Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning (2022)

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.

23   Developing System Plans While scoping is the first step in establishing a statewide aviation system plan (SASP), under- standing the individual building blocks that combine to form a system plan is necessary to recognize the level of effort needed in each task, identify potential efficiencies, and establish your preferences from the onset of the study. This understanding is vital to the development of a scope. The development phase of your system planning project will result in the production of your technical report and other project deliverables. It is where your efforts in the scoping phase will be realized in the creation of tangible, technical results. Typically, a system plan will take 15 to 20 months to complete, with some processes lasting 2 or more years, depending on the level of detail in the scope, the vision for the plan, and the budget (NASAO member survey conducted for ACRP 01-36, 2019). Developing system plans takes considerable effort and organization, and there are numerous considerations to be factored in for each task. This chapter offers guidance, examples from other states, helpful tips, and important considerations for the following system planning tasks: • Section 2.1: Engaging Stakeholders, • Section 2.2: Setting Goals and Objectives, • Section 2.3: Conducting a System Inventory, • Section 2.4: Classifying Airports, • Section 2.5: Exploring Aviation Issues, • Section 2.6: Forecasting Aviation Activity, • Section 2.7: Determining System Performance, • Section 2.8: Identifying System Needs, • Section 2.9: Recommending and Prioritizing Projects, • Section 2.10: Examining System Alternatives, and • Section 2.11: Creating Deliverables. For each task, a snapshot is provided that summarizes at a high level the value, cost, and time associated with the task, along with an indication of whether that task is required or recom- mended. Costs are reported on an order of magnitude basis with icons indicating the level of financial resources typically required. Time requirements are also reported on a scale. Addi- tional examples of core SASP components from existing studies conducted by states across the country are presented in Appendix C. Note that throughout the guide, references are made to tasks and efforts that consultants will conduct. Most states engage consultants to conduct system plans, but not all. For the sake of brevity, the term “consultant” is used here, but if that does not apply to your situation, the same guidance applies for your state aviation agency, university, or other entities that you may rely on to complete your SASP. C H A P T E R 2

24 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning 2.1 Engaging Stakeholders FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070-7, Change 1, e Airport System Planning Process (FAA 2015b) identies the importance of incorporating public input throughout the system planning process. It is likely you have a wide range of stakeholders that you can engage with during the development of your system plan, including the general public who may use, rely on, live nearby, or work at airports as well as industry professionals such as local or regional planners, aviation agency sta, aeronautics commission or board members, economic devel- opment specialists, and more. A diverse stakeholder group captures a broader perspective that can benet the development of a system plan. A stakeholder’s diering perspectives based on personal or professional experience may highlight important issues that need to be addressed within your plan that you may have not recognized. In addition to informing your SASP, engaging stakeholders is important to generate buy-in, acceptance, and, ultimately, disseminate nal study information and deliverables to their representative groups. is is particularly important for states that are limited in their ability to lobby legislators. Consider incorporat- ing stakeholder engagement opportunities throughout your project, including project mile- stones such as kicko and completion of interim deliverables. e following sections provide an overview of some common stakeholder engagement activities to consider in planning your next system plan. 2.1.1 Project Branding and Advertising Until recently, project branding was not given much consideration or budget in the scoping process for system planning. State directors and practitioners have found that dedicated branding eorts can provide value, especially in engaging the greater public. Developing a brand identity package oen includes a project logo and style guidelines that provide a visual link between all study documents. Areas in which you may con- sider using project branding include • A project website (Section 2.1.3); • Social media; • Industry newsletters and other publications; • Presentations to your aeronautics commission or board (if applicable), advisory committee, and attendees of state aviation conferences; • Meetings with dierent modes of transportation or other internal partners; • Interim project deliverables and documents, such as inventory surveys (Section 2.3); and • Final project deliverables, such as a technical report, executive summary, and brochures (Section 2.11). Eective branding will help to pique interest in the project and can increase stake- holder engagement and participation. e use of your branding package on advertis- ing materials is a great way to spread awareness about the project, its purpose, and the intended use of its results. Figure 2-1 shows some examples of system plan and related project logos and branding from across the United States. 2.1.2 Advisory Committees One of the most common stakeholder engagement tools employed for system plan proj- ects is the establishment of an advisory committee. In general, such committees are made up of aviation or related industry professionals that represent the diverse nature of system planning. Stakeholders to consider when curating committee membership include, but are not limited to, the following: VALUE: Cohesive look and feel to your pro ect, public reco nition. COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: ecommended. ro ect brandin can be particularly e ective hen companion studies or follo -on studies are conducted in relation to a system plan, such as an aviation economic impact study (A ), air service studies, and land use studies. LINK VALUE: Additional perspectives, stakeholder buy-in, information dissemination. COST: (less if done virtually, but feedback may be reduced). TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: A form of public consultation is required.

Developing System Plans 25   • Airport managers representing commercial and general aviation (GA) airports, air- ports in urban and rural areas, and privately owned airports (if included in your SASP); • State aeronautics commissioners or board members; • FAA sta; • Members of aviation-related professional organizations; • Representatives of various aviation user groups, such as business users, medical pilots, aerial wildland reghters, and agricultural sprayers; • Public health organization sta; • Partners from economic development organizations; • Community/transportation planners from local, regional, or state agencies; and • Multimodal sta within your state agency. is list is not all-inclusive but considers the variety of individuals who can be an asset to an advi- sory committee and to the project (see Appendix B for additional suggestions for advisory com- mittee membership). Your advisory committee can provide feedback to assist you in developing a study that considers multiple perspectives, including course correction, if needed. Additionally, your advisory committee can add credibility to the system planning process and your nal product. Consider engaging with your advisory committee through face-to-face and virtual meetings and for review of interim project deliverables. Meeting with your advisory committee at key milestones throughout the project, such as goal setting and review of recommendations, provides an oppor- tunity for your stakeholders to provide input on critical decisions that inuence the direction and outcomes of the study. Face-to-face meetings with your committee can spur collaborative conversa- tion amongst represented groups and allow for interactive exercises to be conducted if desired. If your project budget is tight, another option for engaging an advisory committee is using webinars or virtual meetings that do not require travel on behalf of your committee or your consultant. is can result in less strain on your budget; however, the quantity and quality of feedback from your committee members may be reduced. Allowing committee members to review and com- ment on chapters as they are completed gives them an opportunity to point out aspects of the chapter that may need further clarication or additional information and context. 2.1.3 Project Website Hosting In addition to engaging with a targeted committee group throughout your project, consider other ways to generate feedback on your plan from other stakeholders, such as airport community residents, airport users, and visitors. One such way is through the development of a project website that provides updates on project progress and allows for public comment. Project websites are accepted by the FAA in lieu of public workshops, and they have the potential to reach a wider audience than traditional public Source: Kentucky Department of Aviation 2017, Alaska DOT&PF 2019, North Carolina DOT 2015, Colorado DOT 2018, Florida DOT 2017b. Figure 2-1. Examples of SASP logos. Medical pilots on the 2020 South Dakota Statewide Aviation System Plan Advisory Committee helped inform system targets to provide facilities and services needed to conduct emergency operations across the state. STATE EXAMPLE VALUE: Wider audience reach, continuous engagement with stakeholders. COST: (less if developed, hosted, and maintained by state agency staff on existing division website). TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: A form of public consultation is required.

26 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning meetings. Options for developing a project website are endless. You may choose to have your consultant create and host a stand-alone, project-specic website or, as a budget-friendly alternative, you could add a page to your existing agency website that is dedicated to your system plan project. While leveraging your in-agency information technology sta to develop a project webpage or website may cost less (or nothing at all), consider their capability to develop a website with the functionality and content you may need, such as • Project overview; • Project process and schedule; • Project goals and objectives; • Blog posts updating readers on the status of your project; • Inventory surveys (Section 2.3); • Project chapters, as available; • Copies of advisory committee presentations and meeting summaries (Section 2.1.2); • Public comment portal; and • Project management contact information. e eectiveness of a website depends on the frequency with which you update it (e.g., posting project status updates and dra study materials, monitoring public comments). If you do engage your consultant to develop, host, and maintain your project website, be sure to plan for time needed to maintain the website throughout the project and the transition of website content and data to you upon project completion. 2.1.4 Closing Considerations Nearly all states engage in some sort of public involvement for their system plans, but the means and methods dier for each on the basis of time, available resources, and level of interest. Most commonly used are advisory committees and agency websites; however, states also use project- specic websites, social media, and mailings to reach their audience (NASAO member survey con- ducted for ACRP 01-36, 2019). In addition to the techniques covered in this section, there are other ways you can encourage and participate in stakeholder engagement, such as • Attending and presenting at your annual airport conference, • Presenting to your state’s airport user groups or aeronautics commission/board, • Presenting internally to other modal divisions, and • Developing online or email newsletters. You might also consider the use of stakeholder interviews as a part of your SASP to share some “real life stories” of businesses, residents, federal and state agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management) and other individuals and entities that rely on aviation in your state. ese can be particularly helpful in project deliverables such as executive summaries as well as in combination with quantitative analyses in an economic impact study. Only you know the public involvement methods that will work for you, your project, and your stakeholders. While most of these activities can (and typically are) conducted by your consultant, your division may be able to oset some of the time and resources expended on stakeholder engagement if you have the capacity to take on some of this eort. 2.2 Setting Goals and Objectives Setting the strategic direction of your system plan will likely be accomplished through the establishment of a system vision, and a set of goals and objectives to achieve that vision. Many state agencies may have an established vision and mission for the agency and future development. STATE EXAMPLE Make sure to include surveys needed for companion studies (e.g., an AEIS), if applicable. LINK If you conduct an AEIS in conjunction with your SASP, you will likely identify key business users of aviation in your state who could later be contacted for stakeholder interviews. LINK The Minnesota Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of Aeronautics, led the robust public engagement efforts of the first phase of its system plan project, saving the agency’s limited budget for other tasks. STATE EXAMPLE

