Airport Compliance Evaluation

Transcription

1 6 Airport Compliance Evaluation Introduction The previous chapter of the Ohio Airports Focus Study stratified the 104 Ohio system airports into one air carrier and four general aviation categories based on their activities, facilities, and available services. Also included was an analysis of recommended facilities and services based on each classification level. In addition to such facility and service recommendations, an Ohio system airport should be able to maintain compliance with a number of FAA regulations and guidelines, such as land use compatibility, runway safety area (RSA) standards, and pavement management. This chapter will focus on measuring the extent to which Ohio system airports meet these compliance factors, many of which are tied to an airport s grant assurances through the FAA and ODOT. The authority to require compliance standards comes from Order B, the FAA Airport Compliance Manual, which outlines the FAA Airport Compliance Program, while grant assurances are detailed in Grant Assurances Airport Sponsors. When an airport accepts federal funds or federal property for the development or operation of a public airport, it enters into a contractual obligation with the FAA. The primary goal of the program is to educate and inform sponsors on their compliance obligations and how those obligations apply to their particular airport. In the event of a violation, the FAA will work with the sponsor to achieve compliance. Only when all efforts have failed to achieve compliance will the FAA resort to other actions, such as the limiting or withholding of federal funding. 1 Scope of Airport Compliance Evaluation This plan makes no recommendations as to the actions the FAA should take as a result of any lack of airport compliance. Within the Ohio Airports Focus Study, airport compliance is first and foremost an analysis of existing conditions. Along with analysis performed in Chapter 7, Regional Need and Capacity Analysis, it will also serve as a tool for ODOT officials as they make decisions regarding the Ohio airport system in the future. Additionally, the analysis performed in this chapter is merely a summary of existing conditions, and is not meant to replace detailed engineering studies or airport master planning. The following compliance factors are discussed and analyzed in this chapter: Airport lease standards Through the fence (TTF) conditions Land use compatibility Local commitment Primary runway safety area (RSA) Primary runway protection zone (RPZ) Pavement condition index (PCI) Compliance data was collected for all 104 Ohio system airports, but this chapter focuses primarily on Ohio s 97 public use, general aviation airports. In addition, despite FAA grant assurances only applying to NPIAS airports, the system s seven non NPIAS airports were also included in the analysis. The compliance factors analyzed in this chapter are viewed as basic standards to which any public airport should adhere, both in the interest of safety and public stewardship. 1 Federal Aviation Administration Order B, FAA Airport Compliance Manual OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 1

2 Data Sources The primary source of data for the airport compliance evaluation was voluntary, self reporting of data by airport managers and sponsors provided during the inventory phase of the study. When the initial survey effort did not yield adequate data, follow up calls were made to Ohio system airport managers and sponsors in an attempt to gather as much of this data as possible. Only when the survey and follow up efforts did not yield adequate data were other sources sought, including the following: Airport master plans and airport layout plans Aviation staff at the Ohio Department of Transportation Satellite imagery and aerial photography Airport Lease s An airport lease is a contractual agreement between the airport sponsor and its tenants. These tenants provide many of the aviation services and facilities that make the airport attractive to users, such as FBO services, aircraft fuel, maintenance, and aviation education. Non aviation tenants may also be located at the airport due to the availability of land. At its most basic, an airport lease is designed to protect the rights and interests of both tenants and the airport itself. Lease agreements also help to ensure revenue for the airport, which is used to cover or defray the costs of upkeep and everyday operations. The following section provides a brief overview of the FAA s policies on airport leases and analyzes lease compliance at general aviation airports in the Ohio system. During the airport inventory phase of the study, airport sponsors and managers were asked to report lease status in terms of standardization and currency. An airport that has both standardized and updated leases for its tenants was viewed as being in full compliance. FAA s and Policy Background The operation of an airport that is held to federal regulations involves complex relationships between the airport sponsor and its private tenants. FAA lease standards aim to protect the interests of the airports sponsors and these tenants. The FAA Airport Compliance Manual lists three basic rights or privileges that are typically provided to tenants by entering into a lease agreement: The right for the licensee or tenant to use the airfield and public airport facilities in common with others so authorized. 2 The right to occupy as a tenant and to use certain designated premises exclusively. The commercial privilege to offer goods and services to airport users. 3 The type of document or written instrument used to grant these airport privileges is the sole responsibility of the airport sponsor. The FAA does not review every lease, and FAA approval is not necessary when entering a lease agreement. However, when the FAA does choose to review a lease, it is primarily interested in ensuring the rights and interests of the public airport itself. To do so, the FAA focuses on the following: 2 Note that an airport sponsor s federally mandated obligation to make an airport available for public use does not impose a requirement to permit aircraft access from adjacent properties. Such through the fence activity is discussed in detail in a subsequent section of this chapter. 3 Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Compliance Manual OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 2

3 Determining if a lease has the effect of granting or denying rights that are contrary to federal statute, sponsor federal obligations, or FAA policy. Ensuring that the sponsor has not entered into a contract that would surrender its capability to control the airport. Identifing terms and conditions that could prevent the airport from realizing the full benefits for which it was developed. Identifing potential restrictions that could prevent the sponsor from meeting its grant and other obligations to the federal government. FAA Grant Assurances Related to Lease Provisions If an airport owner or sponsor accepts funding from the FAA, they must agree to certain obligations known as grant assurances, which are detailed in the FAA document Grant Assurances Airport Sponsors. These grant assurances require that the airport owner or sponsor comply with specified conditions, and are directly related to the benefits an airport lease provides to the airport and its tenants. The specific sections of the FAA s grant assurances program that apply to leases include the following: Preserving Rights and Powers: No aspect of a lease should interfere with an airport sponsor s ability to meet all requirements of a federal grant agreement. Economic Nondiscrimination: Leases must be available on a reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory basis to all public airport users. Leases must also be priced consistently, reasonably, and not discriminatorily, with the understanding that prices can be lowered in the cases of larger volume. Reports and Inspections: For grant applications involving development and noise compatibility projects, lease documents must be made available for inspection by the FAA. Ohio Airports Leases Compliance Airport lease compliance, as defined within this study, is concerned with the standardization of leases and their currency (updated within the previous five years). and updated leases help to ensure the rights and interests of the airport and its tenants, as listed above. and updated leases will also more effectively meet FAA grant assurances. For example, standardized leases will set rental rates for on airport businesses, ensuring economic nondiscrimination, while updated leases take into account changing conditions at the airport, to protect both tenants and sponsor. Ohio system airport sponsors and managers were the sole data source for this section. These managers and sponsors reported lease status during the inventory phase of the Ohio Airports Focus Study. Specifically, they reported if their leases were standardized in compliance with FAA regulations and if leases had been updated in the past five years. Of the 97 general aviation airports in the Ohio system, 73 reported leases that are both standardized and updated within the last five years. Eleven airports reported leases that were standardized but not updated, while another five airports reported that their lease agreements were updated, but not standardized. Exhibit 6 1 maps lease status at general aviation system airports throughout Ohio. Table 6 1 details this lease compliance. Note that the FAA has no jurisdiction of the lease status of non NPIAS airports, but that these airports are still encouraged to standardize and regularly update leases with tenants as an act of good management and stewardship. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 3

4 AIRPORT COMPLIANCE EVALUATION 2014 Exhibit 6 1 Reported Lease Status of Ohio System Airports OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 4

5 Table 6 1 ized Lease Status at Ohio System Airports Leases Leases Updated Associated City Airport Name GA Level 1 Akron Akron Fulton International Yes No Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Regional Yes Yes Bluffton Bluffton Yes Yes Bowling Green Wood County Yes Yes Chillicothe Ross County Yes No Cincinnati Cincinnati Municipal Lunken Field Yes No Cleveland Burke Lakefront Yes Yes Cleveland Cuyahoga County Yes Yes Columbus Bolton Field Yes Yes Columbus Ohio State University Yes Yes Coshocton Richard Downing Yes Yes Dayton Dayton Wright Brothers Yes Yes Defiance Defiance Memorial No Yes Delaware Delaware Municipal Jim Moore Field Yes Yes Hamilton Butler County Regional Yes Yes Lebanon Warren County/John Lane Field Yes Yes Lima Lima Allen County Yes Yes Lorain/Elyria Lorain County Regional Yes Yes Mansfield Mansfield Lahm Regional Yes Yes Marion Marion Municipal Yes Yes Marysville Union County Yes Yes Middletown Middletown Regional/Hook Field Yes No Ottawa Putnam County Yes Yes Portsmouth Greater Portsmouth Regional No Yes Sidney Sidney Municipal Yes Yes Springfield Springfield Beckley Municipal Yes Yes Tiffin Seneca County Yes Yes Toledo Toledo Executive Yes Yes Wapakoneta Neil Armstrong Yes Yes Willoughby Willoughby Lost Nation Municipal Yes Yes Wilmington Wilmington Air Park* Yes Yes Wooster Wayne County Yes Yes Zanesville Zanesville Municipal Yes No GA Level 2 Athens/Albany Ohio University Snyder Field Yes Yes Bellefontaine Bellefontaine Regional Yes Yes Bryan Williams County No No Circleville Pickaway County Memorial No Yes Findlay Findlay Yes Yes Fostoria Fostoria Metropolitan Yes No Fremont Sandusky County Regional Yes Yes Jackson James A. Rhodes Yes Yes Lancaster Fairfield County Yes Yes Millersburg Holmes County Yes Yes Mount Vernon Knox County Yes Yes New Philadelphia Harry Clever Field Yes Yes Newark Newark Heath Yes No Oxford Miami University Yes Yes OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 5

6 Table 6 1 ized Lease Status at Ohio System Airports Associated City Airport Name Leases Leases Updated Port Clinton Carl R. Keller Field Yes Yes Ravenna Portage County Yes Yes Urbana Grimes Field Yes Yes Wauseon Fulton County Yes Yes GA Level 3 Ashland Ashland County Yes Yes Barnesville Barnesville Bradfield Yes Yes Batavia Clermont County No No Bucyrus Port Bucyrus Crawford County Yes Yes Cadiz Harrison County Yes Yes Cambridge Cambridge Municipal Yes Yes Carrollton Carroll County Tolson Yes Yes Celina Lakefield Yes Yes Chesapeake/Huntington, WV Lawrence County Airpark Yes Yes Dayton Greene County Lewis A. Jackson Regional Yes No Galion Galion Municipal Yes Yes Gallipolis Gallia Meigs Regional Yes Yes Harrison Cincinnati West Yes Yes Hillsboro Highland County Yes Yes Kent Kent State University Yes No Kenton Hardin County Yes Yes London Madison County Yes Yes McArthur Vinton County Yes Yes Medina Medina Municipal Yes Yes Middlefield Geauga County Yes Yes Napoleon Henry County Yes Yes Norwalk Norwalk Huron County Yes Yes Piqua Piqua Hartzell Field* Yes Yes Steubenville Jefferson County Airpark Yes Yes Van Wert Van Wert County Yes Yes Versailles Darke County No No Wadsworth Wadsworth Municipal No Yes Waverly Pike County Yes Yes Wilmington Clinton Field No Yes GA Level 4 Caldwell Noble County* Yes No Dayton Moraine Air Park* Yes Yes Deshler Deshler Municipal Landing Strip* Yes No East Liverpool Columbiana County Yes Yes Georgetown Brown County No No Kelleys Island Kelleys Island Municipal No No McConnelsville Morgan County* Yes Yes Middle Bass Middle Bass Island Airport Yes Yes Mount Gilead Morrow County Yes Yes New Lexington Perry County Yes Yes North Bass Island North Bass Island Yes Yes Put In Bay Put In Bay Yes Yes Upper Sandusky Wyandot County No No Washington Court House Fayette County Yes Yes OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 6

7 Table 6 1 ized Lease Status at Ohio System Airports Associated City Airport Name Leases Leases Updated West Union Alexander Salamon No No Willard Willard* No No Woodsfield Monroe County Yes Yes *Non NPIAS Airport Source: Airport Inventory and Data Survey Through the Fence Conditions Through the fence (TTF) activity involves residences or businesses that are located outside of an airport s property boundaries that have access to the runway and taxiway system. These TTF properties can include residential properties often referred to as hangar homes, or commercial businesses. Because properties involved in TTF activity are outside of the airport property, they are not under the direct control of the airport. This may result in certain issues, such as TTF operators not being held to the same minimum standards as on airport activity, a lack of legally binding agreements between the TTF operators and the airport, and the inability to collect rent from TTF operators. To ensure safety, security, and economic equity, airports are expected to negotiate a TTF agreement with persons or entities hoping to conduct TTF operations. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 permitted general aviation airports to enter into residential TTF agreements with surrounding properties. Air carrier airports are not permitted to enter into new residential through the fence arrangements, but may maintain existing agreements as long as certain conditions are met. The following sections discuss the FAA s policy on TTF activity and provide an overview of TTF at general aviation airports in the Ohio system. During the inventory phase of the Ohio Airports Focus Study, airport managers and sponsors were asked to report the existence of TTF activities at their airports. Additional data was later collected from managers concerning specific aspects of the TTF activities at their facilities. Airport summaries at the end of this section provide brief profiles of TTF activities at Ohio general aviation airports. FAA Policy Background The 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides general aviation airports with the means to better regulate and benefit from residential TTF operations. Section 136 of the act permits general aviation airports to enter into residential TTF agreements with property owners or associations representing property owners. These written agreements require the following of property owners looking to operate TTF activities: Pay access charges that the sponsor determines to be comparable to those fees charged to tenants and operators on airport making similar use of the airport; Bear the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure the sponsor determines is necessary to provide access to the airfield from property located adjacent to or near the airport; Maintain the property for residential, noncommercial use (FAA interprets this limitation as a prohibition on commercial aeronautical services only) for the duration of the agreement; Prohibit access to the airport from other properties through the property of the property owner (FAA interprets this limitation as a prohibition on access to the airport not authorized by the airport sponsor); and OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 7

8 Prohibit any aircraft refueling from occurring on the property (FAA interprets this as a prohibition on the sale of fuel from residential property). In order to implement this law, the FAA amended certain airport Grant Assurances. Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, was amended to clarify that sponsors of commercial service airports are not permitted to enter into new residential through the fence arrangements. However, sponsors of general aviation airports may enter into such an arrangement if the airport sponsor complies with all federal laws. In addition, Grant Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan, was amended to require all proposed and existing access points used to taxi aircraft across the airport property boundary be depicted on the ALP. Although the law became effective on February 14, 2012, the FAA will afford airport sponsors a grace period for compliance. Airport sponsors with existing residential through the fence agreements must provide evidence of compliance no later than October 1, In most cases, FAA will define evidence of compliance as the airport sponsor s submission of required documentation. This may include copies of access agreements, deeds, covenants, conditions, and restrictions. 4 At the core of FAA policy and compliance standards are provisions providing for safety, security, and economic equity concerns at airports. The primary standards of compliance are detailed as: 5 1. General authority for control of airport land and access: The sponsor has sufficient control of access points and operations across airport boundaries to maintain safe operations, and to make changes in airport land use to meet future needs. 2. Safety of airport operations: By rule, or by agreement with the sponsor, through the fence users are obligated to comply with the airport s rules and standards. 3. Parity of access fees: The sponsor can and does collect fees from through the fence users comparable to those charged to airport tenants. 4. Protection of airport airspace: Operations at the airport will not be affected by hangars and residences on the airport boundary, at present or in the future. 5. Compatible land uses around the airport: The potential for non compatible land use adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport is minimized consistent with Grant Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use. TTF at Ohio System Airports Information provided voluntarily by airport managers and sponsors was the primary data source for this analysis. Of the 97 general aviation airports in the Ohio system, 23 reported the existence of current TTF activity. These airports are depicted on Exhibit 6 2. The most basic piece of information provided by these airports about their TTF activity was the nature of the activity, residential, non residential, or both. This data is shown on Table 6 2. Eight airports reported residential TTF operations, 12 reported non residential activity, and three Ohio system airports reported both residential and non residential TTF activity. 4 FAA's Interpretation of Section 136 of FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (July 16, 2013) 5 Compliance Guidance Letter FAA Review of Existing and proposed Residential Through the Fence Access Agreements(July 16, 2013); FAA's Interpretation of Section 136 of FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (July 16, 2013) OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 8

