National Academies Press: OpenBook

Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources (2010)

Chapter: Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources

« Previous: Front Matter
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 1
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 164
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 169
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 176
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 177
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 178
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 179
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 180
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 183
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 184
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 190
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 191
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 192
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 193
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 196
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 197
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 198
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 199
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 200
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 201
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 202
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 203
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 204
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 205
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 206
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 207
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 208
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 209
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 210
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 211
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 212
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 213
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 214
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 215
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 216
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 217
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 218
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 219
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 220
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 221
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 222
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 223
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 224
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 225
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 226
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 227
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 228
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 229
Page 230
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 230
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 231
Page 232
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 232
Page 233
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 233
Page 234
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 234
Page 235
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 235
Page 236
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 236
Page 237
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 237
Page 238
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 238
Page 239
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 239
Page 240
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 240
Page 241
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 241
Page 242
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 242
Page 243
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 243
Page 244
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 244
Page 245
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 245
Page 246
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 246
Page 247
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 247
Page 248
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 248
Page 249
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 249
Page 250
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 250
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 251
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 252
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 253
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 254
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 255
Page 256
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 256
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 257
Page 258
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 258
Page 259
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 259
Page 260
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 260
Page 261
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 261
Page 262
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 262
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 263
Page 264
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 264
Page 265
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 265
Page 266
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 266
Page 267
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 267
Page 268
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 268
Page 269
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 269
Page 270
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 270
Page 271
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 271
Page 272
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 272
Page 273
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 273
Page 274
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 274
Page 275
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 275
Page 276
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 276
Page 277
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 277
Page 278
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 278
Page 279
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 279
Page 280
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 280
Page 281
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 281
Page 282
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 282
Page 283
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 283
Page 284
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 284
Page 285
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 285
Page 286
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 286
Page 287
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 287
Page 288
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 288
Page 289
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 289
Page 290
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 290
Page 291
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 291
Page 292
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 292
Page 293
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 293
Page 294
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 294
Page 295
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 295
Page 296
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 296
Page 297
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 297
Page 298
Suggested Citation:"Volume 1 - Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22960.
×
Page 298

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources V O L U M E 1

Introduction Airports are an important element in the viability of our nation and are a significant resource to both the national and global economy. Unfortunately, incompatible land uses are threat- ening the utility of airports and aircraft operations across the county. The FAA, as the federal agency charged with oversight of aviation issues, airport sponsors, state aviation depart- ments, and local jurisdictions that are located near an airport, must encourage compatible land uses around airports to protect these important transportation and economic assets. Table S.1 summarizes some of the primary reasons for incompatibility and the associated consequences. This research document offers a comprehensive resource to both airports and local juris- dictions that will provide recommendations that these entities can use to address incompati- ble land use issues. Since the FAA cannot mandate land use around airports, it is important that airports and local communities take a role in developing, implementing, and maintain- ing land use compatibility programs at their airports. With an effective compatible land use program, airports have a better opportunity to meet future needs, thus allowing for the growth and viability of the communities they serve, through the provision of aviation services. This is not a new phenomenon. The need for compatible land uses near airports was dis- cussed as early as 1952 when the Doolittle Report was released, which addressed many of the same issues airports and communities are facing today. Our nation’s economy has changed since 1952, becoming increasingly dependent upon air transportation with more than $507 billion generated in economic activities nationwide in 2002 and more than 1.9 million on-airport jobs (ACI, 2002). Additionally, in 2007, more than 20 million tons of cargo was transported by air while commercial airlines transported over 769.2 million passengers in the United States (ATA, 2008). This demonstrates the significant economic contribution that avi- ation (both commercial service and general aviation) makes to the economy. Preservation of the nation’s airports, through land use compatibility planning, is essential if this contri- bution to the economy is to be maintained into the future. ACRP Project 03-03, “Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility,” focused on providing a summary of current information on the topic of compatible land use near airports. The team assembled to research the project is a collection of individuals and firms with vast experience in airport land use compatibility issues, covering more than 30 years in the aviation industry, working coast-to-coast for both large commercial service airports and small general aviation airports. Team members’ specialties in aviation planning and engineering, land use planning, legal topics, aviation noise, and economic research were utilized to guide the development of this research effort. An important element of this research was the case study reviews. Fifteen case studies that targeted a wide range of airports were conducted to evaluate land use issues. The case study 1.3 S U M M A R Y Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

sites included large commercial service, military, and general aviation airports and were geo- graphically diverse. These case studies revealed that many airports acknowledge the impacts of incompatible land uses in proximity to their facilities; however, many have little or no authority to effect the development or implementation of land use plans or policies within their host community. This is a significant hindrance to the compatibility process. Addition- ally, a lack of funding sources to pay for the planning effort is also a concern for many com- munities and airports. Types of Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns Airport compatible land uses are defined as uses that can coexist with a nearby airport without either constraining the safe and efficient operation of the airport or exposing peo- ple living and working nearby to unacceptable levels of noise or hazards. Determining the level of compatibility of land uses around an airport is affected by the type of use and asso- ciated concerns. In typical planning documents such as master plans and zoning ordinances, classifications for land use are provided to distinguish different types of uses from one another. For the purposes of this discussion these classifications have been quantified into six broad categories: • Residential • Commercial • Industrial • Institutional • Infrastructure • Agricultural/open space Often these classifications are further defined by their density and more specific type of use. For example, the residential classification may be separated into single-family residen- tial, multi-family residential, and manufactured housing. Each of these classifications may pose a different land use concern to an airport depending on their classification and prox- imity to the airport. The relationship of these land classifications relative to the geographic proximity to an airport and its operation determine compatibility. 1.4 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Table S1.1 Reasons to prevent incompatibility. Why is Incompatibility Occurring? What are the Consequences ofIncompatibility? The United States population has increased by over 80 million people in the last 30 years. Urban areas are expanding and communities are pursuing dense development. Communities underestimate the adverse impacts of incompatible land use development on airport operations. Many airports are currently surrounded by flat, undeveloped land that is attractive for development because it is served by utilities and other infrastructure. Degraded airport operations. Limited current and future economic development opportunities. Reduced quality of life for airport neighbors. Lost value of public investment. Decline in transportation access. Increased safety risk to aircraft and persons on the ground. Precludes airport expansion or modification resulting from demand or new technology.

The determination of what is compatible is somewhat relevant to each individual airport and its surrounding communities. However, general provisions that guide the local decision- making process can be provided. It is recommended that careful consideration be taken on a site specific basis to address concerns of individual airports and surrounding communities as there are varying degrees of compatibility based on items such as type, uses, location, and size of buildings. Since land use classifications vary by community, this document allows for flex- ibility in interpretation and implementation. Each classification of land use has been reviewed in the document for the impacts it poses to the airport and its operations as well as to people and property on the ground. It is recommended that the various land use classifications be evaluated for compatibility based upon several areas of concern that have the potential to impact aircraft operations or have a detrimental affect on persons located in proximity to an airport. These areas of con- cern generally include: • Noise Related Concerns. The goal is to limit noise sensitive land uses to avoid issues such as annoyance and sleep disturbance to persons on the ground • Safety Related Concerns. The goal is to limit uses that have potential impacts in the fol- lowing two categories: – Those uses hazardous to airspace and overflights  Tall structures (cell towers, wind turbines, vegetation, tall buildings)  Visual obstructions (smoke, glare, steam, dust, lights)  Wildlife and bird attractants (wetlands, crops, open water) – Those uses that affect accident severity  High concentrations of people (schools, churches, arenas)  Risk-sensitive uses (nursing homes, hospitals, flammable materials)  Open lands Consideration for these land use concerns is recommended when evaluating specific devel- opments in proximity to an airport. In some instances, such as built-out urban environments, the only land use planning options may be to not make existing uses any more incompatible than they already are, since the ability to be proactive in limiting uses has already passed. A more detailed discussion of the various land use classifications and the potential concerns asso- ciated with these uses is contained in Chapter 2 of Volume 1 of this report. Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders A variety of federal and state agencies are stakeholders in the land use planning arena that need to be integrated into the planning process. Since the FAA is unable to mandate specific land uses near airports, it is the responsibility of local governments and airport sponsors to implement and enforce land use compatibility measures near airports. Each community and airport has unique situations that require policies be tailored to their individual airport and community needs to ensure compatible land uses. In many instances there often are contra- dictory regulations from these same stakeholders that must be addressed to achieve land use compatibility near an airport. Relationships among stakeholders vary due to factors such as state enabling authority, air- port ownership, and the type of airports involved. It is essential that effective communication and coordination occur between federal, state, regional, and local agencies, airports, and the communities they serve for an airport land use compatibility program to succeed. Specific roles and related activities for each of these stakeholder groups are discussed in Chapter 3 of Vol- ume 1 of the report. Summary 1.5

Additionally, the area of influence of an airport included in compatible land use plan- ning efforts often crosses multiple governmental jurisdictions, which necessitate coor- dination. In many instances, this also may require state legislation that allows for extra-territorial planning and zoning powers to regulate lands outside the boundary of the primary political jurisdiction. For example, in the State of Wisconsin, an airport sponsor has the right to establish airport zoning within a 3-mile radius of a public use airport, regardless of the political boundaries within the 3-mile area. Once the airport zoning ordinance is established, the municipalities within the boundary are required to implement the resulting zoning ordinance. This takes the political issues out of the equa- tion since the State has granted the airport sponsor the authority to establish land use zoning ordinances. Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance Information is provided in Chapter 4 of Volume 1 of this report regarding federal regu- lations and guidance related to compatible land uses near airports. As noted previously, the FAA has no regulatory power to require or empower communities to implement land use planning. Those powers have been delegated to the individual states; consequently, the responsibility rests with state governments to provide for specific airport land use planning legislation. The majority of the resources referenced in this document are federal resources that pro- vide some regulations, but more often guidance on topics related to land use issues. For exam- ple, an FAA Advisory Circular (AC) exists that provides guidance on the topic of hazardous wildlife attractants (FAA AC 150/5200-33B). This AC provides recommendations on the sep- aration distances within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided, eliminated, or mitigated. It is left to the local airport sponsor to implement the recommendations found in the various resource documents to the best of their ability taking into account staffing lev- els, funding sources, and local support. It must be kept in mind that the overall goal of the planning process, in conjunction with the federal guidance, is to minimize runway incidents and protect adjacent properties as well as minimize or eliminate incompatible land uses, to maintain a safe airport. Along with safety reasons, an airport’s ability to receive FAA grant funds for airport improvements is tied to land use compatibility. As outlined in Grant Assurance 21 of the FAA grant, all airports that accept federal money must take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft. This grant assurance obligates an airport sponsor to protect the federal investment through the maintenance of a safe operating environment. Standards are not provided to implement this assurance. Moreover, the “to the extent rea- sonable” clause means that implementation varies widely. An airport’s ability to adopt zon- ing or take other land use compatibility actions is much less when the surrounding lands are in a different jurisdiction than when the same agency controls both the airport and its envi- rons, as previously noted. Consequently, it is important that airports and local communities effectively communi- cate and work together to establish compatible land uses around airports. Additionally, use of the existing sources of federal guidance, and where applicable, state legislation, should be utilized to support the implementation of compatible land use planning efforts. 1.6 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Economic Costs of Airport Land Use Incompatibility While arguments can be made that incompatible land uses affect the safety of aircraft operations and safety of people and persons on the ground, it is hard to show the cost to air- ports and the communities they serve. The report addresses different methods and tools that can be used to address the costs of incompatible land uses. An important application dis- cussed in the report that can be used to determine economic costs of land use incompatibil- ity is in a benefit-cost analysis. A benefit-cost analysis allows decision makers to anticipate and evaluate the negative effects of a rule, policy, or public investment project. A fiscal impact analysis also can be used to estimate the impact of a development or land use change on the costs and revenues of a jurisdiction. Guidance, explanation of processes, principles, insight, examples, and tools of these analyses and evaluations are provided in the report for airports and their communities to use on a site-specific basis. The inclusion of these analy- ses and evaluations will allow airports and local communities to determine the economic costs associated with local incompatible land use issues. Aircraft Noise and Land Use Compatibility Aircraft noise has the potential to affect the quality of life on those persons who live and work in communities surrounding an airport. By preventing incompatible land uses that are sensitive to aircraft noise, an airport can continue to operate effectively without interfering with the health and welfare of local residents. A goal of the FAA’s Next Generation Air Trans- portation System (NextGen) plan is for airports to be “valued neighbors” of the communi- ties they serve by keeping the public well informed about environmental issues and through mitigation of environmental impacts. By addressing incompatible land use that are related to noise, even if only a perceived impact by local residents, airports may be able to foster greater public acceptance and reduce the incidence of impacts such as annoyance and sleep disturbance associated with aircraft noise. Aircraft Accidents and Safety Concerns Although aircraft accidents are rare, maintaining compatible land uses around airports helps to reduce the risk to those on the ground near airports, as well as those persons trav- eling by air, should an accident occur. Studies have been conducted to assess trends in air- craft accident locations and their relationship to the ends of runways to define zones of risk. The NTSB conduced a study that assessed aircraft accident statistics from 1978-1987. Based upon those findings, it was concluded that of the 500 accidents contained in the data set, only 246 were relevant to the study of accident locations. A subsequent study entitled The Development of an Accident Database to Structure Land Use Regulations in Airport Run- way Approach Zones, Part II, 1998, was able to include 873 accidents that covered a period from 1983 to 1992 (Cooper, 1998). It has been recommended based on the findings of these two studies, that additional data is necessary when accident and incident reports are filed. For example, additional information related to the precise location of the accident, the extent and location of any related debris field, as well as the point of take-off or touchdown and information regarding the surrounding terrain and land uses are recommended to be collected. Additionally, an assessment of the amount of risk associated with land use incompatibility also is necessary. For example, in some discussions, people who support compatible land use planning argue that while the probability of an aircraft accident happening in any one loca- tion is relatively small, it only takes one accident for it to have potentially catastrophic con- sequences. Others who are not as favorable to this planning effort argue that the risk of an Summary 1.7

accident is so minute that there is little reason to plan for it. Consequently, local communities need to assess the general level of risk that they are comfortable assuming with regards to the potential of an aircraft accident and the subsequent impacts to the local community and prop- erty owners who may be in proximity to the accident site. European countries, particularly in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, have increasingly been performing risk analyses in developing land use compatibility guidance. The results of these European studies, along with a study conducted in the United States by the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Joint Airport Zoning Board, suggest current airport land use compatibility criteria may overstate the risk to people and property on the ground. Models developed by the United Kingdom National Air Traffic Services Limited illustrate areas of risk result in a triangular contour with the base adjacent to the end run- way and tapering to a point away from the runway. Because of these findings from the European community, it would be desirable to have the development of a risk model to determine land use compatibility criteria that could be applied at different airports within the United States, based upon the additional air- craft accident data that is now available. An additional 17 years of data has been collected since the 1992 Cooper Study (Cooper 1998). This model would be available for use by state and local planners and elected officials, as well as airports and consultants, to analyze risk at an airport. Availability of this model would help to establish a more rational and cus- tomized approach in defining criteria for airport land use compatibility and acceptable levels of risk. It should be noted that additional guidance would be necessary to accompany this sort of model to provide local policy decision makers to determine acceptable levels of risk com- pared to the tradeoff for development opportunities in order to reduce risk of aircraft acci- dents. The willingness will vary from community to community and would need to be based upon local assessment of the potential risks versus the anticipated cost, should an accident occur. Techniques for Land Use Compatibility Many communities have some form of incompatible land use in proximity to their local airport. Due to increased development in the 20th and early 21st century, urban areas have expanded rapidly and many airports that used to be on the outskirts of their host commu- nity often find themselves in the middle in urban areas today with incompatible land uses impacting the airport. Consequently, there is a need to provide communities and airports with a number of techniques that can be utilized to address these land use compatibility issues. For example, for a large commercial service airport in an already congested metro- politan area, the tools for addressing land use incompatibility may be much greater than those employed at a more remote general aviation airport. The tools and techniques contained in Chapter 8 of Volume 1 offer the reader a number of options to address land use compatibility within several broad topics including techniques in planning and zoning, natural features, acquisition and notification, noise mitigation, and education and communications. When evaluating potential techniques, it is important to select methods that will allow for the mitigation and/or prevention of incompatible land uses in order to maintain safe and efficient airports along with protecting people and property on the ground. Tables are provided in Chapter 8 of the report that outline potential techniques based on different types of communities, airport size, and growth pressure. It is important to note that many of the tools provided in the report have little chance of success if not built upon a solid 1.8 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

foundation of cooperative planning between the airport and the local community. Along with cooperation between airports and local communities, multiple strategies should be employed to address land use compatibility issues. Further Research Based on the findings of this project, several areas were identified that would benefit from further research. These specific areas include: aircraft accident data, a discussion of density, the effectiveness of avigation easements and their long term impact on property values, the economic implications of incompatible land use, appropriate use of the 65-DNL contour as an acceptable threshold for noise and assessment of third party risk, and increased public awareness. A more detailed examination of recent aircraft accident location data and accident reports is warranted. As most aircraft accident location studies were completed using data prior to 1997, an analysis of data available from the most recent 10 year period is needed to determine if previous accident rate patterns are still valid or if changes have occurred to this pattern. Additionally, more data that address the level of accident data recorded and analyzed also are needed. A more distinct assessment of accident data would be beneficial. For example, an accident due to an aircraft descending below the appropri- ate glide path and colliding with a tree on a ridge two miles from the airport during land- ing may not likely have occurred if in a similar situation at an airport surrounded with flat terrain. This demonstrates that a simple plot of accident locations, while interesting, may not provide the additional level of detail that would be helpful to address land use com- patibility issues. More research is needed to determine what an acceptable level of density is and how to maintain safe levels of density in proximity to an airport. Since different land uses have dif- ferent levels of density, more research is needed to determine what acceptable levels for these various uses may be, as well as addressing if there should be a difference based upon the use or its proximity to the airport environs. Another area of research should address how avigation easements may impact property values. A common question during the acquisition of an avigation easement is “how much will this affect my property value in the long run?” Providing an answer to this question or determining that the answer may vary depending upon a host of factors, would be benefi- cial to the industry. Assessing additional economic implications in greater detail is also recommended. This research would look at the broader economic impact of land use incompatibility on the avi- ation industry in terms of possible topics such as capacity issues, legislative costs; lose in revenue and project delays as well as third-party exposure to risk. This information is expected to strengthen the case for land use compatibility planning as a whole, throughout the industry. Conclusion The purpose of this project is to make available, to airports and those responsible for planning decisions, a tool that can be referenced and used to address land use compatibil- ity issues near airports. Along with defining compatible land uses, this document provides suggested techniques to address land use issues at local airports. Additionally, this docu- ment defines the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders and summarizes various Summary 1.9

federal legislation and regulations related to compatible land use planning. Text that addressed the economic analysis of costs associated with incompatible land uses also is pro- vided. Sample documents such as model state legislation and a model local zoning ordinance also are included to provide a base document of consideration by readers of the document. An extensive annotated bibliography is also enclosed with over 300 entries that can be used as resource documents. It is the hope of the project team that this document demonstrates the importance of land use compatibility at and near airports. Through compatible land use, airports and commu- nities can not only protect an important economic and community asset, but also ensure safety and maintain an acceptable quality of life for those in surrounding communities. 1.10 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

The Wright Brother’s invention of the airplane in 1903 spawned an industry that has become one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in the world that provides access to the global economy. In the century since that first flight, aviation has evolved into an efficient mode of trans- portation utilized by billions of people annually, as well as providing for the transportation of goods throughout the world. While the industry continues to grow and demand for service increases, an often overlooked entity known as incompatible land use continues to threaten the success of the industry and the livability of the communities that the industry serves. Historically, most airports were built in farm fields and other places well away from the nearest towns. As towns grew, they got closer to airports, and conflicts over noise, safety, and airspace protection arose. Often the result was closure of the airport and perhaps its replacement farther from town. This option was workable when airports consisted of little more than dirt strips. Replacement is much less feasible when airports represent investments of millions or even billions of dollars. Furthermore, as urban areas have expanded and the demand for buildable property has continued to escalate, sites where new airports can be built have become increasingly difficult to find. Then, when a new site is found, communities tend to expand outward toward the airport and the whole cycle begins again. These conflicts play out across the nation daily—within large urban areas as well as the smaller rural towns—as communities and airports struggle to find a balance between airport operations and compatible land use. This incompatibility between airports and the land uses that surround them is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, a landmark study completed in 1952—the Doolittle Report—addressed many of the same issues that remain today. A point emphasized in that report was that airports and metropolitan areas should be jointly planned so that they each develop to serve the other. This con- cept has frequently been neglected and incompatible land uses have flourished in proximity to many of the nation’s airports. More than ever, it is now imperative that a cooperative approach to airport land use compatibility planning be embraced—the preservation of airports from the encroachment of incompatible land uses must be a priority for the nation, as well as individual states, local governments, host communities, and airports themselves. This document is intended to have a dynamic audience including airport managers, commu- nity planners, elected officials, developers, pilots, and local citizens. All have a vested interest in the land use compatibility planning that takes place near an airport. The contents of the report are expected to provide the reader with a better understanding of airport land use compatibility issues. It describes the types of compatibility conflicts that can occur between airport activities and land use development, evaluates the implications of these conflicts, outlines strategies that can be set in place to mitigate existing and avoid future conflicts, and defines the responsibilities for implemen- tation of these strategies. All of this information is provided in an effort to be sure that airport land use compatibility will not only become better understood, but also acknowledged as an important 1.11 V O L U M E 1 , C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

issue in local planning decisions and then implemented so that the value of airports as part of the national transportation system can be preserved and the livability of nearby communities can be enhanced. The contents of the overall document are separated into several volumes. Volume 1 – Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources provides information that helps frame the discussion of land use compatibility; provides the background of why land use compatibility near airports is important; and focuses on the various regulations, tools, and techniques that can be utilized to address land use compatibility issues. Volume 2 – Land Use Survey and Case Study Summaries con- tains summaries of both the case study survey that was an integral part of the data collection effort, as well as the individual case study summary reports for the 15 case study sites. Volume 3 – Addi- tional Resources contains some of the resource documents developed to support the information discussed in the first volume. It provides additional detail for those readers who may want to delve deeper into the specific topics of aircraft accident data and third party risk, as well as the economic methodology for assessing the costs associated with incompatible land uses. An annotated bibliog- raphy also is provided which contains approximately 300 entries related to airport land use com- patibility. These three volumes combine to provide one of the first resources of its kind for airport land use compatibility issues. The specific elements within the individual volumes include: Volume 1 – Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources Chapter 1 – Introduction Chapter 2 – Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns Chapter 3 – Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders Chapter 4 – Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance Chapter 5 – Economic Costs of Airport Land Use Incompatibility Chapter 6 – Aircraft Noise and Land Use Compatibility Chapter 7 – Aircraft Accidents and Safety Considerations Chapter 8 –Tools and Techniques for Land Use Compatibility Chapter 9 – Conclusions Appendices A–H Volume 2 – Land Use Survey and Case Study Summaries Introduction and Survey Summary Case Studies (15) Volume 3 – Additional Resources Aircraft Accident Data Sources and Trends Developing a Framework for the Economic Assessment of the Costs of Airport Land Use Imcompatibility Annotated Bibliography History of Land Use Compatibility It is important to recognize that relatively little of the policy foundations for airport land use compatibility planning come directly from federal statutes. On the federal level, only guidance is provided since the U.S. Constitution precludes federal government regulation of local land uses. Federal government involvement in airport land use compatibility planning occurs mostly because of the federal grant funding upon which airports rely. Various federal agencies have established nonregulatory guidelines that pertain to airport land use compatibility; however, there is no single federal agency that provides overall coordination of these efforts. 1.12 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Over the years, attention to this issue has taken many different directions, as has the level of action taken. Dating back to 1952, President Harry S. Truman commissioned the development of a document entitled The Airport and Its Neighbors – The Report of the President’s Airport Com- mission, commonly known as the Doolittle Report, which documented the need to protect and preserve airports from incompatible land uses and protect people on the ground within the vicinity of airports from the nuisances caused by airport and aircraft operations. Additional reports have been issued and various federal acts have since been adopted support- ing some of the goals the 1952 Doolittle Report. For example, in 1969, the National Environmen- tal Policy Act (NEPA) was adopted providing for environmental review of federally funded projects. NEPA looks at land use issues from an environmental and social impact perspective. In the early 1970s, the Department of Defense (DoD) identified the impacts of its operation on areas outside of military property boundary lines. Based on the study, Congress authorized the creation of the Air Installation Compatibility Use Zones (AICUZ) programs. These programs establish policies and guidelines to protect military operational compatibility by avoiding incompatible development that would prevent military installations from changing or expanding operations to meet new mission requirements as necessary. In the 1980s, minimal attention was paid to the issue of land use compatibility with the exception of noise issues and height limits to protect airport airspace. Additionally, the DoD was authorized by Congress in 1985 to establish a community planning assistance grant program to complement the AICUZ program. This program was implemented as a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) through the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA). The impacts of noise have long been the most targeted of the land use compatibility concerns with the FAA Part 150 Noise Study program specifically providing guidance on noise impacts and associated land use planning strategies for maintaining noise sensitive uses outside of specific noise contours. According to FAA sources, more than $8 billion in noise mitigation funds have been allocated to airports across the country since the inception of the FAR Part 150 program and associated Noise Compatibility Plans. Since the 1980s, moderate efforts have been made to address land use compatibility issues, mainly at the state level with many state aviation departments pursuing the development of state land use regulations, as well as state guidance on land use compatibility issues. Additionally, vari- ous federal guidance documents have been developed to address specific topics such as the siting of municipal land fills in proximity to airports and wildlife attractants. In an effort to encourage more land use planning, Section 160 of Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (2003) provided funding for large and medium hub airports and the communities that surround them to undertake land use planning programs. In mid-2009, four projects funded by this program were underway. Its continuation is included in the current FAA funding reauthorization request. Since its inception, this program has funded the following four projects: • Des Plaines, IL, near Chicago O’Hare Int. Airport • The Village of Harwood Heights, IL, near Chicago O’Hare Int. Airport • San Mateo County, CA, near San Francisco Int. Airport • The City of Ontario, CA, near Ontario Int. Airport More recently, with the development of ACRP as part of TRB, a number of topics related to land use compatibility are being researched to provide current assessment of the industry. As previously noted, some states have taken the initiative to address land use compatibility with state legislation and guidance. For example, the State of Minnesota, on January 1, 1946, enacted its first model airport zoning ordinance, and by 1958 it had designated specific safety zones as part of the model airport zoning standards. In 1973, local protective zoning was made a condition for receiving federal and state funds. Additionally, the Office of Aeronautics of the Minnesota State Department of Transportation publishes a model zoning ordinance to assist Introduction 1.13

local governments and provides related technical assistance to the 136 publicly owned airports in the state. In California, the state legislature first enacted portions of the State Aeronautics Act providing for the creation of airport land use commissions (ALUCs). It should be noted that there are statu- tory limitations on ALUCs which define that they have no authority over existing land use regard- less of whether such uses are incompatible with airport activities. Another limitation on ALUCs authority is that they have no jurisdiction over airport operations. Any actions directed toward the day-to-day activities of an airport or the manner in which aircraft operate are beyond the purview of ALUCs. However, ALUCs have authority to review proposed airport plans or proposed devel- opment to the extent that such proposals could affect off-airport land uses. The State of Oregon also has a long history with addressing airport land use compatibility issues, dating back to 1978 when the state first published a guidebook on the topic. This docu- ment was developed as a “first step to provide the necessary understanding and information in the developing area of land use compatibility in the airport environs” (Airport Compatibility Plan- ning, 1978). Various updates to the document over the years have reinforced the state’s commit- ment toward compatible land uses around airports. The most recent update (2002) to this document follows in the tradition of the previous updates with the same purpose and audience. The 2002 update reflects one of the biggest changes to state regulations related to airports - the development of the Airport Planning Rule (APR) overseen by the Department of Land Conser- vation and Development. The APR provides many useful regulations to control development both on- and off-airport property. In 1996, the Washington State Legislature passed amendments to the state’s Growth Manage- ment Act affecting airport land use compatibility. In recognition of the societal benefits provided by air transportation, the amendments require towns, cities, and counties to discourage incompat- ible development adjacent to public-use airports through comprehensive plans and development regulations. The policy to protect airport facilities must be implemented in county and city com- prehensive plans and development regulations as they are amended in the normal course of land use proceedings. Further, the law requires the establishment of an airport land use compatibility technical assistance program available to local jurisdictions. The legislation also identifies public- use airports as essential public facilities. These actions by various states over the years demonstrate their commitment to the preserva- tion of the funds and time invested in the development of this valuable piece of transportation infrastructure. It also demonstrates the fact that there is no single method to address land use com- patibility issues. Each state, airport, and community is unique and requires its own methods to address land use compatibility issues. National Value of Aviation Recognizing the importance of a strong national network of air transportation, it is incumbent upon federal, state, and local governments, and airport sponsors to establish a unified vision that will protect and promote aviation demands, while sustaining the nation’s economy. The United States has an extensive network of airports that moves people and cargo, as well as supports national defense objectives. National, regional, and local economic growth depends upon the United States network of air transportation. To illustrate the value of air transportation to the nation, in its 2002 study, The Economic Impact of U.S. Airports, the Airports Council International (ACI) describes the increasing dependency of the U.S. economy on its airports. 1.14 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