Developing System Plans 27   You may choose to adopt this vision and mission for your system plan. is may be a benet because it creates consistency between dierent departments within the agency. However, you may opt to create a unique vision or mission for your system plan that may still align with core agency values. Whichever route you elect to take, the goals and objectives you establish for your system plan should relate back to your stated vision or mission. Typically, the goals chosen for a system plan are high level and describe the intentions of an aviation agency, such as “Provide a Safe and Secure Aviation Network,” while associated objectives are denitive and measurable actions that can be taken to make an aviation network safe and secure, like “Percent of Airports with a Security Plan.” Objectives will look dierent across system plans and may be referred to using alternate terminology, like performance measures (PMs) or performance indicators (PIs) (the dierence between the two is addressed in Section 2.2.2). System goals and objectives are developed together because they share a relationship (seen in Figure 2-2), in which the goals inform the objectives, and the objectives inform recommended system improvements. As noted in Section 2.1, you might consider the ways the system goal and objective setting could intersect with project kick-o meetings or advisory committee activities. Some agencies may choose to factor in public input on goals and objectives, while others may make decisions internally without outside input. However you choose to develop your goals and objectives, understand that they will inform nearly all other project tasks, so planning adequate time to make these decisions up front is critically important. Changes to goals or objectives later in your study will have drastic time and budget implications. 2.2.1 System Goals e goals you set for the system plan will represent the overarching intent of your system over the planning horizon. Your consultant will guide you in the development of your specic goals; however, thinking about options in advance of the scoping pro- cess will help you better understand the eort you will need to expend on this task. If you are pursuing an update to a previous system plan, you may consider reusing those goals if they still apply to your aviation system today and achieve your vision. Carrying forward goals from a previous system plan allows for certain linkages between studies and can oer opportunities to track advancement of your system according to similar/ same measurements and compare results chronologically. While this may work well for some states, it is not a t for all. If you nd the goals of your existing system plan to be outdated or not applicable to current aviation needs, you should go back to the drawing board. If you need to establish new goals, you might consider looking to your state’s Long- Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), if available/applicable, to determine whether any goals would translate to your aviation system plan. Usually, there is some mention of aviation in LRTPs, the extent of which will vary widely from state to state. In some cases, Figure 2-2. Relationship of system vision, goals, objectives, and recommendations. VALUE: asil identi able direction or the s stem s t re COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: e ired The Idaho Transportation Department had great success with the goals established in its 2010 plan and elected to keep them the same as it embarked on its 2020 plan update. STATE EXAMPLE

28 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning the LRTP may identify crossovers between the goals of the LRTP and any previously stated goals for your aviation system (such as in a previous system plan). Of course, there are other resources that can be consulted for goal ideas, such as other state system plans. Even if you choose to establish new goals that do not come from your LRTP, you might consider providing a comparison between goals to show similarities, if they exist. Not only does this recognize other transportation planning eorts within your state, but it also aligns with the FAA’s recent emphasis on integrating aviation system plan- ning with other modal planning eorts. Regardless of whether you reused goals from a previous plan, incorporated goals from your LRTP, or developed goals using a dierent source, it is common for safety and security, accessibility, and preservation to be addressed (NASAO member survey conducted for ACRP 01-36, 2019). While these goals are important, this is an opportu- nity to emphasize other key topics if desired, such as economic vitality or sustainability. e Airport System Planning Process (FAA 2015b) discusses some of the broad goal statements commonly identied in system plans. e statements included in the FAA guidance generally address the following topics: • Timely airport development; • Safety, reliability, and eciency; • Maximization of economic benets; • Multimodal connectivity; • Minimization of environmental impact; and • Meeting long-range needs. 2.2.2 Objectives e purpose of objectives is to measure the ways in which the aviation system is achieving system goals. As shown in Figure 2-2, the objectives you choose for your plan will directly inuence any recommendations, whether they be development or policy related. As you move the needle on system performance by implementing recommen- dations, you are actively working to achieve your SASP goals. You may already have in mind areas of improvement to address with your SASP, such as the availability of certied weather reporting equipment or the number of airports actively implementing land use compatibility controls. Engaging your advisory committee (if applicable) during the development of objec- tives will help you identify other issues of importance that may not be on your radar. Regardless of the objectives you select, you may want to consider separating them into two groups: (1) actionable and (2) informational. Actionable objectives are oen referred to as “PMs” and are used to evaluate certain aspects of a system that you may have the ability to aect through funding, policy, and programming. Performance measures that have been successful in dierent states include pavement condi- tion monitoring (using PCI parameters), analysis of the presence of obstructions to airport approaches, use of drive-time analysis to determine the population served by airports with select services, and more. In addition, some states have had success in measuring the number of air- ports meeting FAA design standards and compliance with other safety procedures and in con- ducting demand capacity analyses (NASAO member survey conducted for ACRP 01-36, 2019). ese examples of objectives demonstrate the range of possibilities that exists when developing PMs for your SASP. It is recommended that you develop PMs that you can successfully analyze at regular intervals (keeping in mind your budget, operational capacity, and data availability) The Colorado DOT Division of eronautics successfully integrated the goals fro the state s for its syste plan pro iding cohesion et een all state ide transportation planning e orts STATE EXAMPLE The 2017 Michigan Aviation System Plan developed three overarching goal categories to address its system needs (Michigan DOT 2017). These categories are system goals, facility development goals, and minimum Pavement Condition nde C goals STATE EXAMPLE Consider incorporating goals of any companion studies, such as an AEIS or a land use study, to further link the studies together. LINK VALUE: Clear metrics that are used to measure/evaluate current system performance toward achieving the goals. COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: Required.

Developing System Plans 29   and directly inuence. Moreover, developing PMs that result in obtainable goals will have the greatest impact on your system plan. e results of your PM analyses will lead you to set future service targets or make policy, funding, or programming recommendations, so it is important to consider budgetary constraints or other limitations before setting these future service targets. Setting obtainable goals for your system may also mean understanding the industry trends that are occurring or that may occur during the life span of your plan. Informational objectives are oen referred to as “PIs” or “system indicators” (SIs), and these measurements provide additional context to be considered in the future development of your state’s aviation system. PIs and SIs can address multiple on- and o-airport factors, just as PMs do, but PIs/SIs do not have any potential actions behind them. For example, if you want to better understand the extent to which airports in your system are experi- encing wildlife management issues, but you do not have any policies, funding, or pro- gramming in place to help system airports address those concerns, you may choose to track performance as an indicator. Informational objectives should measure parts of the system about which you would like to know more but for which you do not intend to create policies, programs, or projects based on the results of your analysis. Another measurement tool to consider is the establishment of minimum suggested facilities and services for each of the airport roles you develop for your SASP, which may be referred to as “facility and service targets” (FSTs), “facility and service objectives” (FSOs), “benchmarks,” or, simply, “targets.” is concept can be used to dene the ideal characteristics or attributes of airports in each role that, when combined, strengthen the utility of the aviation system as a whole. For more information about how roles factor into facility and service minimums, see Section 2.4.2. ese targets or benchmarks com- monly cover airside and landside facilities as well as airport services such as the provi- sion of ground transportation or fuel services. Consider engaging with airport managers and your advisory committee (if applicable) to identify the facilities and services that should be included for each role. In most cases, these benchmarks are not requirements for airports; rather, they provide a recommended set of attributes that airports can work to acquire over time as resources allow. ese targets can be integrated into your plan in many ways. ey can be used to help dene airport roles and to develop cost estimates to understand the depth of resources required for all airports to achieve their optimal facilities and services. Airport performance in achieving targets can be used for infor- mational purposes (unless a target is intended to be a requirement). 2.2.3 Closing Considerations As you work from the top down to establish goals and associated objectives, be intentional in the measures you choose for your SASP, keeping in mind how you ultimately intend to present results, and be clear about the performance your agency has control over and what is out of your hands. Consult other statewide or regional planning documents that might be appli- cable to your plan as you set your goals and objectives. In addition to looking at other modal plans, or your previous system plan, you may also want to assess how changes in the industry, the economy, or other socioeconomic factors may aect your plan design. 2.3 Conducting a System Inventory e inventory stage of your system plan may be the most arduous task you under- take; however, it is one of the most essential parts of the SASP process. During this task, your consultant will collect the data that will later be used as inputs when determining If you’ve elected to incorporate an economic goal into your SASP, there are three common types of economic PMs/PIs used to measure economic performance: • Tracking measures of the state airport system’s impact on creating jobs or business revenue or transporting cargo; • Targeting measures of how many airports serve state-identified target industries, such as tourism, aerospace, or other technology sectors; and • Measures of how many airports have supporting services for business and economic development, such as corporate jet accommodation, air cargo, ground transport, or utilities for business development. Tracking measures can be a direct outcome of an AEIS, while the targeting and service measures are typically informed by findings of the AEIS. More information on economic measures can be found in Appendix F. LINK VALUE: Used to determine existing conditions and evaluate system objectives. COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: Required.

