Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports (2019)

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.

86 The following case studies illustrate how GIS can effectively be used to support airport com- patible land use planning. The research team reviewed dozens of studies and settled on five pri- mary case studies to present. These case studies were intentionally chosen to reflect numerous perspectives of geographic and stakeholder diversity. They include airport highlights, land use challenges faced by the organization, planning goals and objectives, and stakeholders directly or indirectly involved or who achieved the airport’s land use objectives. These case studies show airports and airport planning organizations are highly aware of the challenges with land use compatibility and are actively seeking ways to leverage GIS technologies to better collaborate with municipalities and stakeholders in the locales served by each airport or governing body. The studies focus on the potential for GIS solutions with respect to improved land use planning, and examined functional and technical requirements, as well as data, for these findings. Finally, case studies describe successes achieved and challenges faced so readers can determine if these approaches are beneficial to planning for land use compatibility near airports. South Carolina Aeronautics Commission This case study reflects the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission’s (SCAC’s) approach to implementing technologies to better collaborate with local communities. For this guidebook, SCAC’s challenges are presented, and the results of a focus group of participants in some of SCAC’s efforts follow the case study. While airport owners themselves clearly have a direct interest in maintaining and fostering compatible land uses around their airports, other aviation organizations and stakeholders have important roles in managing these issues around one or more airports. State aviation organizations are primary stakeholders, particularly through implementation of state laws and policies, in overseeing compatible land use. SCAC experiences numerous chal- lenges related to land use compatibility. Land Use Challenges In South Carolina, economic growth over the past few decades accelerated encroachment toward the state’s airports, particularly in expanding metropolitan and coastal areas. The before and after aerial photos of Mount Pleasant Regional Airport (see Figure 22) near Charleston and Hilton Head Island Airport (see Figure 23) show this issue. By the mid-2000s, it was clear that more effective policies and tools were needed at the state level as incompatible land uses were become a system-wide threat to public investment in the state’s airports. A P P E N D I X C Case Studies

Case Studies 87 Efforts at updating Title 55, the agency’s enabling state law, had begun around this time. This was the first step in tackling incompatible land uses. With its origins dating back several decades, there were many outdated and inapplicable clauses in Title 55, along with inadequate provisions for current needs. New provisions for airspace hazard mitigation, compatible land use, and enhanced oversight power by SCAC were major goals for updating the law. Planning Goals and Objectives In 2011, SCAC applied for an FAA grant independent of Title 55 update efforts, in order to apply specific technical criteria for airport compatible land use in support of local tools such as Figure 23. Land use compatibility challenge: encroachment. Figure 22. Land use compatibility challenge: encroachment.

88 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports approach clearing projects, avigation easements, property acquisition planning, wildlife man- agement, and local zoning ordinances. SCAC successfully applied for and received an FAA AIP state system planning grant to establish land use standards, evaluate individual airports’ land use gaps, and provide a short report for each one. This project was launched to foster compatible land use and to hedge against inadequate Title 55 revisions. With regards to Title 55, SCAC staff and its attorney began by revising and marking up the legislation based on current aviation system priorities, including land use. The initial draft pro- posed a requirement that local cities and counties enact airport land use zoning ordinances. As this draft was circulating through stakeholder groups, there was resistance from the South Carolina Association of Counties, the Municipal Association of South Carolina, and certain state legislators that this proposed requirement would negatively impact local home rule and property rights. SCAC therefore discussed alternative options and revised the draft to only require that local governments, particularly planning and building permit departments, notify the SCAC of certain land use changes in SCAC-specified land use and safety zones, for a 30-day comment period before issuing a permit or rezoning. These revised requirements satisfied most of these stakeholders, and the revised law was then passed. As the new notification requirements placed a policy and regulatory mandate on the SCAC, it then took the lead in developing an interim policy for notification and review using several steps and approaches. The first was an intense review of existing FAA guidance and regulations regarding land use and noise, and other guidance such as ACRP. A few alternative land use and safety zone configurations were developed and evaluated inter- nally with SCAC management, and a working concept template was selected. Draft notification thresholds, compatibility evaluation criteria, and flowchart for local government coordination were also developed as part of this draft interim policy. Stakeholders Since the draft policy would need cooperation and compliance from local planners, SCAC reached out and invited planners from counties and cities around the state. A Title 55 land use policy workshop was held to discuss working criteria and gather their feedback. Both existing relationships through the aviation community and the South Carolina chapter of the APA were utilized. In the aftermath of the workshop, adjustments were made to the draft policy that would allow SCAC the ability to evaluate a building application in an airport zone within 7 to 14 days. As the draft policy was finalized with the local planners, it was presented to our agency’s commission who praised the effort to establish a workable land use review procedure. Work then focused on developing a web-based tool to support this procedure. GIS Solution Since the draft notification policy has been established, SCAC secured another FAA AIP grant to hire a consultant for development of the envisioned web-based application. Developing and maintaining trust and relationships with various stakeholders was the key to fruitful collabora- tion and understanding. The next phase was to solicit for a consultant to develop the web-based tool. SCAC took the lead in establishing scope criteria for the RFQ and assembled a selection committee that included outside expertise in software development for airport planning. The entire procurement process, including grant award, advertisement, consultant selection, negotiations, and contract execution, took approximately 5 months.

Case Studies 89 Development of the web-based application for the Title 55 land use review provision took approximately 18 months, beginning with Phase 1 to explore and document software require- ments in a manner consistent with scope, budget, and needs. Phase 2 involved actual develop- ment of the software program, where deployment is based on the existing SCAC’s GIS server platform. Specific challenges include managing the numerous moving parts of the Title 55 review process from an IT and logic perspective and creating a user-friendly web portal for a broad base of users, from the general public to local planning officials. Functional Requirements Initial workshops were held between SCAC staff and the consultant team to clarify goals and objectives and distill them into functional requirements for application development (Table 17). Discussion began with the high-level requirements laid out in the revised Title 55 law, and expanded to other, more detailed aspects of a desired web-based GIS solution. A small group of local planners were also brought in to share and re-iterate their perspectives and posi- tions similar to the initial local planner meeting held by SCAC before the consultant team was selected. Functional requirements were categorized as: • General (overall for the site and applications) • Trial area (public-facing website for general inquiries on compatibility) • Local planners (specifically for local government officials to formally notify SCAC of pro- posed land use changes) • SCAC (specifically for SCAC staff to review and process formal local land use evaluation submittals) Data Types: The main types of data developed for this solution were the land use notification and evaluations zones, plus three-dimensional airspace surfaces for existing and future condi- tions. This was coordinated with SCAC staff providing a comprehensive matrix of instrument procedure and design aircraft operational criteria for each runway end in the state and the con- sultant team generating the GIS data for each airport. Functional Requirements Prioritization Part 77 and Threshold Sighting Surfaces for all airports, for existing and future runway configurations and instrument procedure criteria in vector GIS format. Required Part 77 and Threshold Sighting Surfaces for all airports, for existing and future runway configurations and instrument procedure criteria in raster/DEM format. Optional Title 55-related “on-the-ground” Land Use Notification and Evaluation Zones, for all publicly owned airports, for both existing and future runway configurations and instrument procedure criteria. Required Ability to submit a case to SCAC and step planner through submittal of required information. Required Automated land use evaluation based on planner input for the “extreme” cases of unconditionally compatible and definitely incompatible. Required Automated land use evaluation based on planner input for the “extreme” cases of unconditionally compatible and definitely incompatible. Required Ability to attach documents. Required Ability to send email to SCAC staff. Required Ability to view cases submitted by planner’s organization. Optional Table 17. SCAC CLUE tool: functional requirements.