• Airports create $507 billion each year in total economic activities nationwide. • There are 1.9 million on-airport jobs in the United States and 4.8 million are indirectly cre- ated in local communities, for a total of 6.7 million airport-related jobs. These jobs translate into earnings of $190 billion annually. • Airports generate $33.5 billion in local, state, and federal taxes. • Over 1.9 million passengers each day rely on U.S. airports for business and leisure travel. The relationship between airports, aviation, and industry is interconnected as they support and sustain each other’s growth and development. As represented here, this strong network of air transportation is crucial to connect communities and businesses on local, regional, state, and national levels. Businesses depend on airports that provide air passenger and air cargo trans- portation, and businesses also rely upon airports that provide general aviation services. Airports are essential for job retention and recruitment for economic development groups and commu- nities nationally. Airports not only serve businesses and transport cargo; they also provide vital transportation services to all citizens. The report Commercial Aviation and the American Economy 2006, authored by the Campbell-Hill Aviation Group, determined the U.S. civil aviation economic impact on the U.S. economy to be: • $1.37 trillion of national output in 2004 • $418 billion in personal earnings • 12.3 million U.S. employees While commercial aviation provided the most significant impact with: • $1.2 trillion in output • $380 billion in earnings • 11.4 million jobs Furthermore, the 2008 Economic Report by the Air Transport Association (ATA) summarizes the impact of all U.S. commercial airlines in 2007 as follows: • Cargo totaled just under 20 million tons. • 769.2 million passengers were boarded on all U.S. airlines. • U.S. airlines experienced a 5% increase in operating revenues including passenger, cargo, and charter totaling $173.1 billion, with a net profit of nearly $5 billion. • After a decrease in airline employment from 2005-2006, the Average Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) for employment reached 560,997. • The average yearly total compensation for airline employees totaled $74,786. • U.S. airlines aircraft departures total just under 11.4 million. • Aircraft, facilities, and equipment total nearly $96.3 billion. As these figures demonstrate, the aviation industry, both commercial service and general avia- tion, have a significant impact on the U.S. and global economies. If the value of the military aspects of aviation, in terms of homeland security and military training, are added to the transportation value of the aviation system, it becomes evident that there is a significant resource within the United States that must be maintained. This maintenance begins with the preservation of not only the on- airport facilities such as runway pavement and lighting, but also the off-airport aspects of compat- ible land use that have a direct impact on the utility of each and every airport within the system of airports nationally. Recognition of this is critical to the fundamental basis for land use compatibil- ity planning: namely, that significant funds are expended annually on airport related development and, if incompatible land uses are allowed to develop in proximity to airports, this investment in the aviation infrastructure may be compromised. Introduction 1.15

Consequences of Incompatible Land Uses In 2004, the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO) and the FAA as part of their ongoing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) added an initiative to address land use policy. According to the document FAA and NASAO will partner to establish coordination in an effort to prevent land use decisions that may reduce the safe and efficient use of airspace. This collaboration will also protect against encroachment of airports due to the establishment of incompatible land uses across the country. As noted by NASAO President Henry Ogrodzinski, while there was a wealth of anecdotal evi- dence that incompatible land use was having a strong and growing negative impact on airspace and airports, there was no existing documentation regarding incompatible land use on a nation-wide basis. Consequently, NASAO partnered with Mead & Hunt, Inc. to conduct a brief survey of the NASAO membership to generate a baseline assessment of the concerns associated with incompat- ible land uses through the United States. Of the 52 surveys distributed (50 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico), 40 responses were received for a response rate of 77%. These responses represented more than 7,000 airports across the 40 states. The results of the study indicated that is a growing concern about land use compatibility and is an issue that has implications to the national aviation system. Since the NASAO survey was conducted at the state level and provided evidence that there are compatible land use concerns, the research team for this study thought it was important to delve into more site specific concerns. Consequently, the team initiated a national call for par- ticipation, using the NASAO mem- bership connections to conduct a follow-up survey. This survey was initiated in 2007, as part of the development of this document. The survey obtained results from 123 air- ports from across the country that identified various types of land uses that pose potential hazards at the individual airports. An evaluation of the results from the survey showed evidence of the presence of incom- patible land uses around airports with the most prevalent land use being residential development as shown in Figure 1.1-1 These findings are significant because the presence of incompatible land uses around airports have consequences, which give rise to costs—monetary and nonmonetary—for different stake- holders: airport sponsors, airport users, residents in surrounding communities, and concerned local and regional jurisdictions. Concerns about incompatibility arise from a number of reasons: • Airport operations can be perceived to generate negative impacts on the local community. Com- munities often oppose airport growth because residents in the airport vicinity are exposed to adverse environmental effects, such as noise emissions. Community opposition often leads to restrictions on aircraft operations and constraints on airport capacity expansion. • Land uses, such as those that pose physical obstructions, create visual distractions, and attract wildlife, can threaten the safety of aircraft operations as well as the safety of persons located in proximity to the airport environs. The encroachment of incompatible land uses around airports places physical limits to safe and efficient aircraft operations and airport capacity expansion. Exposure to the undesirable effects of 1.16 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Figure 1.1-1. Incidence of incompatible land uses around airports. 10.6% 22.8% 29.3% 39.8% 57.7% 68.3% Visual obstructions Tall structures Noise-sensitive land uses other than residential Land uses that attract wildlife Land uses with concentration of people Residential development Percent of airports reporting moderate to extensive presence. (Sample=123 airports) Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc., Land Use Survey, 2007.

aviation operations, such as noise and safety related concerns, often contributes to community opposition. In particular, community opposition to aviation noise is a major obstacle to airport development according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Commis- sion on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. For example, noise impacts were reported as the greatest environmental concern associated with aircraft operations, as found in a survey of the United States’ 50 busiest airports conducted by the GAO in 2000. Community opposition gener- ated by these concerns often lead to: • Delays in airport development or require development of new facilities; • Constraints to capacity expansion; • Restrictions on airport operations; • More stringent environmental standards, extensive review, and mitigation requirements; and • More extensive public outreach requirements and in some cases, litigation. ✈ Case Study Example: Denver International Airport Denver International Airport is a prime example of land use constraints being so significant that construction of a new airport was the only prudent option to maintain capacity in the Denver area. Due to the extensive amount of commercial, industrial, and residential devel- opment that surrounded the former site, the Airport faced safety concerns, flight delays, expansion constraints, noise impacts, and lack of ability to keep up with growing projected demand for air service. In 1985, Adams County and the City and County of Denver signed a Memorandum of Understanding and began to move bilaterally to plan a new airport. On February 28, 1995 the new Denver International Airport (located 17 miles east of downtown Denver) became operational. ✈ Case Study Example: Willmar Municipal Airport Another example of airport relocation due to the existence of incompatible land uses is at Willmar Municipal Airport in Minnesota. The decision to relocate the airport and construct a new site started after the old airport initiated a master plan update process in 1989 and 1997 that explored expansion of the existing facility and runways to accommodate future increased demand. The airport and local community began to realize, too late, that the existing facility could not get FAA or state funding because of already-established incompatible land uses. In 1995, a joint airport-planning group recommended relocating the airport to a site two miles to the west. ✈ Case Study Example: Indianapolis International Airport Indianapolis International Airport demonstrates extensive public outreach requirements with minimal litigation needed to maintain compatible uses near their airport. Since most of the development surrounding the Airport was completed after the Airport was established, the existing land uses are generally compatible with Airport operations. In order to assure contin- ued compatible land use development, the city of Indianapolis, under a federal grant and through the Department of Metropolitan Development, in cooperation with the Indianapo- lis Airport Authority, has been developing an Airport Vicinity Land Use Plan that works to improve aircraft safety, examine noise intensity in areas adjacent to the airport, and update transportation and land use planning. Ultimately, all these lead to a variety of costs to airport users and sponsors, such as: • Operating restrictions, development delays, and capacity constraints result in delay costs to airlines, passengers, and other airport users. Introduction 1.17

• Project delays, more stringent standards, more extensive requirements for environmental review and mitigation, and more extensive efforts for public outreach all increase the cost of airport development. • Litigation costs such as attorneys’ fees, airport staff time, and, in some cases, settlement or judg- ment costs. From a broader perspective, according to the GAO, “constraints on efforts to expand airports or aviation operations could affect the future of aviation because the national airspace system can- not expand as planned without a significant increase in airport capacity.” The national aviation sys- tem cannot accommodate the projected doubling or tripling of air traffic in the coming decades without additional airports and runways (GAO 2008b). Constraints on airport growth also have consequences for concerned local and regional jurisdictions. Airports contribute to the local econ- omy by stimulating economic activity, creating employment, and generating income. Constraints on airport growth limit the positive economic impacts that surrounding communities and the larger region can derive from airport operations. Safety is an equally important consideration. While aviation crashes rarely occur, the costs are great when they do. As will be discussed later in this document, data shows that aircraft crashes, in the vicinity of airports, tend to occur near runway ends below the approach and departure flight paths. Land uses that increase the risk of aviation crashes often include those that create physical obstructions, create visual distractions, and attract wildlife. In many instances, bird hazards are the most common wildlife hazard, especially when aircraft is airborne. However, incidents with wildlife on the ground during landing or take-off also can be a significant concern. Consequently, the term “wildlife” has been used throughout this document to include both birds and other animals. Land uses with high concentration of people in proximity to the airport and its operational areas increase third-party exposure to aviation crash risk. Table 1.1-1 lists the negative consequences to different stakeholders of the presence of incompatible land uses around airports. Consequences and Costs to the Aviation System and Its Users Incompatible land uses give rise to community opposition and physical constraints on airport development. These have various consequences that ultimately lead to aircraft delays and increased passenger travel time, development costs, increased risk of property damage, and fatalities from aircraft accidents. Delays and Constraints to Airport Development Community opposition can cause delays in the implementation of airport development proj- ects. Project implementation delays result in monetary costs, arising from the need to update proj- ect plans, extend or change contracts, renew project approvals and permits, among other things. All these potentially increase airport development costs. More significantly, delays in much needed capacity expansion cause aircraft delays to continue and worsen. Community opposition can limit capacity expansion leading to a variety of costly outcomes, such as persistence of aircraft delays; diversion of aircraft operations to other airports; or, in the extreme case, the need to build a replacement airport at another site. Every minute of delay costs aircraft operators in additional aircraft operating and maintenance cost and costs passengers in additional travel time. The relocation of an airport is a lengthy and costly process, as demonstrated in at least two cases in recent decades: the relocation of Denver International Airport and Willmar Municipal Airport, Minnesota. 1.18 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

The 2007 survey gathered information on where incompatible land uses have affected airport development in some way. As shown in Table 1.1-2, of 123 airport respondents, 33 airports or 26.8 % indicated that incompatible land uses delayed or prevented airport development from tak- ing place. Restrictions on Aircraft Operations Public opposition can result in political action to impose restrictions on aircraft operations. Responding to the 2007 survey, 53 airports (43.1% of all respondents) reported operational restric- tions prompted by land use issues as shown in Table 1.1-3. It should be noted that restrictions are typically intended to cover mandatory regulations such as curfews or maximum limits on oper- ations. In many instances, noise abatement procedures are imposed, which are considered to be operational limitations, not restrictions. Many airports have noise abatement procedures for night time operations, which are successful when traffic is relatively light. Consequently, it is important to note the difference between restrictions and more general limitations such as noise abatement procedures The most frequently cited restriction, reported by 44 airports, involves modification of flight procedures. Other restrictions include curfew on aircraft operations (including voluntary curfews), restriction of certain aircraft types, limiting the number of aircraft operations, voluntary noise abatement procedures, and preferential runway use. Twenty-four airports reported more than one type of restriction in place. These restrictions on aircraft operations impose artificial limits on airport capacity that can exacerbate or leave aircraft delays unchecked at congested airports, resulting in increased aircraft Introduction 1.19 Table 1.1-1. Consequences of airport land use incompatibility to different stakeholders. Consequences to the aviation system and its users: Delays and constraints to airport development, leading to system delays. Restrictions on aircraft operations, leading to system delays and travel time penalties. Constraints to runway approach protection, leading to runway capacity constraints and safety risks. Litigation and related costs. Increased development costs due to changes to proposed development and/or delays which increase costs of building materials and labor rates. Increased risk of aviation crashes from the presence of tall structures, visual obstructions, and wildlife attractants. Consequences to people who live near airports: Exposure to noise. Exposure to aviation crash risk. Consequences to concerned local and regional jurisdictions: Unrealized local and regional economic benefits due to constraints on airport growth. Table 1.1-2. Airports where incompatible land uses delayed or prevented airport development. (Sample  123 airports) # of Airports Runway or taxiway Terminal Fixed-Base Operator Cargo Hangar Commercial Park Total reported cases 33 29 5 1 Commercial Service (CS) 11 11 1 0 General Aviation (GA) 21 17 4 1 Private Use 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Source: Mead & Hunt, Land Use Survey, 2007.

1.20 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Airport # of Airports Curfew on aircraft operations Limit on # of aircraft operations Restriction of certain aircraft Modification of flight procedure Other Total reported cases 53 16 4 14 44 10 Commercial Service (CS) 20 4 5 17 General Aviation (GA) 32 12 9 26 Private Use 1 0 0 4 6 0 2 2 0 1 Source: Mead & Hunt, Preliminary Interview Assessment Survey, 2007. Table 1.1-3. Airports where incompatible land uses led to restrictions on aircraft operations. (Sample  123 airports) operating and maintenance costs and increased passenger travel time. Modified flight procedures often lead to additional minutes of flight, when pilots are required to take a less direct route for take off and landing. Impact on Approach Protection The presence of incompatible land uses also can compromise runway approach protection, restricting runway use and posing potential hazard to aircraft safety. Of the 123 airport survey respondents, 17 airports, representing 13.8%, reported this problem as shown in Figure 1.1-2. Litigation and Related Costs Community opposition can often lead to litigation. As summarized in Table 1.1-4, 31 airports, representing 25.2% of the 123 airport respondents to the 2007 survey, reported litigation prompted by incompatible land uses. The majority of the reported cases (25 airports) involved noise. The other cases involved land uses with a high concentration of people, tall structures, and land uses that attract wildlife. Litigation involves legal fees and other costs. The operators of the 31 airports were asked to com- plete a follow-on survey to obtain additional information on financial costs associated with litiga- 1 airport 2 airports 14 airports 17 airports Private Use Commercial Service (CS) General Aviation (GA) Total reported incidents (Sample = 123 airports) Source: Mead & Hunt, Preliminary Interview Assessment Survey, 2007. Figure 1.1-2. Airports where incompatible land uses impacted runway approach protection.

tion. Only 12 airports responded, in whole or in part, and the responses were insufficient to serve as basis for any generalized estimate of the costs associated with litigation. The responses showed wide variation from airport to airport. For example, the reported amount of attorneys fees paid ranged from $2,500 to $4 million, and estimates of the cost of airport staff time ranged from $2,734 to $500,000. Judgment or settlement amounts ranged from $8,500 to $130 million. In general, litigation costs include attorney’s fees, staff time, and the amount of settlement, if any. The mag- nitude of costs depends upon the type of litigation, duration, and outcome. Increased Development Costs Actions to lessen environmental impacts have increased the costs of development, more so when incompatible land uses are present. The NEPA of 1969 calls for an environmental review of federal actions, including airport expansion projects. In particular, noise-mitigation measures include acquiring noise-sensitive properties, relocating people, modifying structures to reduce noise, encouraging compatible zoning, and assisting in the sale of affected properties. In addition to these efforts, some airports have voluntarily established some type of noise monitoring sys- tem, and conduct public outreach and education programs. Since the early 1980s, the federal government has issued grants to mitigate noise around various airports, predominately air carrier airports. Since the early 1990s, the FAA also has allowed airports to impose passenger facility charges (PFC) for that purpose. As shown in Table 1.1-5, the FAA has provided almost $5 billion in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, and airports have used almost $2.8 billion in PFCs for Part 150 noise mitigation studies and projects. In total, this amounts to nearly $8 billion in funds for noise related projects (GAO 2007). Additionally, in the last 10 years, the FAA also has spent almost $42 million on research to characterize noise and improve prediction methods, including developing a capability to determine the trade-offs between noise and emissions and quantifying the costs and bene- fits of various mitigation strategies (GAO 2007). Increased Aviation Accident Risk The safety of aircraft and their occupants, as well as people on the ground, is a very impor- tant concern for aviation policy. Aviation accident rates have fallen over the years due to Introduction 1.21 Airport # of Airports High concentration of people Noise sensitive Height/Tall Structures Visual Obstruction Wildlife attractant Other Total reported incidents 31 9 25 0 3 Commercial Service (CS) 16 6 14 0 1 General Aviation (GA) 15 3 2 0 211 0 1 0 1 2 Source: Mead & Hunt, Preliminary Interview Assessment Survey, 2007. Table 1.1-4 Airports that reported facing litigation involving land use issues. (Sample  123 airports) Sources and Uses of Funds Amount (in millions) AIP funds, fiscal years 1982-2007 Mitigation measures for residences $1,903 Land acquisition $2,170 Noise monitoring system $170 Mitigation measures for public buildings $703 Noise compatibility plan $87 Total AIP funds $5,033 PFC funds, fiscal years 1992-2007 Multiphase $1,283 Land acquisition $481 Soundproofing $1,018 Monitoring $31 Planning $15 Total PFC funds $2,828 Grand Total AIP and PFC funds $7,861 Table 1.1-5 AIP and PFC investments for part 150 noise mitigation studies and projects, 1982-2007.

relentless efforts to develop strategies that reduce the occurrence of accidents and to promote technologies, programs, and practices that enhance aviation safety. Air transport has become the safest way to travel with 0.75 accidents per million flights in 2007 according to the Inter- national Air Transport Association (IATA). However, when they do occur, aviation accidents are costly. They can result in substantial loss of lives, injuries, property damage, and substantial monetary costs associated with hospitalization, accident investigation, and litigation, in cer- tain cases. Accident data suggest that aircraft accidents in the vicinity of airports tend to occur near runway ends under the approach and departure flight paths. Consequences and Costs to People Who Live Near Airports Community opposition to growth in airport operations and expansion of airport capacity often arises because people are exposed to potentially adverse environmental impacts of avia- tion (GAO 2000). Of these, aircraft noise is the leading cause of community opposition, and local air quality effects are increasingly gaining attention. In addition to being exposed to adverse environmental effects, people who live in certain areas near the airport face greater risk of exposure to aviation accidents. Exposure to Aircraft Noise While more stringent noise standards and advances in technology have made aircraft qui- eter, aviation noise will remain a concern when communities allow incompatible land uses, such as residences, schools, and hospitals, to be built near airports. Incompatible land uses expose people to aircraft noise, a leading cause of community opposition to airport expansion according to a 2008 GAO report. A 1993 World Health Organization (WHO) report entitled Community Noise, found that noise gives rise to a number of health problems, ranging from insomnia, stress, and mental disorders, to heart and blood circulation problems. The more severe of these adverse health effects, however, have not been demonstrated to occur at noise levels typically experienced around airports. While the WHO report has not been able to demonstrate that severe health effects occur at or near airports, this report indicates that there is certainly a basis for local citizens to perceive a noise impact from aircraft operations and overflights. Exposure to Aviation Accident Risk The presence of land uses with a high concentration of people near airports, especially near the runway approach and departure areas, increases third-party exposure to aviation accident risk. This topic is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7 of this document. Consequences and Costs to Concerned Local and Regional Jurisdictions Airports are local economic engines; they stimulate local economic activity, create employment, and generate income to local residents. To the extent that incompatible land uses around airports constrain airport use and efficient air service, local and regional jurisdictions cannot realize the full potential of airports to generate positive regional economic impacts. 1.22 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Given that the negative consequences of airport land use incompatibility are substantial, why do incompatible uses, particularly housing, continue to develop around airports? There are at least three reasons which include: • Benefits to people living near airports; • Costs of imposing land use controls are concentrated in one stakeholder, while the benefits are diffused among many; and • Dynamics of the real estate development market. First, people, and businesses that employee these people, are drawn to live near airports to have easy access to travel and employment opportunities. Residential development, which results from this attraction, in turn, benefits local jurisdictions by expanding the local tax base. Secondly, the costs of imposing land use controls around airports to prevent incompatible devel- opments are concentrated in one stakeholder – the local government who is also the agency with the authority to impose land use controls. In particular, there are costs to affected local jurisdic- tions in placing restrictions on development near airports – most notably residential uses. These costs fall into three categories: welfare losses, planning and enforcement costs, and fiscal losses. Dis- allowing residential developments near airports may result in welfare losses, because it may reduce the supply of land available for residential development in the entire city or county, making build- able land scarcer and indirectly limiting choices elsewhere in the city or county (Dings, et al 2003). Additionally, there are staffing and related costs involved in formulating land use plans and enforc- ing land use controls. Finally, local governments can also suffer from fiscal losses from a reduced property tax base, if alternative land uses do not generate the same amount in net fiscal revenues as residential development. While fiscal losses do not necessarily translate into economic welfare losses to society, as a whole, they are probably the more palpable consideration to local government officials and planners. In contrast, the benefits of preventing incompatible land use development, while far more sub- stantial in costs, are diffused among many different stakeholders who otherwise suffer the conse- quences of incompatible land uses. These consequences often include: the airport sponsors and users who suffer the consequences of operational restrictions, development constraints, and safety hazards; the people living near airports who are exposed to negative environmental effects; and the local and regional jurisdictions that fail to realize the full economic impact of unconstrained air service. Finally, there is likely a cost to the dynamic of the real estate market in the local community. For example, the cost of potentially lost development opportunities to the real estate market should be considered as a consequence. In many instances, the methods to address this are looked at in a sim- ilar, if not identical method to traditional planning and zoning whereas a local community has been empowered to define and implement policies to protect the health, safety and welfare of the pub- lic good. This can mean zoning property to limit or restrict uses, so long as the property is not com- pletely stripped of development potential. In some states the litmus test for this condition varies so it is recommended that additional review of local zoning laws be investigated to establish the spe- cific test appropriate to determine usable value for a property. Summary With more than 19,000 airports in the United States, over 5,000 of which are open to the pub- lic, airports represent a significant resource that plays an essential transportation and economic Introduction 1.23