9 AIRPORT COMPLIANCE EVALUATION 2014 Exhibit 6 2 Ohio System Airports with Through the Fence Activity OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 9

10 Table 6 2 Types of TTF at Ohio General Aviation Airports Associated City Airport Name Type of TTF Activity GA Level 1 Bluffton Bluffton Non Residential Cleveland Cuyahoga County Non Residential Columbus Ohio State University Non Residential Lebanon Warren County/John Lane Field Non Residential Tiffin Seneca County Non Residential Wilmington Wilmington Air Park* Non Residential GA Level 2 Bryan Williams County Non Residential Jackson James A. Rhodes Residential/Non Residential Ravenna Portage County Residential Wauseon Fulton County Non Residential GA Level 3 Ashland Ashland County Non Residential Batavia Clermont County Residential/Non Residential Napoleon Henry County Residential Versailles Darke County Residential/Non Residential Wadsworth Wadsworth Municipal Non Residential GA Level 4 Caldwell Noble County* Residential Dayton Moraine Air Park* Residential Georgetown Brown County Residential Kelleys Island Kelleys Island Municipal Residential Mount Gilead Morrow County Non Residential Put In Bay Put In Bay Residential West Union Alexander Salamon Residential Willard Willard* Non Residential *Non NPIAS Airport Source: Airport Inventory and Data Survey, RS&H Airport TTF Profiles This plan provides only a brief overview of TTF activities and agreements at these 23 general aviation airports, and does not attempt to be a comprehensive review of each TTF agreement currently in place. In general, TTF activity at general aviation airports in Ohio includes such properties as residential airparks, FBO facilities, other aviation and aircraft businesses, office and corporate hangars, aircraft associations, and other private users. The following are brief profiles of TTF activities and agreements at general aviation airports in the Ohio system. GA Level 1 Airports Bluffton Airport has TTF activity associated with an aircraft maintenance company, GROB Systems. This company maintains a hangar with direct access to the airport from which they use to perform glider maintenance. The airport has no written TTF agreement in place with the TTF user. However, historical documents allow for the operations of aircraft from this privately owned hangar with a taxiway to the active runway. The airport does not collect fees from the TTF user. The airport has not submitted a TTF access plan to the FAA. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 10

11 Cuyahoga County Airport maintains a single written agreement with a non residential TTF user. This agreement allows a tenant direct access at the airport. The agreement expires in 2015, but is anticipated to be renewed. The airport does not collect fees from the TTF user. The airport has not submitted a TTF access plan to the FAA. Ohio State University Airport maintains a non residential TTF written agreement with ODOT Office of Aviation. In total, TTF activity at the Airport consists of a single owner with one distinct access point. The airport collects fees from the ODOT Office of Aviation. The airport has not submitted a TTF access plan to the FAA. Warren County Airport/John Lane Field maintains a non residential TTF written agreement with the FBO. In this arrangement, the FBO owns the landside property including multiple hangars, a fuel farm, and the terminal building. Warren County then leases the terminal building from the FBO. The airport collects fees from the TTF user, but has not submitted a TTF access plan to the FAA. Seneca County Airport has a non residential TTF activity related to the airport s FBO, Tiffin Aire. While no written agreement is in place, Tiffin Aire has deeded access to the airfield. The airport does not collect fees from the TTF user, and has not submitted a TTF access plan to the FAA. Wilmington Air Park, a non NPIAS airport, maintains non residential TTF activity. Per historical documents, TTF operators of corporately owned aircraft are permitted to use a privately owned hangar with taxiway connection to the runway. The airport has no written TTF agreement in place with, or collects fees from, the TTF users. The airport has not submitted a TTF access plan to the FAA. GA Level 2 Airports Williams County Airport maintains TTF activity from non residential users such as Hummel Aviation, privately owned T hangars, four privately owned corporate hangars, and a privately owned fuel farm. In total, the TTF arrangement consists of five properties, five property owners, and one distinct access point. The airport is in the process of either eliminating the TTF operations or establishing a TTF agreement with users. Agreements for the privately owned hangars and the fuel farm are anticipated to be in place by the end of James A. Rhodes Airport experiences both residential and non residential TTF activity, including operations from T hangars that are located south of the terminal. Additionally, a corporate hangar near the Runway 01 end was formerly used for TTF operations, but is no longer in use. No written agreement is in place with TTF users. TTF activity at James A. Rhodes Airport consists of one distinct access point. Portage County Airport experiences residential TTF activity, including multiple aviation related residences with deeded access to a taxiway. There is one distinct access point. Fulton County Airport experiences non residential TTF activity, including deeded access for two hangars on the airport that house St. Vincent s Life Flight and Aero Beech Ltd. In total, the TTF arrangement consists of two properties, two property owners, and one distinct access point. The airport does not have a written agreement in place for TTF users, and has not submitted a TTF access plan to the FAA. GA Level 3 Airports Ashland County Airport has TTF activity consisting of non residential operations. Per historic documents, aircraft from privately owned hangars are permitted access to the taxiway and runway. In total, the arrangement consists of 10 properties, 10 property owners, and 10 distinct access OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 11

12 points. The airport maintains written agreements with TTF users, while also collecting fees. The airport has submitted a TTF access plan to the FAA. Clermont County Airport experiences non residential and residential TTF operations, with multiple direct access points to the airfield. The airport is currently working on creating a TTF written agreement with the TTF operators. Henry County Airport experiences residential TTF activity. Per historical documents and a written TTF agreement, aircraft operators in privately owned hangars are permitted access to the airfield via one access point. The airport has not submitted a TTF access plan to the FAA. Darke County Airport experiences both residential and non residential TTF activity via one access point. The residential TTF operations consist of private and residential hangars, while the nonresidential operations consist of a business/corporate facility. There is no TTF agreement with existing TTF users. However, the county is working to obtain these properties over the next few years, which would eliminate the TTF status of these operations. Wadsworth Municipal Airport experiences non residential TTF activity. The airport, with the assistance of the FAA, is actively acquiring the TTF properties, which would effectively eliminate the TTF status of these operations. The TTF arrangement consists of 63 properties, 50 property owners, and multiple access point. The airport collects fees from TTF users. GA Level 4 Airports Noble County Airport, a non NPIAS airport, experiences residential TTF activity, via multiple access points. No written agreement is in place with the TTF operators. Moraine Air Park Airport, a non NPIAS airport, experiences residential TTF activity via one access point. No written agreement is in place with TTF operators, but the airport does collect fees from TTF users. Brown County Airport maintains residential TTF activity at the airport, via multiple access points. The airport, in conjunction with their ALP update, is drafting and implementing agreements with the residential TTF operators at the airport. Kelleys Island Municipal Airport experiences residential TTF operations. While no written agreement is in place, the TTF arrangement consists of six properties, six property owners, and six distinct access points. The airport does not have an FAA TTF access plan submitted, but an FAA funded study regarding the residential TTF access plan is in progress. Morrow County Airport experiences non residential TTF operations due to one property, one TTF operator, and one distinct access point. The airport does not maintain a written agreement with this operator, nor does it collect user fees. The airport is in the process of submitting an access plan to the FAA. Put In Bay Airport experiences extensive residential TTF activities, including 91 TTF properties, 54 property owners, and six distinct access points. The airport does not have written agreements with TTF users, but collects user fees, except for parcels with recorded deeded access. The airport has completed an FAA TTF access plan, but has not submitted it to the FAA pending additional guidance. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 12

13 Alexander Salamon Airport experiences residential TTF activity, including operations from a privately owned, T hangar and box hangar. In total, the TTF arrangement consists of five properties, five property owners, and one distinct access point. While no historical written agreement is in place with TTF users, agreements are being pursued, and are addressed in the airport s Capital Improvement Program. The airport does not collect fees from TTF users. A TTF access plan has been submitted to the FAA. Willard Airport, a non NPIAS airport, experiences non residential TFF activity from one property and one property owner that has historical access to the airport via one access point. No written agreement is in place with TTF operators, and the airport has not submitted a TTF access plan. Land Use Compatibility The planning and development of an airport is crucially linked to community and regional planning and development processes. Regional and local land use policies that conflict with aviation activity and airport facilities can result in undue constraints being placed on an airport. Conversely, an airport that is included in its region s zoning and land use decisions is better prepared to grow and be part of the local and regional economy and transportation system. In order to enable aviation to expand and to meet the needs of the traveling public and regional economy, it is vitally important that airports operate in an environment that maximizes compatibility with off airport development. Airports provide significant employment and economic benefits to communities through the movement of people and goods, promotion of tourism and trade, stimulation of business development, and the opportunity for a wide variety of jobs. Airport owners and sponsors have a vested interest in protecting that investment through adopting land use controls for on site activity, and coordinating with surrounding government entities, citizens, and property owners for achieving compatibility with off airport land uses. Communities and airports have a number of land use controls and tools at their disposal to help ensure an airport s land use compatibility with its immediate environs. The three land use controls that are specifically discussed in this chapter are: Height zoning Land use zoning Noise abatement programs and procedures Compliance, as defined in this study, is achieved through the implementation of these planning procedures and policies. The following sections of the chapter provide an overview of these land use controls, and detail their implementation at the general aviation airports in the Ohio system. Also discussed are conditions that limit future development at these airports, including physical, environmental, community, and financial factors. Specific cases of these factors are presented in individual airport summaries. When viewed together, these land use controls and existing factors provide a far more complete profile of each airport s land use compatibility. An airport s land use compatibility is an important factor to consider when planning the growth and expansion of that facility. FAA s and Policy Background Historically, land use plans prepared by local governments have only minimally recognized the implications of planning for airports and offsite, airport related development. Local land use OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 13

14 planning should be an integral part of the land use policy and regulatory tools used by airports and local land use planners. Land use planning that incorporates the airport is an important tool for determining appropriate and inappropriate land uses in an airport s environs. Four key issues have been identified for evaluating the types of land uses that can be considered compatible within airport environs: The impact of aircraft noise and noise compatibility planning; The potential for airspace conflicts from tall structures in the vicinity of an airport; The possibility of electronic interference with aviation navigation aids; and The potential for interaction between aircraft and wildlife attractants. The FAA has no regulatory authority for controlling land uses and zoning with the goal of protecting an airport s interests. Such responsibility falls to state and local governments. Local land use planners and elected officials must work with airport owners and operators to ensure that airport compatibility is accounted for in comprehensive plans. Zoning and land use controls in an airport s environs must take into account the unique conditions created by an airport, including noise impact mitigation, the construction and location of tall buildings, landfill development, and wildlife interaction. Plans should also account for an airport s integration into area infrastructure and utilities. Overlay zones, which build on the existing, underlying zoning with additional standards, are often used as implementation tools for land use or height zoning, while an overlay zone limiting residential development may be used to limit the effect of airport noise on residents. Such tools help to address the specific conditions within an airport s immediate surroundings. 6 Each airport s situation is unique, and rural airports face far different obstacles than urban or suburban airports. Often, an airport and its host community will use a combination of these land use policies and procedures to achieve maximum land use compatibility. Assessing the land use controls used by general aviation airports in the Ohio system measures this compatibility, but also offers insight into the airport s administrative relationship with its community. The following are brief overviews of land use zoning, height zoning, noise abatement programs and procedures, and the three land use control tools about which Ohio airport managers and sponsors reported. Land Use Zoning Land use zoning, as it applies to airport environs, aims to reduce land uses and development densities that are incompatible with the airport and its operations. The recommended land uses and densities differ depending on the airport s location. For example, an airport located in a suburban area will require different land use zoning than an airport in a rural area. While it has no authority over controlling the types of land uses near an airport, in general, the FAA supports land uses such as industrial, agricultural, and commercial over residential and institutional. The adoption of land use plans sets the policy for land use zoning and other regulatory tools such as subdivision regulations, building codes, height zoning, and avigation easements. The parties involved in the development of airport land use planning and zoning may include the airport owner or sponsor, city or county land use planners, an aviation consulting firm, state aviation personnel, and/or the FAA. One result of the planning process is to develop an airport overlay zone within which airport land use planning and zoning applies. If the airport overlay zone covers more than one jurisdiction, representatives from all jurisdictions should be involved in the planning process. 6 Federal Aviation Administration, Land Use Compatibility and Airports OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 14

15 Complications in the land use planning process often arise from the presence of several jurisdictions falling within the overlay zone. 7 Height Zoning The construction or presence of tall structures such as buildings, construction cranes, and cell towers in the vicinity of an airport can be hazardous to the navigation of airplanes and development on the ground. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 identifies the maximum height at which a structure should be constructed at any given point around an airport. When exceeding that height, the structure is considered an obstruction. FAR Part 77 establishes these heights through a series of imaginary surfaces, shown in Exhibit 6 3. Part 77 surfaces may extend many miles from the airport s location. At its most basic, airport height zoning ensures that Part 77 requirements are accounted for in local and regional planning and included in zoning codes. 8 7 Federal Aviation Administration, Land Use Compatibility and Airports 8 Federal Aviation Administration, Land Use Compatibility and Airports, and FAR Part 77 OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 15

16 Exhibit 6 3 FAR Part 77 Surfaces Source: FAA Noise Abatement and Planning Aircraft noise is a primary driver for improving land use compatibility in airport environs. The FAA supports airport efforts to minimize the impacts of airport noise, including noise reduction of night flights, noise compatibility programs, encouraging compatible land uses in an airport s environs, and other mitigation efforts. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 16

17 The FAA advises airports on noise abatement and planning through FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. A Part 150 study includes analyzing existing conditions such as noise decibel levels (using noise contour maps), area land uses, and other applicable factors with the goal of developing a noise compatibility plan. An airport noise compatibility plan should optimize noise abatement procedures without interfering with the operational viability of the airport, while also providing a framework for noise compatible land uses in the surrounding areas. Ohio Airports Compatible Land Use Compliance The sole data source for land use compatibility was responses from airport management during the inventory phase of the study. Airport managers and sponsors were asked to report the local land use planning and procedures in place at their airports and within their communities. They first reported the existence of any land use controls adopted by surrounding municipalities, before reporting details about land use zoning, height zoning, and noise abatement procedures. As stated, these land use controls help to ensure land use compatibility in the airport environs, while maintaining a relationship with governmental bodies. Noise abatement policies can also be crucial in maintaining the airport s positive image among residents and businesses. Exhibit 6 4 displays Ohio system airports reporting these measures, while Table 6 3 shows results by airport. In total, 85 of the 97 general aviation airports in the Ohio system reported that surrounding municipalities had established some form of compatible land use controls. Eighty four general aviation airports reported the existence of dedicated height zoning, 49 reported land use zoning, and eight reported the adoption of noise abatement procedures. Twelve general aviation airports in the Ohio system reported that none of these land use controls had been adopted. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 17

18 AIRPORT COMPLIANCE EVALUATION 2014 Exhibit 6 4 Land Use Controls Reported by Ohio System Airports OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 18