90 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports Additionally, a statewide DEM was developed from public sources for airspace obstruction evaluations to be performed, especially when the ground elevation was not known or submitted in the web application. Due to the varying levels of accuracy of DEMs available by county, the application varied the buffer applied to prospective structure heights based on the underlying accuracy (e.g., 3-foot or 10-foot) of the county-based DEM. Technical Requirements: SCAC was an early adopter of GIS technology, starting in the 1990s, largely in partnership with the University of South Carolina’s contractual services. Through the years, SCAC had developed its GIS platform, utilizing state government-owned and -operated cloud services, particularly its GIS and web services. The consultant team leveraged these resources and built the application to use these existing resources. The team used a com- bination of COTS technologies and services, and custom development, to build the applica- tion. This included a COTS database server to store and manage land use evaluation cases and attached documentation, COTS and custom APIs, COTS on-line base maps, and custom server- side workflows. Results: The GIS web-based tool enables a land owner or proponent the ability to determine if the proposed development of concept will impact the surrounding airport airspace or the land use zones before investing in the idea of development. The tool also enables the developer to determine what the impacts are in the initial planning process and what variances may be eligible or possibly granted. This is a useful tool to understand the imaginary surfaces sur- rounding an airport and the “gray areas” of land use around an airport. The public-facing version of the tool is found at http://www.scaeronautics.com/CLUE/ TrialArea. (Last accessed August 31, 2018.) Figures 24–27 are screen shot examples of the compatible land use evaluation tool. Related to these land use efforts, presentations were made at the annual state aviation confer- ence in front of the entire delegation, and at a break-out session of the state American Planning Association’s (APA) annual conference. This strategic land use policy effort has resulted in valuable benefits for the SCAC and the state’s aviation community: • Considerable trust and understanding on the part of local planners has been established, and a few of them have become champions of airport-compatible land use management. • Local planners began submitting permit applications via email, before the GIS tool was deployed, for our review and comment, therefore proactively protecting local airports and people near them. Some secondary benefits from the land use program efforts: • Development of a mobile safety inspection application that includes faster evaluation and reporting of approach obstructions, and a GIS data-based method of recording inspection items such as pavement and lighting conditions. This will enable more efficient and histori- cally based oversight of airport facilities and approach conditions from a 5010 master record perspective. • Development of an in-house tool to view OE/AAA cases statewide, based on the notification criteria established for the Title 55 land use review process. SCAC developed the tool to also send periodic emails to key staff as an “early warning system” of OE/AAA cases for further evaluation if need be. As a non-block-grant state and without access to the FAA’s own internal OE/AAA portal, this has been effective in assisting staff and managing the coordination of 7460 cases.

Case Studies 91 • Lessons learned from land use standards establishment and the Title 55 land use review pro- cedure have been incorporated into new state aviation grant assurances that include more effective land use compatibility provisions (e.g., clarification of Part 77 vs. threshold siting surface, zoning ordinance minimum standards to include items such as RPZs, etc.) Other tangible results included: • GIS data for airspace and land use zones created by a subconsultant for the web-based tool project were used to efficiently create template maps of airspace and land use zones, for both existing and future conditions, for every publicly owned airport in the state. Should an airport Figure 24. SCAC CLUE tool: screen capture. Figure 25. SCAC CLUE tool: screen capture.

92 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports sponsor ask for a sample or template map for a new airport zoning ordinance, they are already stored on our server, and can be mass-updated “on the fly” as the underlying GIS data is updated with new airspace and land use zones in the future. • SCAC staff is significantly more technically adept at managing airspace issues in terms of different criteria like Part 77, TERPS, Airport Design, etc. This assists in clearing projects, procedure development, master planning, etc. Figure 27. SCAC CLUE tool: screen capture. Figure 26. SCAC CLUE tool: screen capture.

Case Studies 93 SCAC CLUE Tool Focus Group Summary Our project team interviewed the SCAC because the agency implemented a GIS solution for airport land use compatibility planning called the compatible land use evaluation (CLUE) Tool. Specifically, the CLUE Tool facilitates a land use change notification procedure outlined in Section 55-13-5 of Title 55 in the South Carolina Code of Laws, enacted in 2012 (Figure 28). The team augmented the SCAC interviews with a user survey7 and on-site focus group that included several users of the CLUE Tool. We asked a series of questions to help us find data and functionality users benefitted from the most and the least. We also compared the relative advantage of each set of data and GIS function. Regulatory Background As certain airports around the state had experienced encroachment due to growth and devel- opment, particularly in growing metropolitan and coastal areas, the state adopted a unique land use notification and comment procedure in Section 55-13-5 of the state’s Code of Laws. This was intended to supplement the existing laws that permitted local jurisdictions to enact local height, hazard, and compatible land use zoning ordinances round their respective airports and enhance state oversight of airport land use concerns. The language from that section is as follows, with emphasis added for relevant language used to develop the CLUE Tool’s functional requirements. Figure 28. SCAC CLUE tool: screen capture.

94 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports Title 55 - Aeronautics CHAPTER 13 Protection of Airports and Airport Property SECTION 55-13-5. Public use airport maps; review of plans for development. The division shall create a map of each public use airport in the State showing airport property, runways, taxiways, runway approach and departure zones, airport safety zones and airport land use zones which are extended zones from each runway in which land use considerations should be made to prevent incompatible uses with aircraft and airport operations. These maps should be updated as needed, but at least every five years. The division shall provide a copy of these maps to the county council, city council, the respective planning agencies, and airport commission, and the agencies responsible for the granting of plat subdivision approval and building permits having jurisdiction over the airport, or having jurisdiction in the vicinity of the airport under aircraft flight profiles arriving and departing the airport. Each governmental body or agency receiving these maps shall ensure notice of any planned development, plat approval, or building permit issued in an airport safety zone or airport land use zone be provided to the division for review. In the event that an activity is enjoined or a condition is abated by the division contrary to a local governmental body’s decision, the governmental body proposing the land use decision shall have the right to seek cost recovery from the party responsible for creating the condition or the enjoinment or abatement of the activity. Neither the division or a local government shall be required to post a bond or other financial security as a condition to enjoining or abatement of a condition surrounding a public use airport. Land use decisions by county and municipal governments and local agencies shall take into account the presence of airport land use zones and airport safety zones and consult with the division, when possible, prior to making land use decisions within airport land use zones and airport safety zones. If the division provides comments, within thirty days, the governmental body must respond substantively in writing to each comment, separately stated before the issuance of the permit or approval. If the division believes the proposed project may have a substantial impact on aviation safety, create an imminent or foreseeable hazard to aviation safety, or result in a nuisance or an incompatible land use, the division may seek relief, including enjoining the activity or abatement of the condition giving rise to the division’s comments. Land use decisions by county and municipal governments and local agencies shall take into account the presence of airport land use zones. Land use decisions in airport land use zones should avoid and minimize the impact to interruption of aircraft operations, aviation safety, including approach, landing, takeoff, and departure criteria established by the Federal Aviation Administration or nationally recognized industry standards. HISTORY: 2012 Act No. 270, Section 6, eff June 18, 2012.