role in the national and global economies. Preservation of this resource from the encroachment of incompatible land use is an important task for not only the FAA, but also every airport spon- sor and state aviation department. The development of this guide and the subsequent use of the data by airport managers and local community planners will provide airport sponsors and host communities with a comprehensive resource of information and recommendations that can be used to address land use compatibility issues and protect the viability of every airport. Local communities and airport sponsors must play a significant role in the preservation of the aviation system since they are the agencies tasked with the development, implementation, and maintenance of land use compatibility programs that can protect their individual airports. With the growth of the global economy, transportation of goods and passengers is increasingly becom- ing a key element of the aviation industry. Airport sponsors need to maintain and develop existing aviation infrastructure to ensure that the aviation system is preserved to meet future needs. Estab- lishing compatible land uses near airports is a key component in the preservation and growth of this industry. 1.24 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Improving community and airport compatibility is crucial for the success of the stated federal policy to reduce, by 2025, “ . . . the impact of aviation on community noise and local air quality . . . in absolute terms, even with anticipated growth in air traffic.” Further, airports “ . . . will be valued neighbors keeping the public well informed about environmental issues . . . and . . . mit- igate environmental impacts related to the growth of aviation to foster public acceptance of air transportation growth . . . ” while allowing sustained aviation growth for the future of air trans- portation (FAA 2004). Achieving airport/community compatibility is a critical component in preparing for the future of the U.S air transportation system. Land use compatibility with airports is comprised of two components: the concerns associated with compatibility, and the type of land use considered. Together, these components help deter- mine the level of compatibility a certain land use has with its surrounding environs. This chapter examines both of these components. The first component includes the types of compatibility concerns that affect the relationship between airports and their environs. These concerns include: airport impacts that adversely affect the livability of neighboring communities and community land use characteristics that can adversely affect the viability of airports. Airport land use compatibility concerns can broadly be classified as related either to noise related issues or safety related concerns. Each of these primary areas are addressed in this chapter to provide a foundation for understanding the potential impacts of each. Other types of airport impacts, like traffic generation and air quality, are also important environmentally, but have minimal relationship to the compatibility between airports and nearby land uses and thus are not addressed here. The second component examined in this chapter covers the seven general types of land use and the concerns associated with each. Since the specific classifications can vary by community, the def- initions in this section are kept broad to allow flexibility in interpretation and implementation by local planners and elected officials. Definition of Compatible Land Use The first challenge to addressing airport land use compatibility issues is to define what consti- tutes compatibility and incompatibility. Airport compatible land uses are defined as those uses that can coexist with a nearby airport without either constraining the safe and efficient opera- tion of the airport or exposing people living or working nearby to unacceptable levels of noise or hazards. This definition may appear vague since no specific land use types are identified. The 1.25 V O L U M E 1 , C H A P T E R 2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns

vagueness is intentional because various types of land use can be either compatible or incompat- ible depending upon the particular aspects of the land use. Land use variables include: • Management of the land use; • Location of the land use relative to the airport; • Attributes of development; and • Ancillary types of impacts associated with the land use. For instance, land uses typically considered to be compatible with airport operations include commercial, industrial, and some agricultural activities; however, each of these also may contain aspects considered incompatible. Examples include: • Dense concentrations of people that often characterize commercial land uses; • Tall smoke/ventilation stacks generate smoke/steam that can create visual obstructions; • Tall smoke/ventilation stacks also can create airspace concerns due to their height; and • The attraction of wildlife to agricultural areas. The underlying premise that must be addressed in order to identify and assess the degree of compatibility of a certain land use rests with two general questions: • What are the conditions required for airports to operate safely and efficiently? (That is, what land use characteristics can adversely affect airport operations?) • What attributes of airports potentially compromise the health, safety, and welfare of people occupying nearby residences, neighborhoods, and communities? These two questions lay the foundation for the evaluation of compatibility for land uses near airports. At the local level, answers to these questions should guide the development and imple- mentation of compatible land use planning tools and techniques to promote both the safety of aircraft operations and the well-being of persons on the ground near an airport. Noise-Related Issues Aircraft noise is a primary concern when addressing compatible land uses, and is sometimes considered the primary factor affecting or limiting airport operations. Aircraft operations can create sound levels that produce annoyance in communities near airports, as well as, additional effects such as speech interference, sleep disturbance, and affected classroom learning. These impacts are of concern as they impact the quality of life for residents located near airports. As outlined in Vol. 1, Chapter 6, there are several methods used to measure and quantify noise depending on the number of events, their intensity or loudness, and their duration. For example, a few very loud events, as might occur around a military air base, some moderately loud events, as near a commercial jet airport, or many relatively quiet events as can occur around a general aviation airport all can be measured in different ways and be preserved with varying levels of impact by local residents. Factors that can affect the noise impacts at any given location near an airport include: • Number of aircraft operations; • Type of aircraft using the airport; • Time of day of operations; • Airfield layout; • Percentage of time each runway or runway direction is used; and • Location and frequency of use of flight tracks. Several other factors can determine a community’s response to noise, including: • Type of surrounding land uses (commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential) and the level of noise it produces; 1.26 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

• Type of surrounding environment (rural, suburban, or urban) and its ambient noise level; • Configuration of surrounding land use; • Noise sensitivity of surrounding land uses; • Past experience of the community to noise exposure; and • Perceptions as to the necessity of the noise. Alteration of any one of these may affect compatibility and community perceptions of noise. Similarly, each can be examined as a means for improving the compatibility between the airport and the surrounding community. Chapter 6 contains a more detailed assessment of land use compatibility and noise related issues. Effects of Noise There is no doubt that one of the primary motivations for establishing land use compatibility with respect to aircraft noise is to protect the public health and welfare. The EPA has explicitly examined this motivation on numerous occasions (U.S. EPA, December 1971, July 1973, and March 1974). However, more recent work (FICON, August 1992) recommends additional research on effects. Considerable information regarding noise effects is available, and may be useful to both communities and decision makers responsible for either airport or land use devel- opment and more information is developed annually. Some of the primary effects include: • Annoyance; • House vibration; • Difficulty learning; • Non-auditory health effects; and • Sleep disturbance. Based upon the study research, the most fundamental approach to enhancing noise compat- ibility is to minimize the extent noise disrupts human activities or otherwise creates an annoy- ance. In general, the best approach is to allow fewer people to occupy high noise-sensitive areas. When this approach is not practical, alternatives include: • Shielding people from noise; • Increase awareness of noise issues through educational programs; and • Allow land uses that have relatively high ambient noise levels or are otherwise not particularly noise sensitive. Safety-Related Issues In many ways, addressing the safety aspects of airport land use compatibility planning poses a greater challenge than noise issues. Safety deals with what might happen on rare occasions, whereas noise is concerned with what does happen with every aircraft flight. For compatibility planning pur- poses, the safety topic can be divided into two broad categories: land use characteristics that con- stitute hazards to flight and can cause or contribute to causing an aircraft accident and land use characteristics that can add to or limit the severity of aircraft accidents when they occur. Within each of these categories are several specific types of concerns. Land Use Characteristics that Can Be Hazards to Airspace and Overflight Relatively few aircraft accidents are caused by land use conditions that are hazards to flight. The potential exists, however, and protecting against it is essential to airport land use safety Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.27

compatibility. In addition, land use conditions that are hazards to flight may impact the con- tinued viability of airport operations and limit the ability of an airport to operate as designed. Tall Structures. When people think about land use characteristics that can be hazards to flight, the first thing likely to come to mind is tall structures. A person does not have to have aeronautical expertise to know that a high-rise building would pose a major problem if located at the end of a runway. Less obvious are tall buildings adjacent to a runway or ones located farther from the runway ends. Even structures not near an airport can be hazards to flight if they are tall enough. It is important to recognize that not just buildings and other structures pose potential concerns—trees, high terrain, power lines, temporary objects such as construction cranes, and mobile objects such as vehicles on a road also can be hazards in some situations. The principal effect of tall structures is that they can reduce the utility of an airport. When air- craft approach an airport under instrument flight conditions—that is when the visibility is poor or cloud ceiling is low—they follow a defined set of procedures. The design of these procedures is directly affected by the height of objects along the runway approach course, as well as those in what is known as the missed approach segment. A new critically high object can necessitate increasing the minimum visibility and cloud ceiling criteria, thus also increasing the likelihood that an aircraft will not be able to land during bad weather. Even under clear weather conditions when pilots visually navigate to an airport, tall objects can adversely affect airport utility. Airplanes descend to a runway along a fairly shallow slope. Just a few feet of penetration to the approach slope can require modifying the runway to move the landing point farther down the runway (known as a displaced threshold), thus giving airplanes less distance in which to stop before reaching the far end of the runway. It is critical to discourage tall structures within the airport approach and departure surfaces. Additionally, tall structures also can pose hazards in areas beneath where aircraft circle as they begin their land- ing approach, or may overfly if they must “go around” because of low visibility or some other reason. Tall structures can be concerns even far away from an airport. When en route between airports, most air- craft fly high enough that structures on the ground are not a concern. Helicopters, however, fly at much lower altitudes and most helicop- ter accidents take place while en route rather than when landing or taking off. Other aircraft that fly low are military airplanes. The mil- itary regularly uses defined low-altitude airways during training flights and tall structures can adversely affect the use or safety of these corridors. Finally, many agricultural fields are sprayed by low-flying “crop dusters.” Tall structures and power lines can increase the hazard of this type of flying and possibly limit the types of crops that can be grown. Figures 1.2-1 and 1.2-2 illustrate some of the tall structure concerns. Where creation of these types of objects cannot be avoided, the risk to aircraft safety associated with tall structures can be minimized if struc- tures are clearly marked with lighting and if a notice to airmen (NOTAM) is issued to pilots by the airport. The criteria for evaluating whether a tall structure or other object represents a hazard to flight are established by the FAA. The primary 1.28 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Source: www.istockphoto.com Figure 1.2-1. Example of tall structures—wind farms.

standards are found in FAA FAR Part 77 (14 CFR 77), Objects Affecting Nav- igable Airspace. The standards used to define instrument flight procedures are set forth in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures, known as TERPS. Chapter 4, “Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance,” provides additional background on these criteria as part of the discussion of federal guidance related to land use. Both sets of standards establish a 3-dimensional space in the air above the airport. The purpose and manner in which each functions differs, however. FAR Part 77 is primarily a notification device. It establishes standards for determining obstructions to navigable airspace and the effects of such obstructions on the safe and efficient use of airspace. FAA, as required by the regulations, must be notified of proposed construction or alteration of objects, if those objects reach a height that would exceed FAR Part 77 crite- ria. These objects include those that are permanent, temporary, or of natural growth. Proponents of objects near airports are required to submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) to the FAA, from which the FAA will conduct an airspace analysis and determine if the object would constitute a hazard to air navigation. Objects do not need to be very tall to require submission of a notice. Figure 1.2-3 illustrates the relationship between the three distances associated with the airspace analysis as it relates to new construction or alternations. A description of the triggers for filing the 7460-1 form can be found on the FAA website and include: • Any construction or alteration exceeding 200 feet above ground level. • Any construction or alteration: – Within 20,000 feet of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet. – Within 10,000 feet of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet. – Within 5,000 feet of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface. • Any highway, railroad or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height would exceed the above noted standards. • When requested by the FAA. • Any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or location. Unless shielded by closer-in objects, notice is required for any object that penetrates a 100:1 slope from the runway (50:1 if the runway length is 3,200 feet or less). The FAA then conducts an aero- nautical study of the proposed object. Any object that penetrates a second set of surfaces is consid- ered to be an “obstruction.” States and local communities generally use this set of surfaces to set limits on the heights of objects. Sometimes, the FAA finds an obstruction to not be a hazard to flight if the object is properly marked and lighted and not in a critical location. This evaluation process, known as Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA), is made available to the public through a web site www.oeaaa.faa.gov. This process can take several months and local communities, as well as the applicant of a proposed development, should take this into consider- ation in the review process. Adequate time should be planned to accommodate the review process and allow for receipt of the FAA airspace determination. It should be noted that FAA review and issuance of an airspace determination does not approve or deny the construction of the proposed development—it is merely an acknowledgement that the Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.29 Source: www.istockphoto.com Figure 1.2-2. Example of tall structures— cell towers.

FAA has reviewed the proposal and determined whether it is or is not a hazard to air navigation. Through this process, FAA may comment on the compatibility of a proposed land use or develop- ment, but it has no ability to regulate the construction or use at the local level. Under the fed- eral regulation of FAR Part 77, the FAA is required to meet the airspace needs of all users and to the extent possible, revised aeronautical procedures and operations to accommodate antenna structures to fulfill broadcast requirements. Additionally, the authority of the FAA is limited to requiring mitigation for lighting and marking an obstruction. In rendering a decision of “No Haz- ard”, the findings issued by the FAA are advisory in nature and provisions for enforcing mitigation measures do not exist. For example, the FAR Part 77 regulations do not empower the FAA to pro- vide recommendations on alterative sites, options for site revision or no-build options. The topic of the FAA’s role in airspace protection versus that of state and local agencies is further discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this document. TERPS serves a different function: that of designing instrument flight procedures. TERPS sur- faces are generally lower than FAR Part 77 surfaces along the runway approaches, but may extend farther from the airport. Unlike FAR Part 77 surfaces which are static unless the airport gets a new instrument approach procedure, TERPS surfaces can change with alterations in the design of the procedure or because of new obstacles. TERPS surfaces are always above any obstacles. If any new object penetrates a TERPS surface, the surfaces must be modified which usually means an increase in the approach minimums. FAR Part 77 surfaces, TERPS surfaces, and One Engine Inoperative procedures are discussed in further detail in Chapter 4 of this report. Visual Obstructions and Electronic Interference Although not a physical obstruction in the same sense that structures are, visual obstructions also can pose hazards to flight. Maintaining an 1.30 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Source: FAA Form 7460-1 Figure 1.2-3. Proximity from an airport where filing an FAA Form 7460-1 is required.

unobstructed view for pilots is an important element in creating land use com- patibility. Since many aircraft operations take place without navigational aids, clear visibility of the area around airports is essential. Land uses that obscure pilot visibility should be limited to ensure safe air navigation. Visibility can be obscured in various ways, including: dust, glare, light emissions, smoke, steam, and smog. Each of these should be managed when feasible, to limit its impact on aircraft and airport operations. Dust. Dust and dust storms carry particles through the air, which can create hazardous conditions due to severe reductions in visibility. When activities such as construction or farming occur within the vicinity of an airport, there is a risk of exposed dirt and debris being carried by winds across airport operational areas. Figure 1.2-4 illustrates an example of the reduced visibility that can result from dust. In areas where low-level flights during approach or departure are suscepti- ble to such dust and risk reduced visibility conditions, caution should be exer- cised to minimize earth disturbance or the creation of open dirt areas that can contribute to these issues. Glare. Glare produced from reflective surfaces can blind or distract pilots dur- ing low-level flight operations. Water surfaces such as storm water detention ponds and light-colored or mirrored building materials can produce glare as well, as illustrated in Figure 1.2-5. It is important to evaluate these items during a local site plan review and to consider whether or not they may impact a pilot’s vision. Measures should be taken to minimize the use of reflective materials in proximity of the airport to address this issue. For example, the angle of reflection from a pro- posed structure that may have reflective materials should be considered, relative to the angle of approach/departure that an aircraft may take upon ascent/decent from the runway surface. Additionally, the amount of sun exposure to a surface also may be a consideration. Coordination with the FAA is recommended if a local assessment identifies potential glare associated with various land uses. Light Emissions. Light emissions often are caused by lights that shine upward in the flight path. A pilot’s ability to identify an airport during low-level flight altitudes can be hindered by emissions during evening hours, storm events, or times of reduced visibility such as fog. Also, lights arranged in a linear pattern can be mistaken for airport lights depicting operational areas. Figure 1.2-6 illus- trates the linear light patterns created by street lights. Bright lights, including laser lights, are also a concern because they are distracting and can cause a blurred or momentary loss of vision for pilots as they pass from darkness into well-lit areas. Efforts should be made to require down-shielded lighting fixtures, as well as minimizing linear lighting near airport environs. Near military airports, certain colors of neon lights—especially red and white—should be avoided as they can interfere with the night vision goggles used by military pilots. Smoke, Steam, and Smog. Smoke, steam, and smog can create a hazardous haze that contributes to reduced visibility for a pilot while operating an aircraft as seen in Figure 1.2-7. Generation of these conditions by land uses such as manu- facturing and ethanol plants, or utilities such as electrical generation and nuclear power plants can pose a problem for pilots. Also a potential concern are the ther- mal plumes created by facilities such as these. A thermal plume may not be visi- ble to pilots, but can cause air turbulence that could be hazardous to aircraft. The location of these types of land uses relative to the airports operational areas should be carefully considered. Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.31 Source: www.istockphoto.com Figure 1.2-4. Example of reduced visibility—dust. Source: www.istockphoto.com Figure 1.2-5. Example of visibility concerns: glare from building materials.

Another type of hazard to flight that is not always considered, yet may be significant, is electronic or electromagnetic interfer- ence (EMI). Certain land uses may generate electronic signals that disrupt aircraft communication or navigation. Considera- tion should be given to possible creation of this form of inter- ference when reviewing proposals for cellular communication tower and other telecommunication facilities. EMI is naturally present in the environment, however, if excessive levels are found in proximity to an airport, EMI may degrade the perform- ance of some air navigational systems such as glide slopes, local- izers, and Air Traffic Control Towers. As a result, efforts should be made to reduce the level of EMI near airports to maintain the level of performance of the various systems. Wildlife and Bird Attractants. Aircraft collisions with wild- life are a threat to human health and safety and are steadily increasing. Wildlife strikes killed more than 194 people and destroyed over 163 aircraft since 1988 according to the FAA Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990-2005. Since 1990, 82,057 wildlife strikes have been reported to the FAA; 97.5% of the reported strikes involved birds, 2.1% involved terrestrial mammals, 0.3% involved bats, and 0.1% involved reptiles. The number of strikes reported annually has quadrupled since 1990 for several reasons, including an increase in the number of aircraft operations, and an increase in popula- tions of hazardous wildlife species. Gulls are the most common bird species involved in the wildlife strikes reported. Approximately 60% of the reported bird strikes occurred at elevations of 100 feet or less, 73% occurred at 500 feet or less, and 92% occurred at or below 3,000 feet. Monitoring wildlife activity and habitats on or near airports is an impor- tant first step in determining how to protect airports from wildlife hazards. Development and implementation of a wildlife management plan also plays a critical role in airport planning and zoning by giving an airport the tools and techniques to properly maintain habitat management controls. FAA AC 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports discusses various incompatible land uses and bird attractants. Wildlife attractants are defined in FAA AC 150/5200-33B as any human-made structure, land-use practice, or human-made or natural geographic feature that can attract or sustain hazardous wildlife within the landing or departure airspace or the airport’s Airport Operations Area (AOA). These attractants can include architectural features, land- scaping, waste disposal sites, wastewater treatment facilities, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands. Figure 1.2-8 illustrates the areas where wildlife attractants are not allowed on or near airport property. It can be seen that Perimeter A is 5,000 feet from the AOA and Perimeter B extends to 10,000 feet from operational areas. While the area for evaluation includes an area five statute miles from the AOA, it results in an area that can be up to nearly seven miles from the airport runways. Guidelines urge airport sponsors to discourage the creation of pools, ponds, sewage lagoons, and fountains on or near an airport. Permanent water sources should be managed by removal, phy- 1.32 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Source: www.istockphoto.com Figure 1.2-6. Example of light emissions: heavily populated areas can cause visual obstructions. Source: www.istockphoto.com Figure 1.2-7. Steam emissions creating visual obstructions.

sical exclusion, or alteration of appearance. Underground facilities such as French drains or buried rock fields are examples of successful retention/detention designs, while temporary holding basins that drain within 24 hours are also an option. If drains and ditches cannot be removed, the banks should be steeply sloped and/or mowed regularly to control bird nesting and perching. Control techniques to manage wildlife hazards or bird attractants include physical removal of wildlife, fence installation, and maintenance of airport grounds in such a manner that it deters wildlife habitation. Various habitat management controls include: • Selecting and spacing tree species to minimize habitats; • Maintaining appropriate grass lengths to minimize wildlife attractants; Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.33 PERIMETER A PERIMETER B Apron ParkingArea Runway Taxiway R un wa y Taxiway PERIMETER C PERIMETER A: For airports serving piston-powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be 5,000 feet from the nearest air operations area. PERIMETER B: For airports serving turbine-powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be 10,000 feet from the nearest air operations area. PERIMETER C: 5-mile range to protect approach, departure and circling airspace. Source: Graphic Developed by FAA Central Region Airports Division based upon guidance in FAA AC150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports. Figure 1.2-8. Separation distances within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided, eliminated or mitigated.

• Prohibiting certain agricultural crops near airports; • Eliminating standing water; and • Using repellents to disperse wildlife in a humane manner. In addition to establishing boundaries around the airfield where wildlife attractants should be mitigated or eliminated, the FAA also has established minimum distances between airport features and any on-airport agriculture crop. These distances can be found in AC 150/5300-13 Appendix 17, and are referenced in Table 1.2-1. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides a listing of plants that are attractive to wildlife and should be avoided on or near airports. Woody plants such as oaks, firs, pines, maples, and cedars should be avoided, as they provide roosting habitats. Additionally, upland weeds and shrubs should be discouraged near airports as they provide a food source and habitats for wildlife. Marsh plants such as water lily, wild celery, and wild rice also can provide a food source for a vari- ety of wildlife and are therefore discouraged. Cultivated or ornamental plants such as alfalfa, corn, birch, and dogwood trees species provide food sources, and some habitat options, and should be assessed for feasibility prior to planting. Managing potentially hazardous wildlife on or near airports proves to be a challenge because it typically combines active control measures, such as repellents, along with passive control meas- 1.34 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Distance in Feet From Runway Centerline to Crop Distance in Feet From Runway End to Crop Aircraft Approach Category and Design Group¹ Visual & ¾ mile < ¾ mile Visual & ¾ mile < ¾ mile Distance in Feet from Centerline of Taxiway to Crop Distance in Feet from Edge of Apron to Crop Category A & B Aircraft Group I 200² 400 300³ 600 45 40 Group II 250 400 400³ 600 66 58 Group III 400 400 600 800 93 81 Group IV 400 400 1,000 1,000 130 113 Category C,D, & E Aircraft Group I 530³ 575³ 1,000 1,000 45 40 Group II 530³ 575³ 1,000 1,000 66 58 Group III 530³ 575³ 1,000 1,000 93 81 Group IV 530³ 575³ 1,000 1,000 130 113 Group V 530³ 575³ 1,000 1,000 160 138 Group VI 530³ 575³ 1,000 1,000 193 167 1. Design Groups are based on wing span or tail height, and Category depends on approach speed of the aircraft as shown below: Design Group Category Group I: Wing span up to 49 ft. Category A: Speed less than 91 knots Group II: Wing span 49 ft. up to 73 ft. Category B: Speed 91 knots up to 120 knots Group III: Wing span 79 ft. up to 117 ft. Category C: Speed 121 knots up to 140 knots Group IV: Wing span 113ft. up to 170 ft. Category D: Speed 141 knots up to 165 knots Group V: Wing span 171 ft. up to 213 ft. Category E: Speed 166 knots or more Group VI: Wing span 214 ft. up to 261 ft. 2. If the runway will only serve small airplanes (12,500 lb. and under) in Design Group I, this dimension may be reduced to 125 feet; however, this dimension should be increased where necessary to accommodate visual navigational aids that may be installed. For example, farming operations should not be allowed within 25 feet of a Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) light box. 3. These dimensions reflect the Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) as defined in AC 150/5300-13, Appendix 2. The TSS cannot be penetrated by any object. Under these conditions, the TSS is more restrictive than the OFA, and the dimensions shown here are to prevent penetration of the TSS by crops and farm machinery. Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13-Airport Design Table 1.2-1. Minimum distances between certain airport features and any on-airport agriculture crops.

ures, such as the prevention and elimination of refuges and the control of attractants. Another key component to implementing these short- and long-term control measures is to accurately monitor and record wildlife obstructions on and near airports. Reporting all bird and other wildlife strikes to the FAA is impor- tant for the study of this issue. In addition to the AC 150/5200- 33B, the FAA has published a manual titled Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports. The manual serves as a reference for wildlife issues within proximity to airports. The FAA and the USDA, Animal and Plant Inspection Ser- vices (APHIS) Wildlife Services (WS) have signed a MOU to resolve wildlife hazards to aviation, thus enhancing public safety. The MOU establishes that WS has the expertise to provide tech- nical and operational assistance to alleviate wildlife hazards at airports, such as the one shown below in Figure 1.2-9. The Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with states, individuals, public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions in the control of nuisance mam- mals and birds deemed harmful to the public. Airports can enter into a cooperative agreement with the USDA APHIS WS for the completion of a wildlife hazard assessment or mitigation efforts. When initial consultations indicate concern, a more complete assessment may be necessary. A wildlife hazard assessment can be conducted by a wildlife damage management biologist to provide the scientific basis for the development, implementa- tion, and refinement of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, if needed. The Plan is prepared by both the wildlife biologist and airport staff. Airport staff provides historical information regarding wildlife activity at airports. Typically, the wildlife biol- ogist conducts a 12-month assessment of the current activity from which to make recommendations for reduction of wildlife activity. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations title 14 Aeronautics and Space Part 139 Certification of Airports, Subpart D 139.337 Wildlife Hazard Management requires airport sponsors take action to eliminate wildlife hazards on or near airport environs. While aviation safety is of paramount concern, it is recognized that the elimination of all wildlife hazards to aviation is not possible and that not all wildlife are equally hazardous to aviation. Guidelines and assistance provided by the USDA WS should be fol- lowed in order to effectively analyze the comparative threats by wildlife. Figure1.2-10 shows an example of a wetland, a common wildlife attractant. Land Use Characteristics that Affect Accident Severity Land use characteristics in this group do not have the potential to cause or contribute to the cause of aircraft accidents, but they can greatly affect the consequences of accidents when they occur. To minimize the consequences, controls on land use development are necessary. The degree of control varies depending upon the likelihood of aircraft accidents in any given part of the air- port environs. Chapter 7, Aircraft Accidents and Safety Considerations, covers the geographic dis- tribution of aircraft accidents, and Volume 3 of this report contains a discussion of the aircraft Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.35 Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Figure 1.2-9. Example of wildlife hazards: flock of birds on runway/taxiway. Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Figure 1.2-10. Example of wildlife attractants: wetland and standing water.

