MSJ Finalized

-1-
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF TAOS
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

JOHN T. NICHOLS,
DILIA C. MARTINEZ,
PHILLIP H. REYNA,
ERNEST CONCHA,
DANIEL ROMERO,
BONITA (BONNIE) S. KORMAN

Plaintiffs,

vs. No.D-820-CV-2014-00325

THE TOWN OF TAOS

and

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF TAOS COUNTY,

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

COME NOW Plaintiffs John Nichols, Dilia Martinez, Phillip Reyna, Ernest
Concha, Daniel Romero and Bonnie Korman, by and through their counsel of record
Graeser & McQueen, LLC and pursuant to Rule 1-066 NMRA, move the Court for
issuance of a preliminary injunction against Defendants. In accordance with Rule 1-
007.1 NMRA, concurrence was not sought from Defendants counsel for this motion.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs each reside in close proximity to the Taos Airport or are personally
connected with areas directly affected by the new flight paths of the proposed new
runway. Plaintiffs are concerned with plans by Defendant Town of Taos to shorten the

-2-
existing runway, add a significantly longer crosswind runway, and increase air traffic at
the airport by 25% without a public process for land use approvals (the Airport
Project). Specifically, Plaintiffs are concerned with the effect that the expansion could
have on their sacred spaces, recreational uses, and property values as well as the
absence of Town and County planning for these impacts.
The Town of Taos owns the airport, located in the planning and zoning
jurisdiction of Taos County. The Town is required to obtain County development
approval for the airport expansion. Expansion of the airport results in the need to
address off-site land use impacts to surrounding private properties, which has not been
done. The Town is, again, attempting to cut corners and circumvent public processes in
an over-eager attempt to get a free runway. Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction
prohibiting the Town from proceeding with the airport expansion, and prohibiting the
County from approving the project, until the County has properly addressed all off-site
impacts through its land use planning process.
If the Town proceeds with the Airport Project under the assumption that the
necessary land use restrictions would fall into place later, it would undermine the legal
rights of the surrounding landowners, including Plaintiffs. A process with a
predetermined outcome is no process at all.
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. The Town owns the Taos Regional Airport (the Airport). Administrative/Special Use
Permit Application dated September 8, 2014 (the Application) Site Plan Data Sheet 1
of 3, Exhibit 1.
2. The Airport is located in the unincorporated area of Taos County. Application, Site

-3-
Plan Data Sheet 2 of 3, Exhibit 2.
3. The Airport is an uncontrolled [no air traffic control] civilian aviation airport.
Application pg. 4 of 12, Exhibit 3.
4. The Airport currently has one runway measuring 5,803 feet long with a capacity of
24,000 pounds (single wheel). New Mexico Airport System Plan Update 2009, 2-13,
Exhibit 4.
5. The Town intends to construct an additional, 8,600-foot long runway with a capacity
of 60,000 pounds approximately perpendicular to the existing runway, with
associated infrastructure, and to shorten the existing runway by 420 feet (the Airport
Project). Final Environmental Impact Statement for Taos Regional Airport, Airport
Layout Plan Improvements, June 29, 2012 (EIS), ES-1, Exhibit 5.
1

6. The stated purpose of the Airport Project is to improve safety and efficiency by:
Providing a runway that meets FAAs recommended annualized (>95%) and
seasonal (December-March and May-August) runway wind coverage; and
Providing a runway of sufficient length to improve payload capacities of the
existing and forecast design aircraft serving the Town of Taos. EIS, Es-10,
Exhibit 6.

7. [reserved]
8. The Airport had 11,450 total operations (takeoffs and landings) for 2012. Exhibit 4.
9. The Airport is expected to have 15,258 total operations per year for the year 2020
without the Airport Project. Exhibit 6.
10. With the Airport Project total operations in 2020 are expected to be 19,148, an
increase of approximately 25% from the no-build scenario. Exhibit 6.

1
The Application incorrectly indicates the new runway will be 8,000 feet, and omits the plan to
shorten the existing runway. Exhibit 3.

-4-
11. The current representative design aircraft for the Airport include the Learjet,
Cessna Citation, Dassault Falcon and Hawker business jets. EIS, Appx. C, Table 4.2,
Exhibit 8.
12. The Airport Project is designed to accommodate future design aircraft as well as
current design aircraft. EIS, 1-34. Exhibit 9.
13. In accordance with the New Mexico Airport System Plan, the Airport should provide
access to business aircraft. DOT/FAA Record of Decision, Taos Regional Airport,
Airport Layout Plan Improvements (ROD) at 2-1 to 2-2, Exhibit 10.
14. These business aircraft require a greater runway length than that currently existing.
Exhibit 10.
15. Ninety-five percent (95%) of the Airport Project is being funded by the federal
government, necessitating the EIS. New Mexico Department of Transportation,
Aviation Division, State Grant Agreement AVA742 at 2, Exhibit 11.
16. The EIS was done in stages starting in 1986, and completed in 2012. EIS, ES-4,
Exhibit 12.
17. The Airport Project as originally proposed would have caused an increase in the
number of low altitude flights over portions of the Taos Pueblo historic district.
Memorandum of Agreement among the Federal Aviation Administration, the Town
of Taos et al. (FAA MOA) at 4, Exhibit 13.
18. The changes associated with the Airport Project would have caused "adverse effects
due to increased uncontrolled flights over the Taos Pueblo World Heritage Site that
could diminish the Sites integrity of setting and feeling, and impact Taos Pueblos
living culture. FAA MOA at 5, Exhibit 13.

-5-
19. To address these adverse effects, in part, the FAA is required to implement a
voluntary 5,000 foot agl (above ground level) minimum over the Taos Pueblo
World Heritage Site and 3,000 foot agl minimum over the remainder of Taos Pueblo
and Blue Lake. FAA MOA at 8, Exhibit 13.
20. These minimums will result in flight paths away from Pueblo lands Tract A, the land
owned by Taos Pueblo immediately south of the airport, and thus to the northeast,
over residential neighborhoods. Airport Layout Plans, Off Airport Land Use Plan,
Sheet 1 of 1 by Armstrong Consultants Inc. dated March, 2013 (the Off-Airport Land
Use Plan), Exhibit 14 A,B.
21. Those residential neighborhoods have objected, requesting that air traffic be
directed to turn right on departing the south end of the proposed runway to the
southwest instead, over Pueblo land Tract A and in violation of the FAA MOA.
September 5, 2014 letter from John Durham, Robbie Knight and Frank Zinno to
Daniel R. Barrone, Exhibit 15.
22. The Airport Project will diminish property values of residential land adjacent to the
Airport. Randall Bell, MAI, The Impact of Airport Noise on Residential Real Estate,
The Appraisal Journal, July 2001 at 312, Exhibit 16.
23. Purchase of avigation easements from affected property owners will be required if
the Airport Project is completed. EIS, ES-32, Exhibit 17; Record of Decision 6-9, 7-
2, Exhibit 18; Application for Federal Assistance, Real Property Acquisition at 5,6,
Exhibit 19.
24. The Town issued an Invitation to Bid for the Airport Project with all bids due August
28, 2014. Invitation of Bids for Improvements to Taos Regional Airport Town of

-6-
Taos, New Mexico AIPR Project No. 3-35-0041-032-2014, Town Bid No. 14-15-05
(Project Information), Exhibit 20.
25. The Town approved the contract for the Airport Project with Long Mountain
Constructors on September 9, 2014. Minutes September 9, 2014 Regular Meeting
[Town of Taos] at 8, Exhibit 21.
26. The Town made written assurances by letter, stating that it recognizes and willingly
accepts the requirement to coordinate with local jurisdictions to ensure that
appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws, has or will be taken, to the
extent reasonable, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity
of the Airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal Airport
operations Letter from Gus Cordova to Joy Porter, FAA (March 21, 2001),
Exhibit 22.
27. Pursuant to its plans to expand the airport, the Town commissioned an off-airport
land use plan showing how the Airport Project would affect surrounding landowners
and users. Exhibit 14.
28. The Off-Airport Land Use Plan delineates certain zones and land use compatibility
guidelines for those zones. Exhibit 14.
29. The zones include Zone A (Runway Protection Zone/RPZ), Zone B (Approach
Zone/AZ), Zone C (Traffic Pattern/TPZ) and Zone D (Airport Influence/AIZ)
(collectively, the Affected Areas). Exhibit 14.
30. Land uses are identified in broad categories of Residential, Public,
Commercial/Industrial and Agricultural/Recreational, with sub-categories within
each of those. Exhibit 14.