Case Studies 95 CLUE Tool Functional Summary The CLUE Tool was developed to support the implementation of the Title 55 update. Devel- opment of the tool began shortly after the law’s passage, beginning in late 2012, and was formally launched by mid-2014. The CLUE Tool contains the following major functions in three broad areas. • A “Trial Area” where any site visitor, such as an airport manager or developer may enter a pro- posed structure or site, and evaluate it for airspace surface penetrations to key criteria such as FAR Part 77 and FAA Airport Design standards, using GIS technology on the back end. Addi- tional land use compatibility factors, such as density and wildlife hazards, are processed using a series of questions about the proposal and evaluated against criteria for specific land use zones as established by SCAC. Users can generate a land use evaluation report and download KMZ (Google Earth) files of their structures and relevant airspace surfaces and land use zones. • A secured “Local Planning Official” portion, where the functionality of the Trial Area is extended into an official case submittal (by local planners) and review mechanism (by SCAC staff), where proposed structures or sites are submitted. This portion of the tool specifically addresses the workflow outlined in the Title 55 excerpt noted earlier. The airspace evalua- tion and questionnaire has some additional functionality not found in the Trial Area, but the major difference is that proposals are submitted and processed through a database and workflow, including opportunities for email communication and document sharing. • An SCAC administrative portion, where staff can both review and sort all cases submitted, and manage user logins for local planning officials. The case database is built on a third-party dashboard platform to enable easy sorting and filtering of cases. Additionally, email digests are sent on a periodic basis to remind SCAC staff to process submitted cases in a timely manner. Additional technical details of the CLUE Tool can be found in the Case Studies section of the report. User Survey Users of the SCAC CLUE Tool, primarily local planners who would log or have logged in to process cases, were provided an on-line questionnaire to gauge their experience and obtain feedback regarding tool function and data. The survey was sent to users in January 2018 before the on-site focus group meeting on January 29, 2018. User Survey Questions The questions were designed to determine the pure technical functions and data that were useful to local planners and the extent that the tool provides a collaborative platform for any land use-related matters, particularly with SCAC. Questions were categorized as follows: • Core CLUE Tool function – both Trial Area and Case Submittal area. • Additional CLUE Tool questions: data, help features, and challenges. • Final Questions: Collaboration and Conclusion. The actual list of questions is found at the end of this section. Numerous responses were received to this survey, including several focus group attendees. Survey Response Summary • Core CLUE Tool function: – Users typically used the airspace obstruction analysis portions of the tool for height evaluations. This may be because to get to the other land use factor evaluations, one

96 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports must enter a location and structure height to get to the questionnaire regarding density, wildlife hazards, etc. – Users were generally satisfied with the pure technical evaluation of the project. One noted that it saved 2–4 hours per project by “reducing the need for formal communication with federal, state, and local aeronautics professionals during the preliminary planning and review stages.” – Another noted that “it helps staff fairly quickly review a proposed development to see if further review is required.” The tool was also helpful in communicating with developers efficiently and effectively (i.e., “Why do I have to do this?”). • Additional CLUE Tool questions: – The overwhelming response in terms of what data or output users found helpful was the report generated by submitting a case. No respondent noted “downloadable” data such as KMZs of airspace surfaces or land use zones, nor did anyone note any other useful data that could be added to the tool. One noted that they were not sure what data is “out there,” which may indicate a lack of knowledge or awareness of airport matters from a GIS or data perspective by local planners. – Help documentation was noted as a positive feature, particularly for navigating airspace height limitations. It should be noted that height notification criteria were set by SCAC and are a simplified version of the Part 77 requirements, but the help functions also include a disclaimer that links to the FAA OE/AAA and FAR Part 77 law to emphasize the potential need to file a Form 7460. – In terms of challenges, users noted that some effort was needed to “translate” questionnaire language for developers, such as for wildlife attractants. Another noted that navigating to the exact location for a proposal was challenging, at least at first. • Final Questions: Collaboration and Conclusion. – The responses unanimously noted that the reporting output by the tool helps communica- tion with stakeholders, including SCAC, even if follow-on correspondence, phone calls, or meetings were needed. One did note that the process did appear to slow down processing of permits in the airport vicinity, and that the tool could be time-consuming. However, the consensus appears to be that the CLUE tool successfully facilitates collaboration with important community stakeholders such as developers, particularly in noting federal and state policies that impact compatible land use. Focus Group A focus group was conducted on January 29, 2018 with the SCAC’s state airport planner plus participants from four different jurisdictions: • A large county (about 200,000 in population) with a Part 139 general aviation airport (regional FAA ASSET category). The county has significant industrial development and the airport serves as a major gateway to corporate jets and similar traffic supporting the local economy. The county sits at the edge of one of the state’s largest metropolitan areas and is adjacent to the state’s largest county in population as well. However, the county has historically not had in-house expertise to effectively evaluate airport-compatible land use. The county has also updated its local airport zoning ordinance, with SCAC guidance at approximately the same time the CLUE Tool was developed. Two planners who process development permits attended. • A small-medium-sized county (about 40,000 in population) with a smaller community- oriented general aviation airport (local FAA ASSET category). The county sits on a major interstate and is on the outer edge of a metropolitan area and is also experiencing signifi- cant industrial development. The airport’s master plan shows a future runway extension to accommodate more corporate traffic. The county’s zoning administrator attended.

Case Studies 97 • An airport manager of a major reliever general aviation airport (regional FAA ASSET category). The manager has an engineering and public works background, but has worked with airports, including as a consultant, for many years. The manager does not process CLUE tool cases as he is not a local planner but has maintained an interest in ensuring compatible development occurs around the airport, which serves a significant volume of larger general aviation (GA) aircraft such as twin-engine turboprops and corporate jets. Local planning officials from an adjacent city where most development occurs were to attend but could not due to illness. • A county planner with a commercial (FAA small hub) airport in its jurisdiction, plus a very small community GA airport (Basic FAA ASSET category). The planner previously worked for a large local engineering firm and was well-versed in airport matters, including airspace evaluation. Focus Group Results Summary – SCAC Staff The first portion of the SCAC focus group was exclusively with SCAC staff, to gain their per- spective on CLUE tool usage and administration. Of particular note was that 19 official cases have been submitted to date, which is less than originally anticipated. Certain jurisdictions that SCAC has presented the tool to did not appear ready or enthusiastic to adopt and use, possibly due to the way the law is written, and/or a desire to maintain more local control of the permitting process. This does not necessarily mean that incompatible land uses were occurring, but it does point to the uneven user base of the tool. The SCAC state airport planner noted that more urbanized/populous counties were savvier in their usage, and potentially have a higher volume of land uses cases regardless, and that rural counties were more likely to have less tech-savvy staff and rely on emails and phone calls instead. Rural planners often wear other local government hats or have other roles and duties, which may limit their ability to focus on airport land use issues. Additionally, SCAC has also been working with local jurisdictions to update their local airport zoning ordinances, which is related but technically a separate policy and mechanism than the Title 55 update and the CLUE Tool itself. This has created challenges for SCAC’s limited staff and time in terms of sustained promotion and training for CLUE Tool usage by local planners. The entire issue of airport land use compatibility can be challenging for some local commu- nities that have competing economic interests, typically in faster-growing, developing areas in major metropolitan centers. A specific example where the CLUE tool was not able to prevent an incompatible use was near one of the busier commercial airports in the state where a structure was being built in the approach path without even an FAA Form 7460 filed (although one was filed for the construction crane), even though SCAC staff had formally held a meeting with local jurisdictions approximately 2 years earlier. An airport employee noticed the structure being built without any coordination with local municipal officials. The CLUE tool was not used at all by any local staff, pointing again to the challenges of clear buy-in and sustained usage of such a tool. To resolve this challenge, SCAC and other aviation community stakeholders (such as airlines) wrote letters and met with officials to stop or mitigate the construction. SCAC resorted to using other portions of Title 55 to legally curtail the incompatible activity, which could have significantly affected approach minimums at the airport. From a technical standpoint, SCAC has generally been satisfied with the tool’s performance. The state’s own cloud services have been reliable and a more cost-effective option compared to on-premises infrastructure or a private cloud service such as Microsoft Azure or Amazon Web Services. A recent upgrade of SCAC’s GIS software did create some disruption, but this was ultimately solved.