accident data sources and trends. The strictest land use controls are needed close to the ends of run- ways as this is where the risk of accidents is highest. However, restrictions on uses that present very high consequences also may be appropriate relatively far away from a runway. High Concentrations of People. The land use characteristic tied most closely to the conse- quences of aircraft accidents is the number of people concentrated in the accident area. Establish- ment of criteria limiting the maximum number of dwellings or people in areas close to the airport is the most direct method of reducing the potential severity of an aircraft accident. In setting these criteria, consideration must be given to the two different forms of aircraft accidents: those in which the aircraft is descending, but is flying under directional control of the pilot; and those in which the aircraft is out of control as it falls. Available data indicates that a substantial percent- age, if not the majority, of general aviation aircraft accidents fall into the former category. Addi- tionally, these data do not include the mishaps in which the pilot made a successful emergency landing—the latter generally are categorized as “incidents” rather than as accidents and do not appear in NTSB data. Limits on usage intensity—the number of people per acre—must take into account both types of potential aircraft accidents. To the extent that accidents and incidents are of the controlled vari- ety, then allowing high concentrations of people in a small area would be sensible, as long as inter- vening areas are lightly populated. However, concentrated populations present a greater risk for severe consequences in the event of an uncontrolled accident at that location. Land use compati- bility policies should address both of these circumstances. Limiting the average usage intensity over a site reduces the risks associated with either type of accident. In most types of land use develop- ment, though, people are not spread equally throughout the site. To minimize the risks from an uncontrolled accident, policies also should limit the extent to which people can be concentrated and development can be clustered in any small area. The challenge that airports and local communities face in establishing specific usage intensity limits is that little established guidance is available. Unlike the case with noise, there are no formal federal regulations or guidelines that set safety criteria for land use compatibility around civilian airports except within runway protection zones (RPZs) and with regard to airspace obstructions as described earlier in this chapter. For military airports, safety compatibility recommendations are included as part of the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone program. FAA safety criteria prima- rily are focused on the runway and its immediate environment. RPZs—then called clear zones— were originally established mostly for the purpose of protecting the occupants of aircraft that overrun or land short of a runway. Now, they are defined by the FAA as intended to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. Examination of the usage intensity criteria that airports and communities have established in California suggests that three risk-related variables are important to consider. • Runway Proximity In general, the areas of highest risk are closest to the runway ends and sec- ondarily along the extended runway centerline. However, many common aircraft flight tracks do not follow along the runway alignment, particularly on departures. Also, where an aircraft crashes may not be along the flight path that was intended to be followed or even in an area that is regularly overflown. • Urban versus Rural Areas Irrespective of airports, people living in urban areas face different types of risks than those living in rural areas. Also, differences in land values and other factors mean that the cost of avoiding risks differs between these two settings. Consequently, it may be reasonable to set higher usage intensity limits in heavily developed urban areas than would be appropriate for partially undeveloped suburban areas or minimally developed rural locations. • Existing versus Proposed Uses Another distinction in compatibility policies can be drawn between existing and proposed development. It is reasonable for safety-related policies to be established 1.36 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

that prohibit certain types of new development while considering identical existing development to be acceptable. Cost is an important factor in this regard. The range of risks can be divided into three levels. At the bottom of this scale are negligible and acceptable risks for which no action is necessary. At the top are intolerable risks for which action is necessary regardless of the cost. In between are risks that are significant, but tolerable. Whether action should be taken to reduce these risks depends upon the costs involved. Typically, the cost of removing an incompatible development is greater than the cost of avoiding its construction in the first place. Another land use factor that is sometimes considered is frequency of use. A facility that is occu- pied only occasionally and vacant the remainder of the time perhaps could be allowed to have a higher concentration of people than would be permitted for a more continually used facility. The risk to this approach, of course, is that an accident could occur just when the facility is in use. In general, the frequency-of-use factor should be ignored except in unusual circumstances such as a facility that is only used at night being located near a runway that is unlighted and thus not used at night. High Risk-Sensitive Uses. Certain critical types of land uses pose high risks and should be avoided near the ends of runway regardless of the number of people on the site. Chief among these uses are ones in which the mobility of occupants is effectively limited—schools, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. Other uses to be avoided fall under the heading of critical community infrastructure. These types of facilities include power plants, electrical substations, public communications facil- ities and other facilities, the damage or destruction of which could cause significant adverse effects to public health and welfare well beyond the immediate vicinity of the facility. Lastly, above ground storage of large quantities of materials that are highly flammable or otherwise hazardous (ones that are explosive, corrosive, or toxic) may pose high risks if involved in an aircraft accident and therefore are generally incompatible with airports and especially close to runway ends. Open Land. A final characteristic that can affect the severity of an aircraft accident is open land. Open land serves two functions: open land uses generally have few occupants, thus limiting the number of people placed in harm’s way; and open land areas can potentially enhance the sur- vivability for the occupants of an aircraft forced to make an emergency landing away from a run- way. If sufficiently large and clear of obstacles, open land areas can be valuable for light aircraft anywhere near an airport. For large and high-performance aircraft, however, open land has little value for emergency landing purposes and is most useful primarily where it is an extension of the clear areas immediately adjoining a runway. Because open land areas must be relatively large (football field size or greater) even for small air- craft, planning for such areas must be made during preparation of community plans or plans for large developments. By the time a development has proceeded to where it is split into individual parcels, providing open land is seldom possible. Also important to emphasize is that “open land” differs from “open space.” As the latter term is typically used in community planning, it may include wooded areas, sports parks, and other land uses that would not meet the purposes of open land. On the other hand, farm fields and even wide roadways may serve as open land, but not show as open space in local plans. Example Guidance The race track illustrated in Figure 1.2-11 represents a type of land use that poses several com- patibility issues. Although used relatively infrequently, it holds a high concentration of people when it is in use. Moreover, as an essentially outdoor use, the structure offers little protection should an aircraft strike it. Also, the height of the light towers could be airspace obstructions and Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.37

the glare from the lights could be visual hazards to aircraft. In this particular example, noise may not be a concern. However, noise intrusion could be a critical factor for similar uses such as an amphitheater. Residential development near a runway, as shown in Fig- ure 1.2-12, is another example of a land use that presents multiple compatibility issues. Foremost is noise. Even with added sound insulation, noise levels inside are likely to be intrusive on a regular basis. Safety is also a concern in that many people are living in an area where the risk is signifi- cant, though not as great as beyond the runway ends. At this time, a national standard is not available to define population concentrations nor usage intensities around an air- port; however, the American Planning Association (APA), has established some industry guidelines for various land use types that can be helpful in setting criteria. These are listed here to provide some general guidance. Residential land uses are often the most common topic when population density is discussed in planning situations. For example, in APA’s recently pub- lished document, Planning and Urban Design Standards, defi- nitions of density for residential development have been identified including: the measure of units per acre, as well as floor-area ratio. Residential density is most commonly meas- ured by the number of dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Exam- ples of these densities from the Planning and Urban Design Standards include: •Low residential density: 4 units per acre (4du/ac); •Medium residential density: 16 units per acre (16du/ac); and •High residential density: 48 units per acre (48du/ac). In dense urban areas, the floor area ratio also may be used to determine the density. The floor area ratio is defined as the ratio of the gross building floor area to the net lot area of the building site. Scales of residential development also can be defined. Samples of these scales may include: • Small scale: five to 50 units per zero to 10 acres; • Medium scale: 50 to 500 units per 10 to 50 acres; and • Large scale: 500 or greater units per 50 or greater acres. While the aforementioned definitions are specific densities related to residential uses, there are methods for determining densities of other types of land uses such as commercial and industrial uses. Local communities may wish to utilize the following tools to establish their own levels of density: • Analysis of parking requirements established in local zoning ordinances; • Maximum occupancy levels set in accordance with building codes; and • Surveys of similar uses. Several states have defined various land use densities within their land use planning documents. For example, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook provides some measures that a 1.38 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Source: www.istockphoto.com Figure 1.2-11. Example of a land use with a high concentration of people. Source: www.istockphoto.com Figure 1.2-12. Example of residential land use near a runway.

municipality can use as a benchmark when defining concentrations of people for various land uses within their community, including: • Light Industrial use: 35 to 50 people per acre within the facility. • Two-Story Motel: 35 to 50 people per acre within the dwelling unit. • Single-Story Shopping Center: 75 to 125 people per acre within the facility. • Single-Story Office: 50 to 100 people per acre within the building. • Sit-Down Restaurant: 100 people per acre within the building. • Fast Food Restaurant: 150 people per acre within the building. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Manual for the state of Minnesota, established rules pro- hibiting public assembly uses and limiting population and building concentrations in several safety zones, which are intended to include all land under a runway’s approach path. These zones are specifically defined by state statue (Minnesota Rule 8800.2400) which contains the following density restrictions and prohibitions on use: • The most restrictive zone (Zone A) may contain no buildings, temporary structures, exposed transmission lines, or other similar land use structural hazards, and restricts development to those uses, which will not create, attract, or bring together an assembly of persons. • The zone that represents the majority of the approach path areas (Zone B) is restricted in use as follows: – Each use shall be on a site whose area shall not be less than three acres, – Each use shall not create, attract, or bring together a site population that would exceed 15 times that of the site acreage, – Each site shall have no more than one building plot, and – Each site shall adhere to the minimum ratios as outlined in Table 1.2-2. In general, the higher the concentrations of people that a land use supports or attracts, the less compatible it will be in proximity to an airport. Conversely, the lower the concentration of peo- ple, the more compatible land uses are near airports. Additional elements to consider in this dis- cussion include the following: • Whether the people are within an enclosed area (buildings, stadiums, arenas) or in large open spaces (parks, sports fields); and • The mobility of persons and their ability to care for themselves (hospitals, daycares, schools). The topic of mobility becomes an issue when land uses are proposed that create a concentra- tion of people that may require additional assistance to extricate themselves from the structure or area in the event of a crash. For example, if a school were constructed near an airport and aircraft crashed into the building, there would be a concern about the ability of the number of Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.39 Site Area at Least (acres) But Less Than (acres) Ratio of Site Area to Building Plot Area Building Plot Area (square feet) Maximum Site Population (15 persons/acre) 3 12:1 10,900 45 4 12:1 4 10:1 17,400 60 6 10:1 6 8:1 32,600 90 10 8:1 10 6:1 72,500 150 20 6:1 20 And up 4:1 218,000 300 Source: Minnesota Land Use Compatibility Study, 2006 Table 1.2-2. Minnesota Rule 8800.2400, Zone B Minimum Ratios.

adults to mobilize and evacuate the students in an effective manner, due to the ratio of adults to children who would likely require significant direction to exit the building. A similar situation could be experienced with a hospital where the occupants are often challenged to care for them- selves and would likely find it difficult to exit the building if necessary without assistance. These two examples demonstrate the concerns associated with development of land uses that encour- age the concentration of people in proximity to an airport. As demonstrated, there are safety concerns associated with the placement of a large concentration of people near an airport where there is limited open space to provide opportunities for aircraft to land should the need arise. Common Land Uses Near Airports Types of land use can generally be categorized into seven common classifications, although they can take many shapes and sizes which make their assessment as compatible uses difficult. At the primary level, the type of use such as residential or commercial is reviewed on a broad level of com- patibility. In addition to the primary use, there are often other attributes of development that can play a key role in increasing the compatibility of a neighboring land use to an airport. For exam- ple, the types of buildings, the density of the development, the size of the development, and the geographic location relative to the runway environment can all be secondary considerations in the evaluation of compatibility. These attributes affect development types and their compatibility with the surrounding environment and their community airport. Several examples of various attributes which can be considered are discussed below. Building type is one attribute that can contribute to increased compatibility. Building type refers to the individual building units and their placement in relationship to each other on a site and also the building materials used. Building types can range from a modular home to a “big-box” retail store. Additionally, construction materials also can be considered when evaluating potential com- patibility. For example, materials such as concrete and brick offer more structural integrity to a building compared to use of glass surfaces. The density of development, as well as the intensity of a use, also should be considered when evaluating land use compatibility. Density refers to the number of building units per area of land. A common measure of density is units per acre (u/ac). It also may be measured in floor area ratio (FAR), which is the ratio of the gross building floor area to the net lot area of the building site, often used in denser urban environments. Intensity refers to the number of per- sons within an area or structure relative to the amount of time they occupy an area. Limiting both the density of a development and intensity of the use are recommended to reduce the incompatibility issues. Consideration of the size of a development is important because it can dictate additional devel- opment requirements that can have land use concerns. The size of a project refers to the land area of the project or development. For example, it can range from a small, single-lot 1,000 square foot residential home, to a 4,000-acre commercial development. For example, a large commercial devel- opment with extensive parking areas would typically require water detention areas to accommo- date storm water runoff. These detention areas can contribute to wildlife attractants. Smaller developments like a corner convenience store, may not require water detention facilities since they have a smaller footprint of impervious surface. Consequently the scale or size of the project should be considered. The geographic location of a proposed development also should be considered when evaluating compatible land use. Where feasible, development should be encouraged to locate away from the airport and its extended runway centerlines, as well as away from approach and departure areas. Minimizing the density and intensity of development in these areas, and advocating for open space around the AOA is recommended. 1.40 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Residential Activities A residential use is generally defined to include any dwelling used to house people. As the nation’s population continues to increase, residential land use development often encroaches upon what was once open space surrounding airport property. Residential developments near airports should be discouraged or, at a minimum, planned and designed with care to address safety issues related to high concentrations of people and potential noise impacts. Table 1.2-3 illustrates specific examples of residential development types and the areas of poten- tial concern associated with each. This information is not intended to be an all-inclusive summary, but rather it provides a general overview of the topic from which to begin an evaluation of com- patible land use on a case-by-case basis for individual communities. As shown in Figure 1.2-13, residential dwellings can range from a single-lot rural farmhouse to a multistory high-rise condominium development in a downtown setting. This activity should be carefully considered because building height may result in obstructions that potentially threaten safe airport operations. Due to the variety of housing types, densities can vary greatly. For example, a multilevel apartment development typically has a greater density than a single-family subdivision-style development. Comparative densities are shown in Figure 1.2-14. This attribute should be taken into consideration when determining land use compatibility with AOA areas because high con- centrations of people have a greater risk associated with them and contribute to incompatible land use. Development sizes, which can vary greatly, play another important role in determining compat- ibility. For example, developments such as small, cluster-type projects, which incorporate open space, may be considered more compatible with airport operational areas than a 2,000-acre sub- urban project that contains several hundred homes and limited open space. The availability of open space is essential to aircraft operations in the event of a forced landing; therefore, the project size should be given careful consideration when assessing compatibility. Unfortunately, smaller devel- opments such as semi-rural residential areas are often the most sensitive to aircraft noise, whereas more urban developments are less sensitive to aircraft noise due to the inherent nature of more noisy urban areas. Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.41 Land Uses NoiseSensitivity Concentration of People Tall Structures Visual Obstructions Wildlife & Bird Attractants Residential Activities Single-Family Uses (attached and detached) I P N P P Multi-Family Uses (i.e., two or more principal dwelling units within a single building on the same parcel, apartments such as condominium, elder, assisted living, townhouse-style) Low-Rise (1-3 Levels) I P N P P Mid-Rise (4-12 Levels) I I P I P High-Rise (13+ Levels) I I I I P Group Living Uses (i.e., assisted living, group care facilities, nursing and convalescent homes, independent group living) I I P I P Manufactured Housing Parks I I N P I I = Impact; P = Possible Impact; N = No Impact. Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Table 1.2-3. Land use compatibility chart for residential activities.

Geographic location of a development in relationship to the air- port and the context surrounding the location are vital in determin- ing compatibility. Residential developments in lower density areas away from the airport and out of the Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) and approach zones are typically considered more compat- ible with airport operational areas from the standpoint of safety; however, not necessarily from a noise perspective, than a develop- ment located adjacent to the runway end in a denser urban environ- ment. Street lighting in residential developments within the airport approach may be aligned in a linear pattern parallel to the run- way, and as a result, can cause visual obstructions for pilots. Fig- ure 1.2-15 compares a typical parcel layout with parallel linear lighting to a more acceptable parcel layout that utilizes variances and modifications to setbacks to reduce the amount of development within the approach to improve compatibility. Noise is another con- cern related to location. Development that is close to the airport will be impacted by aircraft noise, which may disturb residents and result in a lower quality of life. Commercial Activities A commercial use is generally defined to include any use that involves the sale of products or services for profit. Due to the vari- ety of commercial uses, commercial activities often require spe- cific review and evaluation by local planners to determine compatibility with airport operational areas. Because diverse compatibility issues arise between airport environs and commer- cial land uses, it is difficult to generalize the benefits or detriments created by commercial land use types. Nevertheless, local planners should carefully review the development of commercial activities near airports so that hazards within the areas closest to airports are not created. 1.42 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility 100'-120' Core Elevators Retail Parking Residential Units Source: APA Planning and Urban Design Standards Figure 1.2-13. High-rise condominium development v. single-lot house. Source: APA Planning and Urban Design Standards 40 Units on 1 Acre 16 Units on 1 Acre 4 Units on 1 Acre Low-Density Medium-Density High-Density Figure 1.2-14. Comparative densities.

Mixed-use development is an emerging trend in planning because it often offers commer- cial, leisure, and residential uses in a single area. Such developments can include mixed-use buildings that incorporate retail or office space at the street level and living space in the upper levels, all within a central area, as shown in Figure 1.2-16. These developments offer challenges in defining density because the variety of uses results in varying concentrations of people at differing times. Thus, the specific types of uses, hours of occu- pancy, and density should be evaluated when reviewing mixed-use developments. Table 1.2-4 contains examples of commercial development types and potential concerns associated with each. This informa- tion is not intended to be an all-inclusive summary, but rather it provides a general overview of the topic from which to begin an evaluation of compatible land use on a case-by-case basis for individual communities. Design elements for commercial land uses, which should be considered when evaluating compatibil- ity, include the following: Commercial developments can range from a small corner convenience store, to a strip mall offering smaller storefronts, to a large multilevel shopping mall. This attribute should be carefully considered because building height may result in obstructions that potentially threaten safe airport operations. In addition, the type of lighting used in parking lots may mimic runway lighting and create visual obstructions for pilots, especially at night if located in proximity to an airport. In many instances, commercial buildings often are constructed Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.43 Typical Parcel Layout Modified Parcel Layout RUNWAYRUNWAY ROAD BUILDING ROAD BUILDING RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE APPROACH SLOPE APPROACH SLOPE Source: Mead & Hunt Figure 1.2-15. Typical parcel layout v. modified parcel layout. Source: APA Planning and Urban Design Standards Residential Commercial Open Space Open Space Figure 1.2-16. Mixed use development layout.

1.44 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Land Uses NoiseSensitivity Concentration of People Tall Structures Visual Obstructions Wildlife & Bird Attractants Commercial Activities Eating and Drinking Establishments I I P P I Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses N P N P N Office Uses (i.e., business, government, professional, medical, or financial) Low-Rise (2-3 Levels) I P N P P Mid-Rise (3-12 Levels) I I P P P High-Rise (12+ Levels) I I I P I Retail Uses (i.e., sale, lease, or rent of new or used products) Sales-Oriented Personal Service-Oriented Repair-Oriented P P P P P Hospitality-Oriented (hotels, motels, convention centers, meeting halls, event facilities) I P P P I Low-Rise (2-3 Levels) I P N P P Mid-Rise (3-12 Levels) I I P P P High-Rise (12+ Levels) I I I I I Outdoor Storage and Display- Oriented P P N P P Surface Passenger Services (i.e., passenger terminals for buses, rail services, local taxi and limousine services) P I P P P Vehicle Repair Uses (i.e., vehicle repair or service shops, alignment shops, tire sales) N P N P P I = Impact; P = Possible Impact; N = No Impact. Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Table 1.2-4. Land use compatibility chart for commercial activities. with sprinklers and other features that mitigate some of the risk if struck by a small aircraft, which tend to suggest a greater compatibility with airport operations. Development sizes, which can vary greatly, also are important in determining land use com- patibility. Small downtown commercial developments that incorporate mixed-uses and open space may be considered more compatible than a large outdoor shopping plaza with limited open space. The availability of open space is essential to aircraft operations in the event of a forced landing. In addition, the presence of features such as water detention ponds for larger developments can attract wildlife and pose a threat to safe aircraft operations. Therefore, proj- ect size and general layout should be given careful consideration when assessing compatibility with airport operational areas. Industrial/Manufacturing Activities An industrial use is often defined as any use relating to, used in, or created by industry. His- torically, industrial parks were composed solely of industrial uses. Today, however, industrial parks are often a mix of industrial businesses, manufacturing facilities, office parks, and research and development complexes within the same geographic area. Occasionally, even hotels, restaurants, and retail activities have developed along the fringes of industrial parks to provide necessary support facilities and stimulate economic development within these areas. Each use has unique compatibility concerns and issues, which should be reviewed by local plan- ners and possibly the FAA.

Industrial and manufacturing areas are typically encouraged within a community as a means to attract business, increase the business tax base and employment levels, and enhance economic benefits to the community. To complement the development of these land uses, industrial and manufacturing areas are often located in proximity to major transportation arteries such as high- ways, interstates, railroads, and airports in order to provide inter-modal connectivity. Transporta- tion arteries are critical for companies to increase productivity and allow for just-in-time delivery options that are becoming more prevalent in the current economy. A specific land use within this category, which requires special attention, is waste disposal facil- ities. Waste disposal facilities consist of landfill and compost sites, garbage dumps, and waste trans- fer and storage facilities. Waste disposal facilities share similar zoning requirements with airports; both should be located away from residential areas because they can create wildlife hazards/ attractants, but need to be accessible to the population as they are a critical community service. Although they have similarities, waste disposal facilities are not compatible land uses and therefore should not be located near airports. The FAA has issued specific guidance related to the develop- ment and management of landfills in AC 150/5200-34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports. In addition, 40 CFR 258, Subpart B, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Land- fills, contains specific information regarding landfills in proximity to airports. Both documents should be consulted when addressing these types of land uses within a community near an airport. Table 1.2-5 contains examples of specific types of industrial development and the areas of poten- tial concern associated with each. This information is not intended to be an all-inclusive summary, Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.45 Land Uses NoiseSensitivity Concentration of People Tall Structures Visual Obstructions Wildlife & Bird Attractants Industrial/Manufacturing Activities Industrial Service Uses (i.e., machine shops, tool repair, towing and vehicle storage, building supply yards, etc.) N I P P P Manufacturing and Production Uses (i.e., manufacturing, processing, fabrication, packaging or assembly of goods) Technical/Light Manufacturing P I P I P General Manufacturing N I P I P *Heavy Manufacturing N P I I I Mining and Extraction Uses N P N I I Salvage Operations (i.e., firms that collect, store, and dismantle damaged or discarded vehicles, machinery, appliances, and building material) N N P P P Self-Service Storage Uses (i.e., mini- warehouses/storage facilities) N N N P P Warehouse and Freight Uses (i.e., major wholesale distribution centers, general freight storage, etc.) N P P P P Waste-Related Uses (i.e., recycling centers, sanitary landfills, waste transfer stations, composting, etc.) N N P I I Wholesale Sales Uses (i.e., sale, lease, or rental of products to retailers for industrial, institutional, or commercial business users) N N N P P I = Impact; P = Possible Impact; N = No Impact * Heavy Manufacturing typically has excessive smoke, dust, or hazardous waste Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Table 1.2-5. Land use compatibility chart for industrial/manufacturing activities.

but rather, it provides a general overview of the topic from which to begin an evaluation of compatible land use on a case-by-case basis for individual communities. Design elements for industrial land uses, which should be considered when evaluating compat- ibility, include the following. Industrial developments can range from a small hardware repair shop to a large ethanol plant. This attribute should be carefully considered because building height may result in obstructions that potentially threaten safe airport operations. In addition, exterior lighting types and smoke/steam emis- sions from smoke stacks can create visual obstructions for pilots, as shown in Figure 1.2-17. Institutional Activities Institutional uses are generally defined to include all uses related to an organization that is influential in the community. Typically, institutional land uses should not be located on or near airports due to noise sensitivity and the risk associated with high concentrations of people. Such land uses include, but are not lim- ited to, places of worship, daycare, eldercare centers, hospitals, health care facilities, and educa- tional facilities. These types of facilities may contain people who are unable to care for themselves, thus making evacuation difficult in the event of an aircraft accident. These uses also can contain large parking lots and water detention areas that may contribute to light emission and wildlife attractant concerns. Table 1.2-6 contains examples of specific types of institutional development and the areas of potential concern associated with each. This information is not intended to be an all-inclusive summary, but rather, it provides a general overview of the topic from which to begin an evalua- tion of compatible land use on a case-by-case basis for individual communities. Design elements for institutional land uses, which should be considered when evaluating compatibility, include the following. Due to the variety of institutional building types, densities can vary greatly. For example, a pub- lic high school will typically have a greater intensity of use with students and staff occupying the building for a minimum of 8 hours per day, Monday through Friday, than a church in which wor- shipers spend a couple hours in attendance several days per week. This attribute should be taken into consideration when determining land use compatibility with airport operational areas because high concentrations of people have a greater risk associated with them and contribute to incompatible land use. Infrastructure Activities Infrastructure activities include a variety of land uses such as above ground utilities, cellu- lar communication towers, water towers, and wind farms. Each of these types of land uses have compatibility concerns that should be assessed prior to construction within the vicinity of airports. The use of cellular communication has prompted the construction of numerous cellular com- munication towers around the nation. Cellular communication towers have appeared and con- tinue to multiply in business parks, industrial and shopping mall areas, and along the national highway system. As a result, cellular communication towers are a significant concern when eval- uating height issues near airport environs. These towers can pose a concern to aircraft during low- 1.46 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Figure 1.2-17. Steam emissions from industrial operations.

level flight, approach, and departure operations. Electronic interference associated with the oper- ations of cellular communication is also a concern related to these uses. Wind farms are becoming increasingly prevalent as oil prices continue to rise and the use of renewable energy gains momentum in the United States. California, Texas, and Iowa are ranked as the leading states in wind energy production, as noted by Iowa’s Energy Center. While this increase in use is beneficial to the nation’s energy system, these types of land uses pose a potential con- cern when located near airports. Specifically, the height of these structures can be a compatibil- ity concern. Wind farms generally contain numerous tall wind turbines that cover a sizeable area. Wind farms can create clutter on radar screens, and potentially cause hazardous conditions for air-traffic controllers in recognizing aircraft. However, a study conducted in June 2003 by the British Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), American Wind Energy Association, Wind Tur- bines and Radar an Informal Resource determined that efforts could be implemented to reduce or eliminate wind turbine clutter effects on air traffic control radar systems. Additionally, wind tur- bine blades can generate glare, which can create potential visual problems for a pilot. Many of the impacts associated with wind farms can be mitigated during the design phase of the facility, as long as the local community and developer are mindful of potential concerns and work to address them early. Table 1.2-7 contains examples of specific types of infrastructure development and the areas of potential concern associated with each. This information is not intended to be an all-inclusive Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.47 Land Uses NoiseSensitivity Concentration of People Tall Structures Visual Obstructions Wildlife & Bird Attractants Institutional Activities College and Universities I I I I I Community Service Uses (i.e. public, nonprofit, or charitable nature providing a local service to the people) General Community Service (i.e., libraries, museums, transit centers, park and ride facilities, etc.) I I P I I Community Service-Shelter (i.e., transient housing) I P N P P Daycare Uses (i.e., childcare centers, adult daycare, preschools, after school programs) I I N I I Detention Facilities (i.e., prisons, jails, probation centers, juvenile detention homes, halfway houses) I I P I I Educational Facilities (i.e., public and private schools) General Educational Facilities (i.e., public and private elementary, middle, junior, and senior high schools including religious, boarding, military schools) I I I I I Specialized Education Facilities (i.e., specialized trade, business, or commercial courses, nondegree- granting schools) I I P P P Hospitals (i.e., hospitals, medical centers) I I I I I Religious Assembly Uses (i.e., churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, Masonic, eagles, moose, or elk lodges) I I I I P I = Impact; P = Possible Impact; N = No Impact Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Table 1.2-6. Land use compatibility chart for institutional activities.

summary, but rather, it provides a general overview of the topic from which to begin an evaluation of compatible land use on a case-by-case basis for individual communities. Since infrastructure land uses can range from a county road to a tall communication tower, careful consideration should be given to building height that may result in obstructions that potentially threaten safe airport operations. In addition, the type of lighting used, especially for transportation such as the illumination of long stretches of highways in a linear pattern, can mimic runway lighting and create visual obs- tructions for pilots, especially at night, as shown in Fig- ure 1.2-18. Agriculture and Open Space Activities Agriculture and open space activities are most commonly defined as any use related to farming, including the use of both manmade and naturally occurring water resources, and min- ing. When evaluating the potential impacts of agriculture and open space land uses, it is impor- tant to recognize that these land uses are often perceived as the least serious of the incompatible land uses; however, they can have significant wildlife and bird management concerns. The proximity of farmland, especially row crops and orchards, to airports may cause detrimen- tal interactions between wildlife and aircraft. Crops and vegetation act as a wildlife attractant and may lead to wildlife and bird strikes with low-level flight, approaching, and departing aircraft. If crops are highly attractive to birds or wildlife for their nutritive or nesting value, the risk increases. Coordination of land use concerns between airports, local communities, and local farmers and horticulturists is crucial to reduce the potential of wildlife strikes. Specific areas of airports that should be free from all agricultural activities are summarized in FAA AC 150/5300-13 Change 14, 1.48 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Figure 1.2-18. Runway lighting at night. Land Uses NoiseSensitivity Concentration of People Tall Structures Visual Obstructions Wildlife & Bird Attractants Infrastructure Activities Basic Utility Uses (i.e., utility substation facilities, electrical substations, water and sewer lift stations, water towers) N N P I I Communication Transmission Facility Uses (i.e., broadcast, wireless, point to point, emergency towers and antennae) N N I I P Parking Uses (i.e., ground lots, parking structures) N P I P P Transportation Uses (i.e., highways, interstates, local and county roads) N P N P N Utility Uses (i.e., solar power generation equipment, wind generators, wind farms) N N I I N I = Impact; P = Possible Impact; N = No Impact Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Table 1.2-7. Land use compatibility chart for infrastructure activities.