-7-
31. The Land Use Plan establishes a range of land use availability types for the
different categories of land uses within each zone. The availability ranges from
Clearly Unacceptable through Normally Unacceptable, Conditionally
Acceptable, and Normally Acceptable to Clearly Acceptable. Exhibit 14.
32. Plaintiff John Nichols is a recreational user of the Rio Grande del Norte National
Monument within the affected area.
33. Plaintiffs Phillip Reyna and Ernest Concha are traditional practitioners of Taos
Pueblo tribal religious activities on Pueblo lands within the affected areas, and are
concerned with infringements on tribal sovereignty represented by overflights over
Pueblo lands owned and used communally by all tribal members.
34. Plaintiff Daniel Romero owns land within Zone B. Affidavit of Daniel Romero,
Exhibit 23.
35. In Zone B residential uses of all types are normally unacceptable, which means that
residential use will be allowed only if no reasonable alternative exists and
[d]isclosure of airport proximity and avigation easements must be required as a
condition of development. Exhibit 14.
36. Neither the Town nor anyone acting on the Towns behalf has approached Plaintiff
Romero regarding such disclosures or avigation easements. Exhibit 23.
37. The only uses that are clearly acceptable in Zone B are transportation, parking,
cemeteries, and agricultural and recreational uses. Exhibit 14.
38. The EIS analyzed Airport wind data. EIS, Appx. C at 12, Exhibit 24.
39. The EIS wind analysis found that the existing runway has wind coverage, meaning
crosswinds below an acceptable velocity, of 94.13%. Exhibit 24.

-8-
40. The FAA recommends wind coverage of 95%, or only less than 1% of the time more
than the existing runway. Exhibit 24.
41. A significant proportion of airplane accidents occur during takeoff and landing, and
thus near the ends of the runway. Affidavit of Robert A. Fletcher. Exhibit 7.
42. Property located within Zones B, C and D for the (new) crosswind runway will be at a
statistically significant higher risk of airplane crashes than they would be if the
Airport Project is not built. Exhibit 7.
43. Current County land use regulations do not control, restrict or address off-airport
land use impacts of the Airport Project. See generally, County of Taos, New Mexico
Ordinance 2014-01 (June 10, 2014) (Land Use Regulations).
44. The purpose of the Land Use Regulations is to regulate development to create an
orderly, harmonious and economically sound framework that promotes public
health, safety and welfare in the county. Land Use Regulations at 7.
45. The goal of the Land Use Regulations includes enhancing and protecting
environmental resources, regulating traffic, supporting the provision of appropriate
infrastructure, encouraging compatible uses of land, supporting the local economy
and preserving the historic and natural beauty of Taos County. Land Use Regulations
at 7.
46. In its application, the Town represented to the County, There is no increase in the
size, type or frequency of airport operations anticipated with this project.
Application, Section 4.7.1 development compatibility standards, Exhibit 25.
47. The Town states, The existing County recognized neighborhood associations have
already adapted their proposed neighborhood zoning to accommodate the height,

-9-
land use and other potential safety and economic considerations in developing their
neighborhood plans, so that there should be no negative aesthetic or economic
impact at all on the surrounding area. Exhibit 25.
48. At the time of this filing there are no adopted neighborhood overlay zones that
address off-airport impacts, as provided by Land Use Regulations Art. XI,. Land Use
Regulations.
49. In its grant application, the Town stated that the Airport Project does not require
state, local, regional or other planning approval. Application for Federal Assistance,
September 9, 2014 Part II, pg. 2, Item 4, Exhibit 26.
50. In the same grant application, the Town stated that the Airport Project is covered by
an approved comprehensive plan. Exhibit 26.
51. The Town has not coordinated with the County to take appropriate action to restrict
the use of adjacent private land.
52. The County has taken no action to restrict incompatible uses of next to or near the
Airport. See generally, Land Use Regulations.
53. The Town has submitted, and the County has accepted, an application under the
Administrative and Special Use Application provisions of the Land Use
Regulations (Land Use Regulations, Section 4.5). Exhibit 3.
54. The Administrative and Special Use Application provisions of the Land Use
Regulations permit approval by administrative staff (the Planning Director) without
public hearing in which the public health, safety and welfare impacts of the proposed
use may be considered. Land Use Regulations.
55. The Major Development standards of the Land Use Regulations require public

-10-
hearings by both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners
in which the public health, safety and welfare impacts of the proposed use may be
considered. Land Use Regulations, Section 4.6. Major Development includes
projects with a gross area greater than five acres or that have a project cost in excess
of $5 million dollars. Id.
56. Despite the inarguable fact that the Airport Project meets the definition of Major
Development the County is not reviewing it under those standards, and in fact has
stated that only comments from adjacent landowners will be weighed in making the
administrative decision. J.R. Logan, Town ready to roll on airport, awaiting
Countys O.K., The Taos News, October 10, 2014. http://www.taosnews.com/news/
article_0992431c-4fc5-11e4-8ec1-2bef012a672a.html
57. In an online poll by the Taos News, over 80% of respondents were not in favor of the
Airport Project. Are you in favor of expanding the Taos Regional Airport?, The Taos
News, (October 1, 2014) http://www.taosnews.com/poll_e0de1f76-384b-11e4-9e25-
001a4bcf887a.html
58. The Airport Project will not result in any appreciable secondary or induced impacts,
including population growth, increased development, and business activity over the
existing trends permanent employment increases are not anticipated as a result
of the Airport Project. Record of Decision at 6-12, Exhibit 27.
59. The EIS process did not provide individualized notice to homeowners affected by the
land use incompatibility analysis. EIS, ES-60, Exhibit 28.
ARGUMENT
I. Incompatible Land Uses Must be Restricted as Specified by the Towns

-11-
Own Airport Plans.
The Airport Project is largely funded by the federal government. Undisputed
Material Fact (UMF) 15. As such, the Town, as sponsor of the project, must comply with
applicable federal laws and regulations. The general rule on residential use of land on
or near airport property is that it is incompatible with airport operations because of the
impact of aircraft noise and, in some cases, for reasons of safety, depending on the
location of the property. USDOT/FAA Order 5190.6B (September 30, 2009), pg. 20-5.
The incompatible land uses are those identified by the Towns airport consultant
in the Off Airport Land Use Plan. Specifically, those include all residential and most
public uses in Zone B, with only transportation, parking, cemeteries, agricultural/
recreational and open spaces uses being clearly acceptable. UMF 20. Likewise, Zone C is
limited in residential and most public uses in that disclosures, avigation easements and
density limitations are required. UMF 20.
Land uses that are incompatible with the Airport Project must be restricted. 49
USC 47107(a)(10) requires:
written assurances, satisfactory to the Secretary, thatappropriate action,
including the adoption of zoning laws, has been or will be taken to the extent
reasonable to restrict the use of land next to or near the airport to uses that are
compatible with normal airport operations.

The Town made those written assurances, stating that it recognizes and willingly
accepts the requirement to coordinate with local jurisdictions to ensure that
appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws, has or will be taken, to the
extent reasonable, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of
the Airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal Airport operations

-12-
UMF 26.
Despite its written assurance to the FAA made for the purposes of obtaining
funding, and despite its explicit obligation to do so, the Town has taken no steps to
coordinate with the County regarding adopting appropriate restrictions. While the Town
has no authority to adopt appropriate land use regulations, it does have an obligation to
take appropriate actions:
the FAA does not consider a sponsors lack of direct authority as a reason for the
sponsor to decline to take any action at all to achieve land use compatibility
outside the airport boundaries. In all cases, the FAA expects a sponsor to take
appropriate actions to the extent reasonably possible to minimize incompatible
land. Quite often, airport sponsors have a voice in the affairs of the community
where an incompatible development is located or proposed. The sponsor should
make an effort to ensure proper zoning or other land use controls are in place
restricting residential development near the airport is essential in
order to avoid noise-related problems. USDOT/FAA Order 5190.6B
(September 30, 2009), pg. 20-2 (emphasis supplied).