98 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports Improvements SCAC would like to see include better coordination with local governments’ own airport zoning ordinances, although due to the variegated nature of the various jurisdic- tions’ ordinances and their compatibility criteria, this may be a challenge. Linking ordinances to the CLUE Tool was discussed during the development and functional requirements gathering phase in 2013. In terms of SCAC staff administering the tool, updates to data, particularly changes to air- space and land use zones as airport’s configurations and instrument criteria change, have been conducted largely by the original CLUE Tool consultant, on an on-call basis. SCAC staff, with some in-house GIS experience, have attempted to update underlying tool data themselves, but are not always confident it is being done correctly. Focus Group Results Summary – Local Planner Users Results from the focus group meeting with local planners who use the CLUE tool were con- sistent with the survey responses. One attendee who also completed a survey noted that there was a learning curve in the beginning to understand the tool, particularly for finding the exact location of a proposal (SCAC staff did show the user where to more easily navigate to a specific lat-long or address location in the tool). However, the feedback was generally positive regard- ing the tool and the collaboration it fostered. It also appeared to open collaboration and con- versations with SCAC staff on broader land use matters not directly related to the CLUE Tool or Title 55, such as navigating local airport zoning ordinances whose criteria may be different than the CLUE Tool’s. One specific area where a challenge was noted, but not shown in the user surveys was discrep- ancies between the data and output in the CLUE Tool and a local government’s own data or zoning ordinance. Specifically, the county user with a commercial airport, and with their own GIS layer for Part 77 airspace, noted that the CLUE Tool indicated a proposal did not penetrate Part 77 surfaces, but that the county’s data and analysis showed that there was in fact a penetra- tion. After further conversations between the county and SCAC, it was determined that the SCAC data was less precise (airspace surfaces are in a raster format in order to easily calculate penetrations with an underlying DEM) compared to the county’s data (which had 3D polygon surfaces more precisely matching Part 77 surfaces found in a CAD-based ALP). The county plan- ner’s previous experience with airport design assisted in solving the issue. The consensus from this scenario was that the CLUE Tool was a good initial screening tool, but ultimately the local governments need to use their own tools and decision making authority to determine the compatibility of a particular proposal. Metropolitan Airports Commission The MAC has proactively utilized GIS technology to quantify noise impacts and coordinate with local communities to reduce negative externalities of airport operations. Since 1992, the MAC Noise Program Office has operated a comprehensive digital aircraft noise and flight track data collection and processing system. The MACNOMS provides tools to help MAC staff analyze noise impacts and flight tracking. Airport Highlights MAC operates one of the largest airport systems in the United States, including the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The MAC system comprises MSP, a com- mercial service airport, and six reliever airports designed to relieve traffic at MSP and provide

Case Studies 99 GA for corporations, recreational users and fixed-base operators. In 2016, MSP’s total opera- tions amounted to 412,898—the 14th busiest airport in the United States in 2018 (FAA, 2018). Land Use Challenges As a major commercial airport, MSP airport has relatively direct access to the two core urban centers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Indeed, MSP airport is approximately 6 to 7 miles from downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul. This close proximity has created a landscape of conflicting land uses around MSP airport. Situated along the Minnesota River to its Southeast, residential neighborhoods are in close proximity, or directly adjacent to MSP airport in two cardinal directions. Planning Goals and Objectives In 1992, MAC initiated a 14 CFR Part 150 Program at MSP, which included a noise mitiga- tion program for single-family and multi-family residences and schools, in addition to property acquisition and relocation. After the original Part 150 program was completed in 2006, noise mitigation had been provided to more than 7,800 single-family homes, 1,401 multi-family units, and 18 schools; 437 airport-area residential properties were acquired around MSP at a cost of approximately $385.6 million. The Part 150 program was also updated, resulting in a 2007 fore- casted noise contour, and expanded noise mitigation efforts beyond the federally recognized 65 DNL level. Through the Part 150 update, MAC detailed a specific mitigation package to be offered in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area, proposing central air-conditioning to single- family homes that did not have it, with a homeowner co-pay based on the degree of noise impact. This program became known as the Homeowner Reimbursement Program. In January 2013, MAC published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental Assessment / Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW), which reviewed the potential and cumulative environmental impacts of MSP terminal and landside developments needed through the year 2020. While airport improvements were not found to have significant envi- ronmental affects (forecasted noise contours around MSP are driven by natural traffic growth that is anticipated to occur with or without implementation of the 2020 Improvements), com- munity interest was raised regarding the future of noise mitigation at MSP (Figure 29). In response, MAC staff, in consultation with the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), began the process of developing a noise mitigation plan to be included in the EA/EAW. The resulting recommended noise mitigation program established that eligibility be based upon actual noise contours that the MAC would prepare for MSP on an annual basis. By March 1 of each year, the MAC is required to prepare actual noise contours reflecting the noise exposure from MSP aircraft operations that took place during the previous calendar year. MACNOMS utilizes a comprehensive and quantitative approach that provides the foundation for forecasted noise contours and subsequent noise mitigation. MACNOMS measures noise readings at 39 discrete locations, all aircraft operations by fleet mix/type, and model’s depar- ture and arrival flight tracks utilizing actual flight track data. Using GIS technology and spa- tial analysis, MACNOMS provides the necessary inputs into the FAA AEDT. This tool enables stakeholders to gain an accurate picture of the expanse of environmental impacts and how many residential units are affected by elevated noise impacts (Figure 30). Stakeholders For decades, MAC has engaged communities, airport operators, and the FAA to create cooperative solutions for environmental noise impacts. In 2002, the MSP NOC was established to bring industry and community representatives together to address aircraft noise issues

Figure 29. Geospatial-based noise contour map (MSP). Source: MSP 2016 Annual Noise Contour Report Figure 30. Analysis from geospatial-based data (AEDT, MSP).

Case Studies 101 associated with MSP. MACNOMS is used extensively by the NOC, providing the committee with detailed information about existing impacts and potential future environmental impacts to neighboring communities. Previous litigation between the City of Minneapolis, Eagan, MN and Richfield, MN, has resulted in more intensive and measured noise mitigation in affected communities and outlines a formal process for mitigating impacts and compensating property owners. GIS Solution Overview: GIS technology and geospatial analysis are central to MACNOMS operations and mission. In 1992, MAC installed a highly sophisticated and comprehensive Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring Systems (ANOMS). Using this system as a basis, MACNOMS has an integrated approach that fuses aircraft flight tracks, aircraft operator information, remote noise monitoring tower (RMT) noise measurements, geographic information, and information on other variables that influence aircraft operations (e.g., weather). The MACNOMS system is comprised of four primary components: data collection, data processing, data analysis and pub- lication, and community tools for accessing data. Functional Requirements: Each night, the MACNOMS dials in to each RMT automatically through a modem connection. Once a connection is established, various checks are performed to ensure the monitors are functioning adequately, and the data associated with the noise events are downloaded and imported into the MACNOMS. Information about the status of the RMTs is also downloaded and imported into the MACNOMS allowing MAC staff to perform daily checks to ensure the integrity of both the monitors and the noise data they collect. Data Types: RMT locations collect environmental sound continuously. Each RMT site con- sists of laboratory-quality noise monitoring equipment that includes a noise analyzer, a pre- amplifier and a measurement microphone. This equipment undergoes annual calibration and certification by an independent accredited laboratory. These RMTs sync noise decibel readings with Harris (formerly “Exelis”) NextGen flight track data to correlate noise events to actual flight tracks. The Harris NextGen Data are a multi-sensor based surveillance fused data feed available for the NAS. Flight tracks contain four-dimensional positional information of an aircraft (X/Y/Z geographical coordinates and a time value for where the aircraft point is along a flight track line). Harris enables these data sources to be correlated and merged into a geo-referenced map with specific flight information and noise levels gener- ated by respective flights. Ancillary data sources for basemaps, demographics, and reference data are derived from Minnesota Geospatial Information Office (MNGEO), U.S. Census, and MetroGIS Geospatial Commons data, respectively. Technical Requirements: Each RMT site consists of laboratory-quality noise monitoring equipment manufactured by Larson Davis Incorporated (LD). The main components making up each RMT consist of a Type I LD 831 noise analyzer, an LD 426A12 preamplifier, and an LD 2541 microphone. This equipment undergoes annual calibration and certification by an independent accredited laboratory. The NextGen data feed contains Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) data derived directly from the national ADS-B Network owned by Exelis, and U.S. government- sourced data including but not limited to: FAA en route and terminal secondary surveillance data, airport surface surveillance data from the FAA Airport Surface Detection Equipment Model X (ASDE-X), Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) from the FAA deployed WAM systems, and flight plan data from the FAA host system.