19 Table 6 3 Land Use Controls at Ohio System Airports Dedicated Height Zoning Dedicated Land Use Zoning Dedicated Noise Abatement Associated City Airport Name GA Level 1 Akron Akron Fulton International Yes No No Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Regional Yes No No Bluffton Bluffton Yes No Unreported Bowling Green Wood County No No No Chillicothe Ross County Yes Yes No Cincinnati Cincinnati Municipal Lunken Field Yes Yes Yes Cleveland Burke Lakefront No No No Cleveland Cuyahoga County Yes Yes Yes Columbus Bolton Field Yes Yes No Columbus Ohio State University Yes Yes No Coshocton Richard Downing Yes No No Dayton Dayton Wright Brothers No No No Defiance Defiance Memorial Yes Yes No Delaware Delaware Municipal Jim Moore Field Yes Yes Yes Hamilton Butler County Regional Yes Yes No Lebanon Warren County/John Lane Field Yes Yes No Lima Lima Allen County Yes Yes No Lorain/Elyria Lorain County Regional Yes No No Mansfield Mansfield Lahm Regional Yes Yes Yes Marion Marion Municipal Yes No No Marysville Union County Yes Yes No Middletown Middletown Regional/Hook Field Yes Yes No Ottawa Putnam County Yes Yes No Portsmouth Greater Portsmouth Regional Yes No No Sidney Sidney Municipal Yes Yes Yes Springfield Springfield Beckley Municipal Yes Yes No Tiffin Seneca County Yes Yes No Toledo Toledo Executive Yes Yes No Wapakoneta Neil Armstrong Yes Yes No Willoughby Willoughby Lost Nation Municipal Yes Yes Yes Wilmington Wilmington Air Park* Yes Yes Yes Wooster Wayne County Yes Yes No Zanesville Zanesville Municipal Yes No No GA Level 2 Athens/Albany Ohio University Snyder Field Yes No No Bellefontaine Bellefontaine Regional Yes Yes No Bryan Williams County Yes No No Circleville Pickaway County Memorial No No No Findlay Findlay Yes Yes No Fostoria Fostoria Metropolitan No No No Fremont Sandusky County Regional No No No Jackson James A. Rhodes Yes Yes No Lancaster Fairfield County Yes No No Millersburg Holmes County Yes Yes No Mount Vernon Knox County Yes Yes No New Philadelphia Harry Clever Field Yes No No Newark Newark Heath Yes Yes No OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 19

20 Table 6 3 Land Use Controls at Ohio System Airports Dedicated Height Zoning Dedicated Land Use Zoning Dedicated Noise Abatement Associated City Airport Name Oxford Miami University Yes No No Port Clinton Carl R. Keller Field Yes Yes No Ravenna Portage County Yes Yes Yes Urbana Grimes Field Yes No No Wauseon Fulton County Yes No No GA Level 3 Ashland Ashland County Yes Yes No Barnesville Barnesville Bradfield Yes Yes No Batavia Clermont County Yes Yes No Bucyrus Port Bucyrus Crawford County Yes Yes No Cadiz Harrison County Yes No No Cambridge Cambridge Municipal Yes Yes No Carrollton Carroll County Tolson No No No Celina Lakefield Yes Yes No Chesapeake/Huntington, WV Lawrence County Airpark No No No Dayton Greene County Lewis A. Jackson Regional Yes Yes No Galion Galion Municipal Yes No No Gallipolis Gallia Meigs Regional Yes No No Harrison Cincinnati West Yes No No Hillsboro Highland County Yes Yes No Kent Kent State University No No No Kenton Hardin County Yes Yes No London Madison County Yes No No McArthur Vinton County Yes No No Medina Medina Municipal Yes Yes No Middlefield Geauga County Yes No No Napoleon Henry County Yes No No Norwalk Norwalk Huron County Yes No No Piqua Piqua Hartzell Field* Yes No No Steubenville Jefferson County Airpark Yes No No Van Wert Van Wert County Yes No No Versailles Darke County Yes Yes No Wadsworth Wadsworth Municipal Yes No No Waverly Pike County Yes No No Wilmington Clinton Field Yes Yes No GA Level 4 Caldwell Noble County* Yes No Unreported Dayton Moraine Air Park* Yes No No Deshler Deshler Municipal Landing Strip* No No No East Liverpool Columbiana County Yes Yes No Georgetown Brown County Yes Yes No Kelleys Island Kelleys Island Municipal No No No McConnelsville Morgan County* Yes No No Middle Bass Middle Bass Island Airport No Yes No Mount Gilead Morrow County Yes Yes No New Lexington Perry County Yes No No North Bass Island North Bass Island No No No Put In Bay Put In Bay Yes Yes No OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 20

21 Table 6 3 Land Use Controls at Ohio System Airports Dedicated Height Zoning Dedicated Land Use Zoning Dedicated Noise Abatement Associated City Airport Name Upper Sandusky Wyandot County Yes No No Washington Court House Fayette County Yes Yes No West Union Alexander Salamon Yes No No Willard Willard* Yes Yes No Woodsfield Monroe County Yes No No *Non NPIAS Airport Source: Airport Inventory and Data Survey Factors Limiting Future Development In addition to the planning and land use controls implemented by communities and airports, existing conditions are part of an airport s land use compatibility picture. During the inventory phase of the Ohio Airports Focus Study, airport managers and sponsors reported on factors that may impede future airport development or expansion. Airports were asked to report any limiting factors in the categories of physical, environmental, community, and financial, and were asked to provide details on their unique situations. Many of these impediments are the types of issues that land use controls aim to combat, while some (such as natural or environmental features) are likely permanent obstacles. As with land use planning, each airport s individual situation is unique. Examples of the types of issues reported by airports include the following: factors: Limited developable property within the airport property Existing development outside of airport property and inability to purchase new land Topography and terrain Roads and railroads Potential obstructions such as towers, trees, and power lines Environmental factors: Hydrographical features such as wetlands, lakes, rivers, and floodplains Sewers and septic systems Soil types Wildlife Excessive airport noise Community factors: Lack of city or county utilities Low community support or poor relationship Overabundance of noise complaints Financial factors: Limited local, state, or federal funding for projects Inability to raise local match for federally funded projects Exhibit 6 5 displays Ohio system airports that reported these constraints, while Table 6 4 details results by airport. A majority of the general aviation airports in the Ohio system reported physical and financial factors limiting potential expansion and development, 70 and 78 airports, respectively. Thirty two airports reported some type of environmental limiting factor, while 27 airports reported a community related limiting factor. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 21

22 AIRPORT COMPLIANCE EVALUATION 2014 Exhibit 6 5 Factors Limiting Development Reported by Ohio System Airports OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 22

23 Table 6 4 Factors Limiting Development Reported by Ohio System Airports Limiting Factor Environmental Limiting Factor Community Limiting Factor Financial Limiting Factor Associated City Airport Name GA Level 1 Akron Akron Fulton International Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Regional Bluffton Bluffton Bowling Green Wood County Chillicothe Ross County Cincinnati Cincinnati Municipal Lunken Field Cleveland Burke Lakefront Cleveland Cuyahoga County Columbus Bolton Field Columbus Ohio State University Coshocton Richard Downing Dayton Dayton Wright Brothers Defiance Defiance Memorial Delaware Delaware Municipal Jim Moore Field Hamilton Butler County Regional Lebanon Warren County/John Lane Field Lima Lima Allen County Lorain/Elyria Lorain County Regional Mansfield Mansfield Lahm Regional Marion Marion Municipal Marysville Union County Middletown Middletown Regional/Hook Field Ottawa Putnam County Portsmouth Greater Portsmouth Regional Sidney Sidney Municipal Springfield Springfield Beckley Municipal Tiffin Seneca County Toledo Toledo Executive Wapakoneta Neil Armstrong Willoughby Willoughby Lost Nation Municipal Wilmington Wilmington Air Park* Wooster Wayne County Zanesville Zanesville Municipal GA Level 2 Athens/Albany Ohio University Snyder Field Bellefontaine Bellefontaine Regional Bryan Williams County Circleville Pickaway County Memorial Findlay Findlay Fostoria Fostoria Metropolitan Fremont Sandusky County Regional Jackson James A. Rhodes Lancaster Fairfield County Millersburg Holmes County Mount Vernon Knox County New Philadelphia Harry Clever Field Newark Newark Heath OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 23

24 Table 6 4 Factors Limiting Development Reported by Ohio System Airports Limiting Factor Environmental Limiting Factor Community Limiting Factor Financial Limiting Factor Associated City Airport Name Oxford Miami University Port Clinton Carl R. Keller Field Ravenna Portage County Urbana Grimes Field Wauseon Fulton County GA Level 3 Ashland Ashland County Barnesville Barnesville Bradfield Batavia Clermont County Bucyrus Port Bucyrus Crawford County Cadiz Harrison County Cambridge Cambridge Municipal Carrollton Carroll County Tolson Celina Lakefield Chesapeake/Huntington, WV Lawrence County Airpark Dayton Greene County Lewis A. Jackson Regional Galion Galion Municipal Gallipolis Gallia Meigs Regional Harrison Cincinnati West Hillsboro Highland County Kent Kent State University Kenton Hardin County London Madison County McArthur Vinton County Medina Medina Municipal Middlefield Geauga County Napoleon Henry County Norwalk Norwalk Huron County Piqua Piqua Hartzell Field* Steubenville Jefferson County Airpark Van Wert Van Wert County Versailles Darke County Wadsworth Wadsworth Municipal Waverly Pike County Wilmington Clinton Field GA Level 4 Caldwell Noble County* Dayton Moraine Air Park* Deshler Deshler Municipal Landing Strip* East Liverpool Columbiana County Georgetown Brown County Kelleys Island Kelleys Island Municipal McConnelsville Morgan County* Middle Bass Middle Bass Island Airport Mount Gilead Morrow County New Lexington Perry County North Bass Island North Bass Island Put In Bay Put In Bay OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 24

25 Table 6 4 Factors Limiting Development Reported by Ohio System Airports Associated City Airport Name Limiting Factor Environmental Limiting Factor Community Limiting Factor Financial Limiting Factor Upper Sandusky Wyandot County Washington Court House Fayette County West Union Alexander Salamon Willard Willard* Woodsfield Monroe County *Non NPIAS Airport Source: Airport Inventory and Data Survey Details of Reported Limiting Factors The exact factors limiting future development differ greatly from airport to airport. Table 6 5 goes into far greater detail about each system airport s particular issues that currently or in the future could hamper expansion and development. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 25

26 Table 6 5 Details of Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Associated City Airport Name Limiting Factors Reported by Airports GA Level 1 Akron Akron Fulton International Reported several physical limitations such as natural topography and existing roadways and railroads in the runway approach paths. Financially, the nature of development funding between private and city contributions versus FAA contributions limits the airport. Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Regional Reported physical, environmental, community, and financial limiting factors. ly, the condition of roadways servicing the airport is a concern, while the need for city water utilities is a community factor. Environmentally, nearby wetlands and the subsequent funding needed for wetland mitigation limits the airport. A financial factor has been the reduction of county funds, and the airport has resorted to taking in private donations to offset this reduction. Bluffton Bluffton Reported a financial concern over the funding required for a potential runway extension. Bowling Green Wood County Reported possible issues with land acquisition for runway extension, and concerns over obtaining sufficient funding in the situation that the city or county reduces financial support. Chillicothe Ross County Reported financial concern over local sponsor participation. Cincinnati Cleveland Cleveland Columbus Cincinnati Municipal Lunken Field Burke Lakefront Cuyahoga County Bolton Field Reported being constrained by man made and natural features including roads, railroads, the Ohio River, and Little Miami River. Reported several limiting factors. The airport is constrained by Lake Erie on three sides, and was originally constructed on a landfill. Financially, the airport is concerned about maintaining sufficient funding in the event that federal or state funding becomes unavailable. Reported physical factors such as limited airside property available for development, and the locations of Bishop Road and Richmond Road. The airport also reported a lack of financial self sufficiency as a concern. Reported that aircraft noise is both an environmental and community limitation to the airport. Financially, the airport is limited by the funding needed to perform capital improvement projects. Columbus Ohio State University Reported physical, financial, and environmental limiting factors. The latter includes the environmental impacts of de icing procedures. Coshocton Richard Downing Reported financial limiting factors. Dayton Dayton Wright Brothers Reported several physical limitations, including a public road to the north, a gas station to the south, and development to the west. The commercial development is also considered a community limiting factor for the airport. Defiance Defiance Memorial Reported that Oxbow Lake Wildlife Area, located approximately 2,000 feet north of Runway 12, limits development. The airport is also limited by available airport land, with acquisition required to expand the runway. This runway extension is also limited by the required 10 percent matching funds. The airport reported difficulty in acquiring funds for other capital improvement projects as well. Delaware Delaware Municipal Jim Moore Field Reported being limited by US Route 42 to the east, as there is concern over this roadway being expanded to four lanes and restricting runway length. The airport also reported that the 0.37 acres of wetlands located on airport property limit the available development within the airport boundaries. Hamilton Butler County Regional Reported a concern over local matching funds for federal grants. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 26

27 Table 6 5 Details of Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Associated City Airport Name Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Lebanon Warren County/ John Lane Field Reported insufficient space within the airport s current property to expand the runway. Another physical and environmental limiting factor reported is the septic system s leach field, located in the path of a potential access road to the maintenance hangar. Community concerns exist that the airport may become too large. Lima Lima Allen County Did not report any physical, environmental, community, or financial limiting factors. Lorain/Elyria Lorain County Regional Reported community limiting factors and a concern over county financial restrictions. Mansfield Mansfield Lahm Regional Reported a concern over the City of Mansfield s current financial status, which may restrict the city s ability to aid the airport in funding projects. Marion Marion Municipal Reported being limited by the funding ability of the City of Marion. Marysville Union County Reported physical limiting factors including railroad tracks and Columbus Avenue east of the Runway 27 end, Weaver Road west of the Runway 9 end, and residential development west of the airport. This residential development is also a community limiting factor due to the potential for community sensitivity to aircraft noise. The airport is limited financially, and has concerns over its ability to acquire funding for land acquisition. Middletown Middletown Regional/ Hook Field Reported an environmental factor of being located above a municipal well field on the north side of the airport.the financial limitations of the municipal sponsor also limit the airport. Ottawa Putnam County Reported physical limiting factors, including roads J and J 3 that parallel the runway. The airport also reported concerns over acquiring local matching funds for federal projects. Portsmouth Greater Portsmouth Regional Did not report any limiting factors. Sidney Sidney Municipal Reported being limited by County Road 25A to the east, and DP&L overhead power lines to the north. Financially, the airport reports difficulty obtaining local matching funds for federal projects. Springfield Springfield Beckley Municipal Reported being constrained by the city s limited financial resources and by increased operational costs. Tiffin Seneca County Reported physical and environmental limiting factors, including land constraints, trees, and being located within the breeding grounds for the Indiana Bat. Toledo Toledo Executive Reported physical limitations due to a proximity to local roadways, railroads, and a nearby school. Wapakoneta Neil Armstrong Reported a limitation on expansion due to the town of New Knoxville to the west and State Highway 219 to the east. Willoughby Willoughby Lost Nation Municipal Reported physical, environmental, community, and financial limiting factors. ly, the airport is limited by roadways including Lost Nation Road and State Highway 306, as well as the residential communities that surround the airport. These residential communities also represent a community limiting factor due to the noise concerns. Environmentally, the airport is limited by wetlands on airport property. The airport also receives limited funding from its local sponsor. Wilmington Wilmington Air Park* Reported limited access to city water and sewer utilities on certain parts of the airport. The airport also reported community issues and financial problems arising from its lack of NPIAS status. Wooster Wayne County Reported the location of Honeytown Road, which is approximately 400 feet from the Runway 28 threshold, as a physical limitation. The airport also reported a concern over local matching funds. Zanesville Zanesville Municipal Reported a concern over acquiring the funding necessary for a runway expansion. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 27