The Towns intention seems to be to build the Airport Project and then present
the need to restrict land uses as a fait accompli. That approach eviscerates any right the
affected property owners have to participate in a public debate regarding the wisdom,
necessity and compatibility of the land use restrictions that are inextricably linked with
the Airport Project.
For its part, Taos County has taken no steps to engage in appropriate planning on
its own. UMF 43. The County has the authority to require a (successful) planning and
zoning process before approving the Airport Project as being compatible. By all outward
indications the County does not intend to exercise this authority without the influence of
this Court. A court order is necessary to ensure the Town and Countys adherence to
their obligations to appropriately plan for and restrict incompatible uses.

-13-
II. The County has an Obligation to Restrict Incompatible Land Uses
Through the Planning and Zoning Process.
The County indisputably has planning and zoning jurisdiction over the Affected
Areas. NMSA 1978, Section 3-21-2 states: a county zoning authority may adopt a
zoning ordinance applicable to all or any portion of the territory within the county that
is not within the zoning jurisdiction of a municipality. The County has done just that.
County of Taos, New Mexico Ordinance 2014-01 (June 10, 2014) (the Land Use
Regulations). The Land Use Regulations apply to all unincorporated areas of Taos
County with a few narrow, inapplicable exceptions. Land Use Regulations Art. I, Sec.
1.2.3.
Significantly, a zoning authoritys regulations and restrictions must be in
accordance with a comprehensive plan. NMSA 1978, Section 3-21-5. Taos County has
such a comprehensive plan. Taos County, New Mexico Resolution 2004-69 (October 4,
2004) (the Comprehensive Plan). The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that A crosswind
runway has been proposed and is awaiting final completion of the Environmental
Impact Statement for its approval and construction. Comprehensive Plan at 34.
However the plan itself contains no indication of potential impacts and restrictions
associated with the Airport Project. The Comprehensive Plan, however, does not address
off site impacts of the Airport Project. Any discussion of regulations and restrictions
concomitant with the Airport Project is premature in the absence of any community
planning efforts to update the Comprehensive Plan to properly address these issues.
In the face of demonstrably false or contradictory material misrepresentations
made by the Town in its land use application to the County, and the in the face of an

-14-
administrative review of an application that by the terms of the Land Use Regulations
should be subject to public hearings, with the design of avoiding public notice and
scrutiny, the planning process becomes all the more crucial. Specifically, the Town
represents There is no increase in the size, type or frequency of airport operations
anticipated with this project, UMF 46, despite the projected ~25% increase from 15,258
operations without the Airport Project to 19,148 if the Airport Project is built, UMF 10,
and despite the federal acknowledgement of the need to provide access to business
aircraft requiring greater runway length than that currently existing, UMF 13, and
despite construction of the Airport Project to handle aircraft loads of 60,000 pounds
instead of 24,000 for the current runway. UMF 5.
Althought the development should be sensitive to and consistent with the
existing traditional and historic uses in the neighborhood, Land Use Regulations
Sectio 4.7.1, the County is apparently only considering the input from immediate
neighbors. UMF 56 and not residents of areas that will be significantly affected by
overflights or traditional tribal members.
Moreover, the Town appears to have taken the requirement to make certain
representations to the FAA to mean only that the representations needed to be made,
not that those representations created actual obligations that need to be met. Thus,
while the Town recognizes and willingly accepts the requirement to coordinate with
local jurisdictions to ensure that appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning
laws will be taken, UMF 26, it has not actually done so despite having let the contract
to construct the Airport Project. UMF 25. The Town elected to proceed with the Airport
Project without purchasing avigation easements and without resolving the flight path

-15-
conflict issues.
The Town tries to end-run around those obligations by stating that The existing
County recognized neighborhood associations have already adapted their proposed
neighborhood zoning to accommodate the height, land use and other potential safety
and economic considerations in developing their neighborhood plans. UMF 47.
However, a cursory review of County land use regulations and planning documents
reveals this not to be true. UMF 48.
It is critical to appreciate that the EIS process is not a substitute for the planning
and zoning process. The purposes and goals of the Land Use Regulations specifically
benefit Plaintiffs interests. UMF 44-45. The EIS process did not suffice to ensure that
the purposes and goals of the Land Use Regulations are met. U.S.C. 4331. Moreover,
the planning and zoning process requires individualized notice to affected landowners.
Land Use Regulations, Art. 7, Sec. 7.1.4. The EIS process did not. UMF 59.
As the public entity charged with protecting the communitys interests through
the land use planning process, the County must use that process to address potential
offsite impacts of the Airport Project before approving the Towns application.
III. The County Planning and Zoning Process Impacts Important Property
Rights of Plaintiffs and Others, and it can Only be Effective if it is done Prior
to Approval of the Airport Project.
The land use restrictions required for the Airport Project, as outlined by the Off-
Airport Land Use Plan, will impose significant restrictions on neighboring properties,
including some of Plaintiffs. Restricting available land uses for a limited area, often
called a downzoning, is a quasi-judicial process. Albuquerque Commons Partnership v.

-16-
City County of the City of Albuquerque, 2008-NMSC-025 39, 184 P.3d 411. Our
Supreme Court, in Albuquerque Commons, goes on to explain the significance of a
quasi-judicial process in the land use context: in addition to the right to individual
notice, interested parties in a quasi-judicial zoning matter are entitled to an opportunity
to be heard, to an opportunity to present and rebut evidence, to a tribunal which is
impartial in the matter, i.e., having had no pre-hearing or ex parte contacts concerning
the question at issue, and to a record made and adequate findings executed.
Albuquerque Commons, 2008-NMSC-025, 33 (internal citations omitted). These are
basic due process rights.
In the context of these important due process rights, the purpose of the public
land use process is for the Board of County Commissioners to make a discretionary
decision as to whether or not to impose land use restrictions required as part of the
Airport Project. If the County Commission has already decided that the Airport Project
is going to be built no matter the outcome of that public process, it no longer has any
discretion and the public participation is spurious. A bogus hearing as to whether or not
to impose the necessary land use restrictions is no better than no hearing at all. Due
process requires that a hearing must be a real one, not a sham or a pretense. Levenstein
v. Salafsky, 164 F.3d 345, 351 (7
th
Cir. 1998).
Redevelopment Agency v. Norms Slauson, 173 Cal App. 3d 1121 (Ca. Ct. App.
1985) dealt with an eminent domain proceeding in which the condemning agency had
already agreed to resell the land it was going to take by the eminent domain process.
The court in that case held,
By the time the Agency actually conducted a hearing to determine the "necessity"
for taking the property in question, it had, by virtue of its contract with the

-17-
developer and issuance of revenue bonds, irrevocably committed itself to take the
property in question, regardless of any evidence that might be presented at that
hearing That hearing was thus affected not by just a gross abuse of discretion but
by the prior elimination of any discretion whatsoever. The effect of that abuse was,
if not to nullify, to deprive the resolution of any conclusive effect on the three
critical issues involved. Id. at 1127.

In short, land use restrictions are required for the Airport Project. Those
restrictions are not already in place. If the Town proceeds with the Airport Project in the
absence of the proper planning and zoning public hearings, those public hearings
become a sham and violate the affected property owners due process rights.
The land use planning and zoning process is only legitimate if it occurs before the
Airport Project is built, and only if the affected property owners receive an actual due
process hearing in which the Board of County Commissioners can exercise its discretion.
If the Airport Project necessitating significant land use restrictions leads the planning
process that curbs the County Commissions discretion and puts the cart before the
horse. That is the basis for Plaintiffs request that the Court prevent the County from
approving the Airport Project until it has properly planned for off-airport impacts and
their necessary restrictions.
IV. A Preliminary Injunction is Necessary to Protect Plaintiffs Rights
A preliminary injunction is warranted on a showing that:
(1) the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted; (2)
the threatened injury outweighs any damage the injunction might cause the
defendant; (3) issuance of the injunction will not be adverse to the public's
interest; and (4) there is a substantial likelihood plaintiff will prevail on the
merits. LaBalbo v. Hymes, 1993-NMCA-010 11, 115 N.M. 314.