102 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports The MACNOMS system incorporates a wide variety of software technology and applications in the processing of the RMT and Harris Next Gen data. Internal and external data access is made possible through the use of open-source software. MACNOMS utilizes PostgreSQL as its core database; this together with PostGIS enables the customization of geographic objects and allows location queries to be run in reports. Software includes (Metropolitan Airports Commission, 2019): PostgreSQL; PostGIS; Docker; AWS SQS; AWS EC2; ESRI ArcGIS; AngularJS; and Python. Results: MACNOMS has a variety of tools to communicate GIS data, as well as manage a system for addressing noise complaints by the community. To display dynamic geographic loca- tions and flight details, MACNOMS has created a FlightTracker tool for public use (Figure 31). The FlightTracker tool allows users to investigate and research aircraft operations at all of the MAC-owned airports. Flight activity is displayed interactively, with 20 minutes of delay, within 40 nautical miles of MSP. In addition, the Interactive Reports tool displays detailed data about MAC airports’ opera- tions in a highly organized, visual format (Figure 32). Number of operations, runway use, fleet mix, sound monitoring, and complaint location can all be visualized and analyzed using Inter- active Reports, all during particular time periods chosen by the user. This information can be visualized in a geographic context as well. Utilizing basemap data from MNGEO and a Mapbox framework, users can symbolize a variety of phenomena in an interactive method. Kansas City International Airport Kansas City International Airport (KCI) is located in the northwest portion of Kansas City, Platte County, Missouri. The airport property contains approximately 10,649 acres, with regular boundaries to the north, east, and west set forth by major transportation corridors, while the Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission Figure 31. MACNOMS screen capture.

Case Studies 103 southern boundary is more irregular and defined by parks and privately owned land. The run- way configuration is two parallel north and south oriented runways (RW 01L/19R & 01R/19L) with one cross-wind runway (09/27) on the southern portion of the configuration. Develop- ment, both residential and commercial, has occurred in recent years to the south and east of the airport, while land to the north and west of the airport remains mainly undeveloped rural property. Land Use Challenges KCI, like other mid-sized airports, was built in a predominately rural area and it has not experienced encroachment of non-compatible land uses. Land use compatibility near the airport is a vital aspect when determining the sustainability of the airport and its relationship with the surrounding communities and jurisdictions. Historically, the property surrounding the airport was utilized for agricultural purposes with dispersed residential homes. Using GIS applications, essential land use controls were developed to restrict and/or limit incompatible development while promoting compatible development. GIS applications can be utilized to determine and classify parcels of land near airport property that would poten- tially be adversely impacted by airport operations in the form of potential noise impacts. Once identified, these areas would be classified under a range of land use management measures that would effectively limit the potential for increased population impacts due to noise from airport operations. Figure 32. MACNOMS screen captures—interactive geospatial-based reports.

104 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports Planning Goals and Objectives In 2009, the Kansas City Aviation Department and the City Planning and Development Department (CPD), in conjunction with multiple consulting and planning agencies, began the process of an Airport Master Plan update, a FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study and an Area Plan Study in a linear process. This is the first time an Airport Master Plan and Noise Compatibility study have been combined with a general land use plan of the surrounding envi- ronments (Kansas City Aviation Department and CPD 2009). However, when GIS applications are utilized, and data sources are merged, this data can be cross-utilized by each segment of the process, consequently increasing efficiency and cost to the customer and/or tax payers. One of the main goals of a noise compatibility study is to develop a well-defined list of land use recommendations and measures that ensure the sustainability of the airport and control the number of citizens adversely affected by higher levels of noise exposure. This goal was met through the development of land use recommendations and measures that were highly depen- dent on the GIS data developed by the municipalities surrounding the airport. GIS data utilized in the development of land use recommendations are: • Existing and planned infrastructural data; • Existing land ownership and property line data; • Existing land use data; • Existing and future zoning data; • Existing census data; • Existing and future flight path data; and • Noise exposure contours. Once data from multiple sources were merged using GIS applications, multiple analytical and computational tools were available to assist in determining multiple overlay zones. These overlay zones were included in the land use management plan for three municipalities (City of Kansas City, City of Platte City, and Unincorporated Platte County) as land use management measures (LUMM) as shown in Figure 33. The following is a summary of the overlay zones and the LUMM’s that were established using GIS tools and data (Kansas City Aviation Department and the CPD 2009; KCI Area Plan 2009) • Zone 1: Property falling within the area exposed to Maximum Noise Levels (Lmax) of 80 deci- bels or more projected for a Boeing 737-700 aircraft, but not within the bounds of any other zone. Limit development of residential uses to not more than three to five units per acre. • Zone 2: Property falling beyond the 60 DNL noise contour, but exposed to Maximum Noise Levels of 85 decibels or more as projected for a Boeing 737-700 aircraft. The 85-decibel threshold is representative of the level at which sleep is disturbed. Encourage build out of commercially or industrially zoned property and encourage new commercial or indus- trial development. Restrict residential development densities to not more than one unit in 40 acres. • Zone 3: Vacant, residentially or agriculturally zoned lands exposed to aircraft noise between 60 and 65 DNL. Commercial, industrial, and agricultural use should be encouraged. If spe- cific zoning or subdivision proposals are ever approved, any development with a density greater than those allowed in agricultural zoning should be required to provide 25 decibels of exterior to interior sound reduction to achieve an interior DNL of not greater than 45 decibels. • Zone 4: Vacant, residentially or agriculturally zoned lands exposed to aircraft noise greater than 65 DNL. Until acquired by the airport under recommended land use measures, develop- ment of any new incompatible use should be prohibited.

Case Studies 105 Figure 33. Geospatial jurisdiction lines—MCI. As previously mentioned, limiting the population adversely affected by noise exposure impacts was a main goal of the noise compatibility study. Through the utilization of GIS applications and tools, effective land use management zones were adopted. These new GIS layers were suc- cessfully incorporated into each municipality’s future planning and development strategies. Furthermore, through the use of GIS applications effective communication graphics could be generated to support outreach and education of stakeholders.

106 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports Stakeholders Due to the multi-jurisdictional location of the airport, Kansas City, Platte County, and Platte City collaborated to prepare GIS data utilized in the three-part study undertaken by the CPD and aviation department. Each municipality previously developed data included in the GIS frame- work for their respective jurisdictional area. This GIS framework is utilized to assist in a wide range of planning and community forums. The GIS framework also receives a direct benefit of the utilization of the GIS data for purposes of developing land use recommendations. At that time, the resulting GIS data was directly tied to the land use recommendations and incorporated into each municipality’s GIS framework, effectively increasing the richness of the overall framework employed during community planning efforts. Several property owners adjacent to the airport property were involved in this project due to the significant impact the study would have on the value of their property both in a negative and positive manner. Through the use of GIS applications and the previously mentioned GIS data, informative graphics were developed. These graphics help to convey the planning process and the land use recommendations to individuals who may or may not have a full grasp of the concepts and documentation that is available for public consumption. The municipalities involved also see a benefit from engaging an informed public with highly informative graphical information, which will assist in future community relations. GIS Solutions Overview: The core component in the analysis of land use compatibility near the airport was the use of geographic data from multiple data sources including the city of Kansas City, Platte County, and the airport itself. In order to determine the impact on incompatible parcels, noise contours were overlaid on base mapping and parcel data that contained existing and future land use and zoning. This same data was used in the development of land use recommendations in order to ensure the future compatibility of property surrounding the airport. Functional Requirements: ESRI desktop software was used to complete analysis of impacted areas and to count the population within those areas. It was also utilized in the consolidation and union of GIS data from three impacted jurisdictions. The analytic capabilities of this software allowed analysts and planners to compare parcels, existing land use, and population with the noise impact of aircraft overhead. Consolidated data from multiple jurisdictions helped these stakeholders collaborate to reach a mutual decision regarding restrictions that should be put into place. The ability to export GIS data and print informative maps ensured that all stakeholders were consistently informed. Stakeholder organizations that had GIS software could then use this data to help form zooming restrictions and evaluate new development proposals. Functions used to complete these tasks are: • Data transformations; • Data QA; • Data conversion CAD to Shapefiles; and • Graphic generations for documentation and public stakeholder meetings. Data types: Data from the City of Kansas City, Platte City, and Platte County were utilized in creating base mapping that would be used in the analysis of land use constraints and for future land use recommendations. Technical requirements: ESRI software was employed to complete much of the actual analysis and graphical output. However, the parent data especially from the airport data source was typically in the form of CAD drawing files which is common practice for engineering drawings.

