planning horizon. Exhibit 5A graphically depicts the key project staging. ~ABLE5A papital Improvement Program PROJECT FY2003!.Overlay Runway ReliefWell Replacement- Phase I 3.Runway 1-19 RSA Improvement (Design) 4.Repair and Crack Seal Runway Broadway Beautification 6.Fencing Replacement 7.Storm Drainage Improvements TOTAL FAA KCAD COST ELIGffiLE SHARE $800,000 $720,000 $80,00( 1,000, ,000,00( 500, ,000 50,00( 200, ,00( 150, ,00( 150, ,00( 507, ,300 50,70( 8.Airport Rename/Signage and Landscape Improvement 55,000 _Q 55,00( FY 2003 TOTAL $3,362,000 $1,626,30 $1,735,70( fy2004!.overlay Runway 1-19 $11,200,000 $10,080,00C $1,120,00C 2.Runway 1-19 RSA Improvement (Phase I) 810, ,000 81,00C 3.Airfield Lighting Replacement (Design) 100,000 90,000 10,00C 4.Demolish 10 Richards Road 1,600, ,600,00( 5.Emergency Relief Well Contract 40, ,00( 6.Fuel Farm Remediation 250, ,00( fy 2004 TOTAL $14,000,000 $10,899,000 $3,101,000 ~2005 l.runway 1-19 RSA Improvement (Phase II) $3,690,00( $3,321,000 $369,00( 2.Airfield Lighting Replacement 2,000,00C 1,800, ,00( 3.Fuel Farm Remediation 50,00C 0 50,00( 4.Fuel Farm Relocation 200,00C 0 200,00( 5.Fencing replacement 350,00C 315,000 35,00( 6.Header Pipe Replacement 500,00C 0 500,00( 7.Replace Relief Wells 850, ,00( 8.ReliefWell Testing 100, ,00( 9.HV AC Repairs 200, ,00( FY 2005 TOTAL $7,940,000 $5,436,000 $2,504,00( FY2006 l.runway 1-19 RSA Improvement (Phase Ill) $3,600,000 $3,240,00( $360,00C 2.Fuel Farm Remediation 50, ,00C 3.Fuel Farm Relocation 2,500, ,500,00C 4.Emergency Relief Well Contract 40, ,00C 5.HV AC Repairs 200, ,00( FY 2006 TOTAL $6,390,000 $3,240,000 $3,150,00C FY2007!.Overlay Runway 3-21 $4,000,000 $3,600,00( $400,00C 2.Storm Drainage Improvements 3,500,000 3,150,00C 350,00C 3.Taxiway Realignment (Design) 800, ,000 80,000 4.Fuel Farm Remediation 50, ,00(] 5.Re _lace ReliefWells 850, ,000 FY 2007 TOTAL $9,200,000 $7,470,00( $1,730,00C SHORT TERM PROGRAM TOTALS FY $ $ I $