The absence of a structured, transparent, public process to ensure compliance
with the Land Use Regulations would constitute an irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and

-18-
their interests. If the Airport Project goes forward in the absence of appropriate land use
planning and restrictions, affected property owners only option would be found in post
facto inverse condemnation or similar actions. Even in that instance, however, they
would have lost the ability to appeal to their elected county officials regarding land use
planning in their community.
An injunction requiring compliance with the Land Use Regulations prior to
project approval would cause minimal injury to Defendants. The Airport Project has
been in process since at least 1986. A comparatively short delay to allow for essential
public processes would impose minimal to no injury on the Town and County. In fact,
given the fairly weak justification for the project contained in the Application, UMF 6, it
is unclear if there would be any injury at all.
The public interest is indisputably served by allowing a public process to ensure
compliance with the Land Use Regulations and thus adherence to their established
purposes and goals of protecting the public welfare. There is no indication in the EIS,
the Record of Decision, the Application or other relevant documents that there is any
urgency whatsoever in constructing the Airport Project. In fact, in a recent online poll
over 80% of respondents were not in favor of the Airport Project. UMF 57.
Plaintiffs position on the merits is a simple, logical and direct legal analysis
based on federal land use compatibility requirements and the Towns own airport
consultants analysis as to compatible land uses. Plaintiffs seek only a court order
requiring that the Town and County proceed in the logical, sensible and legally required
order. This lawsuit is about process, and that position is likely to prevail on final
determination by the Court.

-19-
If the County approves the Airport Project without engaging in a land use
planning and rezoning process to address the Airport Projects impacts and subsequent
land use compatibility issues, the County Commission will interfere with the Plaintiffs
due process rights by engaging in a spurious public process with a predetermined
outcome and no meaningful opportunity for the residents and landowners to
participate. If the Town constructs the Airport Project without the benefit of the
Countys lawful, and legally required, land use review, then there is no public process to
ensure that the purposes and goals of the Land Use Regulations are met.
V. No Security Should be Required
Under Rule 1-066 NMRA the District Court may waive security for good cause
shown. The Airport Project is a public infrastructure undertaking. The Plaintiffs are
community-minded citizens seeking to enforce obligations of governmental entities to
their public constituents. Security is typically not required where there is a strong
public interest involved, Moltan Co. v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 55 F.3d 1171, 1176
(6
th
Cir. 1995) or it is a matter of overriding public concern. Water Works and Sewer
Board v. Anderson, 530 So.2d 193,198 (AL. 1988). Requiring security in this instance
would have a chilling effect on Plaintiffs and other individuals seeking only to protect
their due process rights.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
I. An injunction prohibiting the County from approving the Airport Project
application unless the affected area is properly planned and zoned;
II. An injunction prohibiting the Town from proceeding with the Airport

-20-
Project in the absence of County approval;
III. Other relief as the Court deems just and proper;
IV. Costs and attorneys fees as the Court deems just and proper.
I certify that this pleading was served on all counsel of record through the Tylerhost e-
fling system.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
Christopher L. Graeser
Matthew McQueen
Post Office Box 220
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0220
(505) 982-9074
[email protected]
[email protected]