Airport Design, Appendix 17, Minimum Distances Between Certain Airport Features and any On-Airport Agriculture Crops. Open water is also a significant concern because of its attractiveness to waterfowl, such as geese, by pro- viding opportunities for nesting, feeding, resting, and protection. Wildlife tend to migrate from one water body to another and back, creating migration routes that can intersect the RPZs and approach zones as shown in Figure 1.2-19. Coordination between air- ports and local natural resource agencies is essential to allow those agencies to identify specific species of wildlife that are hazardous to that particular airport, as well as develop a management plan to reduce wild- life risks to local airport operations. Distinguishing characteristics of individual airports and the associ- ated wildlife in the area should be identified to address compatibility in a comprehensive manner. Table 1.2-8 contains examples of specific exam- ples of compatible agriculture and open space activ- ities. This information is not intended to be an all- inclusive summary, but rather it provides a general overview of the topic. Agriculture and open space activities can range from a small farmhouse to a multilevel grain elevator. For example, a commercial livestock operation will typically have a number of structures for feeding and housing livestock, which usually leaves little open space of green areas. A more traditional farm Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.49 Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Figure 1.2-19. Wildlife migration routes. Land Uses NoiseSensitivity Concentration of People Tall Structures Visual Obstructions Wildlife & Bird Attractants Agriculture and Open Space Activities Agricultural Uses (i.e., commercial cultivation of plants, livestock production) Plant & Animal Related N N P N I Resident-related (i.e., single-family home, mobile home if converted to real property and taxed) I N P P I Facility-related (i.e., fuel bulk storage/pumping facility, grain elevator, livestock/seed/grain sales) P P I P I Floodplains N N N N I Water Bodies (i.e., open bodies containing water) Man-made resources (i.e., mining and extraction, water detention ponds, wetlands) N N N I I Naturally occurring (i.e., lakes, ponds, prairie pot holes, rivers, streams, wetlands) N N N I I Wildlife Preservation Areas I P N I I I = Impact; P = Possible Impact; N = No Impact Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Table 1.2-8. Land use compatibility chart for agriculture and open space activities.

focused on the production of row crops provides for more open space, although the area is covered with the various crops. A small subsistence farm with open space may be considered more compatible with airport oper- ational areas than a commercial farming opera- tion that has a great deal of infrastructure with limited open space, as shown in Figure 1.2-20. The availability of open space is essential to aircraft operations in the event of a forced landing. Addi- tionally, the presence of water bodies and crops can attract wildlife and pose a threat to safe air- craft operations. Parks and Recreational Activities Parks and recreational land uses typically take place outdoors and can generate a number of con- cerns with airport compatibility. Recreational activities can include passive activities such as rest- ing on a park bench, or physical activities such as fishing, swimming, hunting, and participating in sporting events. Table 1.2-9 contains examples of specific types of parks and recreational development and the areas of potential concern associated with each. This information is not intended to be an all- inclusive summary, but rather it provides a general overview of the topic from which to begin an evaluation of compatible land use on a case-by-case basis for individual communities. 1.50 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Source: APA Planning and Urban Design Standards Barn Barn Grain Storage Bins Farmhouse Barn Commodity Shed Machine Shed Livestock Building Lagoon Figure 1.2-20. Farmstead. Land Uses NoiseSensitivity Concentration of People Tall Structures Visual Obstructions Wildlife & Bird Attractants Parks and Recreation Activities Commercial Recreational Uses (i.e., facilities used for physical exercise, recreation, or culture) Outdoor (i.e., campgrounds, tennis/swimming facilities, drive-in theaters, skating rinks, pavilions, amphitheaters) I P P I P Indoor (i.e., physical fitness centers, health clubs, bowling alleys, skating rinks, billiard halls, arcades, indoor theaters) P I P I P Golf (i.e., golf driving ranges, outdoor miniature golf, 9+ hole courses) I N N P I Utility Uses (i.e., amusement/theme parks, fairgrounds, racetracks, sports arenas) I I I I I Parks (i.e., aquatic, mini, private, sports, neighborhood, school, community) I P I P P Casino N I P I I I = Impact; P = Possible Impact; N = No Impact Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. Table 1.2-9. Land use compatibility chart for parks and recreation activities.

Parks and recreational developments can range from a community baseball field to a professional auto racing track. The types of lighting used for parks, recreational areas, and associated parking lots is often high intensity, which can create visual obstructions for pilots, especially at night. Due to the variety of development types, intensi- ties of use can vary greatly. For example, a casino will typ- ically have a greater intensity, with numerous customers and staff occupying the building at all times, than a golf course, which is of a larger size, but where golfers typically spend only a few hours playing. This attribute should be taken into consideration when determining land use com- patibility with airport operational areas because high con- centrations of people have a greater risk associated with them and contribute to incompatible land use. Further- more, facilities that accommodate higher intensities of human activity often attract wildlife with increased litter and trash receptacles that lead to incompatible land uses. Development sizes, which can vary greatly, play another important role in determining land use compatibility. A neighborhood park that incorporates open space may be considered more compatible than an outdoor sports com- plex with large areas for parking and limited open space, as shown in Figure 1.2-21. Summary Land use compatibility is determined by the type of land use and the concerns associated with it. This chapter explores the types of compatibility concerns that affect the relationship between airports and their environs, and the seven general classifications of land use–residential, com- mercial, industrial, institutional, infrastructure (special uses), agriculture (open space), and parks and recreation–and their compatibility with airports and airport operations. Each of the previously discussed concerns carries a different level of relevance at individual air- ports within each host community. Careful consideration is recommended on a site specific basis to address these concerns in a manner that is appropriate for the local airport and community. Each land use has varying degrees of compatibility based on the attributes of development such as building types, project size, and location. Because land use classifications vary by community, the definitions within this chapter are broad to allow for flexibility in interpretation and imple- mentation by elected officials and planners. Each type of land use has been reviewed for general impacts it may pose to safe airport and aircraft operations, as well as the safety of persons on the ground near airports. Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1.51 Source: APA Planning and Urban Design Standards Figure 1.2-21. Outdoor sports complex.

1.52 This chapter discusses the roles and responsibilities for land use protection and compatibility as they relate to the multiple levels of government and interest groups involved. The various roles and responsibilities for providing compatible land uses surrounding airports are interrelated in a complex manner requiring a significant amount of coordination and communication among the entities involved. Responsibilities for Compatible Land Use Overview Airport land use compatibility planning requires coordination among local, state, and federal organizations in order to preserve the national airport system and protect the public health and welfare. Federal and state agencies develop guidelines and recommendations that protect airports and the associated airspace through compatible land use programs. Local government officials, planners, airport sponsors, and community members must implement and enforce these programs to satisfy the unique needs and uses of an individual airport. Various stakeholders must be involved in the compatible land use process for the program to be successful. Stakeholders may include a diverse group of individuals, as illustrated in the following list: • Federal government agencies, including the FAA and environmental agencies; • State governmental agencies, including transportation and environmental departments; • Regional government agencies, such as regional planning organizations; • Local government agencies, including elected officials and planning departments; • Airport sponsors (owners), operators, and managers; • Local citizens; and • Airport users. Land use decisions are influenced by numerous, often conflicting, considerations. It is critical to understand the complicated relationship between an individual airport, the surrounding land uses, and the function of the airport within the host community. A consistent flow of communication and information among stakeholder groups is critical to the development, implementation, main- tenance, and success of a compatible land use program. Federal Stakeholders There are numerous stakeholders at the federal level that can affect local land use planning deci- sions. This chapter discusses the role of the FAA, which is identified as the primary federal author- ity on aviation related issues. Additionally, other federal agencies with a more cursory role in land V O L U M E 1 , C H A P T E R 3 Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders

Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders 1.53 use decisions also are highlighted. It is important to note that the federal role in land use planning has largely been advisory in nature and provides information to guide and support local land use decisions since the right to establish local land use controls resides with individual states and local communities. Many of the federal agencies provide permitting and oversight of decisions that can have impacts on compatible land use decisions. Specific federal land use regulations and guidance are provided in Chapter 4 and should be consulted for more detail on the federal role in land use planning. FAA The FAA is the primary agency responsible for federal regulations and guidance relevant to land use compatibility as it relates to the national aviation system. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), FAA Orders, and FAA AC are the primary tools used for management at the national level to pre- serve, protect, manage, and grow the national airport system. The FAA is also the primary funding source for airport construction, airport master plans, and noise studies. As a general rule, land use studies and other efforts associated with land use compatibility historically have gone unfunded unless tied to airport noise studies. Another important role of the FAA is to provide policy leadership for airport land use compat- ibility; however, this role has largely been focused on the protection of airspace with minimal guid- ance placed on land uses outside of the prescribed noise contours and basic design standards. This may be due to the fact that FAA has limited authority and scope to ensure that airspace is kept clear of obstructions. Notification of development in certain areas adjacent to airports is a federal requirement, but the FAA authority is limited in that their findings are advisory in nature. Historically, FAA guidance has focused on airport safety and land uses that could pose hazards to air navigation. The preservation and safe operations of the national airport system is at risk as incompatible land uses continue to encroach upon airport property. In response, the FAA has taken a more active stance by developing regulations and documents addressing land use concerns such as wetlands, bird attractants, and telecommunication towers. The tools and techniques con- tained within the various FAA regulations, in combination with state and local resources, are an essential foundation for the development of forward-thinking compatible land use strategies by local communities. FAA Funding. The FAA is the primary funding source for capital improvement projects at air- ports that are part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The primary source of funding comes from the AIP. Funding is related to land use compatibility in several ways: • Master planning; • Land acquisition, including fee simple and avigation easements tied to airport improvements, runway protection zones, and high noise levels; and • Noise related mitigation measures – per FAR Part 150. FAA funding is available to support planning activities, including master planning and system planning. FAA funding also is available to acquire and clear runway safety and approach areas. Ide- ally, funding also would be available to acquire easements that provide height controls on proper- ties near airports. Additional FAA funding opportunities exist for noise related issues, such as noise mitigation measures associated with FAR Part 150 noise studies. Examples of FAA funded noise mitigation measures that can improve land use compatibility include soundproofing structures, construction of noise barriers, or property acquisition to remove or relocate a noise sensitive devel- opment. In many cases, FAA funding is an important tool to influence local decision makers to embrace FAA guidance. The FAA funding also provides a regulatory aspect to land use compati- bility through grant assurances. As part of a federal grant, an airport sponsor is required to agree

to a variety of grant assurances, one of which is the requirement to protect airports from incom- patible land uses. These FAA programs, including direct financing of land use related projects and requirements of grant assurances provide the foundation of the federal land use program. NPIAS. In the mid-1940s, as the aviation industry began a period of rapid growth following the end of World War II, the need for a national approach to manage the emerging aviation sys- tem was recognized. A national standard for airport system planning was first addressed in 1946 through the National Airport Plan, the precursor to what is today called the NPIAS. The NPIAS provides the basis for which the aviation system is defined. Updated every two years, the most recent version of the NPIAS addresses the future development of the system from 2009-2013. Purpose of the NPIAS. A primary function of the NPIAS is to assess the performance of the national airport system. The key factors used to assess the system’s performance include capacity, safety, environment, pavement condition, surface accessibility, and financial performance. Each of these factors is relevant to the overall quality of the national aviation system and the provision of air transportation. Combined, these factors provide a good indication of overall system perform- ance. These factors also can be used to assess the performance and guide the development of indi- vidual airports. Additionally, the NPIAS is used by the FAA management in administering the AIP. If an airport is included in the NPIAS, the airport is eligible to receive grants under the FAA AIP. As noted pre- viously, if an airport chooses to accept federal funding under the AIP, they are subject to various regulatory grant assurances, one which requires the protection of airports from incompatible land uses. The 2009-2013 NPIAS estimated that, over the next five years, there would be $49.7 billion in AIP-eligible infrastructure development spread over the various segments of the national avi- ation system. The NPIAS is guided by the following nine primary principles: 1. Airports should be safe and efficient, located at optimum sites, and developed and maintained to appropriate standards. 2. Airports should be affordable to users and government, relying primarily on user fees and placing minimal burden on the general revenues of the local, state, and federal governments. 3. Airports should be flexible and expandable, capable to meet increased demand, and able to accommodate new aircraft types. 4. Airports should be permanent, with assurances that they will remain open for aeronautical use over the long term. 5. Airports should be compatible with surrounding communities and maintain a balance between the needs of aviation and the requirements of residents in neighboring areas. 6. Airports should be developed in conjunction with improvements to the air traffic control system. 7. The airport system should support national objectives for defense, emergency readiness, and postal delivery. 8. The airport system should be extensive and provide as many people as possible with conven- ient access to air transportation. Commuters should ideally have to travel no more than 20 miles to the nearest NPIAS airport. 9. The airport system should help air transportation contribute to a productive national econ- omy and international competitiveness. In addition, the NPIAS also is governed by Executive Order 12893, which states that investment in federal infrastructure systems must be cost beneficial. Therefore, the national priority system, as outlined by the NPIAS through the aforementioned principles, guides the general distribution of funds for airport system development. 1.54 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders 1.55 Source: FAA Report to Congress: NPIAS 2009-2013 Figure 1.3-1. Distribution of U.S. airports. NPIAS and Non-NPIAS Airports As of January 2008, the FAA reported that 5,190 airports were open for public-use within the United States; of these, 65% are NPIAS airports. Figure 1.3-1 shows the distribution of U.S. airports by ownership and use, including distribution of those air- ports that are part of the NPIAS system. FAA Order 5090.3C spells out the rules for including an airport in the NPIAS. Although there are various exceptions to the rules, in general an airport is included in the NPIAS if it meets the following minimum criteria and excluded if it does not: • Have at least 10 based aircraft, and • Located at least 20 miles (or 30 minutes driving time) from another NPIAS airport. According to the FAA Report to Congress: NPIAS 2009-2013, non-NPIAS public-use airports have an average of one based aircraft compared to an average of 33 based aircraft at general aviation NPIAS airports. Other Federal Agencies While the FAA is the primary agency responsible for airport-related land use issues, other agencies also are involved in more limited ways. These agencies may have an impact or decision- making authority over issues that directly or indirectly impact land use issues. For example, the EPA and the Corp of Engineers has wetland mitigation criteria that do not necessarily agree with FAA criteria; this poses a concern and may suggest that other coordination is necessary. Federal agencies that have a role and responsibility to regulate and review various aspects of airport devel- opment and land use compatibility issues include, but are not be limited to: • DoD - The DoD’s mission is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country. www.dod.gov • Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - The DHS works to anticipate, preempt, detect and deter threats to the homeland and to safeguard our people and their freedoms, critical infrastruc- ture, property and the economy of our nation from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies. www.dhs.gov

• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – HUD ensures fair and equal hous- ing opportunities for all citizens through an array of civil rights laws, executive orders, and regulations. This agency typically becomes involved in aviation related issues when land acqui- sition or significant noise concerns arise. www.hud.gov • Department of the Interior/National Parks Service - The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service coop- erates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world. www.nps.gov • Department of Transportation (DOT) – The DOT works to ensure a fast, safe, efficient, acces- sible and convenient transportation system that meets the vital interests of the United States and enhances the quality of life for Americans today and in the future. www.dot.gov • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – The EPA is focused on protecting human health and the environment. EPA is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. EPA delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for issuing permits, monitoring, and enforc- ing compliance. Where natural standards are not met, EPA can issue sanctions and take other steps to assist the states and tribes in reaching the desired levels of environmental quality. www.epa.gov • Federal Communication Commission (FCC) - The FCC is an independent United States gov- ernment agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC’s jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. www.fcc.gov • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - The primary mission of the FEMA is to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the nation from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, pro- tection, response, recovery, and mitigation. www.fema.gov • United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – The USACE provides protection to the nation’s aquatic resources, including wetlands. The USACE should be contacted for assistance when siting a new airport or expanding an airport that may impact wetlands or water bodies. www.usace.army.mil • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – The USFWS is a bureau within the Depart- ment of the Interior that works to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuous benefit of the American people. The USFWS connection to airport land use compatibility is focused on wildlife issues. Coordination with the local office of the USFWS is recommended when evaluating issues such as wetland and floodplains impacts, wildlife concerns and attractants, and migration issues. www.fws.gov Airport and local community coordination with these agencies is important in order to make the compatible land use program effective. As airport related concerns arise, these agencies should be consulted on a site-specific basis to provide adequate coordination. ✈ Case Study Example: Naval Air Station Pensacola The DoD plays a key role in compatibility planning around military installations. The DoD is responsible for supporting the implementation of a JLUS at military bases in the United States. While the DoD does not provide funding for the implementation of a JLUS, they are respon- sible for meeting with the base commander and surrounding community to discuss the JLUS process. At Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola, the DoD, the base commander, and the sur- 1.56 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders 1.57 rounding community entered into a commitment with one another to carry out fully the extent of the JLUS and implement the recommendations that arise as part of the study to pro- mote compatible land uses near the base and protect military operations and the surrounding community. Their efforts were met with great success and the JLUS recommendations were adopted into Escambia County’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances to effectively mitigate incompatible land use encroachment. State Stakeholders The role of the state government is vital in the distribution of regulatory power related to land use planning. In the United States, the states are sovereign entities possessing governmental power; they determine what powers any local governments, special districts, or regional authorities shall be given. Each state is different in regards to the type and amount of power they grant to local gov- ernments, resulting in an array of diverse land use planning regulations. Understanding the role of state government is essential to understanding land use compatibility planning practice in the United States. State agencies can play a significant role in guiding airport land use compatibility issues. Indi- vidual state agencies act as advocates for aviation and deliver services that promote safe, compre- hensive, and competitive air transportation systems to enhance economic development and improve the quality of life for state residents. Each state aviation agency, typically a division or bureau within the state department of transportation, may have additional goals or objectives; however, the primary emphasis is typically placed on the safe movement of aircraft and passengers. The diversity of state involvement in land use issues is wide. Some states have adopted very aggressive mandatory compatible land use programs. Others have created guidelines that can be voluntarily implemented and yet others have done little to address land use compatibility within their individual states. These variances in state approaches to land use compatibility provide a brief glimpse of how broad this topic is within the national system. With no two states address- ing the concept in an identical manner, it becomes obvious that there is a need for the FAA to provide flexibility to allow individual states and communities to address land use issues that are unique to their areas. State Aviation Agencies Each state, as part of the national airport system, has a responsibility to support local airport sponsors in the pursuit of compatible land use within the vicinity of airport property. Some states have recognized this responsibility in the form of state legislation that requires (or in some instances suggests) airport land use compatibility be undertaken. Others have been lax in address- ing these issues and instead leave the discussion of this topic to the FAA through their regional and airport district offices. The support can take many forms, depending upon the level of inter- est and funding available from an individual state. For example, individual states can develop state specific land use programs to address compatible land use. In the state of California, it is mandatory for public-use airports to develop an airport compatible land use plan to protect the flying public, as well as the general populace on the ground near airports. Other states, such as Wisconsin and Oregon, have adopted state legislation authorizing individual airports within their respective states to voluntarily create airport land use zoning. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation Bureau of Aeronautics developed a state guidebook on airport compatible land uses and also created a program to assist in funding studies to develop airport zoning within their state. Unfortunately, many states do nothing to support the development of airport compatible land use programs.