Case Studies 107 Puget Sound Regional Council Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is a MPO that provides regional transportation plan- ning, growth management, and economic development support to counties, municipalities, ports, tribes, and transit agencies in the central Puget Sound area. The organization works closely with state government, and, in the case of ANM Regional Office (RO) and Seattle Airports Dis- trict Office (ADO). The PSRC supports land use compatibility planning, zoning overlays, and other activities relevant to airports in the region. In 2012, the FAA Seattle ADO provided PSRC with a grant to complete a study to help GA airports realize the benefits of NextGen. These airports did not have the same resources to help them prepare for NextGen as did the larger airports in the region. This study helps them under- stand and prepare for the implementation of PBN procedures that will ultimately improve air service and broaden the mix of aircraft based at their field, while at the same time blending into surrounding airspace that is heavily influenced by large airports and military operations. This case study focuses on the geospatial development and implementation in two PSRC reliever air- ports: Boeing Field / King County International Airport (BFI) and Snohomish County Airport / Paine Field (PAE). Airport Highlights BFI is a non-hub, primary airport with one 3,710-foot runway and approximately 400 based aircraft. What makes BFI unique, however, is significant testing of Boeing commercial and military aircraft, comingled airspace with Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), and significant cargo operations conducted by United Parcel Service and DHL. Increased produc- tion of Boeing 737 and military tanker aircraft are prompting the development of new hangar facilities at the airport and will accommodate planned increases in aircraft testing operations. PAE is a reliever airport with 9,010- and 3,004-foot parallel runways. As with BFI, however, the airport faces unique challenges due to the presence of Boeing. PAE is adjacent to Boeing’s Everett factory where 747, 767, 777, and 787 aircraft are assembled. To support this operation, PAE provides air service for receiving parts including the fuselage section of the 787, delivering new aircraft, and receiving aircraft due for heavy maintenance. PAE is also host to two flight museums that actively operate vintage aircraft. These unique operations, along with an active fleet of approximately 560 based GA aircraft, place unique challenges on the airport and the surrounding communities, which NextGen may help alleviate. Land Use Challenges The Seattle metropolitan region presents particularly difficult challenges in planning for com- patible land uses and mitigating impacts on aircraft operations and safety. The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) set the framework for future coordinated and planned growth to address quality of life, environmental protection and economic growth across the state of Washington. In 1996, an amendment to the GMA (Senate Bill 6422) considered the social and economic benefits of aviation and required all local and county governments to mitigate and dis- courage incompatible land uses near airports. However, while amended to consider the impacts of development around public use airports, the GMA also requires local jurisdictions to establish urban growth boundaries that restrict the land development outside those boundaries, con- centrating development into urbanized areas (Figure 34). Commonly, this new development approaches the vicinity of public use airports. Land use regulations like GMA significantly shape communities across the Puget Sound region. Encouraging the location of new population and development in established urban areas brings

108 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports a variety of benefits; however, this promotes construction of denser, multi-story developments that could potentially encroach the established airspace of the PSRC area’s multiple airports. Increasing population and building density in the PSRC region has a direct impact on flight paths and the long-term viability of an airport. Numerous taller buildings are either under con- struction or in the permitting phase within the Seattle urban core, proximate to BFI airport. New building construction, particularly in this area, creates more obstacles, and increases the complex coordination of flight paths and airspace availability between the metropolitan region’s many airports and military installations. Figure 35 is a 3D rendering visualizing the conceptual spatial allocation of buildings and their total elevations (e.g., potential obstructions). Aircraft noise emanating beyond airport property is another land use issue that affects the future development and potential expansion of PSRC area airports. The Seattle metro area has a high population density vis-à-vis many other urbanized areas in the United States. An increase in residents and residential construction in the Seattle metro area will continue to impact both airports and their ability to expand operations. In fact, residential development is even a future concern for PAE airfield. Everett, Washington was one of the fastest growing cities in Washington state since 2015. With fixed urban growth boundaries, incompatible land use around PAE and BFI will continue to be a challenge for future airport growth. Planning Goals and Objectives Multiple factors affect the flight paths and available airspace of BFI and PAE, in addition to other aviation facilities in the PSRC region. Proximity of multiple airports, high activity in these Figure 34. Geospatial-based visualization of urban growth boundaries—PAE, BFI.

Case Studies 109 airports, inclement weather, and obstacles in the built and natural environments all contrib- ute to limitations in airspace. The geographic location of BFI relative to Sea-Tac and Renton Municipal Airport (RNT) creates a notable challenge. In fact, these three airports (which receive the most air travel operations of all PSRC airports) are all located with five nautical miles of each other (SEA-TAC, BFI, RNT). The Cascades present another geographical limitation. Per PSRC’s NextGen Optimization Study, a number of specific airspace issues have been identified: • Conflicts between BFI landings and Sea-Tac landings in south flow • Conflicts between BFI south flow departures turning south into SEA-TAC airspace • Conflicts between BFI and RNT simultaneous departures in south flow • Conflicts between BFI landings in north flow and SEA-TAC north flow departures in inclement weather • Close proximity of SEA-TAC landings to the south with simultaneous PAE landings to the north • Shared use of Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) for SEA-TAC, KBFI, KRNT, and KPAE airports Conflicting airspace of multiple proximate airports presents a significant challenge for BFI and PAE as total air operations increase. Airspace deconfliction is a primary goal of NextGen initiatives8 into the future (Figure 36). One focus has been to examine the departure scenarios between Sea-Tac, BFI and RNT along with PAE. For instance, when Puget Sound airspace is operating in north flow and there are also inclement weather operations from Sea-Tac and BFI must be separated by ATC, reducing operations and causing delays. In order for an aircraft to land at BFI, ATC must hold operations at Sea-Tac. These airports are currently de-conflicted using radar vectors. This causes dependent opera- tion between the three airports and potentially inefficient procedures/routes to be flown by departing aircraft from GA airports. Aircraft departing BFI and RNT must be released separately because of the existing configuration and air traffic rules, one being dependent on the other and safely integrated with activity at Sea-Tac. This causes aircraft to be delayed at the GA airports on a regular basis. Structure Elevation Above Sea Level (feet) BFI Airport 30 100 200 500 Figure 35. Geospatial-based visualization—elevation structures, BFI.