bV3WM U. .0 30NVM3 dO 3id
01 Zt SO aSlNBO ViVa IVOISAHdOSS
WON ' aobnos maoN oubnovi n
i 3 3 d Nl 3 1 V3 S
_ i a Oe J MW 3 H i 3 H i . d O S OI OVa 3 1 I H Z V N J K l l M s a 3 N a o o
Noiioas ON aav aaaHi iMvao okvi HsiNVds zaNiiaw oinoinv sHi nihiim san laoaaw iwoioaa sovi
-aAans AwoNnoa v no oasva ion aav oNiMvaa am no aaioidao saNnoa qnv 83i3n ani soaaa
Aiaadoad 3Hi NtmiAA osnivinoo SNoiidiaasao tvaai no oasva aav SNOudiaosao soNnoa omv saian ani
l a a A i n o / a o v N i v a o
a a N d o o N o i i o a s
BNOOONI M Oai HSI ' l
a i o a i o o a i N a n o a s s b n o o o n i m
N o o v a e l a o d a i v
s i H s n c n o N s a a K i
N o u d i a o s a o
- X X -
3 ^
!n?
a i v w u i r v a a n i n d
X
4
d a m / l a r o / i B Av a o
a s A o n a a a a o i
i N a n o N o n s o v s / s o v d
i N i o d a o N a a a d a a l a o d a i v
B O V d a n S H O V O d d d V
(vj oi J vaav aaaj l oarao avanwa
(vsi ) vaav Ai aavs avmi xvi
naa) 3Nn Nouoi ai saa ONi oi i na
<Zda) 3N0Z Noaoaioad avmnou
(vdoa) vaav aaad loarso avmnon
(Zdo) aNOZ aaad anovisao
(vsa) vaav A13JVS av/anrh
(Tdv) aan Ai aaaoad l aodai v
<ONi ai i na) saani ovd/ aamonai s
U' l vHdSv) i Nandoi aAao onai dai v
N o u d i a o s a o
- i n X d V x w -
- O l V d O i -
( shf Si
a i v w i n n / a a m n d
a N 3 9 3 1
NViayaW ooixaw M3N '3Zi 39NVy N9Z dIHSNMOi
o 73
w m
73
. Z 9 S 9 Z M. a0. 6Z. 8SS i Z l
z s ' i n a j a E . e / s 9 Z 1
. O O E i 3 . S V . V 0 . E V S S Z 1
. Z 6 l 3 ^ E . Z l . 9 S N n
, S S l O k u . u . z o . e v N Z 1
J O t v i M ^ . Z l . . 9 S S Z Z 1
, 6 0 1 6 M . S E . Z l , 9 S S L Z l
J S 0 9 1 M . S E J 1 . 9 S S O Z l
. t i a i A A . S t . Z L . 9 S S E L I
J 9 ' Z 9 L A A . S E . Z L . 9 S S 9 1 1
. S B ' 9 8 M . S E . Z l . 9 S $ i n
J9 191 M . S E J 1 . 9 S S 9 1 1
.99' OZV Af \ . St . ZL. 9SS SI 1
J l * Z E A A . S t . Z l . 9 S S V L 1
S l ' l 9 Z A A . 6 V , t L . 9 S S E l l
. K ' Z S t AA. 9V. Ll . 9SS
, 6 B ' 6 1 l A A . S t Z L . 9 S $ 1 1 1
. 9 B J 9 Z A A . S E . Z L . 9 S S o n
. 9 Z Z I Z A A . S t , Z L . 9 S S 6 1
S Z ' 6 A A . V S . 9 S . 9 9 S 9 1
. Z O > S l A A . 0 S 3 S i 9 9 S i 1
. l O K l A A . E V . 9 9 . 9 9 S 9 1
, 0 0 0 0 1 A A . S L . L V . 9 Z N S I
, O E O Z t y V \ . 8 0 , 9 L . 9 S S n
J 9 6 U M. 90. 9L. 9SS n
. I 6 i l a . Z SJ . 9 0 N Z 1
6 Z 7 9 1 AAJK). Ll . 9SS n
H i O N 3 1 O N I H V a a a m
3 i a v i 3 N n
EXHIBIT 1
e " z
1 3 3 H S v i v a
N V l d
3 1 1 S
>
- I O
> M
o
w m
z 52
m o
m > >
PO o
73
8 8 6 1 - Z O - l . W O - S E - C O N d l " V i v o i i n v N o a a v Z C C R 1661 'ZL aaanaidas 9ES- PES. ' SPm a i d i v s i i d 23NiiavM VA3 8 zaNiiuvw oiBaanad
B86l - Z0- l 0- Se- E ON d l V T v o i i n * " N o a a v i E 0 ? 1661 'ZL aasnaidas EES- I CS/ SPi n a i d r a s a a d zaNi i avn at i vs ? zaNaavM ooavnoa
8 8 6 ^ - ^ ( ) - l r t O - S ^ E O N d l V i v o i i r n , N o a a v i O T L G 6 1 ' z i a a a n a i d a s 0 ES- 8 Z S/ SPi n a u n i s a a d zaNi i Bvn ai sns vzaNi i Bm d oni na
B S 6 l - Z O - V r o O - S E - O N d ( " V T v o i i n ^ N o a a v Z 0 ? 1 6 6 1 ' z L a a a n a i d a s OZS- l S' SPl l N a i d m s a a d |B i TaNiiyvM siiad s zaNiAMvii oiovdiNoa
aSSl - ZO- l MO- SE- E ON dTV T V O l i m N o a a v i E O I66L 'ZL aaanaidas 0 Z P - 9 9 P / S P i n a i d n i s a a d z a N u a v i i s a a i i o o
9 9 6 1 - Z O - l W O - S E - E O N d ' l V 1 V 0 l i / 1 8 N o a a v i 0 ? L 6 6 L ' Z L a a s n a i d a s Z 9 P- S9 P' SPi n 3 i d n : s a a d Z3Niiav/i viiioaD 8 zaNiiavM aavMoa
SOVl d O NMOl
es ei - z MWO- s c - E ON d i w I V O I i U N o a a v i C O 1 6 6 1 ' z L a a a n a i d s s P 9 P - Z 9 P . - S P 1 a i d i i i s a a d ZaNl l BVW N3UV1I 8 Z3Nl i MVH Oni H3
i 6 l - Z0 - l Ml ME* E ON d l ^ V TVOI I I TJ N o a a v i 0 * L661 'ZL aaanaxdas 1 9 P - 6 S P / S P I H a i d n i s a a d zaNi i av AHi oaoa s zaNi i avn xNVBd
f i 9 Bl - ZO- l MO- S - E ON d l V i v o i i n * N o a a v i 0 L 6 6 L ' Z L a a a n a z d a s 6 SP- 9 SP/ SPi n a t d n i s a s d Z a N l l B V n A H I V X 8 Z a N l i B V H s v i e o i
8J6l -ZO-l MO-S-e ' ON d l V i v o i i n i ! ' N o a a v Z ' 0 L 6 6 i ' Z L a a a n a i d a s 9 P P - m . ' S P i n a i d w s a a d zaNi i Bvn vnaoBW s ZSNUBWI i saNua
M S l - Z O - l W O - S C - E O N d I V i v o i i n * N o a a v 6 0 E6 6 L ' o z a Nn r P Z 9 - Z Z 9 / 6 S 1 1 1 a i d n i s a i d
v o a i B O
s a s i o n V z a N i x B v n s v i e o i ' z s n u b v i n N N Vu d
"zaNi i i i vn oouvnoa ' (ui aH ' ooai ovd vbobav
'OOaHOVd OSNOdlV dO aZViSB) 'ZaNllBVn
i SBNua ' zaNut i vn oi i i aaou ' zaNi zuvn oni na
" z a N i z B v n s a o i i o o - i s i ? ' s o o i u a o n v i i U M
SOVi d O NMOi
B B 6 l - Z 0 - k M 1 0 - S E - e O N d l " V i v o i i n v !N o a a v S Z O ? 9661 ' ZL aNnr 6 9 8 1 9 9 1 8 8 a i d n i s a a d B i a H
oi i i r ni avoi ' ODaHOvd osNOdi vdO ai vi sa S O V l d O N M O l
8 9 6 1 - Z O - l W O - S E - E O N d I V i v o i i n > i N o a a v G 9 ' 0 T 9661 ' ZL aNnr 9Z9-CZ9 1 l ei n a i d n i s a a d I I B A A OH11 0 3 0 d O 3 i Vi S 3 SOVl dO N/ AOl
O T 5 1 - Z O - I M 3 0 - 8 E - E O N d I V I V O t i f t M " N o a a v 1 6 ' ( F L 6 6 I ' Z L a a e i Ni i d a s 6 E P ^ E p ; s p i n ai dv Ni s aad i i Q i A s v i i M v n r s i i o i A O M V i o n a d SOVi dO NAAOi
B f l 6 l - Z 0 - I M J 0 - S - C O N d l V i v o i i n 8 N o a a v Z f r O ? 0 6 6 1 S L l i a d V g i 8 / S 6 1 V a i d n i s a a d Z i N i i u v n l u a o H V P t s z a N i i B v n o s i n o i SOVl d O NMOi
B S e i - Z O - S W O - S E - t O N d I V T v o i i n v ' N o a a v 9 9 0 ? L 6 6 L l a a a n a A O N z z s / s B i n a t d i Ni s a a d a i 3 H OT i i n d i V Gi o o a H o v d OS N Od l V d o a i v i s a S OV l d O NMOi
8 6 t - Z 0 - | W 0 - S E - E O N d ' i V T v o i i n * ! N o a s v O i O ? L 6 6 L ' Z L a a a n a i d a s 9 P S - 9 P S ' S P i n a i d n i s a a d N O O V W O V i a O l O 9 N O O V H O a i N V M W W S OV l d O NMOI
96l - Z0- l M) 0- SE- E ON d l V T v o i i n ^ ' N o a a v Z S ' G ? 6 6 6 1 ' i z a a a n a a a o 9 E Z . ' P 6 1 V a i d n i s a a d z a N i i a v w " d o n a m i n o S OVi d O N MOi
B S 6 t - Z 0 - t W 0 - S E - e O N d I V t v o i i n ^ ' N o a a v Z L 0 ? 6 8 6 1 ' z a a a n a A ON C 1 9 ' C 6 1 V a i d WI S 3 3 d Z B N u a v n o v i i a o SOVl dO NTAOl
9 8 6 1 - Z O - l W O - S E - E O N d l V T v o a n * ' N o a a v Z S E * 6 9 6 1 z a a a n a A O N 2 1 9 - 11 9 / C6 1 V a i d n i s a a d z a N i i a v w A v u N v n r i z a N u a v w ' w o i a a a o a S O V l d O N M O l
8 8 6 1 - Z O - I W O - 5 C - E O N d I V I V O I J / I V ' N O a a v Z S E ? 6 9 6 1 ' z a a a n a A ON 0 L 9 - 6 0 9 / C 6 1 V a i d n i s a a d s v s a v A n v i o n v s s v o a v A s v i i a S OV l d O NMOI
B 8 6 1 - Z O - I M O - S C - E O N d I V i v o i i n v ' N o a a v Z S E ? 6 8 6 1 t i a a a o i o o e i c - z i E / c s i v a i d n i s a a d z n a o t r t v a o a n v a o s a i a n H s i N a o o p n z n a o