9 rable 5A (Continued) Q_ap_ital Improvement Program TOTAL FAA KCAD!PROJECT COST ELIGffiLE SHARE 'rntermediate TERM PROGRAM ( ) l.storm Drainage Improvements $11,500,000 10,350,000 $1,150,00C. 2.Taxiway Realignment 8,000,000 7,200, ,000 3.Fuel Farm Remediation 100, ,00(] 4.Emergency ReliefWell Contract 120, ,00(] 5.Replace ReliefWells 1,700, ,700,00(] 6.ReliefWell Testing 100, ,00(] 'INTERMEDIATE TERM SUBTOTAL $21,520,000 $17,550,000 $3,970,0Q_(J 'rf_.ong TERM PROGRAM ( )!.Replace Relief Wells $2,550,000 $2,295,000 $255,00(] 2.Emergency ReliefWell Contract 80,000 72,000 8,00( 3.ReliefWell Testing 100, ,00( 4.Construct Westside Apron- Flightline 3,500,000 3,150, ,00( 5.Construct Westside Apron- Infill area 440, ,00( 44,00( 6.Construct Hangar Access Road & Parking Lot for 550,000 c 550,00( Westside Development LONG TERM SUBTOTAL $7,220,000 $5,913,000 $1,307,00G PROGRAM TOTAL $69,632,00_!1 $52,134,300 $17,497, 70G Note: FAA share considers the amount eligible for federal fundmg assistance. Actual FAA grants for each project could be less. Implementation of the RSA project is contingent upon timely issuance of a federal _gr_ant. The short term horizon covers items of highest priority, as well as items that should be developed as the airport approaches the short term activity milestones. Priority items should include improvements related to safety and major maintenance. Improvements to facilities that are inadequate for present demand should also be included in the short term. Because of their priority, these items will need to be incorporated into FAA and Aviation Department five-year programming. With major improvements to the airfield in the short term, there are no airfield projects listed in the long term. When short term horizon activity milestones are reached, it will be time to program for the intermediate term based upon the next milestones. Main- tenance and rehabilitation projects that are not likely to be necessary within the next five years are also included in the intermediate term. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW The protection and preservation of the local environment are essential concerns in the master planning process. Now that a program for the use and development of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport has been finalized, it is necessary to review environmental issues to ensure that this program can be implemented in compliance with applicable environmental regulations, standards, and guidelines. 5-7

10 Some of the improvements planned for the airport will require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended; specifically, the planned improvements to Runway Compliance with the provisions of NEP A for these projects will be required prior to project implementation and is outside the scope of the master plan. As detailed in FAA Order A, Airport Environmental Handbook, compliance with NEPA is generally satisfied with the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). In cases where the EA process is not "triggered," a categorical exclusion is typically issued and environmental issues are evaluated during the permitting process. This section of the master plan is not designed to satisfy NEPA's requirements for an EA; it is intended only to supply a preliminary review of environmental issues that would need to be analyzed in more detail within the NEPA or permitting process. Consequently, this analysis does not address mitigation or the resolution of environmental issues. Table 5B considers the environmental resources as outlined in FAA Order A. A review of existing documents and coordination with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies contributed to this analysis. Issues of concern that were identified as part of this process are presented in the following table. TABLE5B Review of Environmental Resources Proposed Facility Improvements Environmental Resource Noise. The Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is used in this study to assess aircraft noise. DNL is the metric currently accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an appropriate measure of cumulative noise exposure. These three federal agencies have each identified the 65 DNL noise contour as the threshold of incompatibility. Compatible Land Use. Federal Aviation Regulations (F.A.R.) Part 150 recommends guidelines for planning land use compatibility within various levels of aircraft noise exposure. In addition, Advisory Circular 150/ identifies land uses that are incompatible with safe airport operations because of their propensity for attracting birds or other wildlife, which in turn results in an increased risk of aircraft strikes and damage. Finally, F.A.R. Part 77 regulates the height of structures within the vicinity of the airport. Resources Potentially Mfected No impacts anticipated. See existing noise contour, Exhibit 5B. See future noise contour, Exhibit 5C. Less-than-significant impacts. The proposed airport improvements will not impact noise-sensitive development, and will not interfere with the Part 77 surfaces. The existing wildlife attractant, the Missouri River, will continue to exist with project implementation. 5-8

11 LEGEND Ultimate Pavement DNL Noise Contour ,000 SCALE IN FEET KANSAS CITY ~~~~~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~AVlATIO -BEPART Exhibit 58 EXISTING AIRCRAFT NOISE EXPOSURE

12 LEGEND Ultimate Pavement DNL Noise Contour ,000 SCALE IN FEET KANSAS CITY ~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!l~!!!!!i~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'!!'avia T I ON-DEPART Exhibit 5C LONG-RANGE AIRCRAFT NOISE EXPOSURE