28 Table 6 5 Details of Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Associated City Airport Name Limiting Factors Reported by Airports GA Level 2 Reported the location of the runway in relation to US 50 as a physical limiting factor. Wetlands on airport property, located southwest of the apron, are an environmental constraint on development. The airport Athens/Albany Ohio University Snyder Field also reported a concern over local matching funds for federal grants and seed money for capital projects. Bellefontaine Bellefontaine Regional Did not report any limiting factors. Bryan Williams County Reported that public roads adjacent to both runway ends limit expansion. Financially, the airport authority and county have limited funds to contribute to large scale development projects (over $1 million). Circleville Pickaway County Memorial Reported that the Scioto River, located approximately 1,200 feet from Runway 1, as an environmental limiting factor. The airport also reported a lack of community support for encouraging larger aircraft at the airport. A concern over funding was also reported, specifically in regards to the airport s desire to extend the runway to 5,000 feet. Findlay Findlay Reported Interstate 75, Lima Avenue, and US 68, as limiting factors. Financially, the airport is negatively impacted by the current state of the national, state, and local economy. Fostoria Fostoria Metropolitan Did not report any limiting factors. Fremont Sandusky County Regional Reported Flora Road (Route 220) as an access limitation to the airport, citing width, weight restrictions, lack of shoulder, and at grade railroad crossings as issues. Other limiting factors include lack of proper utility infrastructure and land available to support industrial use, as well as a lack of 3 phase power. The airport also reported that a lack of funding limits development. Jackson James A. Rhodes Reported a concern over the land acquisition required prior to proceeding with proposed improvement projects. Financially, the airport reports that the decrease in the federal share of eligible development projects has made it a challenge to obtain the local matching funds for larger improvement projects. Lancaster Fairfield County Reported that surrounding terrain limits future runway extensions, and that the landside portion of the airport is limited by floodplains. Financially, the airport has difficulty in meeting the local match required for federally funded projects. The development needs and local costs for on going pavement maintenance also limit the airport. Millersburg Holmes County Reported being financially limited by the funding required for capital improvement projects. Mount Vernon Knox County Owns approximately 54 acres of woods that could be used for development, but reports that the cost of clearing the land limits the airport. Similarly, the airport faces other financial constraints on expansion. The airport is also limited by an archeological site near the Runway 10 end. The airport faces community limitations due to aircraft noise complaints. New Philadelphia Harry Clever Field Reported that development is limited by cemeteries to the west, a historical site to the south, public roads, and residential development. Community limitations result from the airport s proximity to the cemeteries and the nearby historical Schoenbrunn Village. The airport has also shown a lack of support for expanding the current airfield to meet the needs of small business aircraft. Newark Newark Heath Reported being physically limited by its location within the city and by Irving Wick Drive. Additionally, the airport s recent expansion, combined with nearby residential neighborhood, limits further expansion. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 28

29 Table 6 5 Details of Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Associated City Airport Name Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Oxford Miami University Reported the bounds of airport property being a constraint on development. The airport also reports concern over limited local, state, and federal funding. Port Clinton Carl R. Keller Field Reported being constrained on all sides by public roadways and by its close proximity to Lake Erie. Ravenna Portage County Reports that Infirmary Road and State Route 44 constrain expansion and that aircraft noise is a community concern. The airport also reported a struggle to maintain adequate funding levels, and a difficulty in obtaining the local match required for federal projects. Urbana Grimes Field Reported that an adjacent property on the National Register of Historic Places is an environmentally limiting factor. Additionally, portions of the airport are surrounded by residential land uses, which were reported as both a physical and community factor. Financial limitations were reported as a continual challenge, both for improving and maintaining the airport. Wauseon Fulton County Reported that roadways near both runway ends limit expansion, and that FAA funding is a concern. GA Level 3 Ashland Ashland County Reported the location of US 42, near the Runway 1 end, as a physical limiting factor. Additionally, there are some minor community issues between the airport and its neighbors near the Runway 19 end. The local contribution match for large projects limits the airport financially. Barnesville Barnesville Bradfield Reported being physically limited on the west end by the airport access road, which is located approximately 400 feet from the Runway 9 end. The airport would also need to acquire additional land for future development. Financially, the airport is concerned about the decrease in the federal share of eligible development projects and the resulting local matching funds. Batavia Clermont County Did not report any limiting factors. Bucyrus Port Bucyrus Crawford County Reported that public roadways surrounding the airport and proximity to the city of Bucyrus limit development. Financially, a reduction in the availability of local funds is a concern. Cadiz Harrison County Reported being physically limited by terrain on both ends of the runway, and the resulting impact on the types of aircraft that the airport can safely accommodate. The airport also reports that financial concerns are a potential limiting factor. Cambridge Cambridge Municipal Reported that it is physically limited by surrounding terrain, including Chapman Run Stream on airport property. The stream is part of a wetland located within airport property, which also limits development. Carrollton Carroll County Tolson Reported that surrounding topography, which consists of rolling hills, is a limiting factor. Public roads are also a constraint, including Alamo Road, 400 feet from the Runway 7 threshold, and Ascot Road, while State Route 9 and Ascot road are both located within the Runway 25 approach. The airport is also in need of land acquisition for continued expansion. Reported being limited by public roads, including State Route 219 to the north and US 127 to the west. The airport is also physically limited to the south by a cemetery located approximately 900 feet to the southwest of Runway 26. Environmentally, the airport is limited to the east by Beaver Creek and its associated wetlands. Financially, the funding changes on the federal and state level potentially limit the Celina Lakefield airport. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 29

30 Table 6 5 Details of Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Associated City Airport Name Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Chesapeake/ Huntington, WV Dayton Galion Gallipolis Harrison Hillsboro Kent Kenton Lawrence County Airpark Greene County Lewis A. Jackson Regional Galion Municipal Gallia Meigs Regional Cincinnati West Highland County Kent State University Hardin County Reported being limited by nearby tree obstructions and Orchard Avenue to the west of Runway 08. Additionally, residential development also limits the airport. Financial concerns are a common limitation to the airport. Reported being limited by their current land envelope, and floodplains located to the north, and the airport s RSA. Efforts to acquire all RSA land, which extends off of airport property, have proven difficult. The areas surrounding the airport may develop, which would further limit the airport s ability to expand. Soil considerations mean that most airports development must take place to the south. The community is generally supportive of the airport, but has expressed the desire to keep the facility small. Additionally, the airport reports an occasional noise complaint from the local community. Reported that roadways to the southwest of the airport, including County Road 275 and State Route 309, limit development. Financially, the willingness of the city of Galion to provide matching local funds limits the airport. Reported being limited by public roadways, including US 25, County Road 221, and Robert s Lane. Environmental constraints include the Ohio River to the south and several on airport freshwater pond wetlands. The airport also reports that financial concerns are a potential limiting factor. Reported that public roads prevent runway expansion at both ends. West Road is located 330 feet from the Runway 1 threshold, while New Haven Road is located 850 feet from the Runway 19 threshold. This results in land acquisitions being required for runway extension, which could lead to community concerns. Financially, the limited funding ability of the airport sponsor is a constraint. Reported that being partially located within Rocky Fork State Park is a constraint on development. Another limitation is the local sewage treatment facility located approximately 850 feet from Runway 5. The airport reports that the decrease in the federal share of eligible development projects is a limiting factor, as it has reduced the number of projects the airport can financially undertake. Reported that it lacks crosswind coverage and is extremely limited physically to modify the runway lay or length. The environmental effects of de icing operations were cited as a concern, as these effects are incompatible with the airport s stormwater pollution prevention plan, and the airport lacks the applicators to use ammonium acetate. Within the community, the airport faces strong advocacy for the decommissioning of the airport and relocation of flight operations to another airport. The airport is also limited financially, as the operational deficit has led to increasing maintenance costs and reduction in transient activities. Reported being financially limited, as it cannot generate sufficient funds for major projects such as relocation of hangars and taxiway. Reported being limited due to its geographical position in relation to city utilities. Specifically, the airport must rely on wells for water and a septic system for sewage. Financially, the airport reports that it is limited from growth due to the funding that is available. London Madison County McArthur Vinton County Reported that a terrain drop off directly east of the Runway 27 end is a major factor limiting expansion. Medina Medina Municipal Reported that public roadways off each runway end limit future growth. The airport also reported that a potential runway extension might result in a conflict with the community. Financially, the growth OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 30

31 Table 6 5 Details of Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Associated City Airport Name Limiting Factors Reported by Airports potential of the airport is constrained, as local match funds for federally eligible projects are limited. Middlefield Napoleon Norwalk Piqua Steubenville Van Wert Versailles Wadsworth Waverly Wilmington Geauga County Henry County Norwalk Huron County Piqua Hartzell Field* Jefferson County Airpark Van Wert County Darke County Wadsworth Municipal Pike County Clinton Field Reported being constrained by public roads, including State Route 608 and State Route 528. Environmentally, development is limited by multiple acres of wetlands around the airport and wildlife, including the endangered Indiana bat and geese. A nearby Amish community is concerned over continued airport expansion. Financially, despite being self sustaining for regular operations, the airport must rely on government funding for large capital improvement projects. Reported that Township Road 11 limits development near the Runway 10 end. Financially, the airport has concerns over raising the local matching funds required for federally funded projects. Reported being limited by such factors as trees on the west end of the airport and Summit Motorsports Park directly to the southeast. Due to the presence of the Motorsports Park and other factors, there is limited community support for the airport. In addition, the airport is financially limited due to the limited funding amounts available from the local sponsor. Reported that its land locked situation is a constraint, as expansion would require the acquisition of land. The primary financial limiting factor for the airport is the fact that it is not part of the NPIAS, which excludes it from receiving any federal AIP funds. Reported several physical limiting factors that limit the maximum possible length of the runway to 5,000 feet, including a hillside on the Runway 14 end and the village of Wintersville surrounding the airport. Financially, the airport is limited due to decreasing funds from the local sponsor and the resulting impact on day to day operations. Reported that development is limited by State Route 224 to the west and residential communities to the east. Financially, concerns over acquiring local matching funds for federal projects are a factor. Reported that the location of State Route 242, approximately 400 feet from the Runway 9 threshold, creates obstructions that limit the airport s ability to accommodate jet aircraft. Financially, the airport reports that it is limited due to the lack of federal funds to help meet design standards. Reported several environmentally limiting factors, including a stream and wetland located within the Runway 20 RSA, a ditch parallel to Runway 2/20, and other topographical factors. Financially, the amount of AIP funding available is a limiting factor. Reported that public roads constrain development, including County Road 446 and County Road 41, located within 500 feet from the Runway 7. Financially, the amount of funding provided by the federal and state grant system limits the airport. Reported that County Road 15 (Gurneyville Road, located approximately 360 feet from the Runway 21 threshold) limits the runway length and airside development. One potential community limiting factor is a nearby horse farm. Financially, the airport is limited by the difficulty of obtaining the FAA required 10% local match for federally eligible projects. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 31

32 Table 6 5 Details of Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Associated City Airport Name Limiting Factors Reported by Airports GA Level 4 Caldwell Noble County* Reported that runway expansion is limited at both ends by Wolf Run Lake to the southwest and by terrain to the northeast. Wolf Run State Park and the associated Wolf Run Lake also environmentally limit the airport. Financial concerns are also a limiting factor. Dayton Moraine Air Park* Primarily limited physically by the Great Miami River, which runs around the west, south, and east sides of the airport. The river is held back by a levee, but the required water pumps located on the airfield limit development. The airport is limited from erecting a fence due to community preference. Deshler Deshler Municipal Landing Strip* Did not report any limiting factors. East Liverpool Columbiana County Reported that the primary limiting factor is the terrain drop off on the approach end for Runway 25. Financially, the airport authority and the county have limited funds to contribute to large scale projects (over $1 million). Georgetown Brown County Reported that the runway taxiway configuration, which does not provide the standard runway to taxiway separation, is a physical limiting factor. In order to achieve the standard, the airport must acquire property. However, the airport is limited financially due to limited county funding. Kelleys Island Kelleys Island Municipal Reported Lake Erie and the Kelleys Island State Park as both physical and environmental factors. There are a number of endangered flora and fauna located in the Kelleys Island State Park. Financially, the airport is limited as it has a lack of funds for capital improvement projects. McConnelsville Morgan County* Reported being limited in its ability to expand the Runway 30 end by a drop off in terrain approximately 500 feet from the end, and must be filled in for development. However, this is also an environmental limiting factor as the drop off forms a wetland area. Financially, a lack of available funding limits the airport. Middle Bass Middle Bass Island Airport Reported several physical limiting factors, including TR 154 to the east and Lake Erie to the west. Lake Erie and a 12 acre freshwater emergent wetland to the northeast of the airport are environmental limiting factors. Financially, a lack of funds for large capital improvement projects limits the airport. Mount Gilead New Lexington North Bass Island Put In Bay Upper Sandusky Morrow County Perry County North Bass Island Put In Bay Wyandot County Reported being limited by very little county funding for the airport. The airport also reported that they currently have no operating budget. Reported that development is limited by its small property area. A lack of county support was reported as both a community and financial limiting factor. Reported physical and environmental limitations, including a close proximity to Lake Erie and wooded areas adjacent to the airport. A community limiting factor is that the island s already small population continues to decrease. However, the airport is to remain open to service the remaining population. Financially, the airport is limited by having a lack of funds for large capital improvement projects. Reported that its proximity to Lake Erie and nearby wooded areas constrain future development. The proximity to Lake Erie is also considered an environmental constraint. The airport is also financially constrained by funding on large capital improvement projects. Reported that its current property boundaries limit potential expansion. Financially, the airport is limited due its small budget. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 32

33 Table 6 5 Details of Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Associated City Airport Name Limiting Factors Reported by Airports Washington Court House Fayette County Did not report any limiting factors. West Union Alexander Salamon Reported a need to acquire property to provide sufficient runway taxiway separation, apron parking, and terminal facilities for transient aircraft. Financially, the airport is limited due to the low level of funding available from Adams County. Willard Willard* Reported that roadways in runway approaches as a constraint on expansion. These roads include State Route 103, located within 400 feet of the Runway 10, and US 224, located approximately 1,100 feet from the Runway 28 threshold. The airport also reported receiving low community support and a lack of adequate funding. Woodsfield Monroe County Reported a financial concern over sponsor participation. *Non NPIAS Airport Source: Airport Inventory and Data Survey OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 33