State agency leadership can establish a framework for the creation of airport compatible land use plans and zoning and make these an important element in the overall goal to establish airport com- patible land uses. State level guidance and support is an essential part of the overall airport and local community planning process. When an individual state acknowledges the importance of compat- ible land uses near airports, it lends credibility to those in local communities who advocate protec- tion of their airports from encroachment by incompatible land uses. State agencies should be encouraged to address land use issues in several ways including, but not limited to: • Information and education – provides airport sponsors, elected officials, planning profession- als, and local citizens with information on the need for land use compatibility and educates them on methods available to implement such a program. • Voluntary land use programs and enabling legislation – provides, at a minimum, guidance on a voluntary basis to establish land use programs and create enabling legislation that provides the legal mechanism to allow local jurisdictions to establish land use or zoning ordinances that address airport-related land use compatibility issues. • Mandatory airport zoning – provides a specific requirement for local entities to address land uses by establishing a legal mechanism that allows local jurisdictions to create zoning ordinances to address airport land use issues. • Funding of land use planning and zoning programs – provides local agencies the financial means to create a land use compatibility program which otherwise may be unattainable due to limited local fiscal resources. Each action is a suggestion that individual states can undertake to provide support to local air- port sponsors. States need to assess their ability to support the individual tasks and create a com- prehensive program that addresses the needs of the airports within their state aviation system. ✈ Case Study Example: Independence State Airport The Independence State Airport is owned and operated by the state of Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA). As part of the Oregon Revised Statutes, the Airport Planning Rule (APR) establishes a series of local government requirements and rules pertaining to aviation facility planning, and was developed to promote a convenient and economic system of airports in the state and provide for land use planning to reduce risks to aircraft operations and nearby land uses. The APR serves as the state regulatory basis to ensure that local government airport plan- ning conforms to the hierarchy of state plans and statutory requirements. In addition, the state statute requires all airports with three or more based aircraft to be identified and zoned as an airport in local planning documents. State Aviation System Plans. As a complement to the NPIAS, individual states have devel- oped state airport system plans (SASP) that provide guidance to achieve and maintain a viable air- port system within the individual states. The SASPs provide a detailed assessment of airports within each state and includes those identified within the NPIAS as being important to the national airport system, as well as non-NPIAS airports that are recognized by the state as being important to the state airport system. The state airport system plans include approximately 5,000 airports, roughly 33% more than the number contained in the NPIAS. An individual SASP assesses the interaction of airports within the geographic boundary of the state and evaluates the aviation needs, economic benefits, population requirements, and surface transportation needs of individual airports and the state as a whole. FAA AC 150/5070-7, Airport System Planning Process, provides guidance for the development of a state airport system plan report. It also identifies the steps involved in the planning process, provides a summary of the var- ious data that should be evaluated, and lists the types of information that should be provided. The 1.58 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders 1.59 FAA suggests the following components be considered in the development of a state airport sys- tem plan: • Inventory of the state’s existing public-use airport system, including current facilities and activity levels. • Identification of each airport’s functional role within the state airport system. • Evaluation of each airport’s performance relative to the airport’s functional role within the state airport system. • Identification of deficiencies of individual airports within the state airport system. • Documentation of individual airport projects within the state airport system. • Estimation of development costs. • Identification of available funding programs for various public-use airports. The state airport system planning process should be consistent with state or regional goals and include input from both the airports and aviation users within the state. The SASP should address the identification, preservation, and enhancement of both the exist- ing public-use airports and the potential development of new facilities that may be required to adequately meet capacity needs. The planning process also may identify resources needed to imple- ment the plan and evaluate alternative strategies to meet desired goals, such as development of compatible land uses near local airports. Once completed, the SASP provides state decision mak- ers with a comprehensive assessment that can be used to make critical decisions related to the management of individual airports, as well as the overall state airport system. State Aviation Land Use Plans/Guidance. In addition to state airport system plans, some states have developed specific land use plans or guidance for their individual states. California, for example, has taken an aggressive approach to land use planning. With limited exceptions, the state requires the establishment of an airport land use commission in each county as a means of mini- mizing creation of new incompatible land use development near airports. Additionally, the state commissioned the development of a handbook as a resource for the preparation of the land use plans. While these items are all very helpful, incompatible land uses continue to plague airports within the state. Wisconsin passed legislation making it legal for an airport sponsor to develop a stand-alone airport zoning ordinance that targets land use restrictions. They also developed a guidebook that provides supporting data to demonstrate the need for land use compatibility planning; however, there is no mandatory obligation for airports to participate in the development of an airport land use plan. Consequently, there are many airports with no land use planning documents or zon- ing ordinances in place to protect the airports and the public from the impacts of incompatible land use. Each state, based upon their own enabling legislation, should look to develop appropriate state guidance and tools to support local airports in their efforts to preserve compatible land uses. This effort could range from adoption of state legislation that mandates airport land use planning down to development of state guidance on land use planning and hosting educational seminars on the importance of land use compatibility issues near airports. The point that needs to be made is that this topic must have greater exposure and commitment from the individual state agen- cies if local airports are going to be successful in their efforts to develop airport land use com- patibility plans. Additional State Agency Stakeholders Various departments and agencies can often have a significant role in land use compatibility planning as their areas of interest and expertise can overlap with the aviation sector. For example,

a state environmental quality agency can have very specific requirements for wetland mitigation measures which may be directly contrary to recommended airport-related land use planning goals. Communication and coordination between agencies to discuss issues such as these are imperative if a successful planning effort is expected to result. Since there is a wide range of state agencies and programs, as well as state regulations, a coordinated and comprehensive attempt to involve all necessary parties is essential to incorporate appropriate state guidance and informa- tion. An example of state agencies that should be considered in land use planning decisions can include but not be limited to the following and will vary depending upon the specific structure of individual state governments: • Department of Agriculture; • Department of Community Health and Human Resources; • Department of Economic Development; • Department of Environmental Quality; • Department of Historic Preservation; and • Department of Natural Resources. Regional Stakeholders Regional agencies play a supporting role in land use planning, as they are often a guiding entity for local governments who administer and enforce land use regulations. Regional agencies can be influential in helping local governments coordinate plans and regulations where airport influence areas cross jurisdictional boundaries. The effectiveness of the role of regional stakeholders is greatly strengthened where state legislation mandates regional cooperation. Agencies such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) often provide regional guidance related to airport compatible land use planning. An MPO is a group comprised primarily of local elected officials that serve as a forum for local decision making on transportation system and regional planning matters. The federal government requires that an MPO be designated for each urbanized area with a population of more than 50,000. Through the traditional MPO functions, they have the ability to develop growth management policies that can help guide population growth away from airport environs. Additionally, an MPO has two primary purposes that are related to airport land use compatibility: • Develop a long-range transportation plan that will provide a multimodal investment strategy for meeting the mobility needs of people and businesses throughout a metropolitan area. • Develop a short-range transportation improvement program that prioritizes improvement projects for federal funding purposes. An MPO ensures that state and federal laws that pertain to regional transportation planning are implemented in each metropolitan planning area. The federal government defines the planning area as the existing urbanized area plus the projected 20-year growth area. The area is mutually determined by the MPO and the state. Funding for MPO transportation planning is provided through a combination of federal, state, and local funds. MPOs can serve as an important link in the compatible land use process, as they often bring a diverse group of municipal entities together to discuss airport land use compatibility issues that often cross political or municipal boundaries. MPOs often have a comprehensive view of the broader geographic area where impacts of land use concerns are found. They also have the ability to look beyond the individual municipal boundaries to assess land use impacts and mitigation measures for the benefit of the larger area of influence. State agencies should work closely with MPOs to develop a comprehensive and coordinated approach to local, regional, and state trans- portation planning, including airport land use compatibility planning. 1.60 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders 1.61 ✈ Case Study Example: Naval Air Station Pensacola To help maintain compatible land uses around NAS Pensacola and protect both the military base and surrounding populations, Escambia County and NAS Pensacola conducted a JLUS. This study was conducted to identify encroachment issues and recommend strategies to address the issues in Escambia County’s comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. While this effort is supported by the DoD, the military base, and the city of Pensacola, the majority of the cost of conducting the study and the original interest in the study came from the County. Escambia County has successfully implemented the recommendations from the JLUS into their comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances to help mitigate incompatible land uses near the military base, protecting the community’s valuable asset. Local Stakeholders A solid understanding of airport land use compatibility issues at the local level is critical because most land use decisions are vested with local governments. The coordination and communication among local government officials and airports sponsors is vital to effectively implement and enforce land use compatibility initiatives. In an effort to build cooperation, stakeholders need to be identified and engaged in the process of planning for airport-compatible land uses. Local gov- ernmental stakeholders represent a diverse group that includes cities, counties, townships, plan- ning agencies, and local economic development agencies. Elected officials and planning professionals from cities, counties, and townships must be edu- cated about the adverse effect that incompatible land use can have on a local airport, as well as the impacts airport operations can have on surrounding land uses. Regional and local economic devel- opment agencies that recognize the value of airports and the local economy may play a role in edu- cation advocacy and even coordination of local governments providing an economic assessment of the value of compatible land use decisions. ✈ Case Study Example: O’Hare International Airport – O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission The O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) was established in 1996 by the mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, and is dedicated to reducing the impact of aircraft noise on the communities surrounding the O’Hare International Airport. This commission works to sup- port effective communication and cooperation between the airport, the FAA, pilots, and the surrounding communities. With the inception of the ONCC, the local municipalities have been able to become more actively engaged in the planning process and affect change within their local communities, as well as the airport. So far the commission has been very successful in reducing aircraft noise each year, with the help of their sound insulation committees and the nighttime O’Hare Fly Quiet program that works to implement alternate flight procedures during the night when annoyance levels are higher. Planning and Zoning Authorities Local agencies derive land use powers from a variety of sources which include federal laws, state enabling legislation, and state constitutions. Two primary tools available for local control of land uses around airports are: • Comprehensive Plan - a policy document that includes maps, charts, and text to explain goals and objectives regarding future development, past and present conditions, and locations of

resources within a locale. The actual name of these types of plans varies by state including gen- eral plans and master plans. A comprehensive plan generally includes discussion to address facil- ities required for future growth, where growth should occur, and impacts that may be associated with growth, should it occur. The development of a plan typically includes research on popula- tion and economic issues and an inventory of community services and land uses. Local govern- ments use the comprehensive plan as a basis to develop and amend zoning ordinances and capital improvements that influence and guide compatible land use development. • Zoning Ordinance – documents that provide regulations and standards designating a range of land use zones that protect, preserve, and enhance the quality of life for residents. Addressing airport compatibility concerns as part of a communitywide zoning ordinance, perhaps as an overlay to the underlying land use designations, is an effective way of ensuring that compatibil- ity issues are not overlooked. The FAA has developed a model airport zoning ordinance to address airspace protection issues. Some communities have expanded this model to cover noise and safety issues as well. Each of these tools is discussed below in greater detail, as these are the most likely methods used to address land use compatibility issues. Local Comprehensive Planning. Local comprehensive planning is a technique that can be used to prevent and mitigate incompatible land uses. These local comprehensive plans provide the first and often the best opportunity to examine the big picture issues, of which airport land use compatibility is one. Local municipalities can be empowered by state government to develop local planning documents. If this option is available, a local community can develop a comprehensive plan that addresses issues relating to land use and quality of life for area residents. For example, housing, environmental issues, and transportation systems are typical topics that can be evaluated as part of a local comprehensive plan. Metropolitan and general aviation airports are of significant importance to the local region as an economic center and often an employment center. They can also be a significant traffic gener- ator and a major land user. More notably, they can often be considered a “LULU” (locally unwanted land use) type of land use that many citizens believe should be kept out of their local community. It is this perspective that must be kept in mind when developing a local comprehen- sive plan, so that an adequate amount of resources can be allocated to the preservation of a local airport and the necessary environs around it to maintain a safe operating and compatible environ- ment. The state of Washington has taken a unique approach and designated airports as Essential Public Facilities (EPFs). EPFs are facilities, such as municipal landfills, correctional facilities, and substance abuse facilities, that are necessary in a community to make the community function effi- ciently but often fall in to the LULU category and are therefore often hard to locate or develop in a community without public opposition. By acknowledging airports as EPFs, their importance to the community has already been established and the need to protect them is validated by the state. Several areas should be considered when evaluating comprehensive plan elements as they relate to airports. Provisions should be made to plan for airside growth including runways, aprons, and buildings areas. This requires additional planning for open areas near an airport. Additionally, off- airport growth should be considered. Plans must provide for open areas in existing and future approach areas, as well as development for growth of parking lots, entrance roads, and ancillary development such as rental car facilities, trucking or cargo facilities, and commercial development. The needs of each of these land uses differ in infrastructure requirements and compatibility with airport operations and should be considered in the local comprehensive planning process. Land use planning and zoning tools are the most important measures local governments can utilize to protect residents from adverse impacts that airports create, while still maintaining healthy airport environs. Land use planning and zoning are used to make sure that development within the 1.62 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders 1.63 airport environs is compatible to the airport itself. Airport land use planning, however, becomes a complicated challenge because airports generally encompass multiple jurisdictions, which causes difficulties in both setting and implementing policies to protect both the land surrounding the air- port and the local residents’ safety and quality of life. More importantly, airports are often owned by a jurisdiction different from the one where they are located. In many instances, the local com- munity has a different agenda as to what is important in its community compared to the goals and objectives of the airport. This usually leaves the airport with little or no authority to control its des- tiny with respect to land use compatibility. Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan. As it relates to community planning, local planners should take into account local airport master plans and airport layout plans. An airport master plan and an airport layout plan (ALP) are valuable tools for an airport since they document the project justification as well as the proposed development of an airport facility. The master plan report, very similar to a local community comprehensive plan, summarizes the existing facilities, the projected levels of demand, facility requirements, alternatives and preferred development options for an airport. This document provides the project justification for the airport facilities that are graphically represented in the ALP drawing set. These documents, while very important to the persons associated with the airport, are often overlooked by local planners when undertaking plan- ning for the local community around an airport. It is imperative that local planners be involved in the airport planning process. Additionally, they should be provided copies of the resulting docu- ments for inclusion in the local community planning process. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. An airport land use compatibility plan (ALUCP) is more specific than a local comprehensive plan. The purpose of an ALUCP is to promote compatibility between local airports and the surrounding property. It is a long-term plan that supports anticipated growth of airport activity, using a variety of tools and techniques to maintain compatible land use. An ALUCP combines the previously mentioned planning techniques with the specific goals, objectives, and needs of an individual airport. The result is the creation of a detailed document that guides land use decisions within the proximity of individual airports. Specific elements of an ALUCP vary depending on what is authorized by individual state enabling legislation. In some states, airports are required to develop a plan, while in others state legislation allows voluntary participation in airport land use compatibility planning. In either case, the plan should be based upon a full assessment of existing and future needs of an airport, as well as the needs of the local community. In most cases, an ALUCP is developed by a local community and is consistent with local and state laws. As the geographic limits of an ALUCP often extend beyond the confines of a single municipal boundary, coordination between adjoining communities is often necessary. When allowed by the state, this can involve extraterritorial zoning. What distinguishes most ALUCPs from traditional comprehensive planning is that they are exclusionary. They typically describe what land uses and land use characteristics are incompatible and therefore should not be allowed in the airport vicinity. They may also list the conditions that must be met in order for a particular land use to be allowed (sound attenuation, usage intensity limits, height limitations, avigation ease- ments, etc.). Quite often an ALUCP also contains an airport zoning ordinance, which is the legislative tool used to implement the findings or recommendations of the ALUCP. This ordinance can be a stand- alone document or can be a segment of a local zoning code. Some communities even develop them as an overlay zone to the existing base zoning, creating an overlay district. There are many meth- ods to develop an ordinance. As part of Chapter 8 of this document, a sample local airport zoning ordinance is included for reference.

Airport Related An airport sponsor or manager is an ambassador for the local airport and has the responsibility to inform local government officials and citizens of the importance of compatible land use plan- ning on or near airport environs. Airport sponsors and managers must be vigilant with efforts to stay informed about local community actions regarding land use issues within the airport’s prox- imity. They must make a concerted effort to establish solid communication and coordination with the local community and elected officials to demonstrate the value of and justification for compat- ible land uses near their local airport. Airport Sponsors Airport sponsors and local governments should work together to ensure that the sponsor is involved in the early stages of planning for any development that can potentially create an incom- patible land use and endanger the safe operations of an airport or expose the public to excessive noise or risks. In conjunction with local officials, airport sponsors should assist with the develop- ment of local comprehensive plan elements and zoning regulations to: • Preserve the viability of airports; • Prevent and minimize surrounding incompatible land uses; • Mitigate and minimize potential noise impacts on surrounding areas; and • Preserve adequate space for airport operations, expansion, and safety zones. Airport Managers Airport managers, along with sponsors, can take an active role in the comprehensive planning process by providing local planners with airport and aviation information and documents. Airport-specific information provides the community with a good foundation from which to cre- ate the transportation and economic development elements of a comprehensive plan and to develop an airport land use compatibility plan. Airport information and documents may include any, or all, of the following: • Location map. • Airport type (commercial service, general aviation). • Airport facility description (runways, taxiways, navigational aids, approaches). • Current and forecast airport operational information (activity levels, based aircraft, enplane- ments). • Map of current and forecast noise contours and associated information if available or applicable. • Description of approach clearance considerations. • Copy and explanation of the airport master plan, along with any future development expected at the airport. • Copy of the airport Exhibit “A” Property Map that illustrates existing avigation easements near the site. • List of opportunities to develop links with other transportation modes. • Reports that demonstrate the economic value of the airport Local municipalities should be involved with the airport planning process to educate the local stakeholders about the importance of the airport and the land use planning process. Airport spon- sors and managers should encourage local participation in the development of the airport master plan, which can increase community involvement in the planning process. Local interests, as well as state aviation departments and the FAA should be involved in the airport planning process. The development of an airport master plan should be done in accordance with FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans. 1.64 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders 1.65 Airport Master Plan An airport master plan is a long-range planning tool that guides the growth and development of individual airports. The plan is typically developed to address facility needs within a 20-year period with updates completed every five years, as warranted. The document is usually generated by an airport sponsor and its governing body to evaluate future growth and development needs based upon the projected facility usage. FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, provides criteria for the creation of an airport mas- ter plan. As outlined in the AC, a typical master plan process includes the following elements: • Inventory of facilities and airspace; • Forecast of anticipated growth in activity; • Demand/capacity analysis; • Facility requirements; • Alternative plan concepts; • Environmental overview; • Plan implementation; • Airport layout plan; and • Public involvement process. The master plan process should include a comprehensive public involvement strategy and encourage communication between various stakeholders. Public input can provide a critical connection between the airport and the community, leading to improved compatible land use decisions. The master plan leads to the development of an airport capital improvement plan (ACIP). An ACIP is a summary of development goals for a 5-year planning period, based upon the findings of the airport master plan. The airport master plan and ACIP should be utilized as a guide for the continued growth and development of an airport. It is beneficial to make the plans available to elected officials, local planners, and local land use decision makers to enhance an understanding of the airport needs and associated compatible land use issues during the evaluation process of proposed development projects within proximity to airport environs. ✈ Case Study Example: Indianapolis International Airport (IND) IND is owned and operated by the Indianapolis Airport Authority (IAA). State statutes have given the IAA the right to zone land within the city of Indianapolis, adjacent townships, and counties to ensure compatible land use. The IAA has designated specific areas around the Airport which fall within specific noise thresholds and has set up a purchase assistance sys- tem where owners of a home within a designated assistance area are able to sell their house and property to the IAA, who then clears it and maintains the open space to further miti- gate the encroachment of incompatible land uses on the Airport. Airport Users and Pilots Airport users, including pilots and aircraft owners, represent a diverse network of people within a community and provide a unique opportunity for the collection and dissemination of informa- tion related to the airport and compatible land use issues. Like airport sponsors, users can attend local meetings to keep abreast of potential land use issues and report back to airport sponsors with information that may affect operations at the airport.

General aviation users, airlines, and air cargo carriers need to be made aware of land use impacts that aircraft operations impose on the surrounding environs. Both commercial service and gen- eral aviation pilots should follow standard operating procedures and operate their aircraft in a prudent manner to reduce noise impacts on local land uses. They should adhere to local noise abatement procedures and posted traffic patterns during approach and departure operations as a means to promote airport land use compatibility. ✈ Case Study Example: O’Hare International Airport In June 1997, the Fly Quiet Program was started to reduce nighttime noise impacts for resi- dential areas that lie in either the approach or departure paths of aircraft utilizing the airport. This program identifies preferred departure runways, flight paths, and operating procedures that encourage airlines/pilots to reduce noise impacts on local residents during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The program is strictly voluntary and is not mandatory due to possi- ble safety concerns that may arise. ✈ Case Study Example: Collin County Regional Airport To help reduce the impacts of aircraft noise on the community and residents surrounding the Collin County Regional Airport, a brochure called Flying Friendly was distributed to pilots and airport users which discussed how a pilot can help reduce aircraft noise concerns. Pilots are asked to sign a Pilot Good Neighbor Pledge, which recognizes their commitment to fly in a rea- sonable manner. Local Citizens The local population within a community can influence the decisions made by local planners, elected officials, and policymakers. Therefore, it is essential to educate the public so that informed decisions can be made regarding the implementation of planning techniques required for compat- ible land uses on or near airport environs. Public awareness of the implementation of compatible land use initiatives is beneficial to creating a safe environment for an airport and the neighboring citizens. Local citizens are often the most affected by techniques used to develop compatible land uses and should be educated and involved in the land use planning process. For example, a homeowner whose residence is located within a runway approach zone should be provided with an explana- tion of the safety issues related to a clear airspace within this zone. The need for clear airspace should be outlined in such a manner that the homeowner understands the rationale behind the existence of these areas, as well as the necessity for land use regulations within these zones. When mitigation is necessary, the homeowner should also be educated about the various options avail- able to meet the specific needs of the particular situation. Outlining these needs and the justifica- tion for them, as well as the various methods for mitigation, is essential to the success of a local compatible land use program. Additionally, when developing an airport land use compatibility plan it is important to listen to the local citizens to assess their comments and concerns about the plan. The educational process should create an open line of communication between all parties involved, which can lead to a more comprehensive and successful plan. 1.66 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders 1.67 ✈ Case Study Example: Collin County Regional Airport To help reduce the impacts of aircraft noise on the community and residents surrounding the Collin County Regional Airport, a noise hotline has been established by the city of McKinney to identify flight anomalies. Citizens that are being affected by aircraft noise are strongly urged to call the noise hotline. Each complaint and comment received on this hotline is recorded and investigated. Real Estate Interests Businesses and individuals, who comprise the real estate interests in a local or regional com- munity, should be involved in the compatible land use discussion. As these individuals are often responsible for brokering sales of property and bringing business into a community, they need to be educated on the land use concerns. Their role is to be responsible stewards for both the airport and the area around it. Efforts should be made to educate real estate interests such as agents/ brokers and developers of the concerns associated with land use compatibility and the impact it can have on different types of development. Additionally, efforts should be made, through this group of businesses, to implement some of the strategies for compatibility such as disclosure notices and avigation easements as part of land sales near airports or their approach areas. These two forms of preservation and mitigation strategies are discussed in Chapter 8. Working to alert developers or future tenants of potential compatibility concerns before development takes place is essential to minimizing impacts. ✈ Case Study Example: Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI) At BWI, a notification process by owners and/or realtors has been implemented to inform prospective buyers and renters of a property’s location within the Airport Noise Zone (ANZ), which has been determined by the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA). The Maryland State Real Estate Commission has established an educational program with the Anne Arundel County and Howard County Boards of Realtors to provide notification as part of standard real estate transactions within the ANZ. Summary A variety of federal and state agencies provide land use guidance, policy, and implementation funding to local agencies. Local governments and airport sponsors are given the authority to implement and enforce land use compatibility policies and regulations specific to a particular airport. Each community and airport has unique physical requirements, goals, users, service markets, surrounding environs, and local economies. Relationships among stakeholders may vary by local community depending upon factors such as state enabling authority, ownership patterns, and type of airports involved. Due to the various authorities involved with the regula- tion of land use, a diverse set of guidance is available to help local communities address land use compatibility concerns. Communication and coordination between federal, state, regional, and local agencies, as well as airport sponsors, airport managers, airport users, and local citizens is essential to the development and implementation of a successful airport land use compatibility program.

1.68 Land use decisions are often influenced by an array of criteria; therefore, it is imperative to understand the complicated relationship among land uses; airports; federal, state, and local gov- ernments; and host communities. Federal, state, and local resources have been invested to develop the necessary infrastructure to support aviation activity at airports nationwide. Compatible land uses within proximity to airports will protect the airport and its airspace, as well as the health, safety, and welfare of residents within airport environs. An airport’s area of influence and related airspace often can span across multiple jurisdictions, further complicating the implementation of land use controls. Local governments and host com- munities need to realize the importance of maintaining an obstruction-free airport and associated airspace. This includes the area that encompasses the airport, runway protection zones, approach areas, and the general vicinity of the airport. In many cases, these areas are owned by airports, how- ever, the bulk of the land beyond airport boundaries is privately owned and needs to be managed by the governing municipality in which the airport lies. Federal and state agencies provide guidelines and recommendations through legislation to assist in maintaining compatible land uses within proximity to airports. However, the majority of the responsibility for implementation and enforcement of programs and decisions lies with local gov- ernments. Too often, local governments review and approve land uses and structures with little consideration on how the land use or structure will affect airport operations and the ability to pro- tect area residents. FAA criteria along with aviation crash statistics provide the foundation on which the justification for compatible land uses can be based upon. The Doolittle Report The need for compatible land use was nationally recognized as early as 1952 in a document enti- tled The Airport and Its Neighbors – The Report of the President’s Airport Commission, commonly known as the Doolittle Report after James Doolittle, the commission’s chairman. President Harry S. Truman appointed a President’s Airport Commission to undertake the task of investigating ways to protect and preserve airports as well as to protect people on the ground within the vicinity of air- ports from the nuisances caused by airport and aircraft operations. The commission’s research was separated into a number of topics that provided the foundation from which the commission was able to develop a set of recommendations to address land use compatibility. The general topics and basic recommendations included: • Airport growth – Support required airport development – Improve existing airports – Develop helicopters for civil use V O L U M E 1 , C H A P T E R 4 Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance

• Zoning – Establish effective zoning laws • Federal assistance – Expand Federal-Aid Airport Program • Runway design and length – Revise present crosswind equipment – Extend use of single runway system – Meet standard requirements for runway length • Nuisance factors – Accelerate ground noise reduction programs – Instruct flight personnel concerning nuisance factors • Standardization and training – Minimize training flights at congested airports – Minimize test flights near metropolitan areas – Avoid military training over congested areas – Provide more flight crew training • Airport planning – Integrate municipal and airport planning – Incorporate cleared runway extension areas into airports • Navigable airspace – Clarify laws and regulations governing use of airspace – Define navigable airspace in approach zones – Maintain positive air traffic control – Raise circling and maneuvering minimums – Accelerate installation of aids to air navigation – Arrange flight patterns to reduce ground noise – Separate military and civil flying at congested airports • Airport certification – Extend Civil Aeronautics Act to certificate airports Over a half a century later, many of the recommendations that address land use compatibility remain unfulfilled due to the societal hesitation over implementation of strict land use controls. Additionally, there are inherent challenges associated with administering these recommendations over an aviation system spread across 50 states and thousands of local airports and communities. Reviewing these recommendations from the Doolittle Report provides support to the argument that land use concerns have been a long-standing issue for the aviation industry. Recent events, such as the aircraft overrun at Midway Airport in 2007, demonstrate that having compatible land uses near airports is very important to the safety of both those operating the aircraft as well as persons on the ground in proximity to airports. A brief review of some of the recommendations reveals that efforts have been made, where feasi- ble, to establish some form of guidance and standards to address land use issues. However, many of the recommendations require funding, enforcement, increased understanding, coordination, and cooperation to be effective. A sample of the recommendations is outlined below to provide a brief glimpse into the diversity of the topics covered. Also given is a brief assessment of each recommen- dation’s status and applicability to today’s aviation system. The assessments contained here are not meant to be an inclusive list of all activities, regulations, or actions that have taken place since 1952, but are intended to be a very brief assessment of the specific topic by today’s general standards. • Support required airport development – Doolittle Report Summary: New airports will be necessary and present airports must be improved to meet the aviation demands. State, county, and municipal governments should be prepared to assume their proper share of this expense. Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance 1.69