30 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning system performance on the basis of the objectives you set earlier in the process (see Section 2.2.2). erefore, it is not only imperative that your SASP goals and objec- tives be nalized prior to this step, but critical that all data points needed are clearly identied, so that the inventory eort is comprehensive and the data are collected in the formats necessary for assessment later in the SASP process. For example, if you want to measure your aviation system’s ability to accommodate current demand, you will need to identify the types of operational and capacity data you will need to collect from your airports, such as number of operations by type, number of based aircra by type, availability of hangar and tie-down space, seasonal capacity concerns, and more. While the inventory phase is both costly and time consuming, putting eort in up front to get the necessary data will enhance the eciency of proceeding tasks. 2.3.1 Data Needs Your data needs will be wide ranging and cover all types of on- and o-airport attri- butes in your system. While it is important to be comprehensive in the collection of data, so your consultant has the information needed for assessment in later tasks, it is just as important to right-size the data collection eorts to collect only the information that is required for the SASP and that will be managed and maintained by your agency long aer your SASP is complete. Striking this balance is challenging, as many times a SASP is the only opportunity a state agency will have to conduct a widespread data collection eort, and it will be tempting to gather information above and beyond what is needed to assess your system objectives. However, if you do not consolidate your information request to collect only information critical to your SASP, you risk losing the attention of your airport managers, who may be overwhelmed by such a large request. You may end up expending budget and collecting data that will immediately become dated. While each data collection eort should be tailored to individual states, much of the same data will be collected from SASP to SASP. Figure 2-3 presents a diagram of a recommended group of data needs for system planning as published in the e Airport System Planning Process (FAA 2015b). FAA AC 150/5070-7, Change 1, The Airport System Planning Process (FAA 2015b) includes a summary of common inventory information categories—including environmental and intermodal—both of which have been newly emphasized in system plans. According to this Advisory Circular, the FAA is seeking the following for each: • Summary of environmental features and conditions; land use considerations; and an inventory of federal, state, and local laws and ordinances that may affect the development and use of the aviation facilities. Broader data may be gathered for state plans and more detailed data for metropolitan plans. • Surface transportation, including the existing and planned highway and transit system, should be inventoried to the extent that it may influence the access and development planned at existing or new airports. REFERENCE Source: Adapted from FAA AC 150/5070-7, Change 1, The Airport System Planning Process (FAA 2015b). Figure 2-3. FAA-suggested data needs.

Developing System Plans 31   2.3.2 Data Collection Data collection strategies will vary from state to state on the basis of available time, budget, and the scope of the data to be collected. As with many aspects of a system plan, no two will be the same; however, there are common (or best) practices that can be used when determining the data collection strategy best suited for your SASP. Regardless of the methods in which data are collected for your plan, it is important you share any state resources and encourage the use of existing federal and industry resources to collect readily available data. Not only does this cut down on the time needed to request data, the time necessary for airport managers to respond to your requests for information, and the time needed to document the information, but your local FAA region or Airports District Oce (ADO) may require some of these sources to be used for specic tasks. For example, your ADO may require you to use operational information from the FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) or counts of based aircra from the National Based Aircra Inventory Program (www.basedaircra.com) for any forecasting eorts. Common sources of data used in system planning are presented in Table 2-1. Most oen, system plan data are collected via surveys sent to airport management. Prepopu- lating these surveys with the data collected from readily available sources cuts down on the time required of survey respondents and provides an opportunity for airports to correct any errone- ous information. Consider your consultant’s ability to automate survey prepopulation, as this can reduce the time needed to generate and deploy your surveys. Surveying can happen in a variety of ways, including in person during site visits, via mail or email, or over the telephone. Each method oers dierent strengths and weaknesses: • Site visits are the costliest in terms of expense (and sometimes duration) but they oer the best chance of obtaining the information you need in the time frame you have available. Surveys are typically sent to airport managers in advance, and your consul- tant can follow up with managers during the visit to answer questions and collect any missing information or copies of relevant plans (if desired). Site visits also allow photo opportunities for pictures that can be used in deliverables such as individual airport reports (see Section 2.11.3). • Conducting the survey eort via mail or email is much less costly in terms of expense, as your consultant can manage the eort without travel; however, the quantity and quality of responses may be lacking. If this is the case, your consultant may end up spending more time following up with nonresponsive airports than would have been expended conducting site visits. • Surveys can also be conducted over the telephone; however, due to the scope of typical SASP information requests, this method is not oen used on its own, as it is challenging to collect the volume of information needed over the telephone. Instead, telephone calls are oen used in coordination with mail or email distribution of the survey. Surveys and interviews of airport managers are needed for both SASPs and AEISs. This creates an opportunity for efficiency and cost effectiveness if you are conducting the AEIS as a component of your larger SASP project. It also provides a potential benefit of reducing the demands on airport managers for interviews, surveys, or data requests. More information on the need for surveying airports as a part of an AEIS is provided in Appendix F. LINK Table 2-1. Examples of common FAA and state data sources. FAA Sources State Sources Form 5010 Master Record Terminal Area Forecast Instrument approach procedure charts Air Traffic Activity Data Systems National Based Aircraft Inventory Program (www.basedaircraft.com) State airport directories Master plans and airport layout plans Pavement Condition Index reports Zoning and planning legislation Airport Capital Improvement Plans State inventory databases

32 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Consideration of the budget you have to expend on this eort and the available time in the overall project schedule will help you determine the data collection method best suited for you. Understanding the method most likely to t your needs will help you formulate your project scope accordingly. As one of the costliest components of a SASP, the decisions you make for data collection will impact the budget available for other tasks. 2.3.3 Closing Considerations Section 2.3 oers important factors to consider regarding the scope and method of data col- lection eorts for your SASP. e data set developed at this stage of your plan will inform all proceeding tasks, so it is vital that you plan accordingly in terms of time and budget for an inven- tory eort that is comprehensive enough to cover your needs and succinct enough to encourage participation by airport managers. See Section 3.3.2 for more information on maintaining your inventory database. Keep in mind that conducting timely follow-up with all survey respondents will likely increase your chances of getting quality responses in a timely manner. 2.4 Classifying Airports No two airports are the same, but many share similar characteristics. Establishing a set of airport roles or classications (these terms are used interchangeably) helps to distinguish airports from one another while also creating natural groupings of airports that share similar activity types, activity levels, and airport characteristics. Recognizing that airports in your system serve vastly dierent roles will help you and your consul- tant develop reasonable expectations for each, whether they be for large commercial service airports or for small GA airports with turf runways. Airport roles can be used in a variety of ways, including in stratifying future system performance targets and pri- oritizing recommended projects. However you decide to incorporate airport roles into your plan, there are a number of important considerations to determine what process will work best for your system. 2.4.1 Setting your Classications ere is no gold standard or right and wrong for developing airport roles. Each state is dierent, each system is dierent, and each state aviation agency has dierent priori- ties when it comes to dening airport classications and assigning roles. Most states use one of three methods: • Adoption of National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) roles, • Denition of unique roles specic to their state, or • Creation of a hybrid system that considers NPIAS role criteria along with state customizations. Each of these methods oers dierent benets and challenges. Although your consultant will help guide you in the development of a classication system, you may nd it benecial to con- ceptualize some ideas in advance. If you do not know where to start, consider airports you nd to be similar. Document the characteristics they share and look to peer states for examples. ese eorts can be helpful in the initial conceptualization of a classication system. Opting to use the classications assigned by the FAA through the NPIAS provides you with a straightforward methodology that can be directly incorporated into your system plan. NPIAS roles provide a comprehensive breakdown of airport types that allows for further dierentiation he entuc y epart ent of iation distributed prepopulated surveys to airport managers and followed up with site visits to gather any infor ation issing fro the initial request. STATE EXAMPLE VALUE: Stratifying airport needs, prioritizing projects, establishing “right-sized” expectations. COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: Required. New Hampshire adopted the NPIAS airport classifications for its SASP (New Hampshire DOT 2018). These classifications align with those chosen for the New England Regional Airport System Plan (New England Airport Coalition 2018). STATE EXAMPLE

Developing System Plans 33   between airports previously only classified as nonprimary: commercial service, reliever, or GA (as shown in Figure 2-4). Using FAA classifications is a great way to create consistency between your plan and the NPIAS. Consistency between plans can be particularly helpful when you begin the project and funding recommendations phase of your plan. While adopting the FAA classifications may have many benefits, consider how doing so may affect your plan if you are including non-NPIAS airports in your SASP or if your state has several NPIAS airports that are unclassified as of the latest report. If this is the case, you may wish to create a hybrid classification system. For example, you may be able to apply NPIAS role criteria to your non-NPIAS airports to classify them that way, or you may choose to create a state- developed role that includes all non-NPIAS system airports and those that are unclassified by the FAA. Keep in mind that a review of current NPIAS classifications is a required component of a SASP, along with recommendations for changes in classifications and inclusion/exclusion from the NPIAS. If you choose to adopt the NPIAS criteria or utilize a hybrid approach, you may end up completing this secondary assessment as a part of this task. Some states may find that the FAA-defined roles are not well suited to their system, as their airports serve different roles than are defined in the NPIAS/ASSET reports (FAA 2012, 2014c, 2018, 2020). In this case, an entirely separate and unique classification system may be developed that is tailored to the roles airports are fulfilling. This method allows for greater customization and flexibility than adopting roles from the NPIAS; however, it does introduce a second clas- sification system, which may be challenging to explain to stakeholders. If you choose to adopt a hybrid system, carry forward a state classification model from a previous SASP, or create a new set of airport roles, it is important to consider how you will present the role assignment process to stakeholders. Some methodologies, like point systems, allow for more flexibility in differentiating between airport roles. Methodologies that are more flexible may be a good fit for your state if you have airports that experience a lot of activity due to proximity to certain industry sectors or other special factors but may fall slightly deficient in some airport characteristic or design categories. In this instance, you may not want to drop that airport down a role if, despite its physical characteristics, it is serving a more demanding role. Conversely, if you are looking for a more straightforward and strict approach, consider imple- menting a flow chart or using a required set of criteria. You still have flexibility over the criteria or decisions you select, but there is no wiggle room on whether an airport does or does not fit a role. Again, there is no right or wrong answer on what methodology you select, so long as you are being mindful about the parameters you set, how those parameters will inform your airport roles, and how those airport roles will inform your planning decisions in the future. Source: FAA 2020. Figure 2-4. NPIAS categories and roles.