34 Local Commitment The level to which an airport sponsor is committed to the upkeep and successful operation of an airport plays a large part in that airport s efficiency, safety, and future viability. Local commitment, as defined within this study, is concerned with local funding received by airports, the level to which airport sponsors maintain airport planning, and working with the FAA to conduct compliance and safety projects at the airport. Ensuring local matching funds for federally funded airport projects is crucial to the upkeep and expansion of public airports. The majority of airport funding is provided through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). However, many projects funded through the AIP require additional state and local funding sources, and without sufficient funding for the local share the federal money is not made available. Furthermore, certain items such as the airport s operational costs and projects for revenue generating areas are not eligible for federal funding under AIP. While state funds can provide some support for certain projects, the commitment of funding by local sources is crucial to ensure safe, efficient, and continued operation and development. Once state and federal funds are considered, the remainder of funds typically comes from five principal sources: Revenue generated at the airport Taxes for support of the local government as a whole Sale of general obligation bonds The sale of revenue bonds Passenger facility charges (PFCs) PFCs are a funding source for commercial service airports. These airports are not the focus of this study, and therefore PFC s not evaluated. The level of local commitment is not only a measure of the local support for the airport, but also indicative of the financial commitment to bring the airport into compliance with items such as RSA improvements, obstructions, through the fence, non standard leases, etc. The following sections provide an overview of the FAA s AIP and detail certain aspects of local commitment at general aviation airports in the Ohio airport system. FAA Policy The FAA funds the planning and development of public use airports through the AIP. Originally established in 1982 by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, the AIP provides grants to public agencies for the planning and development of public use airports included in the NPIAS. The AIP is authorized by Congress, and funded by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which draws from user fees, fuel taxes and other revenue sources. Congress amends the act as required to authorize appropriate funding levels on an annual or multi year basis. The most recent amendment was the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of The FAA refers to the recipients of AIP grants as airport sponsors. A sponsor s eligibility to receive funds depends on the type of airport and the type of proposed project. The type of project is particularly important because not all projects are eligible for grants under the authorizing legislation. In general, eligible projects include those related to addressing airport safety, capacity, security, and environmental concerns. This includes most airfield capital improvements such as pavement construction/rehabilitation, navigational aids, airfield lighting, and signage. Any capital improvements must be for public use and non exclusive in their use. Other projects related to operational costs and revenue generating improvements are not eligible for AIP grants. Examples OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 34

35 of ineligible projects include maintenance equipment, hangars, building repairs, fuel farms, parking facilities, landscaping, and industrial park development. The AIP program does not reimburse the full amount to sponsors for eligible projects. The amount of funding depends on the type of sponsor. Currently, for primary large and medium hub airports, the federal share of AIP eligible expenses is 75 percent. The federal share of noise program implementation is 80 percent for these airports. For all other airports, including small primary, non primary, reliever, and general aviation airports, the federal share of AIP eligible expenses is 90 percent. Airports that are in economically distressed areas, as defined by the Federal Highway Administration, have 95 percent federal participation. The AIP process provides funding through two distinct categories: entitlement and discretionary. Entitlement funds are provided for commercial service and cargo airports based on the number of annual enplaned passengers and volume of cargo handled at a specific airport. Other appropriations of AIP funds go to states, general aviation airports, and other commercial service airports, as well as noise compatibility planning and programs. Any remaining AIP funds at the national level are designated as discretionary funds and may be used by the FAA for funding eligible projects. In some years, discretionary funding has been specifically directed to certain national priorities, such as a recent program to improve runway safety areas. The FAA distributes discretionary funds based on a national prioritization system. The primary FAA planning tool for identifying and prioritizing critical airport development on a national level is the national airports Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This document is formulated based on individual airport CIPs and state input. In addition to completing a CIP, airports must also show the proposed projects on a current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) approved by the FAA. An ALP is a graphic depiction of the airport and its current and future facilities. The proposed project must involve more than $25,000 in AIP funds, be completed without undue delay, and be reasonably consistent with the plans of the planning agencies of the area. To be considered for AIP funding, sufficient funds must be available for the portion not paid with AIP funds. The remaining funds are provided through state and/or local commitments. Ohio Airports Local Commitment During the inventory phase of the study, Ohio airport managers and sponsors were asked to report certain factors related to local commitment. Sponsors reported the existence of local matching funds for AIP projects and the amount of funding matched in the past five years (federal fiscal years 2008 to 2012). Airports that reported the existence of local matching funds for federally funded projects are shown on Exhibit 6 6. This represents airports that matched AIP funding during any one year of the study period. Of the 97 general aviation airports in the Ohio system, 84 reported the existence of local matching funds. If reported, the five year local match amount is detailed by airport on Table 6 6. The seven non NPIAS airports in Ohio are not eligible for FAA funding. Therefore, local matching funds are not a compliance factor for these airports. Airport managers and sponsors also reported the existence and currency of airport master plans and ALPs. Of the 97 general aviation airports in the Ohio system, 84 reported the existence of an airport master plan, and 91 reported having an ALP. Of these, 28 master plans were last updated in the past five years (2008 or later, per the 2012 base year of the study), and 40 ALPs were last updated in that period. This data is also detailed on Table 6 6. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 35

36 Table 6 7 details AIP projects related to compliance and safety that have been completed in the past five years at NPIAS general aviation airports in the Ohio system. These projects include RSA improvements, the installation of weather reporting equipment, runway extensions, installing fencing, rehabilitating pavements, installing and rehabilitating lighting, and the removal of obstructions, among other projects. These projects were compiled by local and federal grants awarded for aviation projects at Ohio system airports. This list does not include all airport projects over this five year period, only those related to the compliance factors in this chapter. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 36

37 AIRPORT COMPLIANCE EVALUATION 2014 Exhibit 6 6 Ohio System Airports Reporting Local Matching Funds on Development Projects OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 37

38 Table 6 6 Local Matching Funds, Master Plan, and ALP Status of Ohio General Aviation Airports Local Funding Match (Federal Fiscal Year ) 5 Year Match Amount Master Plan Year of Last Master Plan Update Year of Last ALP Update Associated City Airport Name ALP GA Level 1 Akron Akron Fulton International Yes $200,000 Yes 1992 Yes 1992 Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Regional Yes $103,293 Yes 1979 Yes 2004 Bluffton Bluffton Yes $50,000 Yes 1989 Yes 1989 Bowling Green Wood County Yes $60,000 Yes 2006 Yes 2006 Chillicothe Ross County Yes $117,985 Yes Unreported Yes 2006 Cincinnati Cincinnati Municipal Lunken Field Yes $75,000 Yes 2004 Yes 2004 Cleveland Burke Lakefront Yes $39,000 Yes 2012 Yes In Progress Cleveland Cuyahoga County Yes $150,000 Yes 2010 Yes 2010 Columbus Bolton Field Yes $39,438 Yes 2002 Yes 2013 Columbus Ohio State University Yes $55,430 Yes 1990 Yes 2010 Coshocton Richard Downing Yes $87,291 Yes 2010 Yes 2010 Dayton Dayton Wright Brothers Yes $81,274 Yes 2008 Yes 2008 Defiance Defiance Memorial Yes $103,991 Yes Unreported Yes 1998 Delaware Delaware Municipal Jim Moore Field Yes Unreported Yes 2006 Yes 2005 Hamilton Butler County Regional Yes $65,135 Yes 1993 Yes 2008 Lebanon Warren County/John Lane Field Yes $100,000 Yes 2009 Yes 2012 Lima Lima Allen County Yes $175,000 Yes 2012 Yes 2012 Lorain/Elyria Lorain County Regional Yes $80,000 Yes Circa 2000 Yes 2003 Mansfield Mansfield Lahm Regional Yes $140,621 Yes 2009 Yes 2009 Marion Marion Municipal Yes $83,000 Yes 2009 Yes 2005 Marysville Union County Yes $26,933 Yes 2001 Yes 1997 Middletown Middletown Regional/Hook Field Yes $50,000 Yes 2008 Yes 2010 Ottawa Putnam County Yes $150,000 Yes 2011 Yes 2011 Portsmouth Greater Portsmouth Regional Yes $70,000 Yes 2009 Yes 2009 Sidney Sidney Municipal Yes $95,000 Yes 2007 Yes 2007 Springfield Springfield Beckley Municipal Yes $1,250,000 Yes 2005 Yes 2005 Tiffin Seneca County Yes $250,000 Yes 2009 Yes 2009 Toledo Toledo Executive Yes Unreported Yes 1993 Yes 2011 Wapakoneta Neil Armstrong Yes $45,100 Yes 2006 Yes 2003 Willoughby Willoughby Lost Nation Municipal No Yes 1999 Yes 1999 Wilmington Wilmington Air Park* Non NPIAS Yes Unreported Yes 1992 OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 38

39 Table 6 6 Local Matching Funds, Master Plan, and ALP Status of Ohio General Aviation Airports Local Funding Match (Federal Fiscal Year ) 5 Year Match Amount Year of Last Master Plan Update Master Year of Last Associated City Airport Name Plan ALP ALP Update Wooster Wayne County Yes $8,750 Yes 2008 Yes 2008 Zanesville Zanesville Municipal Yes $175,000 Yes 2011 Yes 2013 GA Level 2 Athens/Albany Ohio University Snyder Field Yes $62,083 Yes 2007 Yes 2007 Bellefontaine Bellefontaine Regional Yes $34,000 Yes 2006 Yes 2006 Bryan Williams County Yes $102,874 No Yes 2006 Circleville Pickaway County Memorial Yes $800,000 Yes 1993 Yes 2013 Findlay Findlay Yes $30,000 Yes Unreported Yes 2012 Fostoria Fostoria Metropolitan Yes Unreported Yes Unreported Yes Unreported Fremont Sandusky County Regional Yes $88,372 Yes 2008 Yes 2008 Jackson James A. Rhodes Yes $28,600 Yes 1999 Yes 1999 Lancaster Fairfield County Yes $122,400 Yes 2007 Yes 2007 Millersburg Holmes County Yes $175,000 Yes 1983 Yes 1983 Mount Vernon Knox County Yes Unreported Yes 1992 Yes 2011 New Philadelphia Harry Clever Field Yes $47,830 Yes 2007 Yes 2007 Newark Newark Heath Yes $60,000 Yes 2010 Yes 2010 Oxford Miami University Yes $36,538 Yes 2006 Yes 2012 Port Clinton Carl R. Keller Field Yes $250,000 Yes 2003 Yes 2003 Ravenna Portage County Yes Unreported Yes 2012 Yes 2012 Urbana Grimes Field Yes $47,838 Yes 1986 Yes 1999 Wauseon Fulton County Yes $613,500 Yes 2005 Yes 1998 GA Level 3 Ashland Ashland County Yes Unreported Yes Unreported Yes Unreported Barnesville Barnesville Bradfield Yes $75,000 Yes 2012 Yes 2012 Batavia Clermont County No $23,254 Yes Very old Yes Unreported Bucyrus Port Bucyrus Crawford County Yes $60,000 Yes 2004 Yes 2004 Cadiz Harrison County Yes $32,456 Yes Unreported Yes 2006 Cambridge Cambridge Municipal Yes $161,641 Yes 2006 Yes 2006 Carrollton Carroll County Tolson Yes $45,000 Yes 2008 Yes 2008 Celina Lakefield Yes $107,000 No Yes 1998 Chesapeake/Huntington, WV Lawrence County Airpark No Yes 2013 Yes 2012 Dayton Greene County Lewis A. Jackson Regional Yes Unreported Yes 1997 Yes 1997 OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 39

40 Table 6 6 Local Matching Funds, Master Plan, and ALP Status of Ohio General Aviation Airports Local Funding Match (Federal Fiscal Year ) 5 Year Match Amount Year of Last Master Plan Update Master Year of Last Associated City Airport Name Plan ALP ALP Update Galion Galion Municipal Yes Unreported Yes Unreported Yes Unreported Gallipolis Gallia Meigs Regional Yes $35,000 Yes 2010 Yes 2010 Harrison Cincinnati West Yes $30,000 Yes 2007 Yes 2010 Hillsboro Highland County Yes $31,884 Yes 2001 Yes 2001 Kent Kent State University Yes $35,958 Yes In Progress Yes In Progress Kenton Hardin County Yes $43,500 Yes 1996 Yes 1996 London Madison County No Yes 1979 Yes 2006 McArthur Vinton County Yes $20,000 Yes 2012 Yes 2012 Medina Medina Municipal Yes $372,000 No Yes 2006 Middlefield Geauga County Yes $64,864 Yes 2009 Yes 2009 Napoleon Henry County Yes $22,224 NA Yes 2012 Norwalk Norwalk Huron County No Yes 2005 Yes 2005 Piqua Piqua Airport Hartzell Field* Non NPIAS No No Steubenville Jefferson County Airpark Yes $57,651 Yes 2013 Yes 2013 Van Wert Van Wert County Yes Unreported Yes 1989 Yes Unreported Versailles Darke County Yes $120,000 Yes 2009 Yes 2009 Wadsworth Wadsworth Municipal Yes $185,000 Yes 2009 Yes 2009 Waverly Pike County Yes $40,000 No Yes In Progress Wilmington Clinton Field Yes $39,759 Yes 1996 Yes 2010 GA Level 4 Caldwell Noble County* Non NPIAS No No Dayton Moraine Air Park* Non NPIAS No No Deshler Deshler Municipal Landing Strip* Non NPIAS Yes 1974 No East Liverpool Columbiana County Yes Unreported Yes 2003 Yes 2003 Georgetown Brown County Yes $114,680 No Yes 2013 Kelleys Island Kelleys Island Municipal Yes $33,765 Yes 2009 Yes 2011 McConnelsville Morgan County* Non NPIAS No Yes Unreported Middle Bass Middle Bass Island Airport Yes $10,400 Yes 1996 Yes 2012 Mount Gilead Morrow County Yes $59,000 Yes In Progress Yes In Progress New Lexington Perry County Yes $39,000 No No North Bass Island North Bass Island Yes $7,167 Yes 1996 Yes 1995 Put In Bay Put In Bay Yes $256,550 Yes 1996 Yes 2005 OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 40

41 Table 6 6 Local Matching Funds, Master Plan, and ALP Status of Ohio General Aviation Airports Local Funding Match (Federal Fiscal Year ) 5 Year Match Amount Year of Last Master Plan Update Master Year of Last Associated City Airport Name Plan ALP ALP Update Upper Sandusky Wyandot County No No No Washington Court House Fayette County Yes $100,000 Yes 2010 Yes 2010 West Union Alexander Salamon Yes $62,699 No Yes Unreported Willard Willard* Non NPIAS Yes Unreported Yes Unreported Woodsfield Monroe County Yes $40,000 Yes 2000 Yes 2012 *Non NPIAS Airport Source: Airport Inventory and Data Survey OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 41

42 Table 6 7 AIP Projects Related to Compliance Factors at Ohio General Aviation Airports in the NPIAS Associated City Airport Name FAA Fiscal Year Compliance/Safety Project Description GA Level Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System 07/25 Akron Akron Fulton International 2011 Update Airport Master Plan Study Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Regional 2008 Improve Runway Safety Area 08/26 Bluffton Bluffton 2008 Install Weather Reporting Equipment [Design] 2008 Install Perimeter Fencing 2009 Acquire Snow Removal Equipment Bowling Green Wood County 2012 Install Airfield Guidance Signs, Rehabilitate Runway [Crack Seal Runway 10/28] 10/ Remove Obstructions 2009 Extend Taxiway, Remove Obstructions Rehabilitate Runway Lighting [Phase 1 design] 5/23, Rehabilitate Taxiway Lighting [Phase design] Chillicothe Ross County 2012 Rehabilitate Taxiway [Phase 1 construction] Cincinnati Municipal 2008 Install Miscellaneous NAVAIDS Cincinnati Lunken Field 2012 Install Runway Lighting 03L/21R, Install Runway Lighting 7/25 Improve Runway Safety Area [Construction (#16 19, 21 22)] 6L/24R, Improve Runway Safety Area [Design (#16 19, 21 22)] 6L/24R, Improve Runway Safety Area [Environmental/Design Cleveland Burke Lakefront 2012 (#16 19, 21 22)] 6L/24R Cleveland Cuyahoga County 2008 Conduct Airport Master Plan Study 2008 Install Perimeter Fencing Columbus Bolton Field 2012 Rehabilitate Runway Lighting 4/ Safety Management System (SMS) Program 2010 Safety Management System (SMS) Program Acquire Safety Equipment and/or Fencing, Improve Runway Safety Area [Objects 9 & 14] Columbus Ohio State University R/27L 2010 Extend Runway 4/22, Extend Taxiway, Update Airport Master Plan Study Coshocton Richard Downing 2011 Acquire Snow Removal Equipment 2008 Install Perimeter Fencing Dayton Dayton Wright Brothers 2012 Update Airport Master Plan Study Defiance Defiance Memorial 2011 Install Perimeter Fencing 2011 Remove Obstructions, Update Airport Master Plan Study Hamilton Butler County Regional 2012 Remove Obstructions Lebanon Warren County/ 2008 Remove Obstructions OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 42