– General Assessment: The aviation infrastructure of the nation today includes more than 19,000 airports with 5,190 open for public use. Of these, 3,411 are identified as part of the 2008 NPIAS making them eligible for federal funding from the FAA. Local airport sponsors and their host communities are matching federal funding and provide local support to the development of the aviation industry. Additionally, individual states have established offices or departments of aviation or aeronautics, dedicated to the preservation and development of aviation within their respective states. The Doolittle Report advocates for state, county, and local government support for required airport development, however, very little funding— federal, state, or local—is dedicated to compatible land use airport planning efforts. • Expand Federal-Aid Airport Program (FAAP) – Doolittle Report Summary: Authorization of matching funds for federal aid to airports should be implemented by adequate appropriations. Highest priority in the application of federal aid should be given to runways and their protective extensions incorporated into the airport to bring major municipal airports up to standards recommended in this report. – General Assessment: Creation of the FAAP and subsequent incarnations including the cur- rent Airport Improvement Program (AIP) has promoted this goal and has continued to fos- ter federal participation in the development of airports across the nation. However, while funding continues to reach new levels, additional effort must be placed upon land use com- patibility programs by funding additional projects that target this issue, since most funding opportunities are not used to address land use planning. Also, for such programs to succeed, the FAA will need to be more aggressive in promoting the importance of airport land use compatibility and in supporting long-range land use compatibility planning efforts. • Integrate municipal and airport planning – Doolittle Report Summary: Airports should be made a part of community master plans com- pletely integrated with transportation requirements for passenger, express, freight, and postal services. Particular attention should be paid to limited access highways and other transporta- tion facilities to reduce time to the airport from sources of air transport business. – General Assessment: While the recommendation of integrating municipal and airport plan- ning appears to be fairly simple on the surface, the actual implementation of such a recom- mendation is monumental. Since the 1950s, many communities have excluded aviation and airport elements from the local planning process. There is little research on this issue that identifies specific reasons for the lack of integration or attention to this mode of transporta- tion. Many questions exist regarding this topic and the lack of interest paid to airports as it relates to local comprehensive planning. In the limited instances where integrated planning has been done successfully, it has mostly been at major commercial service airports which have the political and financial resources to make it possible. Efforts to employ multimodal planning have been able to address some of these issues. At most airports, however, it is very difficult to bring the appropriate players to the table to discuss the issue of airport land use compatibility planning, let alone realize actual implementation of a plan or recommendation. While not necessarily widely accepted, developing a planning process and resulting plans to achieve integrated planning is still an essential goal that communities and their local airports both should strive to achieve. Some sort of national direction or incentive program to facili- tate their cooperation in planning efforts is needed. Better multimodal planning efforts should be encouraged to allow for greater development of the transportation systems that take advantage of the existing infrastructure, as well as the future needs of these systems. ✈ Case Study Example: Naval Air Station Pensacola To help maintain compatible land uses around NAS Pensacola and protect both the mili- tary base and surrounding populations, Escambia County and NAS Pensacola conducted a JLUS. This study was conducted to identify encroachment issues and recommend strategies 1.70 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

to address the issues in Escambia County’s comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. Escambia County has successfully implemented the recommendations from the JLUS into their comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances to help mitigate incompatible land uses near the military base, protecting the community’s valuable asset. • Incorporate cleared runway extension areas into airports – Doolittle Report Summary: The dominant runways of new airport projects should be pro- tected by cleared extensions at each end at least one-half mile in length and 1,000 feet wide. This area should be completely free from housing or any other form of obstruction. Such extensions should be considered an integral part of the airport. – General Assessment: This recommendation led to the federal requirement for establishment of standards for clear zones, now known as RPZs, at the ends of airport runways. Although initially intended to protect the runway approaches, the FAA now states that the function is “to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground.” Airport ownership over RPZs is strongly encouraged and is essentially mandatory for new airports and runways. However, it is not a federal requirement for existing airports. Consequently, the RPZs of many airports, especially older airports in urban areas, contain land uses that put people at signifi- cant risk in the event that an aircraft overruns or lands short of a runway. • Establish effective zoning laws – Doolittle Report Summary: A fan-shaped zone beyond the half-mile cleared extension described in a previous recommendation, at least two-miles long and 6,000 feet wide at its outer limits should be established at new airports by zoning law, air easement or land pur- chase at each end of dominant runways. In this area, the height of buildings and also the use of land should be controlled to eliminate the erection of places of public assembly, churches, hospitals, schools, etc., and to restrict residences to the more distant locations within the zone. – General Assessment: The principal outcome of this recommendation has been the creation of FAR Part 77 (14CFR77) which defines the federal process for addressing “objects affect- ing navigable airspace.” However, the main portion of the recommendation was lost as the establishment of these areas is not based in “zoning law,” as noted in the recommendation, but is merely a notification process leading to an FAA aeronautical study of the objects that may be obstructions to the airspace. Furthermore, FAR Part 77 only addresses whether the objects might be hazards to air navigation, not the underlying use of the land. Except where noise may be an issue, the FAA has no criteria with regard to land use compatibility beyond the RPZs. Implementation at the state and local levels also is missing. Some states did adopt various types of airport zoning enabling legislation in the late 1940s and early 1950s; how- ever, they did not address or pay particular detail to the fan-shaped zone suggested in the Doolittle Report. Even with respect to airspace protection, most states have not adopted laws enabling enforcement of FAR Part 77 standards. Few communities in the country have adopted zoning ordinances protecting the runway approaches from obstructions, let alone from incompatible land uses. This is a primary recommendation that is still not being addressed today. • Improve existing airports – Doolittle Report Summary: Existing airports must continue to serve their communities. However, cities should go as far as is practical toward developing the cleared areas and zoned runway approaches recommended for new airports. No further building should be permit- ted on runway extensions and wherever possible, objectionable structures should be removed. Operating procedures should be modified in line with the commission’s recommendations for minimizing hazards and nuisances to persons living in the vicinity of airports. – General Assessment: If historical photos of airports across the country were compared to the conditions today, it would become readily apparent that the limitations on building near airports has, as a general rule, not been successful and therefore is still a goal that has gone unrealized. Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance 1.71

• Clarify laws and regulations governing use of airspace – Doolittle Report Summary: Authority of the federal, state, or municipal governments with respect to the regulation of the use of airspace should be clarified to avoid conflicting reg- ulations and laws. – General Assessment: It is clear from both statutory and case law that the federal government has pre-emptive authority over regulation of the operation of aircraft in the airspace. Equally clear from the U.S Constitution is that state and local governments, and not the federal gov- ernment, have authority over land use decisions. At the intersection of these powers is where the law is less clear. Litigation continues to arise over issues involving restriction of land uses to protect airport airspace. Moreover, the outcome of these cases often depends more on state laws than federal ones. Protection of airports from airspace obstructions thus is incon- sistent from state to state. • Define navigable airspace in approach zones – Doolittle Report Summary: The limits of the navigable airspace for glide path or take-off patterns at airports should be defined. – General Assessment: FAR Part 77 and other federal standards attempt to define and guide the protection of airspace for approach zones for airports. This guidance has continually been improved over time to better reflect the way aircraft fly and to respond to new instrument flight capabilities. However, while these standards are used to define the areas of concern, the federal government cannot enforce the clearance of areas for unob- structed approaches and few states have adopted legislation to do so. Instead, when obstructions are identified, the outcome frequently is to modify the airport’s instrument approach procedures—usually by increasing the minimums for descent height and visi- bility minimums—to accommodate the obstruction. This increase limits the utility of the runway. On the whole, the Doolittle Report recommendation to better delineate naviga- ble airspace continues to be followed, but the underlying concern over protection of this airspace remains largely unmet today. • Accelerate installation of aids to air navigation – Doolittle Report Summary: Research and development programs and installation projects designed to improve aids to navigation and traffic control in the vicinity of airports, espe- cially in congested areas, should be accelerated. Installation and adequate manning of radar traffic control systems should be given high priority. – General Assessment: For quite some time, there was a plateau in air navigational aids where facilities such as Non-directional Beacons (NDBs) and Very High Frequency Omnirange (VOR) navigational aids and instrument landing systems (ILSs) provided the sole source of navigational aids. The FAA was not a leader in pushing air navigation technology forward. More recently, though, the FAA, the DoD, and private industry have worked together to enable rapid progress in the technology, particularly with the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) technology. Approaches such as area navigation (RNAV) and localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV), as well as wide area aug- mentation system (WAAS), are now commonplace and are replacing the use of VOR and NDB approaches across the county. With the commissioning of these new approaches, there is no requirement for ground based equipment because everything is satellite-based with the GPS equipment. This is beneficial from a cost standpoint with limited needs for investment in equipment. It also is beginning to enable implementation of approach and departure routes that can be designed to avoid overflight of sensitive land uses and that can be flown more precisely than traditional procedures. However, the tradeoff for these noise abatement types of procedures is that height limits in the newly overflown locations may need to be more restrictive than necessary with traditional procedures aligned with the runway. 1.72 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

• Accelerate ground noise reduction programs – Doolittle Report Summary: Engine run-up schedules and run-up locations should be adjusted to minimize noise near airports. Adequate acoustical treatment in run-up areas and at test stands should be provided. – General Assessment: While there are airports that have constructed run-up enclosures or constructed more isolated areas for engine testing or engine run-up areas, many airports do not have the funds to consider the construction of these types of structures since many of their ground noise issues are often very limited. Consequently, this is an issue that could likely benefit from additional study under FAR Part 150 studies, as well as site specific assessments if there are extensive amounts of engine run-up activities such as aircraft main- tenance activities. • Instruct flight personnel concerning nuisance factors – Doolittle Report Summary: A tight discipline with respect to airport approach and depar- ture procedures to minimize noise nuisance to people on the ground (within the limits of safe operating procedures) should be maintained at all times. – General Assessment: Implementation of this recommendation is predicated upon the suc- cessful communication of the developed procedures to pilots utilizing the airport. For example, if an airport establishes noise abatement procedures, it is imperative that local pilots, as well as itinerant pilots, are made aware of these procedures so that they can be cognizant of them during their take-off and landing activities at the subject airport. If left uneducated about the site specific procedures, it is likely that the implementation and the resulting noise reduction that is desired will not be realized. Many airports have established “Fly Quiet” programs or otherwise provide information on noise abatement procedures in an effort to educate the users of their airport about noise issues. As a result of these efforts, the vast majority of pilots today are aware of the noise impacts of their aircraft and do all they can within the limits of safety to operate their aircraft quietly and avoid overflight of noise-sensitive areas. • Arrange flight patterns to reduce ground noise – Doolittle Report Summary: Airways and flight patterns near airports should be arranged to avoid unnecessary flight over thickly settled areas to minimize noise, but only within the limits of safe flight practice. – General Assessment: The FAA, through the FAR Part 150 – Noise Control and Compatibil- ity Planning for Airports, works to reduce existing incompatible land uses near airports by measuring airport noise and identifying uses that are incompatible with various levels of noise. While there may be some general understanding of incompatible land uses near air- ports in regards to noise, many airports today are becoming increasing constrained by incompatible development, and the options for developing flight patterns to avoid popu- lated areas which may be affected by noise impacts are limited. Most common noise abase- ment procedures, such as preferential runway use and departure tracks are usually implemented through voluntary use by pilots. In some instances, modification to flight stan- dards can be implemented, however, these actions are usually considered to be “measures of last resort.” With that said, new technologies, such as GPS approaches, are becoming available that enable aircraft to safely fly airport approach and departure routes that are modified to minimize noise impacts. On the whole, progress is being made with regard to this recommendation, but slowly. As mentioned, these summaries are only a sample of the 25 individual recommendations. Sig- nificant steps have been taken over the years to increase awareness of airport land use compati- bility issues and to address them, but growth of airports and the communities around them have continued to add to the problem and have made finding solutions increasingly challenging. As Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance 1.73

decisions to allow incompatible land uses near airports continue to threaten the nation’s avia- tion system, implementation of compatible land use controls has become an industry priority. Primary FAA Criteria Related to Land Use FAA criteria laying the foundation for land use compatibility from a federal perspective are primarily found in four places: • Grant assurances as part of the AIP funding process. • FAA design standards pertaining to the physical layout of an airport. • FAR Part 150, Noise Compatibility Program, provides guidance on noise related land uses within airport noise contours and airport environs. • FAR Part 77 provides guidance on navigable airspace around an airport, in addition to pro- viding procedures for construction notification and the airspace review and aeronautical study to be conducted by the FAA. The airport land use compatibility criteria set forth in each of these places are discussed in the following sections. Grant Assurances, Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, United States Code (USC), Title 49, Subtitle VII as Amended Grant assurances are required as part of a project application from airport sponsors who are eli- gible to request federal funds. Upon acceptance of grant money, these assurances are incorporated into and become part of the grant agreement. The airport sponsor is obligated to comply with spe- cific assurances including the maintenance of compatible land use within the vicinity of the air- port. The assurances that apply to planning-related projects are limited compared to other types of projects and have stipulations outlined in the grant agreement documents. Assurances include but are not limited to the following: • Compliance with all applicable federal laws, regulations, executive orders, policies, guidelines, and requirements as they relate to the project. • Responsibility and authority of the sponsor to carry out the proposed project. • Availability of the local share of funds for the proposed project. • Preservation of the rights and powers of the sponsor and airport. • Consistency with local plans. • Accurate accounting, auditing, and recordkeeping process. • Public access to project information and planning processes. • Compliance with civil rights issues. • Provision of engineering and design services. • Compliance with current policies, standards, and specifications. Grant Assurance 21 included in the September 1999 amendment to 49 USC 47107, specifically requires all airports that accept federal money to “take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, includ- ing landing and takeoff of aircraft.” This grant assurance obligates an airport sponsor to protect the federal investment through the maintenance of a safe operating environment. Standards are not stated to implement this assurance. Moreover, the “to the extent reasonable” clause means that implementation varies widely. An airport’s ability to adopt zoning or take other land use compatibility actions is much less when the surrounding lands are in a different jurisdic- tion than when the same agency controls both the airport and its environs. 1.74 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

In 2000, Congress passed legislation requiring the FAA to compile a Land Use Compliance Report. This report provides a detailed assessment of individual airports that are not in compli- ance with federal grant assurances or other Federal land use requirements with respect to airport land. Each FAA Regional Office conducts a minimum of two land use inspections per year in order to compile the report. When inspections identify incompatible land uses around airports, the airport sponsors are encouraged to take corrective action to address the issue. If they are non- compliant, they risk losing their eligibility for receiving Federal AIP grants. The FAA has recently been successful enforcing Grant Assurance 21 through litigation with a non-compliant airport. Grant Assurance 20, Hazard Removal and Mitigation, requires airports to take “appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace as is required to protect instrument and visual oper- ations to the airport (including established minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by preventing the establishment or creation of future airport haz- ards.” This assurance works to protect those in the air and on the ground by identifying and removing hazards to safe aircraft navigation. FAA Design Standards Safety areas, as defined by FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, are implemented for the safe and efficient operation of an airport. There are many design requirements contained in this advi- sory circular. Nearly all pertain to aircraft operating areas and facilities located on airport property. The requirements discussed below are directly related to areas in proximity to runway ends and approach areas near runways that may be off airport property. These areas fulfill safety-related functions for an airport and for aircraft using the airport. It is important to fully understand the role of each area during land use discussions. The safety areas focus on requirements on the ground and include, runway safety areas, runway object free areas, and runway protection zones. Runway Safety Areas. Runway safety areas (RSAs) are rectangular, two-dimensional areas surrounding a runway as illustrated in Figure 1.4-1. FAA notes that RSAs should be cleared, graded, properly drained, and free of potentially hazardous surface variations. RSAs also should be capable of supporting snow removal, aircraft rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) equipment, or an aircraft that overshoots the runway without causing damage to that aircraft. Taxiways also have similar safety area requirements. The actual size of an RSA is dependent upon the FAA classification of the runway (A-I, B-II, C-III, etc). This surface ranges from 120 feet to 500 feet in width and from 240 feet to 1,000 feet in length beyond each end of the runway. Runway Object Free Areas. Runway object free areas (OFAs) are two- dimensional ground areas surrounding runways where all aboveground objects must be removed unless fixed by their function, such as runway lights. FAA stan- dards prohibit objects and parked aircraft from being located within the runway OFA. Taxiways also have OFAs. The dimensions of an OFA range in width and length from 240 feet to 800 feet in width, and 240 feet to 1,000 feet in length depending upon aircraft design groups. Figure 1.4-2 depicts the proximity of OFAs to the runway. RSAs and OFAs are almost always contained within airport property. If an RSA or an OFA is not fully on airport property, special measures must be taken in the design of the runway to provide an equivalent degree of safety. Runway Protection Zones. RPZs, formerly known as clear zones, were orig- inally established to define land areas below aircraft approach paths in order to Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance 1.75 Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design Standards. Figure 1.4-1. Proximity of OFAs to RSAs.

prevent the creation of airport hazards or development of incompatible land use. First recom- mended in a 1952 report by the President’s Airport Commission titled The Airport and Its Neigh- bors, the establishment of clear areas beyond runway ends was deemed worthy of federal management. These clear areas were intended to preclude the construction of obstructions potentially hazardous to aircraft and to control building construction for the protection of peo- ple on the ground. The U.S. Department of Commerce concurred with the recommendation on the basis that this area was “primarily for the purpose of safety for people on the ground.” The FAA adopted clear zones with dimensional standards to implement the commission’s recommendation. RPZs are designed with the intent to protect people and property on the ground. They are located at the end of each runway and, ideally, should be controlled by the airport. Control is preferably exercised by acquisition of sufficient property interest to achieve and maintain an area that is clear of all incompatible land uses, objects, and activities. RPZs often can extend beyond airport property. Therefore, from an off-airport land use compatibility perspective, the critical safety zone identified by FAA design standards is the RPZ. The FAA recommends that, whenever possible, the entire RPZ be owned by the airport and be clear of all obstructions if practicable. Where ownership is impracticable, avigation easements are recommended to obtain the right to maintain the height of structures and vegetation within the RPZ footprint. Obtaining easements that are often restrictive enough to limit building opportunities, as well as height are often just as costly to procure as purchasing the property outright. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centered on the extended runway centerline. Dimensions for a particular RPZ are based upon the type of aircraft and approach visibility minimums associ- ated with the runway end. Unless noted by a special circumstance, the RPZ begins 200 feet beyond the end of the runway and has specific land use restrictions in order to keep the approach and departure areas clear of obstructions. The RPZ has two specific areas as shown in Figure 1.4-2. First is the central portion of the RPZ, which is equal in width to the runway OFA. The second area is the controlled activity area, which is adjacent to the central portion of the RPZ. Table 1.4-1 con- tains specific dimensional information for the RPZs. In addition to the general clearing requirements associated with the OFA, RSA, TSA, and Obstacle Free Zones (OFZ), RPZs have a critical need for protection from incompatible land uses and have land use related criteria that must be maintained. It is desirable to clear all objects from 1.76 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design Standards. Figure 1.4-2. RPZ diagram.

the RPZ, per the criteria noted in FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, although some uses are permitted, provided they: • Do not attract wildlife; • Are outside of the runway OFA; and • Do not interfere with navigational aids. For example, automobile parking facilities are discouraged; however, they can be permitted provided lighting, as well as the lots themselves, are located outside the central portion of the RPZ and meet the aforementioned three (3) criteria. Land uses that are prohibited from the RPZ areas, according to FAA AC 150/5300-13 Change 14, Airport Design, include: • Fuel storage facilities; • Residential structures (homes, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing parks); and • Place of public assembly (places of worship, schools, hospitals, office buildings, shopping cen- ters, or other uses with similar concentrations of people). However, when it is determined impracticable for the airport sponsor to acquire and plan the land uses within the entire RPZ, provisions can be made to maintain existing residential structures so long as they do not pose a hazard to safe air navigation. The land use standards can provide a recommendation status for that portion of the RPZ that is not controlled by the airport sponsor. If this option is impractical, the airport sponsor should consider the acquisition of an avigation easement to provide control over the RPZ area. FAR Part 150, Noise Compatibility Program, CFR Title 14 This document establishes the measures required by the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA) and was revised to include a standardized airport noise compatibility program, including: • Voluntary Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) and Noise Compatibility Programs (NCP) submit- ted by airport owners to the FAA; • Standard noise measurement methodologies and units; Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance 1.77 Dimensions Approach Visibility Minimums 1 Facilities Expected to Serve Length L feet (meters) Inner Width W1 feet (meters) Outer Width W2 feet (meters) RPZ acres Small aircraft exclusively 1,000 (300) 250 (75) 450 (135) 8.035 Aircraft Approach Categories A & B 1,000 (300) 500 (150) 700 (210) 13.770 Visual and not lower than 1-Mile (1,600m) Aircraft Approach Categories C & D 1,700 (510) 500 (150) 1,010 (303) 29.465 Not lower than ¾-mile (1.200m) All Aircraft 1,700 (510) 1,000 (300) 1,510 (453) 48.978 Lower than ¾-mile (1,200 m) All Aircraft 2,500 (750) 1,000 (300) 1,750 (525) 78.914 1The RPZ dimensional standards are for the runway end with the specified approach visibility minimums. The departure RPZ dimensional standards are equal to or less than the approach RPZ dimensional standards. When an RPZ begins other than 200 feet (60m) beyond the runway end, separate approach and departure RPZs should be provided. Refer to FAA AC 150/5300-13, Change 14, Appendix 14 for approach and departure RPZs. Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design Standards Table 1.4-1. RPZ dimensional requirements.

• Identification of land uses which the FAA deems to be normally compatible or incompatible with various levels of noise; and • Procedures and criteria for preparing and submitting a NEM and NCP. FAR Part 150 contains the regulations that implement the provisions of the ASNA. Under FAR Part 150, local jurisdictions can prepare and submit to the FAA a NEM for the airport’s environs and a NCP. The program is open to all publicly owned, public-use airports included in the NPIAS. Although the FAR Part 150 program is voluntary, airports must participate if they wish to obtain FAA funding for noise-abatement measures such as sound attenuation of existing res- idences and schools or installation of noise monitors. FAR Part 150 focuses solely on noise compatibility issues. Safety and airspace protection con- cerns are not addressed except to the extent that they may affect or be affected by noise-related measures. Among the noise-related provisions of the regulation are: • Making the A-weighted decibel [dB (A)] scale the universal noise measurement tool; • Making the Day-Night Level (DNL) the universal noise contour measure; and • Defining acceptable land uses for areas within each DNL noise contour. FAR Part 77, “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace” (14 CFR 77) FAR Part 77 establishes standards for providing notice to the FAA regarding proposed objects that may be obstructions to air navigation and for FAA review of these objects to determine if they would be hazards to flight. The regulations apply to civil airports and heliports, as well as to military airports. FAA Form 7460-1 §77.15 Construction or alteration not requiring notice states: No person is required to notify the Administrator for any of the following construction or alteration: (a) Any object that would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and would be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will not adversely affect safety in air navigation. (b) Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height except one that would increase the height of another antenna structure. (c) Any air navigation facil- ity, airport visual approach or landing air, aircraft arresting device, or meteorological device, of a type approved by the Administrator, or an appropriate military service on military airports, the location and height of which is fixed by its functional purpose. (d) Any construction or alteration for which notice is required by any other FAA regulation. Therefore, unless shielded by closer objects, notice to the FAA must be provided for any object having a height that exceeds a 100:1 slope from the runway (50:1 for runways up to 3,200 feet long). Determination of whether an object would be an airspace obstruction is based upon a set of imaginary surfaces defined in the air around each airport. The imaginary surfaces outlined in FAR Part 77 include: • Primary surface; • Approach Surface; • Transitional Surface; • Horizontal Surface; • Conical Surface; and • Outer Horizontal Surface (military airports only). Together with runway design standards, FAR Part 77 are intended to ensure that aircraft can safely approach, land, takeoff, and depart an airport. The difference is that FAR Part 77 surfaces identify airspace areas of concern around an airport while design standards protect specific ground areas on the airport. The dimensions of FAR Part 77 surfaces vary depending on the type 1.78 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

of runway approach. There are three types of runway approaches: visual, nonprecision instru- ment, and precision instrument. The primary differences between these approaches are: • A visual approach runway is one in which the pilot must visually see the runway and maneuver/ control the aircraft to the runway by looking outside of the aircraft without use of on-board instruments. Visual approaches also include instances where the existing or planned instru- ment approach terminates in circling rather than a straight-in approach. A circling approach requires the pilot to have visual contact with the runway while aligning the aircraft for landing. • A nonprecision instrument runway uses RNAV and Lateral Precision with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approaches with horizontal guidance for aircraft, aligning them with the runway for straight-in approaches. • A precision instrument runway approach uses an Instrument Landing System (ILS), a Preci- sion Approach Radar (PAR), a Microwave Landing System (MLS), or other new approach procedures such as GPS, which provide a greater degree of flexibility in the definition of non- precision and precision instrument approaches. To date, FAA has not altered the standards related to FAR Part 77 to reflect these new technologies. These approach systems provide both vertical (a glide slope) and horizontal alignment for aircraft to a particular runway. Airports with scheduled commercial passenger traffic and heavily used general aviation airports usu- ally have existing or planned precision instrument approaches. Additionally, two other terms should be defined which are relevant to the discussion of FAR Part 77 surfaces. These include the meaning of utility and visual as they apply to defining spe- cific dimensions for the FAR Part 77 surfaces. A utility runway is a runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds gross weight or less. Additionally, a distinction is also made as to the definition of a visual runway. A visual runway is a runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight-in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA approved airport layout plan, a military service approved military airport layout plan, or by any planning document submitted to the FAA by competent authority. Under FAR Part 77, the FAA is authorized to undertake an aeronautical study to determine whether a structure or vegetation is, or could be, a hazard to air navigation. However, the FAA is not authorized to regulate tall structures nor is there specific authorization in any statute that permits the FAA to limit structure heights or determine which structures should be lighted or marked. In fact, in every aeronautical study determination, the FAA acknowledges that state or local authorities control the appropriate use of property beneath an airport’s airspace. This illus- trates the need for local land use controls to support the findings of the FAA. Primary Surface. The primary surface must be clear of all obstructions except those fixed by their function, such as runway edge lights, navigational aids, or airport signage. The majority of the primary surface is already controlled by runway safety area criteria contained in FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design Standards and therefore does not warrant inclusion as a land use zone. Even though the primary surface is not included as a land use zone, it functions as an impor- tant safety area since it is longitudinally centered on a runway and is intended to provide an obstruction free area around the runway surface. When the runway has a prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway. When the runway does not have a prepared hard surface, or planned hard surface, the primary surface terminates at each end of the runway. The width of a primary surface ranges from 250 to 1,000 feet depending on the existing or planned approach and runway type (visual, nonprecision, or precision). Table 1.4-2, Figure 1.4-3, and Figure 1.4-4 depict various dimensional requirements for the primary surface and other FAR Part 77 Surfaces. Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance 1.79

1.80 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility Table 1.4-2. FAR Part 77 surface dimensional requirements. Dimensional Standards (Feet) for Runway Classifications (see legend below) Non-Precision Instrument Runway Visual Runway B Dimensions shown in Figure 4 Item A B A C D Precision Instrument Runway* A Primary surface width and approach surface width at inner end 250 500 500 500 1,000 1,000 B Horizontal surface radius 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 C Approach surface end width 1,250 1,500 2,000 3,500 4,000 16,000 D Approach surface length 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 E Approach slope 20:1 20:1 20:1 34:1 34:1 * F Conical surface width 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 G Transitional surface slope 7:1 7:1 7:1 7:1 7:1 4,000 Runway Classification Legend A – Utility runway. B – Runway larger than utility. C – Visibility minimums greater that ¾ of a mile. D – Visibility minimums as low as ¾ of a mile. * – Precision instrument approach slope is 50:1 for inner 10,000 feet and 40:1 for an additional 40,000 feet. Source: FAR Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Approach Surface. The approach surface is longitudinally centered on the extended run- way centerline and extends outward and upward from the end of the primary surface. A visual approach runway has relatively small surfaces with approach and horizontal surfaces extending 5,000 feet from the primary surface at an approach slope of 20 feet horizontally for each one foot vertically (20:1). For a nonprecision approach runway, both the approach and horizontal sur- faces extend either 5,000 or 10,000 feet from the primary surface, depending on the design cat- egory of the runway. The approach surfaces for precision approach runways are similar to those for nonprecision approach runways except that the approach surface extends 50,000 feet from the primary surface, and the horizontal surface extends 10,000 feet from the primary surface. The approach slope has a ratio of 20:1, 34:1, or 50:1, depending on the approach type (and 40:1 in the outer portion of a precision approach surface). The length of the approach surface varies from 5,000 to 50,000 feet and also depends upon the approach type. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and expands uniformly to a width ranging from 1,250 to 16,000 feet, depending on the type of runway and approach. Dimensional standards for the various approaches are illustrated in Table 1.4-2, Figure 1.4-3, and Figure 1.4-4. Transitional Surface. The transitional surface extends outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and extends at a slope of seven feet horizontally for each one foot ver- tically (7:1) from the sides of the primary and approach surfaces. The transitional surfaces extend to the point at which they intercept the horizontal surface at a height of 150 feet above the estab- lished airport elevation. For precision approach surfaces that project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, the transitional surface also extends 5,000 feet horizontally from the edge of the approach surface and at right angles to the runway centerline. Table 1.4-2, Figure 1.4-3, and Figure 1.4-4 depict the dimensional requirements of the approach surface.