13 TABLE 5B (Continued) Review of Environmental Resources Proposed Facility Improvements Environmental Resource Social Impacts. These impacts are often associated with the relocation of residences or businesses or other community disruptions. Induced Socioeconomic Impacts. These impacts address those secondary impacts to surrounding communities resulting from the proposed development, including shifts in patterns of population movement and growth, public service demands, and changes in business and economic activity to the extent influenced by the airport development. Resources Potentially Mfected Less-than-significant impacts. The proposed development is not anticipated to divide or disrupt an established community, interfere with orderly planned development, or create a short-term, appreciable change in employment. Less-than-significant impacts. Significant shifts in patterns of population movement or growth, or public service demands are not anticipated as a result of the proposed development. It is expected, however, that the proposed new airport development would potentially induce positive socioeconomic impacts for the community over a period of years. Future socioeconomic impacts resulting from the proposed development would be primarily positive in nature. Air Quality. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted air quality standards that specify the maximum permissible short-term and long-term concentrations ofvarious air contaminants. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) consist of primary and secondary standards for six criteria pollutants which include: Ozone (0 3 ), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SOx), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Particulate matter (PM 10 ), and Lead (Ph). Various levels of review apply within both NEPA, CEQA, and permitting requirements. For example, an air quality analysis is typically required during the preparation of a NEPA document if enplanement levels exceed 3.2 million enplanements or general aviation operations exceed 180,000. Less-than-significant impacts with mitigation during construction. An emissions inventory may be required for the project during the NEPA process; however, it is not anticipated that a detailed dispersion analysis will be required. The potential impacts of the proposed activities are anticipated to be less-than-significant and can be mitigated with the use of bestmanagement-practices (BMPs) during construction. 5-9

14 TABLE 5B (Continued) Review of Environmental Resources Proposed Facility Improvements Environmental Resource Water Quality. Water quality concerns associated with airport expansion most often relate to domestic sewage disposal, increased surface runoff and soil erosion, and the storage and handling of fuel, petroleum, solvents, etc. Section 4(f) Lands. These include publiclyowned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or any land from a historic site of national, state or local significance. Historical and Cultural Resources Resources Potentially Affected Anticipated to be less-than-significant impacts. The airport will need to continue to comply with their current NPDES operations permit requirements. No impacts to domestic sewage disposal are anticipated. Increased surface runoff will need to be addressed during the preparation of an EA for the proposed runway improvements. With regard to construction activities, the airport and all applicable contractors will need to comply with the requirements and procedures of the construction-related NPDES General Permit, including the preparation of a Notice of Intent and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, prior to the initiation of project construction activities. No impacts anticipated. Anticipated less-than-significant impacts. Further coordination with the SHPO will be required prior to project implementation and field surveys may be required. Threatened or Endangered Species and Biological Resources Unknown. No impacts to threatened or endangered species are anticipated; however, further coordination with the Missouri Department of Conservation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be required for a final determination. 5-10

15 TABLE 5B (Continued) Review of Environmental Resources Proposed Facility Improvements Environmental Resource Waters of the U.S. including Wetlands Floodplains Wild and Scenic Rivers Farmland Energy Supply and Natural Resources Light Emissions Solid Waste Resources Potentially Mfected Anticipated less-than-significant impacts with potential mitigation. Due to the project's proximity to the Missouri River, specifically the runway improvements, and the proposed construction within the floodplain, impacts to wetland resources are anticipated. Further coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required to determine the level of mitigation required, if any. Anticipated less-than-significant impacts with mitigation. The proposed runway improvements will require construction within the floodplain associated with the Missouri River. Further coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the various levee districts will be required in order to determine mitigation requirements. No impact. The airport is not near any designated wild and scenic rivers. No impacts. The proposed development will not affect prime or unique farmland as the airport is located within an urban setting. No impacts anticipated. No significant impacts anticipated. No impacts anticipated. 5-11