v i n v d * S 3 1 V 2 N OO " H V T I 3 0 N z n a o r a n i u a v S OV l d O NMOi
B 8 6 l - Z 0 - t O - S E - O N d I V T v o i i n ^ ' N 0 M 3 V 9 6 8 ? 1 6 6 1 0 1 A W E P P - O P P . ' S P I M a i d n i s a a d a a o N i v a o A H L a v o a n v i i a H s SOVi d O N/ AOi
8 9 S t - Z 0 - | 0 - S E - " O N d l V " i v o i i n \ ! N o a a v 6 9 Z E ? 0661 ' 91 Aav naaad 8 Z 6 - P Z 6 / P 6 1 V a u r a s a a d z a N i i a v n i s a N a a S O V l d O N M O I
B 8 6 V - Z 0 - l K ) O - S - O N d I V T v o i i m N o a a v O S Z Z ? 0661 ' PZ l i adV L Z 6 / S 6 1 V a i d r a s a a d z a N t x a v i i N a a v a v z a N u a v n r o i i m a SOVl d O NMOi
8 8 6 1 - Z C I - l W O - S E - E O N d l V T V O I i f H - N o a a v 8 S Z S t 0 6 6 1 ' p z a a a o i a o Z 9 P 2 ' P / E 6 1 V a u r a s B i d z a o i v A s a a a o a a w s v o a i a o s a s i o i i S O V l d O N M O i
9 B 6 l - Z ( M M ) - S E - O N d I V TVOI i l T! ! N o a a v 9 Z Z E Z661 ' s z Aav naaad l 8 9 / 9 B i n a u r a s a a d A H i a v o ? i N v i i a a o i SOVl d O NMOI
9 8 e i - Z 0 - l M 0 - S C - O N d I V T V O l i R ' N o a a v 6 V B Z I ? D 6 6 i ' o H a a v n E 9 B - 6 S 8 ' 9 B i n a i d r a s a a d A H 1 B V 0 3 M V i i a a o i S O V l d O N M O l
B S S l - Z O - l M O - S E - E O N d l V i v o a n t " N o a a v Z Z ' 9 9 l ? 9 6 6 1 Z l B N n r 9 S 9 - P S e ' 9 B i n a i d i N i s a a d a a o N i v a o A H z a v o s n a v i i 3 h s S O V l d O N M O l
8 9 6 t - Z 0 - | K I 0 - S - O N d I V i w o i i n t N o a a v 9 E ; ? 6 8 6 1 1 1 l / O l 9 1 E - S 1 E / E 6 1 V a i d r a s a a d z n a o ' N v a o a n v d o s a r a H ' H s i N a o o ? n z n a o
v i n v d 8 S 3 W Z N O O n v n a o N ' z n a o t a n m a v
S O V l d O N M O I
B 9 6 l - Z O - i r o O - S E - E O N d I V T v o i i n t ' N o a a v W E ? 9 6 6 U Z 1 / 9 Z P 9 - S P 9 / 9 B l - n a i d r a s a a d N O O V H O V i a O l O * N O O V H O H i N V a V H V S O V l d O N M O l
B e S l - Z O - l M O - E - E O N d ' l V " WOl i ^ ' N 0 B 3 V 1 8 1 ? 1 6 6 1 ' s z a a e o i a o P P 8 - Z P 9 / 9 9 i n a i d r a s a a d
a i 3 H
' o i i n n a i v o i ' o o a H o v d o s N O d i v d O a i v i s a
S O V l d O N M O l
B 8 5 1 - Z O - I K I O - S E - E O N d I V i v D i i n * ' N o a a v D Z D ? 6861 ' 6HaaVI 9 Z 1 8 / S 6 1 V a u r a s a a d z a M i a v n l a a o a v w s z a N i i a v M o s i n o i SOVl d O NMOi
1 0 9 O - 9 S 0 - 6 Z - 6 O N d W d T v o a n t ' N o a a v 9 9 ? s 9 6 t ' i ) i i s n o n v 6 9 1 - 9 9 1 / Z a i d r a s a a d s o o i a a 0 n v m i M
1 0 9 O- 9 SO- 6 Z- 8 ON d ' Wd T v o i i n t ' N o a a v 5 6 Z ? S 9 6 i ' o i i s n o n v 6 9 1 - 8 9 1 / Z a u r a s a a d o a s v a o a o ' z a N i i a v n o i n o i n v d o s a a i H
1 0 9 0 - 9 9 0 - 6 Z - 6 O N d V V d T v a i i n t ' N o a a v 0 9 8 ? 9 9 6 1 ' 0 1 i s n o n v 6 9 1 - 8 9 1 / Z a u r a s a a d v N v i N i n o i v i o i i v 8 v N v i N i n o v i a v n a s o r
I 0 9 O - 9 8 O - 6 Z - 6 O N d V V d i v a i i n * ' N o a a v 0 W S9 6 1 ' 0 1 i s n o n v 6 9 1 - 8 9 1 / Z a i d r a s a a d z s N i i a v n v a i i i v n s z a N i i a w v o i a a a i i a d
I 0 9 3 - 8 S O - 6 Z - 6 O N ' d W d i v a a n * ' N o a a v Z S V l ? 9 9 6 1 0 1 i s n s n v 6 9 1 - 8 9 1 r z a u r a s a a d z a N i i a v n v / i a s a s z a N i i a v n o i o i a i v d
1 0 9 0 - 9 S 0 - 6 Z - B O N d W d T v a i i n * ' N o a a v O P S ? S 9 6 1 ' 0 1 i s n o n v 6 9 1 - 0 9 1 / Z a u r a s a a d H a A A O H N A a H X V N 8 T i a A A O H 1 1 0 3 0 SOVl d O NMOI
I O 9 O - 9 S 0 - 6 Z - 6 O N d V V d i v D i i n * ' N o a a v Z 9 Z I ? 9 9 6 1 o i i s n a n v 6 9 1 - 9 9 1 / Z a i d r a s a a d o o a n o v d v i n o i k v o o a H O V d o s N O d i v
l 0 g a - 9 S 0 - 6 Z - 6 o n d Wd t v a i i n x ' N o a a v S O P I ? S 9 6 1 ' 0 1 i s n s n v 6 9 1 - 8 9 1 / Z a i d r a s a a d i i o i A d v i i N v n r 8 i i o i A a o N v i o a i a d
1 0 9 0 - 9 S O - 6 Z - 6 O N d W d w a i i n v ' N o a a v U ' 9 l ? S9 6 1 ' 0 1 i s n o n v 6 9 1 - 0 9 1 / Z a i d r a s a a d
Z B N U a V N
v i N i o i H v i a v n o n v z a N i i a v n l a n N v n N v n r
l 0 9 a - 9 6 O - 6 Z - 6 O N d W d T v a i i n * ' N o a a v Z S 9 Z ? 9 9 6 1 0 1 i s n o n v 6 9 1 - 8 9 1 / Z a u n i s a a d
A H i a v o ^ n N 3 a i i a
V 1 0 H S a o d a a i s n a i ' A H i a v o a n h A a a v n a o
I 0 9 0 - 9 9 0 - 6 Z - 6 O N d V V d n v a i i n * ' N o a a v S 9 Z Z ? 9 9 6 1 o i i s n s n w 6 9 1 - 8 9 1 / Z a i d r a s a a d A H i a v o s w v i i a a o i V i i a H S
a a i s i s a o d a a i s n a i ' A H i a v o ^ n h A a a v H " a o
N o i i v d i o i i a v d n v a a o a d a s o c l a n d a o v a a a v a i v o a o v d / a o o a i s a a a i N i a o i N v a o a a N M O i N a a a n o
A i y 3 d O y d I d O d d l V O N I i S l X H
EXHIBIT 2
Taos County
Planning Department
Application No.
ADMINISTRATIVE/SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LIST THE TYPE OF ADMINISTARTIVE PERMIT REOUIRFD
! Non-resi denti al permi ssi ve uses adopted under thi s ordi nance or a Nei ghborhood Zone Overl ay that are appl i ed for
on an al ready devel oped si te that propose more than an i ncrease of 20%, or more, of exi sti ng oor space, or appl i ed
for on an undeveloped site.
! Residential construction as indicated in WUI Map as published in the Taos County Wildfire Protection Plan.
Public parks and recreation.
[iK Public facilities and infrastructure including rehouses, schools, libraries and utilities.
! Any devel opment not i n a Hi gh I mpact WUI area on a 20% sl ope or more as det ermi ned by t he Pl anni ng t he
Department.
")
PERMIT FEE; $250.00
)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
LIST THE TYPF OF SPFQAL USE PFRMIT REOUIRFD
Those uses desi gnated as Speci al Use under any Nei ghborhood Zone Overl ay that has been adopted by thi s
or di nance.
Multi-family residences unless designated as permitted under any Neighborhood ZoneOverlay that has been adopted
by ordinance.
Any development within wetlands as dened by ordinance
Any commercial development within the WUI Map as published by the Planning Department.
Development on slopes of 20% or more that are within a High Impact WUI area
Any expansion of a previously approved Special Use permit,
Any expansion in excess of 25% of an existing non-conforming use as defmed in 3.3.2A.I.b
Condomi ni um devel opment, except those permi tted under any Nei ghborhood Zone Overl ay that has been adopted
by Ordinance.
Wireless communication facilities or equipment installation
n Commercial wind power generation
n Commercial solar power generation
Industrial or Manufacturing operations as defmed in this ordinance that is not a Major Development.
Any commercial mining operation including, but not limited to, the extraction and sale of gravel products such as pit
run and any other commonly sold sand and gravel product.
^ E X H I B I T
Special Use Permit Application
Page 1 of 12
NewMexicoAirportSystemPlanUpdate2009