34 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning 2.4.2 Using Your Classications ere are several ways you can use roles in your system plan, and it is up to you to decide what works best for your planning eorts and state needs. For example, you may choose to incorporate roles in the development of activity forecast methodologies by applying dierent growth rates based on classication. Airport roles can be highly valuable in setting future performance targets for your system (see Section 2.8.1), as you can establish performance targets on the basis of air- port role rather than have to apply blanket targets across all roles. Since airports vary widely in terms of the users and communities they serve, it is unreasonable to expect all airports to achieve the same performance, physical, and operational characteristics. Additionally, as discussed in Section 2.2.2, many states have had success in establishing FSTs or FSOs on the basis of airport role and using them to identify development needs on an airport-by-airport basis or across roles and systemwide for facilities and services that may not be covered by the actionable objectives you have set for your plan (NASAO member survey conducted for ACRP 01-36, 2019). While most of the SASP analyses will be conducted at the system level, provision of separation between airports serving dierent roles allows for secondary analyses on groupings of airports that are excelling or falling short in their performance and, thus, for focused attention on airports in that role. Finally, you might consider using airport roles as a factor in project prioritization and the availability of and eligibility for funding. e extent to which you consider airport roles in resource allocation is entirely up to you. If you are resource constrained, you may use airport classications to promote projects at smaller GA airports that rely on state funding much more than larger GA airports or commercial airports that have alternate sources of funding they can use. Conversely, if airports are competing for funds, and both a smaller and a larger airport are requesting funds for the same project, you may choose to give priority to the larger airport, where the benet is likely to be farther reaching. See Section 2.9 for more information on estab- lishing a priority system for projects and funding. 2.4.3 Closing Considerations Section 2.4 presents a variety of factors for you to consider as you develop a methodology to identify and classify your system airports. e factors you choose to consider and the method- ology you develop should be representative of your state’s unique attributes and airport char- acteristics. For some states, it will be as easy as adopting federal classications, but for others, highly customized solutions will be needed. Considering how your system airports positively aect their communities, serve their users, support business, and serve critical functions (e.g., medical access, aerial reghting) will help you best dene a classication system that works for your network of airports. 2.5 Exploring Aviation Issues When planning for your aviation system, it is important to recognize the outside inuences, issues, and trends that may be aecting the aviation industry and, in turn, your system’s existing and future performance in meeting established goals. In addi- tion to external changes and pressures, internal issues unique to your airports or your state may be having an impact on your system. Furthering your understanding of avia- tion issues and trends and documenting them can provide important context to many components of your SASP, particularly during forecasting, setting future performance targets, and making recommendations. Strategies used to identify aviation trends can vary, and it is likely that you will use multiple resources to determine the issues that will have the greatest impact on your VALUE: Enhancing system context to aid in forecasting and future system recommendations. COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: Required.

Developing System Plans 35   system. Given your responsibility for your state’s airports, it is also likely that you are already aware of some of the issues aecting your system, and those may be the driving forces behind your need for a new or updated SASP in the rst place. ese issues may be related to changes in activity, socioeconomic indicators, technology, geography, design, and more, as reected in Figure 2-5. It is critical you recognize that your personal understanding of the issues and trends aecting your aviation system may not match those of your stakeholders. Engaging with system users and industry professionals provides a meaningful opportunity to better understand what aviation issues they are facing or noticing and can result in a more comprehensive and inclusive assessment of internal and external factors. For example, there may be an area of your state with limited airport facilities and services such as Jet A fuel that make it a challenge for emergency medical ight operators to service that area. Coordinating with your system users (in this example, medevac operators) can bring to light issues that you may not already be aware of. While it is important to assess broad issues occurring at the national level (e.g., eet changes, pilot shortages), it is even more important that you consider how those issues or trends are related to your system specically (either positively or negatively) and how you might address them. For example, you might combat the national pilot shortage locally by promoting the primary and secondary aviation education programs available in your state, which not only will help ignite student interest in aviation careers but also will work to retain a talented aviation workforce postgraduation. Recognizing that the scope of each issue or trend will vary is critical to understanding the true impact on your system, as some issues will aect the entirety of your airport system (e.g., eco- nomic downturns, workforce shortages), while others will aect only certain sectors of airports (e.g., changes in the commercial service eet, decline in recreational ying). Understanding the outside inuences on your system will allow you to identify the areas in which it may need more attention or in which future deciencies and opportunities could emerge. Aviation issues are frequently discussed during the forecasting section of a system plan (see Section 2.6) or as a stand-alone chapter but can also be integrated into discussions of recommendations (see Section 2.9.1) and alternative scenarios (see Section 2.10). 2.6 Forecasting Aviation Activity It is important to understand potential changes in future demand in order to main- tain and develop a responsive aviation system. e forecasting eort of an airport system plan provides you with a framework to help guide analysis for future system Source: FAA 2020. Figure 2-5. Examples of issues and trends in sample categories.  One way to reach a variety of stakeholders to discuss issues and trends a ectin yo r a iation system is y en a in ith an ad isory commi ee. ee Section 2.1 or more in ormation a o t coordinatin ith yo r commi ee and see Appendix B or s ested commi ee mem ers. REFERENCE Oregon developed a list of special considerations specific to its state system. These considerations assessed concerns about limited regional schedule air service, the impact of emerging technology, and more. The special considerations identified help to inform project and policy recommendations. STATE EXAMPLE VALUE: Projecting demand to determine needed future investment. COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: Required.

36 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning development. The system planning forecast effort is not an exact science by any means, but it is key that the effort provide context and a realistic understanding of how aviation activity has changed; where growth can be anticipated; and what trends, factors, and influences that could impact the future of aviation in your system should be understood. An understanding of where the growth of aviation is likely to occur in your state is the cor- nerstone of the forecasting effort. The forecasts help to identify and drive several facility needs that may be discussed in a subsequent chapter of your SASP (see Section 2.8). For example, operations forecasts can be utilized to identify airports and geographic areas where operational capacity may be an issue and may need to be addressed. Projections of based aircraft can be used to calculate the need for additional hangars, apron parking, and automobile parking. Com- mercial service projections can help identify capacity, terminal, apron, automobile parking, and roadway needs. The Airport System Planning Process notes that “airport system plans provide forecasts to define an airport’s role within the system and prioritize airport development” (FAA 2015b). The system plan forecast effort does not focus on detailed individual airport forecasts but rather looks at the system as a whole. To justify and implement any projects identified in a state system plan, an airport must develop its own more detailed forecasts as part of the airport master plan process and often undertakes an environmental assessment to determine the project’s true social, economic, and environmental impact. The activity projections included in a system plan provide state, regional, and FAA planners with a forecast to reference when reviewing individual airport master plan reports but are not typically a stand-in for individual airport forecasts. A multistep process is typically implemented when system plan activity projections are being developed. These steps can include the following: • Compilation and review of historic data for each study airport; • Analysis of the impact of socioeconomic and aviation industry trends; • Development of 5-, 10-, and 20-year projections of activity; • Identification of each airport’s existing and future critical aircraft based on FAA instrument flight rules (IFR) data; and • A comparison of system plan projections with FAA TAF projections. It is important to note that you may choose to adopt projections that have recently been published by the FAA or an airport and forego the development of independent system plan forecasts. FAA projections of demand are included in the TAF. The TAF is published annu- ally in January and includes projections of enplanements, operations, and based aircraft for all airports included in the NPIAS. For nontowered GA airports, the FAA holds activity constant for the forecast unless otherwise specified by a local or regional FAA office. It is important to note that the FAA does not include projections for non-NPIAS airports. If your airport system includes non-NPIAS airports, the adoption of TAF projections may not be a viable option. Projections developed as part of airport master plans and regional airport system plans can be reviewed for incorporation in, or compatibility with, the state system plan as well. While you can also choose to adopt these individual airport forecasts, they are not typically available for every airport included in an airport system; some may be dated, and all are likely to have differ- ent time horizons. 2.6.1 Trends Affecting Forecasts A summary of state and national trends and issues should be developed to understand their potential impact on activity and demand in your state. The focus should not be limited to GA activity but should also summarize significant commercial trends that may influence aviation

Developing System Plans 37   demand. e trends analysis oen identies where the opportunities for or threats to aviation growth may lie. Both historic trends and projected trends should be analyzed. Figure 2-6 presents examples of commonly considered topics explored in the development of system plan projections. 2.6.2 Aviation Activity Indicators ere are various indicators of aviation activity that can be projected in your system plan. When deciding what you want to include, take the time to be thoughtful in determining which indicators will be most useful and best help inform future decision-making and investment decisions. As shown in Figure 2-7, according to ACRP Synthesis 14: Aviation System Planning Practices, nearly all system plans include projections of GA operations and based aircra (Fritsche 2009). Before the forecast eort is begun, estimates of annual GA operations at nontowered airports can be reviewed to cross-check their validity on the basis of FAA guidance. As a result, you may consider adjusting airport operational estimates if you feel they are either over- or under- stated. A comparison of the based aircra recorded by the airports in the inventory eort with the FAA’s National Based Aircra Inventory program (www.basedaircra.com) can also be completed to ensure you understand where discrepancies may lie between data sources. Some states may nd it worthwhile to project based aircra by equipment type (single engine, multi- engine, jet, helicopter, sport/experimental) to understand how aircra usage may change over Source: Adapted from ACRP Synthesis 14: Airport System Planning Practices (Fritsche 2009). Figure 2-7. Summary of activity indicators included in SASPs. Figure 2-6. Examples of trends affecting forecasts.