43 Table 6 7 AIP Projects Related to Compliance Factors at Ohio General Aviation Airports in the NPIAS Associated City Airport Name FAA Fiscal Year Compliance/Safety Project Description John Lane Field 2010 Install Perimeter Fencing, Remove Obstructions 2011 Install Perimeter Fencing, Remove Obstructions 2008 Extend Runway 9/ Improve Runway Safety Area 9/ Acquire Snow Removal Equipment Lima Lima Allen County 2011 Acquire Snow Removal Equipment, Update Airport Master Plan Study Lorain/Elyria Lorain County Regional No projects 2008 present 2009 Rehabilitate Taxiway Lighting [A, B, C & D Design only] 2010 Acquire Safety Equipment and/or Fencing [design] Mansfield Mansfield Lahm Regional 2011 Acquire Safety Equipment and/or Fencing [Part 139 Airport] Marion Marion Municipal 2008 Remove Obstructions 2008 Install Perimeter Fencing 2009 Install Weather Reporting Equipment Marysville Union County 2010 Install Perimeter Fencing Middletown Middletown Regional/Hook Field No projects 2008 present 2011 Widen Runway [Design] 9/27 Ottawa Putnam County 2012 Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System 9/27, Widen Runway 9/ Install Perimeter Fencing, Rehabilitate Runway 18/ Install Perimeter Fencing [Replace vehicle gate], Install Weather Reporting Equipment 2011 Install Miscellaneous NAVAIDS Portsmouth Greater Portsmouth Regional 2012 Improve Airport Drainage 2008 Remove Obstructions Sidney Sidney Municipal 2009 Improve Runway Safety Area 10/28, Update Airport Master Plan Study 2011 Improve Runway Safety Area 6/24 Springfield Springfield Beckley Municipal 2012 Acquire Snow Removal Equipment 2009 Install Airfield Guidance Signs, Install Taxiway Lighting Tiffin Seneca County 2012 Rehabilitate Runway [Crack Seal, Seal Coat, Marking] 6/24, Remove Obstructions 2008 Update Airport Master Plan Study Toledo Toledo Executive 2011 Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System [design] 14/32, Update Airport Master Plan Study [reimbursement] 2009 Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System 8/26 Wapakoneta Neil Armstrong 2010 Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System 8/26 OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 43

44 Associated City Wooster Zanesville GA Level 2 Table 6 7 AIP Projects Related to Compliance Factors at Ohio General Aviation Airports in the NPIAS Airport Name Wayne County Zanesville Municipal FAA Fiscal Year Compliance/Safety Project Description 2008 Remove Obstructions 2009 Rehabilitate Runway Lighting 10/28 Install Airfield Guidance Signs, Install Miscellaneous NAVAIDS, Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System 10/28, Rehabilitate Airport Beacons, Rehabilitate Runway Lighting 10/28, 2010 Rehabilitate Taxiway Lighting 2011 Install Airfield Guidance Signs 2012 Install Airfield Guidance Signs 2010 Improve Runway Safety Area 7/ Remove Obstructions 2008 Install Miscellaneous NAVAIDS Athens/Albany Ohio University Snyder Field 2009 Improve Runway Safety Area 7/ Remove Obstructions Bryan Williams County 2008 Update Airport Master Plan Study 2008 Install Perimeter Fencing, Remove Obstructions 2009 Install Perimeter Fencing 2011 Acquire Snow Removal Equipment, Light Obstructions, Remove Obstructions Circleville Pickaway County Memorial 2012 Install Perimeter Fencing [Phase 2] 2009 Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System 07/25, Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System 18/ Conduct Airport Master Plan Study Findlay Findlay 2012 Install Airfield Guidance Signs 2008 Extend Runway 9/ Extend Runway 9/27, Rehabilitate Apron Fostoria Fostoria Metropolitan 2011 Install Perimeter Fencing Fremont Sandusky County Regional 2012 Install Perimeter Fencing [Design Only] 2008 Remove Obstructions Jackson James A Rhodes 2011 Remove Obstructions Lancaster Fairfield County No projects 2008 present 2011 Extend Runway 9/27, Rehabilitate Airport Beacons Millersburg Holmes County 2012 Extend Runway 9/27 OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 44

45 Table 6 7 AIP Projects Related to Compliance Factors at Ohio General Aviation Airports in the NPIAS Associated City Airport Name FAA Fiscal Year Compliance/Safety Project Description 2008 Extend Runway 10/28 Mount Vernon Knox County 2009 Update Airport Master Plan Study 2009 Remove Obstructions 2010 Install Perimeter Fencing Newark Newark Heath 2011 Improve Runway Safety Area 9/ Install Taxiway Lighting, Install Weather Reporting Equipment 2009 Install Weather Reporting Equipment Oxford Miami University 2010 Extend Taxiway, Install Apron Lighting Port Clinton Carl R. Keller Field 2008 Extend Taxiway 2009 Remove Obstructions Ravenna Portage County 2010 Acquire Snow Removal Equipment [Tractor with Blower and Blade], Update Airport Master Plan Study 2008 Extend Runway 18/36, Remove Obstructions Wauseon Fulton County 2012 Install Weather Reporting Equipment GA Level 3 Ashland Ashland County No projects 2008 present Barnesville Barnesville Bradfield No projects 2008 present Bucyrus Port Bucyrus Crawford County No projects 2008 present Cadiz Harrison County No projects 2008 present Cambridge Carrollton Celina Chesapeake/ Huntington, WV Cambridge Municipal Carroll County Tolson Lakefield Lawrence County Airpark Improve Runway Safety Area 4/22, Remove Obstructions, Install Runway Vertical/Visual 2008 Guidance System 4/22, Install Weather Reporting Equipment 2011 Acquire Snow Removal Equipment Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System [Design] 04/22, Rehabilitate Runway [Crack 2012 Repair] 4/ Acquire Snow Removal Equipment Remove Obstructions 2011 Improve Runway Safety Area 7/ Install Perimeter Fencing [Design] 2008 Extend Runway 8/ Remove Obstructions 2010 Rehabilitate Runway Lighting 8/ Rehabilitate Runway Lighting 8/26 OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 45

46 Table 6 7 AIP Projects Related to Compliance Factors at Ohio General Aviation Airports in the NPIAS Associated City Airport Name FAA Fiscal Year Compliance/Safety Project Description 2008 Extend Taxiway, Install Taxiway Lighting, Remove Obstructions Greene County 2009 Install Taxiway Lighting, Install Weather Reporting Equipment Dayton Lewis A. Jackson Regional 2012 Remove Obstructions [Phase 1], Update Airport Master Plan Study Galion Galion Municipal No projects 2008 present 2008 Install Weather Reporting Equipment, Update Airport Master Plan Study Gallipolis Gallia Meigs Regional 2012 Remove Obstructions 2008 Rehabilitate Taxiway Lighting Hillsboro Highland County 2011 Light Obstructions, Remove Obstructions Kent Kent State University 2012 Update Airport Master Plan Study 2008 Update Airport Master Plan Study Kenton Hardin County 2009 Install Taxiway Lighting 2008 Improve Runway Safety Area 9/27, Remove Obstructions Improve Runway Safety Area [Phase 4 Safety Area Improvements] 9/27, Remove Obstructions McArthur Vinton County 2009 [Phase 4 Obstruction Removal] Medina Medina Municipal No projects 2008 present Napoleon Henry County 2009 Improve Runway Safety Area 10/28, Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System 10/28, Rehabilitate Runway Lighting 10/28 Norwalk Norwalk Huron County No projects 2008 present Steubenville Jefferson County Airpark 2009 Update Airport Master Plan Study 2010 Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System 9/27 Van Wert Van Wert County 2012 Remove Obstructions 2011 Acquire Snow Removal Equipment [tractor w/attachments] Versailles Darke County 2012 Remove Obstructions [preliminary design] Wadsworth Wadsworth Municipal No projects 2008 present Construct Building, Update Airport Master Plan Study [Update ALP property plan sheet to 2009 delineate wetlands] Waverly Pike County 2011 Improve Runway Safety Area 7/25 Wilmington Clinton Field No projects 2008 present GA Level 4 East Liverpool Columbiana County No projects 2008 present Georgetown Brown County 2011 Remove Obstructions OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 46

47 Associated City Kelleys Island Table 6 7 AIP Projects Related to Compliance Factors at Ohio General Aviation Airports in the NPIAS Airport Name Kelleys Island Municipal FAA Fiscal Year Compliance/Safety Project Description 2008 Update Airport Master Plan Study 2011 Remove Obstructions, Update Airport Master Plan Study 2012 Remove Obstructions 2009 Install Apron Lighting, Update Airport Master Plan Study [Update ALP and Obstruction Info] Middle Bass Middle Bass Island Airport 2010 Rehabilitate Runway [Crack Seal and Seal Coat] 10/ Conduct Airport Master Plan Study Mount Gilead Morrow County 2010 Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System 10/ Improve Runway Safety Area 8/ Update Airport Master Plan Study New Lexington Perry County 2012 Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance System [Design] 8/26 North Bass Island North Bass Island 2010 Rehabilitate Runway [Sealcoat] 1/ Install Perimeter Fencing [phase 1] 2009 Acquire Snow Removal Equipment, Remove Obstructions 2010 Update Airport Master Plan Study Put In Bay Put in Bay 2011 Update Airport Master Plan Study Washington Court House Fayette County No projects 2008 present 2008 Remove Obstructions West Union Alexander Salamon 2011 Rehabilitate Runway Lighting 5/23 Woodsfield Monroe County 2012 Rehabilitate Runway [Crack Seal & Crack Repair] 7/25, Rehabilitate Taxiway [Crack Seal] *Non NPIAS Airport Source: Airport Inventory and Data Survey, FAA AIP Grant Histories, ODOT OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 47

48 Primary Runway Safety Area (RSA) The Runway Safety Area (RSA) is one of several areas in and around an airport that is regulated by the FAA for a number of purposes, including aircraft safety, public safety, and the efficiency of airport operations. The RSA is specifically defined by the FAA as a defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. 9 The RSA is a rectangular area centered on a runway centerline, with dimensions based on the runway design code (RDC). A hypothetical example of an RSA is shown in Exhibit 6 7. Exhibit 6 7 Runway Safety Area Source: CDM Smith, FAA A non standard or nonconforming RSA can have the potential of requiring a displaced threshold, reducing usable runway length, affecting other runway and taxiway geometry, and/or otherwise limiting the development capabilities and diminishing the function of the airport. A nonconforming RSA can result from any of the following: Insufficient airport property ownership Man made and natural object penetration and height above surface Ground contour and grades; both longitudinal and transverse Ground compaction Roadway/vehicle access Meeting RSA compliance within this study means conforming to FAA standards. Although this study does make broad recommendations about nonconforming RSAs in the Ohio airport system, it is no replacement for detailed engineering studies or airport master plans, and makes no claim of replacing such studies. RSA data may be one important factor considered when determining which general aviation airport or airports in the Ohio system are most suited for expansion, should the need arise. FAA Policy The RSA, as it is defined and regulated by the FAA, developed from earlier landing strips and safety areas surrounding runways. Under dry and normal conditions, an RSA must have the ability to support aircraft without damaging the aircraft or injuring occupants. In this way, an RSA enhances the safety of aircraft that undershoot, overrun, or veer off of a runway while also allowing greater accessibility for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and rescue equipment. The FAA develops 9 Federal Aviation Administration, Order B, Runway Safety Program OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 48

49 RSA standards based on the assumption that 90 percent of runway overruns will be contained within the RSA. FAA standards for RSA design are detailed in Advisory Circular 150/ A, Airport Design. Under FAA airport design standards, the RSA must be: 1. Cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations; 2. Drained by grading or storm sewers to prevent water accumulation; 3. Capable, under dry conditions, of supporting snow removal equipment, Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing damage to the aircraft; and 4. Free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the RSA because of their function. Objects higher than 3 inches (76 mm) above grade must be constructed, to the extent practical, on frangible structures of the lowest practical height with the frangible point no higher than 3 inches (76 mm) above grade. Other objects, such as manholes, should be constructed at grade and capable of supporting the loads noted above. In no case should their height exceed 3 inches (76 mm) above grade. While many airport RSAs experience natural or man made conditions that prevent full compliance, standards remain in effect, and no action should be undertaken that furthers an RSA s noncompliance. For example, facilities such as NAVAIDs, which would not normally be permitted in an RSA, should not be installed within the RSA dimensions even when the RSA does not meet standards in other respects. Airport sponsors and the FAA are required to perform continuous evaluation of all practicable alternatives for improving sub standard RSAs. Improvements, including incremental improvements that stop short of full compliance, are required until the RSA meets all standards for grade, compaction, and object frangibility. It is recommended that no part of an RSA be more than 300 feet (100 m) from an all weather road or paved operational surface. This ensures that the entire RSA is accessible to rescue and ARFF equipment. 10 RSA Dimension As stated above, the RSA is a two dimensional, rectangular surface centered on the runway centerline. The exact dimensions of an RSA are determined by the RDC of the specific runway, combined with instrument approach visibility minimums. A runway with a critical aircraft with a larger wingspan and fast approach requires a larger RSA. The length of an RSA extending beyond the runway end begins at the runway end when a stopway is not provided, and when a stopway is provided, the length begins at the stopway end. RSA dimensions required for each RDC are detailed in Table Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/ A, Airport Design OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 49

50 Table 6 8 RSA Dimensions by Runway Design Code Runway Design Visibility Minimums Code Not Lower Than 3/4 Mile Lower Than 3/4 Mile A/B I 240 beyond x 120 wide 600 beyond x 300 wide A/B II 300 beyond x 150 wide 600 beyond x 300 wide A/B III 600 beyond x 300 wide 800 beyond x 400 wide A/B IV 1,000 beyond x 500 wide 1,000 beyond x 500 wide C/D/E 1,000 beyond x 500 wide 1,000 beyond x 500 wide Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/ A, Airport Design RSA Declared Distance s A declared distance represents the maximum distance available for meeting takeoff, rejected takeoff, and landing distance performance requirements for aircraft. As they relate to RSAs, declared distances may be used to obtain additional RSA prior to the runway s threshold (the start of the Landing Distance Available) and/or beyond the stop end of the Landing Distance Available and Accelerate Stop Distance Available, to mitigate unacceptable incompatible land uses in the RPZ, to meet runway approach and/or departure surface clearance requirements, in accordance with airport design standards, or to mitigate environmental impacts. 11 On a nonconforming RSA, declared distances can be implemented as an incremental improvement, but only in cases where otherwise meeting RSA compliance is impractical. RSA Grade s RSA standards also specify acceptable longitudinal and transverse ground contour grade and compaction beyond the runway ends to help protect aircraft during takeoff or landing mishaps, and to provide access for emergency equipment. Longitudinal grades, longitudinal grade changes, vertical curves, and distance between changes in grades for the section of an RSA between the runway ends (parallel to the runway) are the same as the comparable standards for the end and stopway. Exceptions are allowed when necessary because of taxiways or other runways within the area. For the first 200 feet (61 m) of the RSA beyond the runway ends, the longitudinal grade is between 0 and 3.0 percent, with any slope being downward from the ends. For the remainder of the safety area, the maximum allowable positive longitudinal grade is such that no part of the RSA penetrates any applicable approach surface or clearway plane. The maximum allowable negative grade is 5.0 percent. Limitations on longitudinal grade changes are plus or minus 2.0 percent per 100 feet (30 m). Because the ability for an overrunning aircraft to stop within the RSA decreases as the downhill grade increases, it is recommended to avoid using the maximum grades if possible. Maximum grades may also result in approach lighting or other NAVAIDs being mounted on nonfrangible supports. RSA with EMAS s An Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) is designed to stop an overrunning aircraft by exerting predictable deceleration forces on its landing gear as the EMAS material deforms. EMAS performance is dependent on aircraft weight, landing gear configuration, tire pressure, and entry speed. The RSA length beyond the runway end may be reduced to that required to install an EMAS (the designed set back of the EMAS included) designed to stop the design aircraft exiting the runway end at 70 knots. In approved cases, the RSA length prior to threshold can be reduced if using an EMAS. An EMAS is an alternative that should be considered to mitigate overruns at airports when a full dimension RSA is not practicable due to natural obstacles, local development, and/or environmental constraints. An EMAS may also be used to maximize runway length. 11 Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/ A, Airport Design OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 50