Horizontal Surface. As illustrated in Table 1.4-2, Figure 1.4-3, and Figure 1.4-4, the hori- zontal surface is a horizontal plane located 150 feet above the established airport elevation and encompasses an area from the transitional surface to the conical surface. The perimeter is con- structed by generating arcs from the center of each end of the primary surface and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc for all runway ends desig- nated as utility or visual is 5,000 feet and 10,000 feet for precision and nonprecision runway ends. Conical Surface. The conical surface extends upward and outward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 feet horizontally for every one foot vertically (20:1) for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. Height limitations for the surface range from 150 feet above the Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance 1.81 Source: FAR Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace Figure 1.4-3. FAR Part 77 surfaces – plan view. Source: FAR Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace Figure 1.4-4. FAR Part 77 surfaces – 3D isometric view of Section A.

airport reference elevation at the inner edge to 350 feet at the outer edge, as shown in Table 1.4-2, Figure 1.4-3, and Figure 1.4-4. Other Airport-Related Surfaces In addition to the RPZs and FAR Part 77 Surfaces, there are other surfaces, which are evalu- ated by the FAA for obstructions. Several of these surfaces are worth mentioning since they may contribute to the height limitations for airports with instrument approaches and in some instances air carrier operations. Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (TERPS) Order 8260.3 B Change 19 through 22, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Pro- cedures, contains standards for establishing and designing terminal instrument flight procedures (TERPS). The criteria are applicable at any location over which the United States has jurisdic- tion. TERPS are similar to FAR Part 77 in that there are constraints placed on the airspace in the vicinity of the airport that may have an impact on the land uses allowable beneath those surfaces. One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) Obstacle Identification Surface For runways and airports that support air carrier operations, FAA AC 150/5300-13, Appen- dix 2, Airport Design, requires the identification of these additional departure surfaces. Providing a 62.5 feet vertically to one foot horizontally (62.5:1) slope, the inner dimension of the surface is 600 feet wide, with the outer width at 12,000 feet wide. The corresponding length is 50,000 feet. This area is much larger than the surfaces provided for in FAR Part 77 and TERPS, making it dif- ficult to coordinate the potential impacts to airspace and airport operations should an obstruction exist. Although the FAA plays no direct role in the actual protection of the OEI airspace, the pro- tection of the OEI airspace can be critical to preserve the viability of commercial air service at air- ports and should be considered when evaluating compatible land use impacts near airports. Departure Surface for Instrument Runways This surface is applied to runways with an instrument approach and is defined in FAA AC 150/5300-13, Appendix 2, Airport Design. This surface has a slope of 40 feet vertically to one foot horizontally (40:1) with corresponding dimensions of 1,000 foot inner width, 6,466 foot outer width, and 10,200 feet in length. Objects penetrating this surface may affect departure procedures, just as approach procedures can be affected by these same penetrations. Consideration should be given to this surface for compatible land uses which may affect the clearance of the 40:1 surface. Other Federal Regulations Related to Land Use FAA ACs, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide standards and policies for control- ling incompatible land uses near airports. The majority of this information is provided to the public and airport sponsors by the FAA. These resources create the foundation for the develop- ment and implementation of the airport planning process as well as the planning necessary for compatible land use. The following list of regulations is not all inclusive of the resources which relate to compati- ble land use planning. As noted previously, there are a multitude of federal and state agencies with regulatory authority over a wide range of areas that could impact land use decisions near 1.82 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

airports. Trying to identify each of these groups and the associated legislation would be a daunt- ing task; consequently, it is suggested that each airport and its host community evaluate the spe- cific needs of their airport and surrounding community to identify other agencies, particularly state agencies, that may need to be consulted prior to development of a land use plan. Planning and Design Related Regulations and Policies This section includes federal statutes, ACs, and CFRs, relevant to land use compatibility and provides a summarization of the primary regulations. The sources noted below are not meant to be an all-inclusive list, but rather a general summary and overview of resources relating to plan- ning and design. AC 70/7460-1K Change 2, Marking and Lighting. This AC works within the requirements of FAR Part 77. A sponsor proposing any type of construction or alteration of a structure that may affect the National Airspace System is required to submit FAA Form 7460-1 “Notice of Pro- posed Construction or Alteration.” This form should then be sent to the Obstruction Evaluation Service (OES) of the FAA. AC 70/7460-2K, Proposed Construction or Alteration of Objects that May Affect the Navigable Airspace. This AC provided information regarding the erection or alteration of an object on or near an airport that may affect the navigable airspace as required in FAR Part 77. In addition, this AC explains the process by which to petition for discretionary review, thereby pro- viding the FAA the opportunity to: • Recognize potential hazards and minimize the effects to aviation. • Revise published data and/or issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). • Recommend appropriate marking and lighting to make objects visible. • Depict obstacles on aeronautical charts. AC 150/5070-7, Airport System Planning Process. This document outlines the develop- ment of effective airport system planning. Developing an airport system plan provides guidance and establishes a balanced integrated system of public-use airports. The airport system planning process should be consistent with state or regional goals that involve examining the relationship between airports and aviation user requirements. Once these relationships are established, the airport system planning process should result in the identification, preservation, and enhance- ment of both the current and future aviation demand. This AC provides a detailed outline for the development of an acceptable airport system plan. FAA AC 150/5190-4A, Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects Around Air- ports. Language that can be used by local land use jurisdictions to implement and enforce the provisions of FAR Part 77 are found in this AC. The wording provided is advisory only and, except with regard to the technical description of the airspace surfaces, is often modified by indi- vidual jurisdictions. FAA AC 150/5300-13 Change 14, Airport Design. This AC provides the basic standards and recommendations for airport design. The most recent update provides expanded information regarding new approach procedures for RPZs, threshold-siting criteria, and new instrument approach categories. The criteria contained in this document are the primary spatial standards for on-airport development. Form 7460-1, Proposed Construction of Alteration of Objects that May Affect the Navigable Airspace and Form 7460-2, Supplemental Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration. Form 7460-1 & Form 7460-2 are required for development proposed in proximity to any public-use Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance 1.83

airport to assess each proposed or temporary construction in the vicinity of the airport. The FAA conducts an aeronautical study and issues a determination to the airport sponsor. The determi- nation identifies whether or not the proposed development is a hazard to flight. It is imperative that local planners be aware of the various critical safety considerations when developing around airports. These forms can be found online at www.oeaaa.faa.gov and they must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the date the construction or alteration is to begin. FAA will evaluate the proposed development and provide a finding regarding the potential of the development to be a hazard to air navigation. One of three specific findings can be expected: no hazard, hazard or potential hazard. If a potential hazard is found, the FAA may request additional information to further assess the potential impact. This process is merely a notification procedure and provides an opportunity for the FAA to comment on potential development. Unfortunately, the FAA does not have any regulatory power to deny the development; it may only comment on the expected impact of a proposed development. Limitation of a potential development is the sole responsi- bility of the local community. Form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Proposal. This form works in conjunction with FAR Part 157, which requires a 90-day notification prior to any construction, alteration, deactivation, or change to the use of an airport. Notice is required for the following: • Construct or otherwise establish a new airport or activate an airport; • Construct, realign, alter, or activate any runway, or other aircraft landing or takeoff area of an airport; • Construct, realign, alter, or activate a taxiway associated with a landing or takeoff area on a public-use airport; • Deactivate, discontinue using, or abandon an airport or any landing or takeoff area for a period of one year or more; • Deactivate, abandon, or discontinue using a taxiway associated with a landing or takeoff area on a public-use airport; • Change to status of an airport from private-use to an airport open to public or from public- use to another status; • Change status from instrument flight rules (IFR) to visual flight rules (VFR) or VFR to IFR; and • Establish or change any traffic patterns or traffic pattern altitude or direction. FAR Part 157, Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation of Airport. This part provides guidelines, procedures, and standards that shall be used in determining what effect construction, alteration, activation, or deactivation of an airport will have on the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft. Part 157 applies to civil and joint-use airports that do not receive federal funding. Noise-Related Laws and Policies There are a number of federal laws related to noise impacts. The following regulations pro- vide federal guidelines for two primary areas: measurement of noise and methods of noise mit- igation. This section is not meant to present an all-inclusive list, rather, a summary of primary federal laws related to noise issues. The FAA provides guidance for the development of plans for areas affected by aircraft noise in several FARs, each of which is discussed below. AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports. This document provides guidance for the implementation of FAR Part 150, which allows for the development of an airport plan that establishes a compatible relationship between land uses and noise-related issues. This is accomplished by the reduction of incompatible land uses around airports and noise sensitive areas, and the prevention of additional incompatible land uses. 1.84 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

AC 150/5020-2, Guidance on the Balanced Approach to Noise Management. This docu- ment provides guidance for noise control and compatibility planning for airports and the guid- ance for preparing airport noise exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs implemented in FAR Part 150, and the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. AC 150/5320-14, Airport Landscaping for Noise Control. This document establishes guid- ance for the implementation of landscaping for noise control purposes. It also recommends a variety of vegetative species to use for such purposes. US Code Title 49 Transportation, Subtitle VII Aviation Programs, Part B, Chapter 471 Air- port Development. This document gives the FAA the ability to protect the public’s freedom of airspace transit given to all airspace users, including national defense, commercial and gen- eral aviation, and space operations. The FAA is also charged with the task of ensuring the safety of aircraft and the preservation of navigable airspace as it relates to the public interest. Specifi- cally, Subchapter I Airport Improvements, Section 47101 describes policy that regulates navigable airspace. Several specific elements of Section 47101 are noted below that have relevance to the noise related issues of land use: (a) General (7) - “It is the policy of the United States . . . that airport construction and improvement projects that increase the capacity of facilities to accommodate passenger and cargo traffic be undertaken to the maximum feasible extent so that safety and efficiency increase and delays decrease.” (a) General (8) - “It is the policy of the United States . . . to ensure that non-aviation usage of the navigable airspace be accommodated but not allowed to decrease the safety and capacity of the airspace and airport system.” (a) General (9) - “It is the policy of the United States . . . that artificial restrictions on airport capacity: • Are not in the public interest • Should be imposed to alleviate air traffic delays only after other reasonably available and less burdensome alternatives have been tried • Should not discriminate unjustly between categories and classes of aircraft” (a) General (10) - “It is the policy of the United States . . . that special emphasis should be placed on converting appropriate former military air bases to civil use and identifying and improving additional joint-use facilities.” (c) Capacity Expansion and Noise Abatement - “It is the policy of the United States . . . it is in the public interest to recognize the effects of airport capacity expansion projects on aircraft noise. Efforts to increase capacity through any means can have an impact on surrounding communi- ties. Noncompatible land uses around airports must be reduced and efforts to mitigate noise must be given a high priority.” Environmental Related Laws and Policies This section is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of federal law, rather, as a general guide for the review of environmental impacts. For example, the NEPA of 1969 is referenced, as is the FAA’s Airport Environmental Handbook, which includes more than 20 different cat- egories of environmental consideration. This illustrates the diverse range of issues that may be impacted by or create an impact on airport development. Each airport project sponsor should seek both FAA and state-agency assistance regarding site-specific environmental issues. Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance 1.85

AC 150/5200-34, Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports. This AC provides guidance regarding compliance with new federal statutory requirements for the construction or establishment of MSWLF units near public airports. Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), Pub. L. No. 106-181 (April 5, 2000) replaced Section 1220 of the 1996 Reauthorization Act, 49, USC Statute 44718(d), with new language that further limits the construction or establishment of a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) unit near certain smaller public airports. These new limitations apply only to airports receiving federal grants, or to those that prima- rily serve general aviation aircraft and scheduled air carrier operations using aircraft with fewer than 60 passenger seats. The new restrictions require a minimum separation distance of six miles between a new MSWLF unit and a public-use airport. AC 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports. As previously dis- cussed in Chapter 2, this AC provides guidance regarding the types of land uses considered incompatible near airports due to their nature as wildlife attractants. These uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment facilities, wetlands, dredge spoil containment areas, and solid waste landfills. Typically, these uses should be located at least 5,000 feet away from an air- port runway end, if the airport serves piston-type aircraft, and at least 10,000 feet away from an airport runway end, if the airport serves turbojet aircraft. FAR Part 139.337, Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. A wildlife hazard assessment is conducted by a wildlife damage management biologist to provide the scientific basis for the development, implementation, and refinement of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, if needed. Part of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan can be prepared by the biologist who conducts the wildlife hazard assessment. However, some parts can be prepared only by airport staff. For example, airport management assigns airport personnel responsibilities, commits airport funds, and purchases equipment and supplies. Airport management should request that the wildlife biologist review the finished plan prior to submitting it to the FAA for review and approval. FAR Part 258, Subpart B, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, CFR Title 40. This subpart establishes criteria for the expansion and/or development of new landfills with regard to airports. In part, it states: Owners or operators of new Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLF) units and lateral expansions located within 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) of any airport runway end used by turbojet aircraft, or within 5,000 feet (1,524 meters) of any airport runway end used by piston-type aircraft only, must demonstrate that the units are designed and operated in such a way that the MSWLF unit does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. Owners or operators proposing to site new MSWLF units and lateral expansions within a five- mile radius of any airport runway end used by turbojet or piston-type aircraft must notify the affected airport and the FAA. NEPA of 1969. The NEPA resulted from the development of guidelines for the applica- tion of a federal government national policy to consider impacts of proposed action on the environment. The act specifically states that “governments, and other public and private organizations, use all practical means and measures to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in harmony.” When an airport sponsor proposes a project or action requiring federal approval, then all actions are reviewed to determine their impacts on the environment. 1.86 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts. This Order’s policies and procedures comply with NEPA implementation regulations. Also, the Order considers the application of the effects a pro- posed action and its alternatives have on human quality of life, avoids or minimizes adverse impacts on the environment, and restores and enhances environmental resources and environ- mental quality. Order 5050.4B, Airport Environmental Handbook. This regulation establishes the instruc- tions and guidance for preparing and processing an Environmental Assessment (EA), Finding- of-No-Significant-Impacts (FONSI), or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for development projects requiring federal environmental approval. Categories of impacts to be evaluated are found in Chapter 5 of Order 5050.4A. Land Acquisition Land acquisition related laws and policies are primarily focused on the fair and equitable treat- ment of land owners. Uniform methods of acquisition are outlined in these documents. AC 150/5100-17, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Improvement Program Assisted Projects. This AC provides guidance to sponsors of an airport to develop land acquisition and relocation assistance procedures in conformance to the Uniform Reloca- tion Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Pl 91-646, as amended). The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. This act is the most comprehensive and equitable legislation on land acquisition and the asso- ciated relocation of displaced persons. Under this act, persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. The Uniform Act provides minimum real property acquisition policies and requires uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of a federally-assisted program or project. Property can be acquired through several methods, such as the purchase of property interests (fee) or through eminent domain (condemnation). It can also be acquired through easements or by donation or exchange. Operational and Management Guidance This section includes federal statutes, ACs, and CFRs relevant to operational and management guidance and provides a summarization of the primary regulations. The sources listed below are not meant to be all inclusive, but rather a general summary and overview of resources relating to operational and management guidance. Order 5100.38, Airport Improvement Program Handbook. This order provides guidance to be used during the administration of the AIP. The handbook also references tools and tech- niques and summarizes information and guidance from multiple orders and ACs. Order 5190.6, Airport Compliance Requirements. This order provides guidance relating to airport compliance. The Airport Compliance Program monitors the performance of airport owners to maintain a high degree of safety and efficiency in airport design, construction, oper- ation, and maintenance. Order 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. This order specifies procedures in the joint administration of the airspace program. It addresses actions associated with airspace allocation and utilization, obstruction evaluation, obstruction marking and lighting, airport air- space analysis, and the management of air navigation aids. Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance 1.87

Summary This chapter provides information regarding federal regulations and guidance and how these individual policies relate to the importance of compatible land use near airports for both the safety of pilots and those in the vicinity of airports. FAA standards help to minimize runway inci- dents and protect adjacent properties, as well as attempt to minimize the presence of incompat- ible land uses. The success of these design standards rests with the host community and their desire to maintain a safe airport. The maintenance or development of compatible land uses near airports is supported through cooperative comprehensive planning that includes the FAA stan- dards, and others, presented in this chapter. Land use compatibility is a requirement for eligibil- ity to receive FAA grant money for airport improvements – making it important that local airports and communities work to establish compatible uses. Adjacent land uses that are not compatible with airports may result in the loss of federal or state funding for airports which greatly hinders the growth and development of the aviation system as a whole. 1.88 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

While arguments that incompatible land uses near an airport can affect the safety of aircraft operations and persons on the ground, it is often hard to quantify these claims in a manner trans- lated into a common unit that people comprehend. For example, the Integrated Noise Model (INM) evaluates aircraft noise impacts and utilizes specific data inputs that result in a standard set of outputs used within the aviation and environmental industries to define noise impacts. Unfor- tunately, no national model exists that generates an “airport land use compatibility contour” based upon a standard set of inputs and results in an output that meets the needs of every airport. This results in the need to define both the impacts of incompatible land uses and their associated costs in a manner that utilizes a number of relevant parameters. This chapter will address the different methods and tools available to address the costs of incompatible land use. It is important to note that different analytical tools to assess the economic costs of incompat- ible land uses near airports are available depending upon the context and objective of the analy- sis. To assess the economic costs arising from the presence of incompatible land uses around airports, the main tool is economic valuation. By itself, economic valuation of the costs of incom- patible land uses is useful for increasing awareness of these costs and gaining support for efforts to promote airport-compatible land use planning. It is also useful in setting appropriate values for taxes and fees to charge airport users to compensate for negative externalities. Finally, to aid in decision making, the benefits of reducing or avoiding the costs of incompatible land uses must be weighed against the costs of proposed public investments and regulatory interventions to mit- igate aviation’s environmental effects, prevent the development of incompatible land uses around airports, and promote compatible land use development. All of this can be done within the framework of benefit-cost analysis. Two other methods – economic impact analysis and fis- cal impact analysis—are also useful to the assessment of certain considerations related to com- patible land use planning. These two methods serve purposes different from those of economic valuation and benefit-cost analysis. Economic impact analysis can be used to assess the regional economic impacts of airport operations, and fiscal impact analysis can be used to assess the net fiscal impacts of developments around airports and for comparing the net fiscal impacts of dif- ferent types of development, residential and nonresidential. Regional economic impacts and fis- cal impacts are not typically considered in economic valuation and benefit-cost analysis because they consist largely of transfers—they do not result in net gain or loss in economic value to soci- ety. Yet, these impacts are of utmost concern to the local government officials and planners who make local land use planning decisions. Economic Valuation Economic valuation is one of many ways of defining and measuring value. Economic val- ues are useful to consider when making economic choices – choices that involve tradeoffs in allocating resources (King and Mazzotta 2000). In economics, the term value has a specific 1.89 V O L U M E 1 , C H A P T E R 5 Economic Costs of Airport Land Use Incompatibility

meaning, defined in terms of what people want (preferences) and the choices they make. The economic value of a particular good, service, or state of the world is measured by the maxi- mum amount of the other things that a person is willing to give up for it. Money is a conve- nient measure because the amount of money that a person is willing to pay for something indicates how much of all other things a person is willing to give up for it – known as willingness- to-pay (WTP) (King and Mazzotta 2000, and Lipton and Wellman 1995). A concept related to WTP is an individual’s willingness-to-accept (WTA) compensation for not receiving an improvement. WTA also can provide a valid measure of opportunity cost and produce a measure comparable to WTP under special circumstances described by the Office of Man- agement and Budget (OMB) (2003). Economic valuation can be used for three different pur- poses including: • Contributing to public debate and awareness of a particular problem, for example, airport incompatible land use and its associated consequences. People can more readily grasp the extent of the problem when expressed in monetary terms (Moons 2003). • Aiding in decision making by using economic valuation in benefit-cost analysis of policy and investment decisions (for example, a benefit-cost analysis of a policy decision to enforce com- patible land use zoning). Economists are interested in measuring how much better off peo- ple would be if a specific policy or investment were implemented (Moons 2003, Lipton and Wellman 1995, POST 2003b). • Helping set values for economic instruments to deal with environmental externalities (for example, aviation fuel taxes, noise-related landing charges, and tradable permits on emissions) (POST 2003b). Economic Valuation Methods Economic valuation methods have been developed in the field of environmental economics. Detailed descriptions of these methods, illustrations of their applications, specification of data requirements, and discussions of advantages and disadvantages are provided in Lipton and Wellman (1995), King and Mazzotta (2000), and OMB (2003). A range of methods can be used to measure economic value. When goods and services are traded in the market, observable price and quantity data (revealed preferences) are used. When goods and services are not traded in the market, values can sometimes be inferred from observ- able prices for related goods or services. In cases where values cannot be inferred from market transactions, economists have devised measurement techniques based on stated-preference surveys − by asking people what they would be willing to pay for a particular benefit (WTP) or how much compensation they would be willing to accept to bear a particular cost (WTA) (Lipton and Wellman, 1995; HM Treasury, 2007). The presence of incompatible land uses gives rise to certain financial costs. Examples include: additional aircraft operating and maintenance costs incurred by airlines due to flight delays; increased airport development costs due to the need for more extensive environmental reviews, more expensive environmental mitigation programs, litigation costs, among others; replacement and repair of damaged aircraft in the case of accidents; and accident investigation costs. For these types of costs, economic values can be based on revealed-preference data from actual market transactions. Airport land use incompatibility also gives rise to certain nonmonetary costs that may include an increase in passenger travel time due to flight delays, injuries and fatalities due to aviation acci- dents, annoyance and adverse health effects from aircraft noise, and adverse health effects and environmental damage from local air pollution. For these types of costs, no direct market trans- actions can be observed. Economic values can be derived using revealed preferences from related 1.90 Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility

market transactions − for example, home sales, wages and salaries, job choices, and travel choices – and using stated preference surveys. A popular revealed preference method used in valuing environmental effects is hedonic pricing. The hedonic pricing method is used to estimate economic values for certain attributes of a particular commodity or service that directly affect market prices. This method is most commonly applied to variations in housing prices that reflect the value of local environmen- tal attributes. It can be used to estimate the economic costs of aircraft noise from airport sources. Ideally, one should conduct an original economic valuation study using data specific to a par- ticular airport. However, faced with limited time and money, estimates of economic values from completed studies in similar context can be used. This approach is called the benefit transfer method. Limitations of Economic Valuation Economic valuation has a number of limitations: Firstly, economic valuation is subject to a number of uncertainties especially when applied to the environment. Secondly, there are ethical issues to consider, and policies maximizing economic efficiency do not necessarily lead to a fair outcome. Finally, certain things just cannot be measured in terms of money, and the application of economic valuation in these cases is limited. Relevant Economic Values for Evaluating the Costs of Airport Land Use Incompatibility The FAA published a guide titled Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Deci- sions that was most recently updated in December 2004 by GRA, Incorporated. This document recommends standardized methods and economic values to be used in evaluating airport invest- ment and regulatory decisions. This guide presents economic values for many of the costs aris- ing from the presence of incompatible land uses: • Value of time - to be used in valuing the cost to passengers of travel delays resulting from con- straints to airport operations and capacity development; • Aircraft operating and ownership cost - to be used in valuing the costs to airlines of aircraft delays; • Value of statistical life - to be used in valuing the cost of fatalities and personal injuries from aviation accidents, as certain incompatible land uses increase the risk of aviation accidents or expose communities to risk of aviation accidents; • Aircraft replacement and restoration costs - to be used in valuing damaged aircraft from avia- tion accidents; and • Aviation accident investigation costs - for valuing costs to the federal government and the private sector of the increased risk of aviation accidents. The FAA guide does not present standard economic values for quantifying the cost to people living near the airports of exposure to noise, but the literature provides extensive references with respect to the valuation of noise effects. Valuation of the Cost of Travel Delays Delays impose costs on passengers in terms of increased travel time and on aircraft operators in terms of increased operating costs. To assess these costs, the following data are needed: a mea- sure of the difference in delay or travel time per aircraft operation with and without the constraint, Economic Costs of Airport Land Use Incompatibility 1.91

the number of affected aircraft operations, the number of pas- sengers per aircraft operation or total affected passengers, eco- nomic values for travel time, and unit aircraft operating costs. Measure