110 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports NextGen processes and technology could be implemented to de-conflict BFI and Sea-Tac, allowing for independent operations. With NextGen’s procedural separation, the area of required separation of aircraft would be less than with conventional procedures. A potential NextGen procedure would instruct an aircraft to fly to a geographic point, thereafter allowing for pilots to cancel instrument approach and land at BFI using visual conditions (provided that the airfield is visible). Before NextGen’s navigation/guidance procedures are potentially implemented, obstacle analysis needs to be completed. Obstacle identification surfaces are a fundamental component of new instrument procedures with lower minima. Lower minima will expand airport operation during periods of inclement weather and improve airport operational utility. Obstacle identification surfaces include: • 20:1 threshold siting surface • 30:1 glide path qualification surface • 40:1 departure surface • 34:1 FAR Part 77 approach surface • 62.5:1 One Engine Inoperative (OEI) surface While the FAA maintains airspace obstacle data and a visual approach surface analysis tool, it is recommended that airport sponsors considering a feasibility study for any type of instrument approach first complete an airport airspace assessment per the requirements of AC 150/5300-18B. Runway threshold siting surface (TSS) evaluations are used to determine when an obstacle pen- etrates potential airspace and becomes an obstruction. This analysis provides a preliminary investigation on whether the airspace near an airport would support a VG approach procedure. Figure 36. PSCR NextGen Optimization Report: Study Area Airspace.

Case Studies 111 BFI Although the airport enjoys several RNAV, STAR, and traditional ILS procedures, it has yet to fully benefit from NextGen PBN. There is one required navigation performance (RNP) approach, but it requires authorization from the control tower, which is seldom provided due to operational restrictions. The limited use of this approach is also apparent in FAA procedure use statistics. As a part of the airport’s current master plan update, the FAA RO has encouraged the airport to include the development of an electronic ALP (eALP). This data will be submitted to the FAA via the FAA’s Airports GIS, which is considered an enabler of NextGen because it provides safety-critical mapping data used in new procedure development. This data will also help support the airport’s planning, design, and operational needs. PAE One example of how NextGen may alleviate the unique challenges PAE faces can be seen with Atlas Air, which operates the Boeing Dreamlifter to import 787 fuselage sections for assembly at Boeing’s adjacent factory. Due to flight and supply chain logistics, the aircraft often arrive in the middle of the night. They are also heavily loaded and fly slow, low, and dirty (i.e., flaps and gear extended) over surrounding communities including Everett and Mukiteo, which have grown over the years to encroach upon the airport. The result of these and other operations has been an average of 3–4 noise complaints a day. To reduce the noise impact of the Dreamlifter, Atlas Air approached the airport to propose new PBN procedures, one from each of the four cardinal directions. Together, the airport and Atlas became proponents for the new procedures and approached the FAA. The PBN Imple- mentation Process outlined in FAA Order JO 7100.41 was followed and a Core Working Group was established, which included FAA representatives, as well as Atlas Air, airport, and Boeing representatives. Meetings have been held every couple of months and have proceeded well. Recently, the process passed the Baseline Analysis Review (BAR) stage. The airport hopes that the procedures will significantly alleviate the noise impact of the Dreamlifter. Stakeholders BFI understands how important stakeholder engagement can be when pursuing new proce- dures. The airport has found that engagement has been particularly successful with the FAA and with regional agencies, namely the PSRC. New staff at the FAA RO and ADO, including a former peer from a nearby airport, have fostered two-way dialogue with the region’s airports. Other stakeholders, including tenants, may join these meetings on an as needed basis. The airport also conducts quarterly meetings with large commercial and GA tenants. Collectively, these meetings have been very helpful in keeping all parties informed and discussing the best path forward for all parties involved. In addition to meeting materials, the airport has found press releases, technical reports, website content, and frequently asked questions to be successful tools for stakeholder engagement. While the airport has enjoyed an on-staff community outreach specialist, airport marketing and business development needs are increasingly becoming a priority. Its surrounding com- munities are very proactive, however, and the airport makes a point of keeping them informed with timely information about aircraft run-ups, airshows, and new aircraft test programs that may have an impact on residents. Because of the significant presence and impact of their aircraft testing operations, the airport has required Boeing to have a communication plan. Stakeholder engagement guidance and tools provided by PSRC and others may help the airport keep up with its responsibility.

112 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports PAE takes several other measures in addressing community concerns about noise around the airport. They conduct public noise meetings, regularly present at community council meetings that are attended by 40–50 community representatives on average, and occasionally meet with the mayors of adjacent municipalities. The airport also operates three noise monitors and has developed noise-abatement procedures that it proactively reminds pilots to follow. GIS Solution Overview: Large airports such as Sea-Tac have a multitude of GIS resources to help plan for expanded airport operations and mitigate land use planning challenges. The FAA’s Northwest Mountain Division has begun cooperating with PSRC to provide assistance to smaller GA air- ports in the region. BFI and PAE could both greatly benefit from expanded GIS capabilities, specifically NextGen’s Performance Based-Navigation initiative. NextGen optimization and corresponding GIS analysis provide a bevy of assistance and solu- tions for BFI and PAE. Before NextGen’s navigation/instrument procedures are implemented, obstacle analysis needs to be completed. Obstacle identification surfaces are a fundamental com- ponent of new instrument procedures with lower minima. Lower minima will expand airport operation during periods of inclement weather and improve airport operational utility. Obstacle identification surfaces include: • 20:1 TSS • 30:1 glide path qualification surface • 40:1 departure surface • 34:1 FAR Part 77 approach surface • 62.5:1 OEI surface While the FAA maintains airspace obstacle data and a visual approach surface analysis tool, it is recommended that airport sponsors considering a feasibility study for any type of instru- ment approach first complete airspace analysis per the requirements of AC 150/5300-18B. Run- way TSS evaluations are used to determine when an obstacle penetrates potential airspace and becomes an obstruction. This analysis provides a preliminary investigation on whether the airspace near an airport would support a VG approach procedure. Further, a second phase of GIS analysis assistance to BFI and PAE is incorporating a z-axis to visualize airspace and obstructions in 3D. Enabling GA airports to get expanded airspace data and information is a key component of NextGen. Airports would receive obstruction and land use data, enabling them to build this information into their master plans. Functional Requirements: There is a discrepancy between the quality of data between GA air- ports like BFI and PAE compared with Sea-Tac. Data does not always adhere to AGIS standards; thus, an error factor is needed when using data from these sources. There is an effort statewide to expand and improve AGIS data attributes in GA airports. Data Types: Aircraft operations in each PSRC airport were measured using the FAA Air Traffic Activity system, in addition to estimates from the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast. To evaluate current flight tracks and operations, historic radar data was collected from the FAA’s Sector Design and Analysis Tool (SDAT). SDAT data from each airport was processed to present depar- tures and arrivals under north flow and south flow conditions. Further, Height Above Touch- down (HAT) was used to evaluate the accessibility of the airport in poor weather conditions as well as different flow conditions.