38 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning the forecast period. Several states have dug a little deeper and have prepared projections of peak hour demand, licensed pilots, or fuel usage to more fully understand the impact on the state system. Military operations are another indicator that can be considered, but they are oen held constant over the forecast period, as their changes are dictated by the U.S. Department of Defense and other national issues that do not relate to other indicators that aect civilian aviation. Many SASPs also include projections of scheduled commercial service activity, including commercial service operations and enplanements. It is important to recog- nize that developing thorough activity forecasts for commercial airports can be quite complex, time consuming, and costly and can require more detail than is typically warranted in a system plan. Some states elect to adopt activity forecasts for their com- mercial service airports from the TAF and from airport master plans, if they are rela- tively current. As previously noted, the forecasts in your system plan cannot be used to justify projects and are intended to provide a high-level evaluation of major changes in activity in your system. Consequently, states that elect to develop new forecasts of commercial service activity oen utilize a single, simplied methodology. Projections of air cargo operations and freight and mail tonnage can also be included in the fore- casting eort. 2.6.3 Methodologies In the forecasting eort, multiple methodologies that include top-down and bottom-up methods should be tested to identify the forecasting approach that produces the most reliable demand projections for the airports in your state. FAA projections of various demand components, as contained in the FAA TAF and the FAA Aerospace Forecast, may also be reviewed and used in forecast development. Socioeconomic growth rates are typically considered, as there is oen a strong correlation between economic growth and aviation growth, and can be used for the development of forecasts. Other examples of methodologies to consider include market shares, historic trendlines, econometric modeling, and regression analysis, to name a few. 2.6.4 Sensitivity/Scenario Analysis A sensitivity analysis considers the extent to which forecasts are aected by key variables and business drivers. You may want to consider scenarios that could cause a forecast to deviate from the baseline projections. ere are many factors that have the potential to cause forecast deviations. e FAA identies some of these factors as changes in the gross domestic product, changes in aviation fuel costs, changes in the consumer price index, and changes in unemploy- ment. e impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or other major events that disrupt or shock the aviation system should be considered to develop a realistic impact of demand in the near term. Low- or high-growth scenarios can be developed on the basis of outside inuences. A sensitivity analysis can show how uctuations in demand projections could inuence development needs and associated costs for both airside and landside facilities. 2.6.5 FAA Involvement FAA review and approval (or acceptance) of SASP forecasts is required by many FAA region and ADO oces if FAA funding is used for the project. According to e Airport System Plan- ning Process, the review is “required for forecasts that are used to support the justication and Detailed projections of various indicators were developed for the Minnesota State Aviation System Plan 2012 (Minnesota DOT 2013), including the following: • Commercial service: Airline operations, passenger enplanements; • GA: Aircraft operations, operations by type, based aircraft, peak hour demand; • Air cargo: Aircraft operations, cargo tonnage; and • Military: Aircraft operations. STATE EXAMPLE ACRP Synthesis 2: Airport Aviation Activity Forecasting (Spits and Golaszewski 2007) provides additional insights into the collection of data and airport activity forecasting methods. REFERENCE

Developing System Plans 39   timing of an AIP [Airport Improvement Program] project” (FAA 2015b). Oen, system plan forecasts are not the driver of near-term AIP projects. Even if a project is noted in a system plan, it is still normally justied as part of the master plan process and should be depicted on an approved airport layout plan, which is typically not part of a system plan project. e Airport System Planning Process also notes that forecasts that exceed FAA TAF projec- tions by more than 10% in the rst 5 years should be changed in the TAF or revised in the system plan, or both. However, in some instances, there is a good reason why system plan projections do not fall within that range, for example, when the base year TAF data start out notably higher or lower than the true activity. In addition, the FAA pays close attention to airports with more than 100 based aircra or more than 100,000 annual operations, especially if their forecasts fall outside 10% of the TAF in the rst 5 years. Before undertaking the eort and submitting fore- casts for FAA review, you should coordinate closely with your FAA region or ADO oce to see what level of forecast review can be expected, as this review period can be lengthy and can aect your overall project schedule. 2.6.6 Closing Considerations Section 2.6 outlines key considerations for the forecasting eort. ere should be an under- standing of where future growth in the system is anticipated and what types of growth are realistic at system airports in order for the state system to be responsive to user demand. e forecasting process will help you focus on developing long-term projections by various indica- tors that reect the future need for aviation facilities. 2.7 Determining System Performance e assessment of your aviation system in meeting the goals and objectives you established for your SASP is one of the costliest and most time-consuming eorts of the SASP process, second only to the inventory. e analyses involved in the system performance task will be made easier with a well-organized and comprehensive data set developed during the data collection phase. It is important to note that there is no right or wrong way to conduct or present your performance analyses; however, there are a number of important considerations to determine what process will work best for your system. 2.7.1 Conducting the Analyses e way you assess performance depends on several factors, including • Complexity of your objectives, • Suitability of the data collected in the inventory, • Desired presentation format, and • Capabilities of your project team conducting the analysis. Some of your objectives will be straightforward to assess. One example is an objective that considers the number (or percentage) of airports within the system with a certain facility (such as a weather-reporting system) that is built upon a simple “yes” or “no” response. Analyses become more complex when the results are reliant on more than a simple “yes” or “no” response. For example, if you have an objective that asks for the percentage of airports with an adequate amount of covered aircra storage, you need rst to determine what is considered “adequate” for an airport, then assess the storage availability at each airport against that mark. is may VALUE: Data-driven understanding of system performance in terms of system goals and objectives. COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: Required.

40 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning also require looking at existing based aircra as well as forecasts to examine future needs and whether there is adequate storage or a deciency is projected. While some performance analyses are best presented in tabular or chart format, there are other measures that are best evaluated, understood, and presented in a geospatial format. For example, you may wish to know the percentage of your state’s population that lives within a 2-hour drive of an airport oering commercial service or the percentage of land area covered within 30 nautical miles of an airport with weather reporting. ese evaluations oen require the use of geographic information systems (GIS) programs and result in maps that illustrate areas where airport facilities or services may be lacking. Regardless of whether your objectives are assessed in a tabular or geospatial format, the complexities of your objectives and your strat- egies for assessing these measurements should be discussed when you establish your system objectives (see Section 2.2) and when you collect the data needed to measure performance (see Section 2.3). Most states present their system performance ndings by airport role in order to understand better at which airports, or where in the system, deciencies are occurring. It is also common for certain objectives or criteria to apply to dierent airport roles (such as dierent thresholds for the age of a master plan that is considered recent or varying PCI thresholds). If you ultimately intend to present performance by airport role, your project team will need to account for the separation by role in their analyses. is can be particularly useful when it is time to make system recommendations, prioritize projects, and establish funding policies. As you consider the eort needed to assess your airport system, keep in mind that the more objectives you have and the more complex they are, the more time you’ll need to dedicate to this step when you establish a project time line. is also has an impact on the continued eort and likelihood of maintaining updated system performance aer your SASP is published if you desire to engage in continuous planning eorts. If you conduct geospatial analyses as a part of your system plan, consider the capabilities you have in-house to update those in the future between SASPs, if desired. 2.7.2 Presenting Your System Performance Findings Before your project team conducts the analyses, you’ll need to consider how you want to present the ndings—specically, whether you want to compare current performance results with those in a previous plan(s) and whether you want to publish all performance ndings publicly or only a select group. Making these decisions up front will save your project team considerable time during this step and on the back end. 2.7.2.1 Comparing Results Between Plans If your SASP is considered an update or there are previous analyses that you have chosen to carry over into your new SASP, whether for all or only some of the same objectives, then there may be value in showing a comparison of performance between years. Comparing current and historical performance levels will help pin- point where the system has improved and where there are opportunities for future investments (this is also helpful in the prioritization and recommendation stages). However, keep in mind that it is not always as easy as it would seem to compare results between two plans. For example, if your updated plan presents performance by airport role and you have revised your airport classication methodology or just updated the data, so that there are changes to the airports assigned to each classi- cation since your last SASP, your results could be skewed, considering that there may be fewer or additional airports in a given role. In addition, if you want to compare the results The 2018 Arizona State Aviation System Plan Update compares current system performance with that from the 2008 SASP for objectives that were carried over from the previous plan (Arizona DOT 2018a). The results are displayed in tabular format for easy comparison and identification of progress. STATE EXAMPLE

Developing System Plans 41   of a drive-time analysis, you should consider that results may dier on the basis of population uctuations as well as changes that may not be fully attributable to the airport itself. Even technology changes such as GIS or other soware may aect some analyses and results. While there can be value in comparing the results of the same objective between two plans, it is important that you consider the quality of the comparison before you include it as part of your system performance analysis and document any changes that are aecting an apples- to-apples comparison. 2.7.2.2 Public Versus Internal Publication Conducting a system performance analysis is a crucial component in your SASP, because without it you cannot gain a baseline understanding of how your system is performing in terms of the objectives and goals you have established. However, it is up to you whether or not you choose to publish the entirety of your system performance results in a public document such as a technical report or executive summary. Making the results of your system performance analysis public promotes transparency and is a good way to keep airport managers and industry stake- holders informed on the system’s existing conditions. Moreover, if your system is performing well, publishing those results can generate support from the public and ocials. Alternatively, if your system is underperforming, publishing those results may demonstrate the need for con- tinued support and investment. Keep in mind that if you have elected to use objectives that are informational in nature (i.e., your agency cannot have an impact on performance via funding or policy), you should be explicit about this limitation in any publication so that it is not seen as a shortfall on behalf of the state or your agency. 2.7.3 Closing Considerations Section 2.7 presents several considerations to keep in mind as you develop the results of your system performance. is task is one of the more complex components of your SASP, and it is important to approach it in an organized manner and make careful choices about how system performance will be analyzed and, ultimately, presented in any nal documentation. If you want to continue to update performance aer your SASP is complete, be sure to ask your project team for the native data les before you close out the project, or include this requirement in your scope (see Section 3.3.3). 2.8 Identifying System Needs Identifying system needs helps you bridge the gap between understanding your existing conditions and making smart recommendations for your system. Upon com- pletion of your system performance analysis, it may be very obvious where improve- ments are needed and where they are not when performance is remarkably high or low. However, many states nd similar performance across multiple measures, and it can be challenging to identify where the true needs are and what to prioritize. To aid in this eort, some states utilize performance targets (sometimes referred to as “benchmarks”) to set clear goals for future performance of their system. System needs will vary across states, and there are several considerations involved in determining how best to identify these needs. One of the most important factors to con- sider when identifying system needs is understanding the context in which your system operates, so that you can set appropriate future performance targets that are attainable, eective in identifying needs, and perceived well by your audience. VALUE: Evaluates where there are opportunities and challenges within your current system that can be addressed during project recommendations. COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: Required.