51 Ohio Airports RSA Compliance The primary data source for RSA compliance was airport manager and sponsor reporting, collected during the inventory phase of the project. Ohio system airports were asked to report the existence of primary runway RSA issues, the runway end to which this issue applied, and all known details. In the event that an airport did not report on their RSA compliance, satellite imagery was used to determine, to the best of the project team s ability, any issues in the RSAs of a system airport s primary runway. Other data sources used in this analysis include CAD drawings provided by ODOT, airport inspection letters provided by ODOT, ALPs, and airport CIPs. As stated previously, these estimations of compliance cannot replace the work of an engineering study or airport master plan. Exhibit 6 8 shows airports in the Ohio system that reported no issues on their primary RSA. In total, 67 of the 97 general aviation system airports reported or were found to have no issues on their primary RSA. Table 6 9 then details the remaining 30 general aviation airports in the Ohio system that reported or were found to have issues in their primary RSAs, including known reasons for noncompliance. Common reasons for noncompliance include road location, trees and other natural objects, and improper grading. It is important to note that, while 67 general aviation system airports reported having no issues on their primary RSA, an RSA study/evaluation/determination is still necessary prior to any runway rehabilitation or reconstruction. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 51

52 AIRPORT COMPLIANCE EVALUATION 2014 Exhibit 6 8 System Airports with No Issues in Their Primary RSA OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 52

53 Table 6 9 Issues on Primary RSAs at Ohio System Airports RSA Prior to Threshold/Beyond Departure End Required (ft.) Affected Runway Ends Associated City Airport Name Primary Runway ARC RSA Violation (Object, Grade, Other) GA Level 1 Akron Akron Fulton International 07/25 C II 600/ Railroad Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Regional 09/27 C II 600/ /27 Leased area, brush, cultivation, ditches and grade changes Cincinnati Cincinnati Municipal Lunken Field 03R/21L C III 600/ L Trees, service road Cleveland Cuyahoga County 06/24 D II 600/ /24 Grading, trees, road, fencing, golf course Dayton Dayton Wright Brothers 02/20 B II 300/ Trees, fence and a road Lima Lima Allen County 10/28 C II 600/ Crops Mansfield Mansfield Lahm Regional 14/32 C IV 600/ Service road Marion Marion Municipal 07/25 B II 300/ Seasonal crops and grade changes Middletown Middletown Regional/Hook Field 05/23 B II 300/ Pond, grade changes, access road Portsmouth Greater Portsmouth Regional 18/36 B II 300/ Grade changes Wilmington Wilmington Air Park* 04L/22R D IV 600/ R Service road Wooster Wayne County 10/28 B II 300/300 10/28 Crops, a road, and grade changes GA Level 2 Jackson James A. Rhodes 01/19 B II 300/ Grade changes Lancaster Fairfield County 10/28 C II 600/ /28 A road, grade changes, crops New Philadelphia Harry Clever Field 14/32 B II 300/300 14/32 Property, road, and cemetery Oxford Miami University 05/23 B I Small 240/240 05/23 Pavement dropoff > 3" GA Level 3 Barnesville Barnesville Bradfield 09/27 B I 240/240 09/27 Grade changes, brush, and a road. Bucyrus Port Bucyrus Crawford County 04/22 B II 300/300 04/22 A culvert /drainage ditch Chesapeake/ Huntington, WV Lawrence County Airpark 08/26 B I 240/240 08/26 Trees, brush, an access road, and grade changes Galion Galion Municipal 05/23 B I 240/ Grade changes Gallipolis Gallia Meigs Regional 05/23 B I 240/240 05/23 Road, ditch, grade changes Hillsboro Highland County 05/23 B I 240/240 05/23 Grade changes McArthur Vinton County 09/27 B I 240/240 09/27 A road, and grade changes Norwalk Norwalk Huron County 10/28 B II 300/300 10/28 Road, trees, brush Piqua Piqua Hartzell Field* 08/26 B I 240/ Cultivation OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 53

54 Table 6 9 Issues on Primary RSAs at Ohio System Airports Primary Runway RSA Prior to Threshold/Beyond Departure End Required (ft.) Affected Runway Ends Associated City Airport Name ARC RSA Violation (Object, Grade, Other) GA Level 4 Deshler Deshler Municipal Landing Strip* 09/27 A I 240/ Access road, trees, brush, creek, fence Kelleys Island Kelleys Island Municipal 09/27 A I Small 240/ Road and grade changes McConnelsville Morgan County* 12/30 B I 240/ Grade changes and roads New Lexington Perry County 08/26 B I 240/ Grade changes Willard Willard* 10/28 B I 240/ Aircraft ramp and a road *Non NPIAS Airport Source: Airport Inventory and Data Survey, CDM Smith, ODOT, RS&H OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 54

55 Primary Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) The Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is another of the airport areas that is regulated by the FAA for purposes of safety and efficiency. The RPZ is a trapezoidal area located at ground level prior to the threshold or beyond the runway end, designed to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. This is best achieved through airport owner control over RPZs, obtained through the acquisition of sufficient property interest in the RPZ or the acquisition of an easement. Control also includes clearing and maintaining these areas. A hypothetical RPZ is shown in Exhibit 6 9. Exhibit 6 9 Runway Protection Zone Source: CDM Smith, FAA A noncompliant RPZ can result from any of the following: Insufficient airport property ownership Man made and natural object penetration and height above surface Unapproved encroachments Roadway/vehicle access RPZ compliance is typically described in terms of percentage controlled by the airport. Control is determined through either ownership, or fee simple, or an easement granting control of the area to the airport. For the purposes of this study, RPZ compliance is the sum of the percentage controlled of both primary RPZ areas. Note that the percentage controlled of an RPZ is often an estimate, and does not claim to provide the accuracy of an engineering study. RPZ data may be one important factor considered when determining which general aviation airports in the Ohio system are most suited for expansion, should the need arise. This is considered in a subsequent chapter of the study. FAA Policy and s The RPZ, as it is defined and regulated by the FAA, is a progression of earlier clear areas and the FAA s earlier Clear Zones. It is a trapezoidal shape centered about the extended runway centerline, exending from each runway end. The RPZ differs from the earlier Clear Zone by being OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 55

56 divided into extended object free (now the central portion ) and controlled activity areas, as shown in Exhibit The RPZ central portion is equal to the width of the object free area. The controlled activity areas are the remaining areas on either side of the central portion. It is recommended that no part of the RPZ is more than 330 feet (100 m) from either an all weather road or a paved operational surface so that it is accessible to rescue and fire fighting vehicles. As with the RSA, the dimension and size of an RPZ is determined by a runway s RDC combined with approach visibility minimums. A runway with a critical aircraft having a larger wingspan and faster approach requires a larger RPZ area. Runway ends can have two RPZs, an approach RPZ and departure RPZ. Both begin 200 feet (61 m) beyond the runway end or takeoff run available. While the approach and departure RPZs may be the same dimension, a departure RPZ cannot be larger than an approach RPZ. Because of this, at any particular runway end, property interests and clearing requirements are governed by the approach RPZ. The dimensions of each, per RDC, are detailed in Table Table 6 10 RPZ Dimensions by Runway Design Code Runway Visibility Minimums Design Code Visual/Not Lower Than 1 Mile Not Lower Than 3/4 Mile Lower Than 3/4 Mile Approach RPZ A/B I (Small) 250 inner, 1,000 length, 450 outer 1,000 inner, 1,700 length, 1,510 outer 1,000 inner, 2,500 length, 1,750 outer A/B I to IV 500 inner, 1,000 length, 700 outer 1,000 inner, 1,700 length, 1,510 outer 1,000 inner, 2,500 length, 1,750 outer C/D/E 500 inner, 1,700 length, 1,010 outer 1,000 inner, 1,700 length, 1,510 outer 1,000 inner, 2,500 length, 1,750 outer Departure RPZ A/B I (Small) 250 inner, 1,000 length, 450 outer 250 inner, 1,000 length, 450 outer 250 inner, 1,000 length, 450 outer A/B I to IV 500 inner, 1,000 length, 700 outer 500 inner, 1,000 length, 700 outer 500 inner, 1,000 length, 700 outer C/D/E 500 inner, 1,700 length, 1,010 outer 500 inner, 1,700 length, 1,010 outer 500 inner, 1,700 length, 1,010 outer Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/ A, Airport Design As specified in FAA Advisory Circular 150/ A, certain land uses are permissible within the RPZ. These land uses include the following: Farming that meets the minimum buffers, as specified by the FAA in Advisory Circular 150/ A. Irrigation channels as long as they do not attract birds. Airport service roads, as long as they are not public roads and are directly controlled by the airport operator. Underground facilities, as long as they meet other design criteria, such as RSA requirements, as applicable. Unstaffed NAVAIDs and facilities, such as equipment for airport facilities that are considered fixed by function in regard to the RPZ. 13 In 2012, the FAA Office of Airports deemed it necessary to clarifty federal policy on land uses within the RPZ. Changes in land use within the RPZ may be the result of an airfield project, a change in critical aircraft resulting in the increase of RPZ dimensions, a change in instrument approach procedures resulting in the increase of RPZ dimensions, or a local development proposal within the RPZ. Lane uses of primary concern include the following: Buildings or structures 12 Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/ A, Airport Design 13 Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/ A, Airport Design OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 56

57 Recreational land uses Transportation facilities Fuel storage facilities Hazardous material storage Wastewater treatment facilities Above ground utility infrastructure The FAA Regional Office (RO) and Airport District Office (ADO) must work alongside airport sponsors to idenfy alternatives pertaining to these land uses. Specifically, alternatives that could: 1. Avoid introducing the land use issue within the RPZ 2. Minimize the impact of the land use in the RPZ 3. Mitigate risk to people and property on the ground. Upon development of these alternatives, the FAA National Airport Planning and Environmental Division and FAA Airport Engineering Division will make a joint determination regarding the approval of such land uses on the airport s ALP. 14 Similarly to RSAs, improving RPZ compliance should be an ongoing effort, and the existence of noncompliance does not permit further construction or actions that violates RPZ standards. When an airport looks to gain greater control of their RPZs, whether for a construction project or for incremental improvements, the first option should be to acquire RPZ land via fee simple. If fee simple is not feasible, an easement, lease, or restrictive covenant is recommended. RPZ Compliance at Ohio Airports The primary data source for RPZ compliance was that reported by airport managers and sponsors during the inventory phase of the study. Ohio system airports were asked to report the percentage controlled of the RPZ on their primary runway. Managers were also asked to report if the RPZ control came via fee simple or easement, and if any public roadways that pass through the RPZs. When RPZ status was not directly by the airport, the percentage controlled was estimated using satellite imagery, county auditor records, and ODOT records. For the purpose of this study, RPZ compliance is directly tied to the total percentage of an RPZ controlled by the airport via fee simple, easement, or long term compatible land use. Roadways are not considered part of an RPZ. As stated previously, these are merely estimates of compliance, and do not attempt to replace the work of an engineering study or airport master plan. In total, 33 of the system s 97 general aviation airports reported 100 percent control of their primary RPZs. These airports are mapped on Exhibit An additional 17 airports reported controlling over 90 percent of their primary RPZ. Table 6 11 details RPZ compliance at each Ohio system airport, including the percent controlled of each runway end and public roadways that pass through the RPZs. 14 FAA, Memorandum: Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone, 2012 OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 57

58 AIRPORT COMPLIANCE EVALUATION 2014 Exhibit 6 10 System Airports Reporting 100 Percent Control of Their Primary RPZ OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 58

59 Associated City GA Level 1 Airport Name Table 6 11 Primary RPZ Compliance at Ohio System Airports Primary RW Primary Runway End 1: Percent Controlled Primary Runway End 2: Percent Controlled Primary Runway: Total Percent Controlled Public Roads in RPZ/Notes Akron Akron Fulton International 07/ % 85.0% 90.0% Runway 7: RailRd Tracks, Kelly Ave Runway 25: George Washington Blvd/Hilbish Ave/State Route 241, Triplett Blvd/State Route 241, Lansing Rd Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Regional 09/ % 100.0% 98.5% Runway 9: Brown Rd (County Rd 29) Bluffton Bluffton 05/ % 100.0% 97.5% None Bowling Green Wood County 10/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 28: Interstate 75 Chillicothe Ross County 05/ % 95.0% 87.5% Runway 5: Stone Rd, Andersonville Rd Cincinnati Cincinnati Municipal Lunken Field 03R/21L 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Cleveland Burke Lakefront 06L/24R 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Cleveland Cuyahoga County 06/ % 94.0% 97.0% Runway 3R: Kellogg Ave (USHighway 52) Runway 21L: Beechmont Ave (State Route 125) Runway 6L: E 9th St, Cargo Pier Runway 24R: Various Access Rds around airport Runway 6: Richmond Rd (State Route 175) Runway 24: Bishop Rd, White Rd, Tall Tree Trail Columbus Bolton Field 04/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 4: Johnson Rd Runway 22: Alkire Rd Columbus Ohio State University 09R/27L 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% None Coshocton Richard Downing 04/ % 50.0% 50.0% None Dayton Dayton Wright Brothers 02/ % 97.0% 66.5% Runway 20: Austin Boulevard Defiance Defiance Memorial 12/ % 75.0% 47.5% Runway 30: Evansport Rd Delaware Delaware Municipal Jim Moore Field 10/ % 99.0% 98.5% Runway 10: S Section Line Rd (County Rd 5) Runway 28: US Highway 42 Hamilton Butler County Regional 11/ % 100.0% 95.0% Runway 11: Tuley Rd Lebanon Warren County/John Lane Field 01/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 1: Greentree Rd Lima Lima Allen County 10/ % 100.0% 100.0% None Runway 7: Oberlin Rd (County Rd 36), Russia Rd (County Rd Lorain/Elyria Lorain County Regional 07/ % 100.0% 90.0% 57) OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 59