ChapterTwo:Inventory Page213
WilburSmithAssociates,Inc.
Table26RunwayRelatedDataforStudyAirports,cont.
PrimaryRunway
AssociatedCity Airport
Elev.
MSL
No.of
Runways
Length Width Surface Strength
Parallel
Taxiway
Moriarty Moriarty 6,199 1 7,700 75 Asphalt 30S,45D Full
NavajoDam NavajoLake 6,475 1 4,995 60 Asphalt 12S NA
Portales PortalesMunicipal 4,078 2 5,700 60 Asphalt 12.5S Full
Questa QuestaMunicipalNr2 7,700 1 6,861 75 Asphalt 12.5S Stub
Raton
RatonMunicipal/Crews
Field 6,352 2 6,328 75 Asphalt 18S Full
Reserve Reserve 6,360 1 4,800 50 Asphalt 12.5S Stub
Roswell
RoswellInternational
AirCenter 3,671 3 9,999 100 Asphalt
77S,104
D,165DT Partial
Ruidoso SierraBlancaRegional 6,814 2 8,099 100 Asphalt
60S,120
D Full
SantaFe SantaFeMunicipal 6,348 3 8,342 150 Asphalt
48S,65
D,105DT Full
SantaRosa SantaRosaRoute66 4,792 2 5,013 75 Asphalt 12.5S Full
SantaTeresa
DonaAnaCountyAt
SantaTeresa 4,112 1 8,500 100 Asphalt 20S Full
Shiprock ShiprockAirstrip 5,270 1 5,200 75 Asphalt 12.5S Partial
SilverCity GrantCounty 5,446 4 6,802 100 Asphalt
75S,100
D Full
Socorro SocorroMunicipal 4,875 2 5,841 100 Asphalt 50S,75D Full
Springer SpringerMunicipal 5,891 1 5,000 60 Asphalt 14.5S
Turn
Around
Taos TaosRegional 7,095 1 5,803 75 Asphalt
24S,37.5
D Full
Truthor
Consequences
TruthorConsequences
Municipal 4,853 5 7,200 75 Asphalt
12.5S,30
D Full
Tucumcari TucumcariMunicipal 4,065 2 7,102 100 Asphalt 25S Stub
Vaughn VaughnMunicipal 5,928 1 5,150 60 Asphalt 12.5S Partial
ZuniPueblo BlackRock 6,454 1 4,807 50 Asphalt 12.5S NA
Source:2008NewMexicoInventoryDataSurveyand2008FAA5010database
Taxiways
Taxiways are an important part of an airports facilities and are a major safety factor. Full
parallel taxiways allow aircraft that have landed to taxi off of the runway so that the next
plane to land has a clear runway no matter how soon afterwards the landing is. Partial
parallels and stub or turnaround taxiways are also important for quick turnaround and
ability to get to the apron. All of these allow for more mobility for planes that have just
landed or are getting ready to takeoff to allow for landings and takeoffs of other aircraft.
Table 27 shows the number and percentage of study airports that have each type of
taxiway system for their primary runway. The percentage of airports with a full parallel
taxiwayhasincreasedfromthe2003NewMexicoAirportSystemPlanfrom45percentto51
EXHIBIT 4
E NV I RONME NTA L I MPA CT S TAT E ME NT
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
ABOUT THE TAOS REGI ONAL AI RPORT EI S
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify
the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of proposed
improvements to the Taos Regional Airport (SKX). The Town of Taos (Town or Airport Sponsor), the
owner and operator of SKX, has developed a comprehensive development program for the expansion of
SKX and has submitted the Proposed Project portion of its Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to the FAA for
environmental review. Only after completing that review will FAA decide whether to unconditionally
approve the ALP. If approved, FAA would issue a Record of Decision (ROD) that unconditionally
approves the ALP depicting the Proposed Project. In addition, a ROD reecting approval of the proposal
is one of the determinations necessary as a prerequisite for Federal funding for eligible projects. The
FAA must prepare an EIS and Issue a ROD that reects its approval or disapproval of the proposal based
on among other things, the project's unavoidable environmental effects, FAA's statutory mission, and
t echni cal and economi c consi der at i ons.
THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO SKX
Since the airport's inception in 1966, the Town has developed plans regarding the growth and
development of SKX with the intent of meeting the aviation needs of the Taos area. The development
plan shown on the 2003 SKX ALP (see Figures 1.2-1 and 1.2-1a of the EIS) is the culmination of the
most recent planning effort accomplished by the Town, and is consistent with the previously proposed
airport developments depicted on the 1987 ALP. The Town is requesting Federal unconditional approval
of the ALP for SKX, including the following proposed improvements:
Construction of a new 8,600-foot by 100-foot runway capable of accommodating
Airport Reference Code (ARC) C-ll aircraft. The proposed aireld system complex
consists of the runway (able to accommodate aircraft weighing up-to 60,000 pounds)
and full length parallel taxiway; runway lighting; navigational aids for Category I
Instrument Landing System (ILS) capabilities; runway safety areas and protection
zones, and associated grading, drainage, and utility relocations; installation of a
Remote Transmitter-Receiver (RTR) located on airport property to allow aircraft
operators at SKX to communicate with Air Trafc Control (ATC) in Albuquerque while
at SKX (note: SKX does not have a control tower or RADAR coverage below 12,500
mean sea level (MSL));
Shortening of Runway 4/22 by 420 feet to the northeast, with an associated shift of
the Runway Safety Area (RSA), Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) and Runway
Protection Zone (RPZ) a similar distance to the northeast, to preclude penetration of
the relocated Runway 4 threshold siting surface by aircraft operating on the new
runway/taxiway system and to keep the existing non-precision Runway Protection
Zone (RPZ) entirely on airport property in accordance with the guidance in the FAA
Order 5100.38C, Paragraph 701b(1):
E S - 1 Ta o s R e g i o n a l A i r p o r t
Fi nal Envi ronmental Impact Statement
Pl ai nt i f f . s Exhi bi t
T A B L E S - 2
FORECAST SUMMARY - YEARS 2015 AND 2020^
Cat egor y
No- Pr oj ect Wi t h - Pr o j e c t
B a s e
Y e a r
2 0 0 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0
B a s e
Y e a r
2 0 0 0 2015
2 0 2 0
Ai rcraf t Operat i ons
Singie/Multi-Engine 10,425
11,901 12, 218 10,425
14, 100 15,428
Turboprop 2, 475
1,725 1, 784 2, 475 2,037 2,239
J e t 5 5 0 8 5 1 9 8 6
5 5 0
1,005 1,211
Military
1 5 0 2 7 0 2 7 0 1 5 0 270
2 7 0
Total Aircraft Operations
13,600 14,747 15,258 13, 600 17,412
19, 148
Sources: FAA-Approved Forecast, 2002 and URS, 2012.
In recognition of the time that has elapsed since the initiation of the EIS and development of the
FAA-approved forecast of aircraft operations presented in the 2006 DEIS, the FAA's 2011 TAF was
reviewed in connection with the proposed implementation year of 2015 and a future operational year of
2020 (if the Proposed Project is approved). As a result of this review, which is documented in
Appendix T of the FEIS, the FAA has also determined that the 2010 and 2018 activity levels documented
in the DEIS accurately portray the future No-Project and With-Project aviation activity levels expected for
2016 and 2020.
To satisfy the guidance contained in FAA Order 5060.4B, paragraphs 706.b (3) (a) and (b), a comparison
between the forecast of SKX aircraft operations as reected in the FAA's 2011 TAF and the DEIS
forecast was performed. According to Order 5050.4B, non-FAA forecasts of aviation activity should be
within 10 percent of the FAA's TAF for the 5-year analytical period and within 15 percent of the TAF for
the 10-year analytical period (see Table 1.6-6 of the FEIS). Therefore, the No-Project forecast is
consi st ent wi t h t he FAA' s 2011 TAF.
The FAA's 2011 TAF does not include the project-related operations that are accounted for in the EIS
With-Project forecast. The EIS With-Project forecast included additional turboprop and jet operations that
were projected to occur as part of the project. For the purpose of developing a meaningful comparison
between the 2011 TAF and the EIS With-Project forecast, as discussed in Section 1.1 of the Technical
^ The No-Project forecast for aviation acthty at SKX during the period 2015 through 2020 utilized annual growth rate projections
consistent with those used in developing the aviation forecast presented in the 2006 DEIS (see Appendix C-4, Section 3.6.2 of
the FEIS). During the rst 5 years of the forecast (2000 through 2004), GA activity was projected to increase at an average
annual growth rate of 1.4 percent. Over the next 5 years (2005 through 2010), the average annual growth rate would diminish to
0.66 percent Throughout the last 10 years of the forecast period, the average annual growth rate was held constant at 0.64
per cent .
The With-Project 2015-2020 forecast for aviation activity at SKX also utilized annual growth rate projections consistent with those
used in developing the aviation forecast presented in &ie 2006 DEIS (see Appendix C-4, Section 3.5.2 of the FEIS). In the
forecast, single- and multi-engine GA operations are projected to inaease throughout the forecast period at a rate slightly greater
than that projected for the No-Project scenario. As the new, longer aosswind runway is made available in 2015, te average
annual growth rate would initially inaease to 4.0 percent. After the initial increase, the growth rate will dedine to a more statue
2.0 percent rate of growth, which is noimal for general aviation airports.
E S - i o Ta o s R e g i o n a l A i r p o r t
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Pl ai nt i f f s Ex hi bi t