42 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning 2.8.1 Set Future Performance Targets Before establishing performance targets, it is important rst to consider how setting targets will aect the plan you produce, including how you plan to set your targets, how your targets will be used to inform recommendations, and the context in which these targets are established. Future performance targets are typically set for the PMs evaluated in your system perfor- mance and operate as a mechanism to identify needs and track progress in the future. Gener- ally, targets are set to indicate an ideal or ultimate performance for a certain component of your system. For example, your system performance analysis may indicate that 60% of your airports are currently maintaining a primary runway PCI of 70 or greater, but a future target of 80% is established, leaving 20% room for improvement. It is this 20% gap that drives recommenda- tions for specic airports to complete pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction projects (see Section 2.9 for more information on making recommendations). Keep in mind that while it may be tempting to want to set all targets at 100%, it is highly unlikely that the resources and funding needed to achieve perfect performance are available to your agency and to your airports. As such, it is important to strike a balance in setting targets that are ambitious yet achievable. As with all components of your SASP, it is important to consider the state-specic context in which you operate. When working through the process of setting future targets, consider engaging your project advisory committee (PAC) or other stakeholders to provide input on the existing conditions and challenges or opportunities within your system from a user’s perspec- tive. Soliciting feedback from others at this stage not only provides a perspective from outside the agency but can lead to increased buy-in from airports and other stakeholders if they recog- nize that their opinion is valued. As you work through the process of setting future performance targets, remember that the targets you set here will aect the projects that are identied in the recommendation phase of your project, so it is important targets are set appropriately. 2.8.2 Consider Public Perception At the conclusion of your project, the system plan that you produce will be used to guide aviation development and policy over the planning horizon. Considering the system plan’s use as a planning and policy document, it is likely that members of the aviation community, local and state legislators, and other stakeholders will reference your system plan throughout the document’s relevant life span. For this reason, it will be important that you consider how your audience will perceive the findings of your report, including the future performance targets you set. While it may not initially seem so, setting your future performance targets is presenting your priorities to your audience. For example, consider what the public’s perception might be if you set future performance targets related to safety objectives lower than those related to economic development or accessibility. is might indicate to the public that you are not pri- oritizing safety highly enough. Another example to consider is showing very low performance in comparison to a high target. Ultimately, it is your decision where the future perfor- mance targets will be set, but it is important to clearly explain how you arrived at those decisions so that the audience can understand the thought process behind them. 2.9 Recommending and Prioritizing Projects Oen cited by aviation agencies as the most useful task/outcome of the system plan- ning process is the identication of specic projects that are needed to meet state avia- tion system goals. When you are embarking on a SASP, it can be overwhelming at times to consider all of the infrastructure and service needs within your system and the resources required to achieve them. Given that funding is almost always limited, your VALUE: Identifying the airport and agency recommendations needed to improve system performance. COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: Required.

Developing System Plans 43   agency is likely constrained and must pick and choose which projects get funded each year, informing state funding decisions in consideration of FAA priorities. Your SASP can serve as a critical tool in identifying the projects that will have the most positive impact on your system and help you program those needs. As with previous tasks, there is no single right way to identify recommended projects and prioritize them with all other airport-requested project needs. However, there are some impor- tant considerations to keep in mind, such as the separation of airport recommendations from recommendations for agency action and the establishment of priority systems to rank all projects against the same criteria. 2.9.1 Airport Recommendations If you’ve elected to set future performance targets for your objectives (see Section 2.8.1), the task of identifying airport project recommendations is fairly straightforward. Airports that are causing any decit between current system performance and performance targets are easily identied. In some cases, a recommendation can be as simple as acquiring a piece of equipment (such as a snowplow), and in others, it can be much more complex [such as acquiring all of the land within runway protection zones (RPZs)]. e level of eort required at this step also depends on how future performance tar- gets were established. For example, if performance targets were set at less than 100%, you and your project team will need to determine which airports receive the recom- mendations (and the associated project) over others, since it is not all-or-nothing. is challenge is easier to overcome if you have selected future performance targets by air- port role, as the pool of potential airports is smaller. In any case, if you are having to select some airports over others to receive projects to meet a future performance target of less than 100%, you should be clear as to what methodology your project team is using to select those airports. In some cases, it may be selecting the airports with the biggest deciency (such as airports with the lowest PCI in a given airport role or airports with the oldest master plans), and in others, it might be selecting airports with the furthest geographic reach and therefore the biggest potential impact. It is also important to note that, unless you intend to fund (in whole or in part) all of the airport recommendations, you might consider adding a disclaimer noting that identication of an airport project in the SASP does not guarantee funding for that project. At the end of this task, you should have a consolidated list of recommended projects at your system airports. e list may be organized by airport, project type, or some other qualier. No matter the presentation, this list of recommendations will be helpful in understanding the scope of projects needed to meet all of your objectives and performance targets and can be used in a subsequent task to develop cost estimates of those projects, if desired (see Section 2.9.4). 2.9.2 Agency Recommendations Although the majority of recommended projects resulting from a SASP are likely to be airport specic, many state aviation agencies nd there are ways in which they can further support their system, such as policy development, aviation education ini- tiatives, creation of tools and templates (e.g., model zoning ordinances, emergency plans), state-funded programs (e.g., pavement maintenance, GA terminal buildings), and more. Using your SASP to document these eorts can be inuential in the prob- ability that they come to fruition. You will also want to consider how your agency may implement the policy or program recommendations identied during this process (see Section 3.3.5). The State of New York used its 2008 system plan to outline airport recommendations that ould contribute to a Strategic Business Airport System (New York State DOT 200 ). These recommendations stem rom ndin s in the plan that indicated uture business aviation development could be bene cial to the state’s economic output and the system overall. STATE EXAMPLE The Connecticut Statewide Airport System Plan outlines several policy recommendations intended to support aviation development in the state (Connecticut Airport Authority 2016). These recommendations addressed land use compatibility, economic development zones, and system governance. STATE EXAMPLE

44 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning Determining recommendations for your agency may be less straightforward than identify- ing projects at an airport level. Airport recommendations are typically based on clear gaps in facilities or services identied during the system performance evaluation. Identication of policy and program needs may not be as easily achieved through the system performance process, as those needs may not be based on airports’ physical conditions and may not be as directly tied to system objectives. Some potential policy and program needs may be identied as part of the issues component (see Section 2.5), which could serve as a useful reference when all recommendations are being summarized to determine whether there are projects, policies, or programs that could provide solutions to negative issues or at least contribute to address- ing them. Agency recommendations can be crucial tools in improving processes and policies that support the safe continued operation and development of system airports, particularly in terms of planning and zoning, funding, and programming projects using priority rating models (PRMs) or other tools. For example, a state may include objectives in its system plan to assess the airport-compatible land use zoning and planning eorts that are occurring at the local airport and municipal levels. However, the ndings of this objective may not translate specically to an airport recommendation because the locality of that airport does not have the zoning structure in place to adopt and enforce airport-compatible zoning. erefore, it may be up to the agency to determine how it can support airport-compatible land use zoning at the state level through policy changes, legislative requirements, or providing model zoning documents. Additional recommendations that may result for your agency include recommendations to conduct companion or follow-on studies to your SASP. As noted in Section 1.1.8, these may include EISs, air service studies, land use compatibility studies, pavement management pro- grams, and more. Some states take these recommendations for additional studies one step further and create project outlines or scopes as a part of their SASP, so they are one step closer to initiating those studies when their SASP is complete. See Section 3.3.4 for more information on how conducting additional studies relates to continuous planning eorts. 2.9.3 Priority Rating Models To aid in selecting projects that are most needed and impactful, some states have developed PRMs to support informed and objective decision-making. Many of these have either been developed as part of a SASP or developed separately but used in con- junction with a SASP. PRMs are completely customizable and can be built to account for factors that are most important to your agency and airport system. PRMs are a helpful tool in programming projects for funding, as they can make the process orga- nized, ecient, and impartial. Instead of relying on institutional knowledge and internal discussions to set project priorities, your agency can apply a model that assigns value (scores) to projects on the basis of how they meet certain criteria. Using a model can demonstrate unbiased and transparent decision-making that can reduce confusion or frustration if certain projects are not selected for funding during a given funding cycle. It is common for factors such as project type, funding source, SASP goal achieve- ment, airport role, and urgency to be built into a PRM to rank projects; however, the options are endless and can be customized to meet the needs of your state. Additionally, PRMs can be developed to be very strict in assigning values, or they can be developed to allow for exibility when needed to account for special circumstances. If your agency already uses an established PRM, your SASP will benet by includ- ing those criteria to rank recommended projects. is may also be a time to consider amending existing PRM criteria to account for a project’s impact on SASP goals if it The 2016 Pennsylvania Statewide Airport System Plan developed a weighted scoring system to rank airports on a scale of 0 to 100%, according to their ability to meet the plan’s o jectives Pennsylvania DOT This methodology identi ed the most important system needs by airport To provide additional conte t the Pennsylvania A P also identi ed roader state ide priorities applica le to its core airports, which aided in the prioriti ation of projects STATE EXAMPLE The Wyoming DOT’s Aeronautics Division uses a PRM that ranks system plan and AIP projects according to a scoring system that factors in project purpose, alignment with system goals, and more. The PRM has been a successful tool that other states have used as a model. STATE EXAMPLE