Case Studies 113 Technical Requirements: ESRI software was used to geolocate airspace boundaries and flight paths. This data was integrated as multiple layers into a web-based application by BridgeNet International (Volans). Volans is an application designed to evaluate and display flight opera- tions in 3D, environmental and acoustic impacts from new performance-based procedures as well as new runways and airfield configurations. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) was established by a contract between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, in 1968. In 2018, DFW had 664,000 operations, making it the fourth busiest airport in the world (DFW Airport). In 1992, the airport gained authority to build two new runways and redesign its airspace, including expanding the number of departure headings available to ATC. One runway was constructed and the airspace redesign was imple- mented; however, the planned expansion in the number of headings was not implemented. DFW is the largest airport in the United States by geographic area, encompassing 26.9 square miles. Since opening in 1974, DFW has made a massive economic impact in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan economy, contributing $37 billion to the north Texas economy annually. In addition, DFW’s seven runways serve 165 gates and enable the transport of 910,500 tons of cargo (DFW 2008). Implementation of the expanded DPs was not technically feasible for FAA until FAA’s NextGen program. Area Navigation (RNAV) technologies used in PBN procedures have provided FAA the means to enable multiple departure headings within the existing airspace structure. FAA and DFW have collaborated to utilize geospatial data and technology in the development of RNAV flight tracks. This foundational analysis created a reasonable, quantitative rationale as stake- holders were engaged to consider expanded departure headings. Land Use Challenges DFW benefits from a significant amount of land owned by the airport (over 17,000 acres). Use of surrounding land also has been planned with airport compatibility in mind. This fore- sight was partially enabled in 1971 when the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) developed NEMs of then-forecast 1985 operations. NCTCOG provided the noise contour map and a model land use ordinance to surrounding cities to aid in compatible land zoning around DFW. Many surrounding jurisdictions subsequently enacted ordinances to control land development within these areas. The noise contours and contours from the 1985 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) were incorporated into land use planning for surrounding cities. With the advance of quieter jets, these conservative policy contours con- tinue to serve the airport and surrounding communities well, giving stable elements of city master plans and zoning ordinances. In the late 1980s, DFW foresaw the need for two additional north/south runways and the need to expand the number of departures from a single departure heading to multiple, divergent headings to increase departure throughput and accommodate growing capacity needs while maintaining safe separation. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared under the NEPA. The EIS evaluated the environmental effects of constructing and operating two addi- tional runways as well as the necessary redesign of the Metroplex airspace, which included these divergent fanned departure headings. Concern about noise from operation of the new run- ways was the dominant issue during the EIS development, leading to lawsuits that went to the Supreme Court. FAA approved the FEIS in 1992, enabling DFW to construct two new runways

114 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports and redesign airspace to expand the number of departure headings available to ATC. One run- way was constructed, and the airspace redesign was implemented; however, the planned expan- sion in the number of headings was not implemented and the second runway on the west side of the airport was not constructed. A later NEPA study in 1998 included additional approved departure headings. During the intervening years, the need for the expansion of optional head- ings had become more significant to alleviate departure throughput issues attributed to growth in air traffic and the conversion of turboprops to regional jets. (During this time, turboprops shifted from 30% of DFW’s fleet to < 5%.) Planning Goals and Objectives Implementation of the expanded DPs was technically feasible for FAA, but challenging under conventional Standard Instrument Departures (SIDS) and governing rules. FAA’s NextGen pro- gram, including area navigation (RNAV) technologies used in PBN procedures, made the process of adding additional headings more efficient and manageable by ATC. Thus, NextGen procedures provided FAA the means to enable multiple departure headings within the existing airspace structure. A considerable number of airlines equipped their aircraft to take advantage of the new performance-based capabilities. Local FAA Air Traffic Management (ATM) designed RNAV procedures to provide two RNAV courses from each departure runway, explored lessons learned at other airports, and worked with multiple stakeholders during development and testing from the start. FAA and DFW staff worked collaboratively in the development of RNAV flight tracks (see Figure 37). FAA ATM and DFW worked together to develop a noise study of the proposed RNAV DPs; the study indicated that no significant impact would occur with RNAV and overall noise would be reduced. An independent environmental review of the implementation of these RNAV procedures was not required; nevertheless, DFW and FAA ATC concurred that it was important to engage local communities on the proposed change in advance. ATC agreed and participated in a public outreach campaign that the airport initiated. Figure 37. Geospatial-based visualization: RNAV flight tracks at DFW.

Case Studies 115 Stakeholders The DFW Noise Office initiated a public outreach campaign to inform the surrounding municipalities of the upcoming implementation of RNAV procedures well in advance of imple- mentation. The airport allowed each city to determine the audience for the joint airport/FAA presentations, which varied from small meetings with city leaders and elected officials to brief- ings before local city councils. FAA representatives attended the meeting and provided a pre- sentation on air traffic issues that prompted the need to change flight paths—essentially to add another lane for traffic, like a busy road might be expanded with additional lanes. DFW Noise Staff spoke to the community about the anticipated environmental effects of the change. To complement this general information, the airport also developed a grid point analysis showing noise impacts at DNLs of 60 and 65 decibels (dB). Slide presentations were used to convey this information. The presentations were adapted to the specifics of each community and in most cases one meeting per community was sufficient. The airlines, being important benefi- ciaries, were also active stakeholders in the development of the new procedures. To engage them, FAA conducted meetings that involved airline and airport representatives. American Airlines, a significant carrier at DFW, also offered the use of their simulators so that the new procedures could be flown virtually before they were implemented. RNAV procedures were planned to be initiated in October 2004. The proposed date had been communicated during the public outreach campaign; however, the date had to be adjusted to November due to charting dates. RNAV was initiated in November and flown for 2–3 days. FAA stopped using the procedures due to technical issues encountered during the initial flights. There were no complaints from the community during the initial flights. FAA re-charted RNAV after a slight redesign and restarted the flights in September 2005. Some residents living just outside the boundaries of the previous noise mitigation areas (mitigated for impacts from the new east-side runway as required by the FEIS) were interested in whether they would be now eligible for noise mitigation measures (which they were not). The airport also received, recorded, and responded to noise complaints. GIS Solution Overview: GIS data was an integral element used to communicate the impact of the new pro- cedures among FAA, airport, airline, and community stakeholders. Flight tracks from DFW’s ANOMS helped illustrate existing conditions to the community. Thereafter, American Airlines— which accounts for 80% of Dallas/Fort Worth air traffic—enabled a comparative forecast of future RNAV-enabled departures using simulated geospatial data. Utilizing this data, DFW developed noise contours representing both the current SIDS-based departures, and future RNAV DPs (DFW Airport 2008). Visualizing this information with geospatial data and technology, the air- port demonstrated that there were no significant impacts with RNAV procedures (Figure 38). Sometime after RNAV was implemented at DFW, American Airlines offered a proposed departure route that would follow the highway to the south of DFW, ostensibly to reduce noise and incompatible land use overflown. DFW used GIS to evaluate affected land use with and without the procedures and found that the new procedure increased the amount of incompat- ible land use overflown. While the route would have decreased fuel costs, the net results showed that the early turns would result in a greater adverse effect of noise and mitigation costs that would have far exceeded any fuel savings (Figure 39). Functional Requirements: Data Both flight tracks and noise readings were foundational components of DFW’s analysis. DFW utilized its ANOMS system to monitor noise decibel levels and correspond those readings to

116 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports flight paths. The airport also developed a grid point analysis showing noise impacts at DNLs of 60 and 65 decibels (dB). To complement this information, information on fleet mix was analyzed to measure the amount of RNAV-enabled and turbo prop aircraft. Further, land use data from county governments was compiled and symbolized to analyze the spatial allocation of conflicting and complementary land uses along proposed and existing flight paths. Results: First and foremost, negative perception and misunderstanding by the community of RNAV procedures and updated airspace were addressed and the needs and concerns of stake- holders were resolved. What could have been negative perceptions and misunderstandings by the community were negated through proactive early engagement through a collaborative effort by DFW and FAA. Although committed to ongoing stakeholder engagement, the airport has kept the costs of engagement low by utilizing GIS and communications personnel to help develop engagement materials. In-house personnel also respond to noise complaints. When necessary, the airport uses outside consultants to conduct noise analyses and other studies. The population in area communities that were exposed to 65 DNL or greater was reduced by 22%. The number of overflights was substantially reduced, and noise complaints continued to decline (Figure 40). Meanwhile RNAV procedures enabled a 15%-20% increase in departures per hour. As a result, American Airlines is saving $10-$12 million in annual fuel costs at DFW (FAA 2017). With RNAV Without RNAV Figure 38. Geospatial-based visualization - noise contours (RNAV at DFW).

Figure 39. Geospatial-based visualization / analysis—parcels and RNAV (DFW).

118 Using GIS for Collaborative Land Use Compatibility Planning Near Airports Figure 40. Geospatial-based analysis and land use compatibility.