60 Associated City Airport Name Table 6 11 Primary RPZ Compliance at Ohio System Airports Mansfield Mansfield Lahm Regional 14/ % 100.0% 100.0% Marion Marion Municipal 07/ % 100.0% 100.0% None Primary RW Primary Runway End 1: Percent Controlled Primary Runway End 2: Percent Controlled Marysville Union County 09/ % 100.0% 99.5% Middletown Middletown Regional/Hook Field 05/ % 95.0% 97.5% Primary Runway: Total Percent Controlled Public Roads in RPZ/Notes Runway 14: Emsburger Rd (County Rd 234) Runway 32: N Main St (State Route 13), S Airport Rd Runway 9: Weaver Rd (County Rd 52) Runway 27: Columbus Ave/Industrial Pkwy (County Rd 1) Runway 5: Carmody Bvld Runway 23:Germantown Rd Runway 9: Rd J Ottawa Putnam County 09/27 0.0% 20.0% 10.0% Runway 27: Rd J 3, Rd 5h Portsmouth Greater Portsmouth Regional 18/ % 100.0% 100.0% None Sidney Sidney Municipal 10/ % 50.0% 30.0% Runway 6: W Jackson Rd Springfield Springfield Beckley Municipal 06/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 24: SR 794 Tiffin Seneca County 06/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 24: US 224 Runway 10:SR 25A FY 13 project addresses 10/28 RPZ: 100% Fee simple Toledo Toledo Executive 14/ % 25.0% 32.5% Runway 14: Ayers Rd, Drouillard Rd Runway 32: Lemoyne Rd, State Route 795 Wapakoneta Neil Armstrong 08/ % 100.0% 62.5% Runway 26: County Rd 95, State Route 219 Willoughby Willoughby Lost Nation Municipal 05/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 5: Lost Nation Rd, Hodgson Rd Wilmington Wilmington Air Park* 04L/22R 96.0% 46.0% 71.0% Approach 22R: Progress Way (SR 134) Wooster Wayne County 10/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 10: N Geyers Chapel Rd (County Rd 68) Runway 28: Honeytown Rd (County Rd 54) Zanesville Zanesville Municipal 04/ % 100.0% 100.0% None GA Level 2 Runway 7: Daily Rd Athens/Albany Ohio University Snyder Field 07/ % 99.0% 92.0% Runway 25: Columbia Rd Bellefontaine Bellefontaine Regional 07/ % 100.0% 100.0% None OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 60

61 Associated City Airport Name Table 6 11 Primary RPZ Compliance at Ohio System Airports Primary RW Primary Runway End 1: Percent Controlled Primary Runway End 2: Percent Controlled Primary Runway: Total Percent Controlled Public Roads in RPZ/Notes Runway 7: County Rd 16, Industrial Dr Runway 25: County Rd 17, County Rd D Bryan Williams County 07/ % 70.0% 47.5% Circleville Pickaway County Memorial 01/ % 80.0% 77.5% Approach 19: River Dr (County Rd 45) Findlay Findlay 18/ % 100.0% 75.0% Runway 18: State Route 15 (US Highway 68), Lima Ave Fostoria Fostoria Metropolitan 09/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 9: N County Rd 25 (Buckley St) Runway 27: N Township Rd 45 (Weaver Rd) Runway 6: State Route 19, Limerick Rd (County Rd 197) Fremont Sandusky County Regional 06/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 24: Clapp Rd (County Rd 224) Jackson James A. Rhodes 01/ % 89.0% 66.5% Runway 19: Hanley Rd (CR 265) Lancaster Fairfield County 10/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 10: Columbus Lancaster Rd NW Runway 28: Election House Rd NW (County Rd 40) Millersburg Holmes County 09/ % 50.0% 75.0% None Mount Vernon Knox County 10/ % 95.0% 96.0% Runway 10: Possum St (County Rd 23) New Philadelphia Harry Clever Field 14/32 5.0% 0.0% 2.5% Runway 14: Delaware Dr Runway 32: 20th Dr SE, 20th St Newark Newark Heath 09/ % 95.0% 95.0% Runway 9: Heath Rd, Irving Wick Dr Oxford Miami University 05/ % 20.0% 50.0% Runway 5: Riggs Rd, Brookville Rd Port Clinton Carl R. Keller Field 09/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 9: S Christy Chapel Rd (County Rd 32) Runway 27: SE Catawba Rd (State Route 53) Runway 9: Infirmary Rd (County Rd 164) Ravenna Portage County 09/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 27: State Route 44 Urbana Grimes Field 02/ % 99.0% 99.5% None Wauseon Fulton County 09/ % 50.0% 37.5% Runway 9: Township Rd 14 Runway 27: County Rd 13 GA Level 3 Ashland Ashland County 01/ % 100.0% 100.0% None Barnesville Barnesville Bradfield 09/27 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Runway 9: Airport entrance Rd Batavia Clermont County 04/ % 10.0% 10.0% Runway 4: Taylor Rd OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 61

62 Associated City Airport Name Table 6 11 Primary RPZ Compliance at Ohio System Airports Primary RW Primary Runway End 1: Percent Controlled Primary Runway End 2: Percent Controlled Primary Runway: Total Percent Controlled Public Roads in RPZ/Notes Runway 4: Mt Zion Rd (County Rd 124) Bucyrus Port Bucyrus Crawford County 04/ % 60.0% 50.0% Runway 22: Isacc Beal Rd (County Rd 32) Cadiz Harrison County 13/ % 16.0% 57.0% Runway 31: Airport Rd, Dickerson Church Rd Cambridge Cambridge Municipal 04/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 4: State Route 660 Runway 22: State Route 209 Runway 7: Alamo Rd Carrollton Carroll County Tolson 07/ % 10.0% 10.0% Runway 25: Ascot Rd, Steubenville Rd Celina Lakefield 08/ % 100.0% 97.0% Runway 8: State Route 219 Chesapeake/Huntington, WV Lawrence County Airpark 08/ % 20.0% 20.0% Runway 8: Orchard Ave Runway 26: Buffalo Creek Rd (US Highway 52) Dayton Greene County Lewis A. Jackson Regional 07/ % 10.0% 55.0% Runway 25 Approach: US Highway 35 Galion Galion Municipal 05/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 5: Galion Airport Rd (County Rd 275), State Route 309 Gallipolis Gallia Meigs Regional 05/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 5: Farm Rd, Roberts Ln Runway 23: US Highway 35, State Route 735 Runway 1: West Rd Harrison Cincinnati West 01/19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Runway 19: New Haven Rd Hillsboro Highland County 05/ % 100.0% 100.0% None Kent Kent State University 01/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 1: N River Rd Runway 19: Kent Rd (State Route 59) Kenton Hardin County 04/ % 66.0% 73.0% Runway 4: Township Rd 137 Runway 22: Airport Access Rd, City Park Rd London Madison County 09/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 27: State Route 38 McArthur Vinton County 09/ % 100.0% 75.0% Runway 9: County Rd 22 Medina Medina Municipal 09/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 9: Boneta Rd (County Rd 53) Middlefield Geauga County 11/ % 30.0% 40.0% Runway 11: South State Ave (State Route 608), TW B Runway 29: Unnamed Rdway OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 62

63 Associated City Airport Name Table 6 11 Primary RPZ Compliance at Ohio System Airports Primary RW Primary Runway End 1: Percent Controlled Primary Runway End 2: Percent Controlled Primary Runway: Total Percent Controlled Runway 10: Township Rd 11 Runway 28: Township Rd 10 Napoleon Henry County 10/ % 0.0% 10.0% Norwalk Norwalk Huron County 10/ % 80.0% 80.0% Runway 28: State Route 601 Piqua Piqua Hartzell Field* 08/ % 58.0% 47.0% Runway 26: Spiker Rd Steubenville Jefferson County Airpark 14/32 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% None Van Wert Van Wert County 09/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 27: State St Versailles Darke County 09/ % 19.0% 59.5% Wadsworth Wadsworth Municipal 02/ % 100.0% 87.5% Public Roads in RPZ/Notes Runway 9: State Route 242 (to be closed) Runway 27: State Route 121 (runway to be shifted so the Rd is outside the object free area), balance of land to be protected by avigation easement as stated on ALP Runway 2: Wadsworth Rd (State Route 57), Wall Rd (County Rd 145) Runway 20: Wadsworth Rd (State Route 57) Waverly Pike County 07/25 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% Runway 7: Alma Omega Rd, Newman Rd Runway 25: Wilson Run Rd Wilmington Clinton Field 03/ % 10.0% 15.0% Runway 21 Gurneyville Rd GA Level 4 Caldwell Noble County* 05/23 0.0% 75.0% 37.5% None Dayton Moraine Air Park* 08/ % 26.0% 22.0% Runway 26: Pump access Rd (County use only) Deshler Deshler Municipal Landing Strip* 09/ % 0.0% 6.0% Runway 9: Unnamed access Rd East Liverpool Columbiana County 07/ % 50.0% 75.0% Runway 25 : Lisbon St (Avigation Easement acquisition for Runway 25 RPZ identified on ALP) Georgetown Brown County 18/ % 100.0% 95.0% Runway 18: Airport Rd (County Rd 10) Runway 36: Camp Run Rd (County Rd 37) ALP alternatives looked at Rd relocation outside the RPZ Kelleys Island Kelleys Island Municipal 09/27 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Runway 9: Monaghan Rd McConnelsville Morgan County* 12/30 0.0% 100.0% 50.0% Runway 12:County Rd 5 Middle Bass Middle Bass Island Airport 10/ % 100.0% 100.0% Runway 10: Fox Rd (County Rd 154), Dutt Rd, Burgundy Cove OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 63

64 Table 6 11 Primary RPZ Compliance at Ohio System Airports Primary RW Associated City Airport Name Public Roads in RPZ/Notes Mount Gilead Morrow County 10/ % 100.0% 97.5% Runway 10: Mt Gilead Carrington Rd (County Rd 126) Runway 8 Approach: County Rd 82 New Lexington Perry County 08/26 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% Runway 26: Township Hwy 218 North Bass Island North Bass Island 01/ % 100.0% 100.0% None Primary Runway End 1: Percent Controlled Primary Runway End 2: Percent Controlled Put In Bay Put In Bay 03/ % 25.0% 25.0% Runway 18: County Rd 42 Upper Sandusky Wyandot County 18/36 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Runway 36: County Rd 44 Washington Court House Fayette County 05/ % 100.0% 100.0% None West Union Alexander Salamon 05/ % 98.0% 97.5% Primary Runway: Total Percent Controlled Runway 3: Airline Rd, Put In Bay Rd Runway 21: Langram Rd (County Rd 163), Tri Motor, Niese Pl Land acquisition for remaining uncontrolled land in RPZ is planned per ACIP Willard Willard* 10/28 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Runway 10: State Route 103 Runway 28: Conwell Ave (US Route 224), Neal Zick Rd Woodsfield Monroe County 07/ % 80.0% 85.0% Runway 7: Moore Ridge Rd, Twp Hwy 2780 *Non NPIAS Airport Source: Airport Inventory and Data Survey, CDM Smith, RS&H OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 64

65 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Analysis Pavement strength and condition are critical planning considerations that not only present safety concerns, but also a major capital investment and maintenance responsibility to the airport sponsor. The pavement condition index (PCI) is a way for pavement condition to be rated so that appropriate maintenance and planning can be put into place. The PCI is expressed in a range of numbers from 100 (perfect, new pavements) to 0 (failed). Reasons for monitoring and planning the maintenance of airport pavements are many. All pavements must have sufficient inherent stability to continuously withstand and support without damage the loads imposed by aircraft, the abrasive action of traffic, adverse weather conditions, and other deteriorating influences. Pavement strength is normally achieved with adequate initial design, periodic seals, and overlays that can be included with normal runway maintenance and upkeep projects. Based on the existing condition of all runway pavements, many areas will require re work of the runway pavements, overlays, and drainage work to restore crown and grade to extend the life of the existing pavement. The longer these items are delayed, the greater the quantity of the existing pavement that will have to be either overlaid or replaced. PCI compliance is tied directly to the PCI score received by an airport pavement. The following sections provide an overview of the FAA s policy on airport pavement maintenance, and detail the current PCI at each general aviation airport in the Ohio system as of November, Also detailed are maintenance cost estimates, and resulting PCIs, for airports based on 5, 10, and 20 year maintenance periods. These costs are merely estimates, and would not replace the work of an engineering study or airport master plan. Both current and forecasted PCI are important components when establishing an airport s capacity to upgrade or expand. This PCI analysis is one of several elements that will be analyzed as part of the Regional Needs and Capacity Analysis in Chapter 7. FAA s and Policy Background The establishment of a pavement maintenance program (PMP) is required by the FAA for any airport sponsor that has used federal assistance to construct, reconstruct, or repair airfield pavement. One element of a grant agreement for pavement reconstruction, repair, or rehabilitation is a grant assurance that includes an obligation for a PMP. The goal of an airport PMP is to provide safe and operable pavement for the lowest possible cost. Knowing when to repair and when to replace pavement is crucial to establishing the most cost effective approach. The FAA employs the pavement life cycle curve (Exhibit 6 11) to illustrate the useable life of airport pavement. In the early years of a pavement, deterioration is relatively low, but in the later years of a pavement, that deterioration will accelerate, regardless of regular upkeep. The curve states that for every dollar spent on preventative maintenance early in the pavement life (theoretically, at the beginning of the fair condition), repair would cost four to five dollars when conditions reach serious conditions. As a result, the FAA s policy is to emphasize and encourage preventative maintenance. A PMP helps the FAA and airport sponsors to determine the best time to apply funding towards pavement projects. OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 65

66 Exhibit 6 11 Pavement Life Cycle Curve Source: FAA Pavement Maintenance Program The FAA offers guidelines for developing an airport PMP, but not a strict format. Each program should be customized to best fit the needs and conditions of the individual airport, and the program should have the ability to evolve over time, if necessary. Facilities with more or larger runways, taxiways, and apron areas will require a more extensive maintenance program. FAA guidelines state that the PMP must, at a minimum, include the following elements: Pavement Inventory: Including the form (runways, taxiways, and aprons), type (asphalt, concrete, etc.), dimensions, and year of construction. Inspection Schedule: A detailed inspection is required annually, while drive by inspections are required monthly. Record Keeping: To include inspection dates, distress types and locations, and scheduled or performed pavement maintenance. Information Retrieval: Information must be available to the FAA upon request. Reference: The PMP must refer to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5380 6, Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport Pavements. 15 Each PMP should include a comprehensive prioritization system. As pavement ages, even preventative maintenance and small repairs will increase in cost. Eventually, rehabilitation or reconstruction will be more cost effective than continual maintenance. Cost comparisons should include both initial and anticipated costs of maintenance alternatives throughout the life of the pavement. The causes of distresses should be determined first, so that repairs can address both the damage and attempt to prevent or slow future damage. In addition, areas of high traffic should receive higher priority to both meet user needs and to address the increased wear. To plan timely and regular pavement maintenance, it is necessary for the airport sponsor to know all possible funding sources. In many cases, delays in addressing the need for maintenance result in 15 Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Obligations: Pavement Maintenance OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 66

67 higher costs. Reliable funding also allows for regular scheduling of certain pavement maintenance, such as crack sealing. A PMP should account for damage requiring both immediate attention, such as distress features, and that which may only require preventative maintenance. A PMP budget will often have a period of up to three years, accounting for the regular upkeep of the maintenance, even if damage has not yet occurred. To maintain the accuracy of the planning and budget period, the PMP should be updated annually. PCI Pavement Rating The FAA states that the PCI is a rating of the surface condition of a pavement and indicates functional performance. 16 Assigning a PCI to an airport pavement requires a visual analysis of surface distresses. The PCI of a section of airport pavement is a result of the severity of distresses that the pavement has incurred. The PCI is represented as a number from 0 (failed pavement) to 100 (new pavements in perfect condition). The type of pavement maintenance necessary is determined by the severity of distresses and damage. The range of PCI values, corresponding pavement ratings, and the maintenance required are shown in Exhibit Exhibit 6 12 PCI Ratings, Values, and Required Repair Source: CDM Smith The distresses found in each pavement section used to calculate the PCI also allow for the analysis of possible maintenance procedures and can guide improvement projects on a section by section basis. When determining and grouping pavement elements, the following features should be considered: Pavement type Pavement materials and base characteristics 16 Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5380 6B, Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport Pavements OHIO AIRPORTS FOCUS STUDY 6 67