Developing System Plans 45   is not already being considered in the model. See Appendix C for examples of PRMs used by a selection of states. 2.9.4 Statewide Capital Improvement Plan with Recommended Projects To be eligible for FAA AIP funding, airports included in the NPIAS must prepare an ACIP annually to identify their project and funding needs. Combining projects from individual ACIPs with the list of SASP-recommended airport projects (eliminating any duplicates) creates a comprehensive Statewide Capital Improvement Plan (SCIP). How- ever, it is important to keep in mind that projects recommended from a SASP usually span a 20-year time frame, whereas an ACIP may only reect 5 years or so, depending on the state. Developing a comprehensive SCIP can provide you with a one-stop shop for assessing projects on an airport-by-airport basis as well as a greater understanding of capital needs and not just projects airports request. Some states already develop SCIPs on an annual basis (especially those in the FAA’s State Block Grant Program) and will be one step closer to achieving this comprehensive listing than those that do not maintain a consolidated SCIP (keeping in mind that the SCIP likely includes only requests and not all needs). It’s also important to note that SASP needs do not always have a time frame for completion (e.g., Project 1 at Airport ABC needs to be completed in 3 years), so you will need to consider which SASP-recommended projects should be programmed in which time frames. If you’ve developed a PRM, the projects within your SCIP can be ranked in order of priority to help in the annual programming process. e benet of using your PRM to develop a SCIP is that you will be able to develop a plan for your airports that is prioritized on the basis of identied need, feasibility, and objectivity. One of the foundational elements of any capital improvement plan is the identica- tion of project costs. While individual ACIPs should account for the costs of any exist- ing planned projects, you may nd it helpful to estimate the costs of the projects being recommended in your SASP. It is important to know the estimated cost of improve- ments so that you can budget accordingly, determine funding shortfalls, and work to identify any alternate funding sources available for your airports’ projects. It is important to note that the costs identied for your SASP-recommended projects will likely be developed as planning-level estimates, which requires certain assumptions to be made because of limited knowledge of local airport conditions. For example, if an airport is developing a cost for a project on its ACIP, it is likely that it will work with engineers or designers to determine the exact measurements, grading requirements, and so forth needed to complete the project. at level of detail is usually not possible within the scope of a SASP, given the incredible time and monetary costs of that eort. It is also not needed when you are trying to establish an order of magnitude cost. More- over, it is likely that your SCIP will include projects scoped to occur within the next 5-, 10-, or 20-year horizon, and the long-term nature can make it challenging to produce exact cost estimates. Even though the cost estimates prepared for your SASP and SCIP are not applicable for designing projects or preparing grants, they have immense value. You may decide to use these cost estimates to develop dierent funding scenarios that focus on certain improvements or needs. You may want to use the cost estimates to determine which airport roles have the most or least need for project funding. You can identify what type of improvement is the costliest in your system, perhaps identifying that there is signicant need for pavement maintenance projects or taxiway design projects. Developing planning-level costs The California Aviation System Plan 2020 (CASP 2020) takes a deep dive into different funding mechanisms in addition to the AIP and how to leverage grant funding at the local, state, and federal levels (Caltrans 2020). CASP 2020 outlines opportunities to access funding through • U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development Community Facilities Direct Loan and Grant Program, • Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Credit Program, • Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant Program, and • Tax increment financing. STATE EXAMPLE The 2012 Indiana State Aviation System Plan used a pie chart in its e ecu ve summary to demonstrate to legislators and decision makers where the highest avia on development need existed (Indiana DOT 2012). resen ng this informa on in graphic form clearly informed viewers that the ma ority of funding needs were associated with essen al airport infrastructure such as runways ta iways and other pavement pro ects. eing able to present this need clearly is important when rallying support for funding. STATE EXAMPLE Combining the findings of this task and the total funding needs with the findings of an AEIS can tell a powerful story and show the impact of investment in your system airports. LINK

46 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning gives you the opportunity to “slice and dice” dierent scenarios and think more critically about the feasibility of your SCIP. is exercise has been helpful to many states in conveying the true investment need as compared with historical funding levels to illustrate funding gaps to their legislators and decision-makers. 2.9.5 Closing Considerations Section 2.9 discusses the major considerations involved in the project recommendation and prioritization phase of system planning. While there is a lot of eort associated with this task, it can be accomplished eectively with an organized approach and a clear understanding of the desired outcome along with how you ultimately want to present ndings and recommendations to airports, legislators, decision-makers, system users, and other stakeholders. is exercise can also provide a total needs number that can be helpful in comparing the needs of other transpor- tation modes. Considering how you plan to implement the SASP recommendations for system airports and your agency up front will be key to the end rollout. 2.10 Examining System Alternatives e Airport System Planning Process notes that evaluation of system alternatives is more valuable if the needs of the state are in metropolitan or regional areas and involve air- eld capacity (FAA 2015b). When system plans are focused on the statewide system, with only limited emphasis on the largest commercial service airports and their needs, the alternatives analysis takes on a dierent meaning and value. One particularly rel- evant alternatives analysis for a statewide system is the potential for changing roles or needs in a system based on demographic or changing conditions that may aect the type of demand that is served by airports. Beyond examining changes that have a higher likelihood of happening, there are two additional approaches that have been used in many states to evaluate alternatives for a statewide system plan, funding options or scenarios, and sensitivity analyses. 2.10.1 Changes Likely to Occur Airport roles and classications are typically determined on the basis of existing conditions within your state. Whether you use factors that relate only to existing airport facilities or to demand or socioeconomic indicators, the analysis is typically focused on the function that air- ports play in the system today. When forecasts of population, employment, income, or aviation activity are used, the system evaluation may show need for airport roles or classications to change in the future and, possibly, indicate a high potential for this change. e alternatives analysis can examine what the changes might mean to future needs for facility development and associated project costs. ese alternatives can use “do nothing” as a baseline; that is, it can determine what the impact will be if nothing is done to accommodate the changing demand as compared with what it will take to accommodate the change in terms of additional facilities and project costs. ese functional alternatives provide you with information to collaborate with the airport or airports as well as, potentially, the FAA to nd ways to support the change in function before it becomes a capacity concern or aects other airports. It is possible that, as demand changes, the function of airports may be less than it is today, whether the airports are in the NPIAS or not. ese changes are more dicult but should be examined in the alternatives analysis to determine how the remaining airport system may change if an airport’s function declines, especially if that airport is the base for many aircra or serves a unique role in the statewide system. VALUE: Potential examination of changes that might have an impact on recommendations and alternative ways to address future system needs. COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: Recommended.

Developing System Plans 47   2.10.2 Funding Scenarios Once you have developed costs for the projects and potentially incorporated projects from ACIPs into a SCIP or listing of all statewide aviation needs, it is possible to consider various funding scenarios and the impact those might have on the timing of the overall program and its ability to be achieved. In all likelihood, total statewide aviation needs will exceed antici- pated funding from traditional sources, including FAA and state aviation funds, as well as local matches or potentially private funds for needs such as hangars. Funding scenarios can be used to evaluate various options, such as considering funding needed for maintenance only versus maintenance and expansion projects or examining the impacts of a reduction in federal or state funding and evaluating what projects may need to be delayed. e number of potential scenarios is innumerable, and it is important that the number and type of scenarios most applicable to your system are documented during the scoping and contracting phase (see Section 1.5). e value of funding scenario alternatives lies in how you might use the results in future decision-making. 2.10.3 Sensitivity Analyses Another type of alternative analysis used by several states is referred to as a “sensitivity analysis.” is type of analysis provides you with information typically presented in a “what-if/could we” format that looks at potential factors that could aect the imple- mentation of recommendations or your future system needs. ese types of sensitivity analyses can be very useful in looking at numerous potential conditions and providing direction for you to consider on how to move forward. e sensitivity analysis should answer questions about what potential factors are most likely to occur, the signicance of the impact on the airport system if they do occur, whether the change has a nancial or economic impact, and what you, as the state aviation agency, can do to address the potential action. 2.10.4 Closing Considerations Section 2.10 outlines various alternative scenarios that you may want to consider as part of your system plan. e analysis of alternatives is recommended, but not required, and can provide you with a useful reference should any of the conditions evaluated actually occur. e results of the alternatives analysis provide you with a starting point for what actions you may need to take to address each condition, whether it be changes to airport roles, funding, or a myriad of other conditions. 2.11 Creating Deliverables e deliverables of your system plan will tell the story of your aviation system and the eorts undertaken to plan eciently and eectively for its safe and continued opera- tion. While it is likely that you will receive interim deliverables from your project team throughout the development of your SASP, this section focuses on the nal deliverables typically produced. e expectations for what deliverables will be developed as a part of your SASP should be established during the scoping and contracting phase (see Section 1.5). e deliv- erables produced for each SASP will vary: some states stick to traditional deliverables only (e.g., technical report, executive summary), while others nd value in additional deliverables (e.g., primers, individual airport reports, electronic tools). e type and number of deliverables really are dependent on the budget you have for your SASP and Florida addressed alternatives in its Florida Aviation System Plan 2035 by using a series of “What if/Could we” statements that examined future actions to protect the state’s aviation system should different changes occur (Florida DOT 2017b). For example: • What if airlines want to decrease capacity and routes to Florida communities due to increases in oil prices? • Could we support services at airports that reach the majority of Florida’s population? STATE EXAMPLE VALUE: Tailored documentation of SASP findings that can be distributed to a variety of audiences, including agency staff, industry stakeholders, decision-makers, and other interested parties. COST: TIME: REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED: Required.

48 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning the audiences you want to reach upon SASP completion (see Section 3.1 for more informa- tion on rolling out your plan to stakeholders and the types of deliverables that can support that eort). See Appendix D for examples of SASP deliverables. 2.11.1 Technical Report e technical report documents all eorts undertaken for your SASP and includes detailed accounts of all analyses. All SASPs will result in a technical report that is oen hundreds of pages in length. During the scoping process, you will need to determine whether you want any hard copies of the SASP document for your agency or whether electronic copies are sucient. Oen the audience for the technical report is small, and the report is likely to be most used by your agency. Although the SASP technical analysis is considered complete at this stage, it is impor- tant not to underestimate the eort it can take to produce your nal document and to plan for this in the project time line. You likely will already have reviewed all of the chapters of your SASP at this stage in the process. Ideally, you will have engaged your PAC in the review of interim deliverables or chapters as your project team made them available. However, if you have not, this is a good time to consider the value of their input on your technical report before it is published. Due to the size of the deliverable, you may identify specic chapters or sections you would like your PAC to focus on, as reading hundreds of pages at the end of the project is not likely to be feasible for most PAC members. If you plan to update your SASP internally in the future or want to use any of the graphics in your SASP for other purposes (e.g., presentations), be explicit in your scope that the native document les are to be delivered to you upon project completion. You may want to post the nal technical report to your agency website upon completion, but be sure to consider any sen- sitive information or details such as policy recommendations or nancial data before doing so. Additionally, if you are funding your SASP project with FAA funds, be sure your nal document contains appropriate FAA disclaimers. 2.11.2 Executive Summaries and Study Primers/Brochures Executive summaries are a supplemental deliverable typically produced as an accompani- ment to the technical report. Executive summaries are meant to be presented in a very concise and approachable manner. ey oen include the key ndings of the SASP while providing an overview of the system planning process or purpose. Common topics covered in an executive summary include the following: • Project goals and objectives, • Airport roles or classications (oen featured on a map graphic), • System performance and recommendations, • Cost estimates and funding shortfalls, and • Findings of the economic impact study (if applicable). While there is some commonality in what is typically included in an executive summary, the varied ways in which these data are presented make many executive summaries quite unique. For example, some states choose to develop their executive summaries as booklets that can be up to 20 pages long, while other states choose to produce summaries that fold out from booklet form to poster form and can be displayed easily at conferences or other meetings and events. e format of your executive summary will vary on the basis of your preferences, the complexity of your system, the information you wish to include, your budget, and so forth. Producing an executive summary is an opportunity for your agency to present your SASP ndings in a much more approachable and digestible way for a larger The Hawaii Statewide Airport System Plan was able to incorporate a summary for each system airport in its technical report, and many of the summaries are accompanied by an aerial photo of the airport (Hawaii DOT 1997). With only 16 airports in its system, Hawaii was able to use its technical report to highlight each airport in one document. STATE EXAMPLE If you’ve conducted additional or companion studies alongside your SASP, consider how you will weave those findings into your executive summary. You may wish to produce an executive summary with findings from both studies or decide to produce separate summaries or primers for your SASP and any companion studies. LINK

Developing System Plans 49   audience, including airport sponsors, industry groups, system users, legislators, and other stakeholders or interested parties who are unlikely to review an entire technical report. Some states have developed study primers or brochures for their SASP that almost function as an executive summary of an executive summary. ese primers are typically a page or two in length and can be more customized to specic audiences such as decision-makers, consultants, airports, and the general public. If you have an executive summary that is several pages in length, you may want to consider adding the development of a study primer to your scope, as it may be more benecial in reaching audiences with limited time to dive into study specics. 2.11.3 Airport Brochures Individual airport brochures are another short-form SASP deliverable; however, unlike executive summaries or primers, these deliverables are tailored to each system airport rather than developed to summarize the entire study. ese brochures are commonly distributed by airport sponsors to local chambers of commerce, elected ocials, and community members. ey highlight a specic airport’s role in the system, its history, areas for improvement, recommended projects, and more. ey may also include a brief summary of statewide ndings. ese brochures oen serve as tailored supportive collateral for airports to use in advocating for their continued opera- tion and communicate their value to their local community, highlighting ways the airport is used that the local community may not have known (e.g., medical ights, package delivery). ey are commonly designed with infographics and photographs to draw attention. Individual airport brochures are not a required deliverable, and producing them can be costly, considering that each system airport will receive a unique document. However, such a brochure may be one of the only opportunities that airports in your state system will have to get the materials they need to advocate for their continued operation. GA airports oen do not have the resources to hire consultants to develop supportive materials for them, as they direct all of their available funds to maintenance and infrastructure projects. If your SASP budget can accommodate this eort, airport brochures may be the most used deliverables of your entire project. A brochure can also emphasize the importance of airport compli- ance with requests for information during the inventory eort. If you can tell airports what they will receive at the end of the study, they may be more willing to participate in a timely and meaningful way during the inventory eort, knowing that they will have a customized deliverable at the end of the SASP that they can use locally to gain support for their airport. 2.11.4 Presentations rough the SASP process, you will likely be giving or participating in presentations related to your project and interim deliverables or ndings. At the end of the SASP, you may want to have a nal project presentation that you can present to various audiences, such as other modal divisions within your agency, aeronautics commissioners, and annual state aviation confer- ences. Consider whether a nal presentation is needed and, if so, account for it in your scope. Ask your project team to provide speaker notes so you are well prepared to present on the SASP in the weeks, months, and years following the completion of your system plan. In some cases, airport sponsors have opportunities to present to local audiences on the value and operation of their facility. If your system airports engage in this activity, consider adding an airport presentation template to your scope. Your project team can create a branded presenta- tion template with instructions for your airports on what information to plug into the template (such as the information that would typically be accounted for in an individual airport bro- chure). is is another example of a deliverable suited for individual airport use. The Florida Aviation System Plan 2035 included executive summary primers for different audiences, such as airport managers and consultants, policy makers, the Florida DOT, and the general public (Florida DOT 2017a). These primers consider the needs, interests, and technical familiarity of each target audience. STATE EXAMPLE The 2018 Colorado Aviation System Plan and Economic Impact Study included development of individual airport brochures for each airport in the system (Colorado DOT 2018). These brochures included a brief narrative about the airport, information about the facilities and services provided at the airport, and an overview of the airport’s economic impact. The brochure also highlights some of the major findings from the study. STATE EXAMPLE

50 Advancing the Practice of State Aviation System Planning 2.11.5 Data Management Tools The data required to complete a system plan may at times seem overwhelming, which is why it is important that you and your staff determine a strategy for maintaining the data that you collect. It is important not only to maintain your data effectively throughout the project, but also to think about how you will manage or use the data after your SASP is complete. There is a wide range of data management tools at your disposal, some more complex and costly than others. For example, you may decide to store and maintain data in a simple database that can be updated periodically by your agency with minimal associated cost but limited functionality, or you may decide that a more advanced visual application is desired, in which case a dashboard or mapping tool may be more suitable at a higher cost and with a longer shelf life. To determine what solution is best suited for your needs, consider the likelihood and capacity of your agency to maintain system data after the conclusion of the project and how you intend to use the data. Are you looking to use simple point-in-time data, or do you need real-time or fre- quent updates to the data to determine changes in system performance between SASP updates? The answers to these questions will help you determine the data management solution best suited for your individual situation. Keep in mind that the data management tool or tools you decide to use may have a significant impact on your budget or require significant effort and time on the part of your agency staff to maintain. More information on maintaining an inventory database and updating system performance can be found in Section 3.3.2 and Section 3.3.3, respectively. Examples of data management tools are presented in Appendix D. 2.11.6 Electronic Files and Formats Upon completion of your SASP, your project team will have developed numerous documents and files, from those used to conduct your system performance assessment, to custom graphics, to the written chapters of your technical report, and many others. If you are engaging outside help to conduct your SASP, setting clear expectations of the raw data and files to be delivered upon completion of the project is critical during the scoping process (see Section 1.5). Addi- tionally, if you have any file format requirements or restrictions, be sure to communicate them to your project team up front, as the use of less efficient software or file formats may affect the project time line or budget. Whether you intend to conduct robust interim performance updates between SASPs or you simply want some of the graphics to include in an interagency presentation, if you do not have the files you need in a format you can use, you will be limited in what you can accomplish. Having the ability to access native files becomes particularly important if you intend to conduct continuous planning efforts in the future (see Section 3.3), because you will want to be able to access and edit your system database and associated chapters or documents in order to produce those updates. 2.11.7 Closing Considerations Section 2.11 discusses the different types of deliverables that can result from a SASP project. At a minimum, you must prepare the technical report, but it is your preference as to whether or not you include supplemental deliverables such as brochures, executive summaries, presenta- tions, and web-based tools. Your audience and your budget will be the driving factors in these decisions. One final consideration as you determine what deliverables will best serve your needs is the expense associated with the physical production of deliverables and the acquisition of any software or program access (e.g., GIS applications).