EIGHTH J UDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF TAOS
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

J OHN T. NICHOLS,
DILIA C. MARTINEZ,
PHILLIP H. REYNA,
ERNEST CONCHA,
DANIEL ROMERO,
BONITA (BONNIE) S. KORMAN

Plaintiffs,

vs. No. D-820-CV-2014-00325

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF TAOS COUNTY

and

THE TOWN OF TAOS

Defendants

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT A. FLETCHER

Robert A. Fletcher, on his oath, states the following:

1. My name is Robert A. Fletcher, principal of Fletcher Aviation Consulting.
2. I have been retained to review certain aspects of the Taos airport crosswind runway
project.
3. A copy of my CV is attached hereto.
4. A copy of my report entitled Taos Regional Airport Land Use The need for zoning
actions ensuring compatibility with the airport expansion is attached.
5. Arriving and departing an airport are critical phases of flight; representing the majority of
aircraft accidents.
-1- EXHIBIT 7

6. Property located within the proposed controlled compatible land use area (i.e. 5 miles
beyond each end of new runway and 1.5 miles on each side of the extended runway
centerline of the new runway) that are not already overflown under the current
operational scenarios; are at a statistically significant higher risk of airplane accidents
than if the Airport Project is not built.

Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.

________________________
Robert A. Fletcher
-2-
(electronic signature on file)
Fletcher Aviation Consulting
Robert A. Fletcher
Vice President, Fletcher Aviation Consulting

Mr. Fletcher has over 37 years of air traffic control and management experience. Robert served
27 years with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and held numerous executive
leadership positions such as Regional Manager, Facility Manager, Operations Manager, and
Operations Supervisor. In addition to his management responsibilities, Robert also worked as
an Air Traffic Controller, Traffic Management Coordinator and Military Operations Specialist.
Mr. Fletchers unique experience covers all three specialties in Air Traffic Control; Enroute,
Terminal and Air Traffic Control Tower, which is quite rare. He has immense knowledge in the
areas of management, safety, systems, operations, procedures, resource management and
human capital deployment.
Mr. Fletchers unique experience covers all three specialties in Air Traffic Control; Enroute,
Terminal and Air Traffic Control Tower, which is quite rare. He has immense knowledge in the
areas of management, safety, systems, operations, procedures, resource management and
human capital deployment.
Mr. Fletcher specializes in Air Traffic Control, Facilitation, Management, Safety and Systems.
Mr. Fletcher can facilitate your team and/or your stakeholders using focused facilitation
techniques.
EXPERIENCE
Aviation, Management & Safety Consultant
Manager, Denver Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
Manager, Resource Management Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Western
Terminal Operations
Specialist, Resource Management Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Western
Terminal Operations
Operations Manager, Phoenix Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)
Operations Supervisor, Phoenix TRACON
Certified Professional Controller, Phoenix TRACON
Operations Supervisor, Denver Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC)
Certified Professional Controller, Area 3, Denver ARTCC
Traffic Management, Coordinator
Military Operations Specialist, Denver ARTCC
Air Traffic Controller, United States Navy

21122 East Mineral Drive, Aurora, Colorado 80016-1926 +1 720-438-5009 Fax +1 888-505-1243
http://fletcher-aviation-consulting.com
Fletcher Aviation Consulting
EMPLOYMENT / VOLUNTEER HISTORY
Grand Surf Club, Inc., Board of Directors, ongoing
AUVSI, Rocky Mountain Chapter, Board of Directors, ongoing
Aurora Museum Foundation, Board of Directors, ongoing
Transportation Research Board, Airport Cooperative Research Program, Ongoing
UASpace, 2013 to present
Fletcher Aviation Consulting, June 2009 to present
Arapahoe County, Colorado, Board of Adjustment, Jan 2009 - present
Travois Homeowners Association, Inc., Jan 2009 - present
City of Longmont, Colorado, Liquor Licensing Authority 1993-1995
Federal Aviation Administration, January 2, 1982 to January 3, 2009
United States Navy, September 1976 to August 1981, U.S.S. Midway / N.A.S.
Kingsville, Texas

21122 East Mineral Drive, Aurora, Colorado 80016-1926 +1 720-438-5009 Fax +1 888-505-1243

Taos Regional Airport
Land Use The need for zoning actions ensuring
compatibility with the airport expansion

Prepared for:

Date: August 29, 2014
Project Name: SKX Land Use 2 Customer: Taos Land, Water and Culture

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 3
1. Airport Specifics ............................................................................................................................ 3
2. Eminent Construction/Expansion ............................................................................................... 4
3. FAA Land Use Requirements ........................................................................................................ 5
4. The Problem................................................................................................................................... 6
5. Land Use Legislation and/or Action Needed............................................................................... 9
6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 15

21122 East Mineral Drive Telephone 1+720-438-5009
Aurora, Colorado 80016-1926 Fax 1+888-505-1243



Executive Summary
An analysis was requested based on possible safety issues raised surrounding land use around Taos
Regional Airport, in light of the proposed new Runway 12/30. We bring to bear vast experience in all
facets of aviation and pride ourselves on our ability to objectively and without bias evaluate any
situation. This integrity is the cornerstone of our business. We believe this expansion has land use
and zoning issues that remain unaddressed. These issues are pointed out in this report. The current
plan meets the minimum FAA requirements but does not speak to providing for compatible uses in an
expanded area of possible impact(s) around the airport. The city and county would be well served to
address the adjacent land zoning issues now instead of waiting for non-compatibility issues to create
problems in the future.
1. Airport Specifics
TAOS Regional Airport SKX (KSKX), TAOS, New Mexico (Data is effective: 07/24/2014 - 09/18/2014)
Latitude: 36-27-29.4 N Longitude: 105-40-20.7 W Time Zone: UTC-7(-6DT)
Elevation: 7095 ft. Variation: 11 E (1985)
OPERATIONS
Airport Status: Operational
Facility use: Open to the public
Control Tower: No Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at airport
FSS: ALBUQUERQUE FSS (ABQ) Toll Free: 1-800-WX-BRIEF
NOTAMs Facility: SKX (TAOS RGNL)
Attendance: 0800-1700
Wind Indicator: Lighted
Segmented Circle: Yes
Lights: SEE RMK, ACTVT MIRL RY 04/22; REIL RYS 04 & 22 - CTAF.
Beacon: Rotating, Clear and Green, Sunset-Sunrise
Landing Fee: No
Fuel: 100LL, A1+
Int'l Operations: Not a Landing Rights Airport, Not an Airport of Entry
COMMUNICATIONS
UNICOM: 122.8 MHz Remarks:
CTAF: 122.8 MHz COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDED BY ABQ ON FREQ 122.1R (SANTA FE RCO).
ATIS: None RCO 117.6T 122.1R (ALBUQUERQUE RADIO)
Navigational Aids (NAVAIDS)
Type ID Name Frequency Hours Distance Bearing
VORTAC TAS TAOS 117.6 MHz 24 Hours 14.5 nm 128.6
Remarks: OPERATIONAL IFR DME PORTION Unusable 020-100 Beyond 30 NM Below 18,000 FT; 260-330 Beyond 30 NM
Below 17,000 FT.

WEATHER
ID Type Frequency Phone Distance
SKX WX AWOS-3 132.975 MHz 575-758-5663 0.0 nm
AXX WX AWOS-3 118.025 MHz 575-377-0526 18.6 nm



SAF WX ASOS 505-474-3117 54.3 nm
ALS WX ASOS 135.175 MHz 719-589-5669 59.3 nm

RUNWAYS 04/22
Dimensions: 5803 ft. x 75 ft.
Surface Type: ASPH
Surface Condition: EXCELLENT
Treatment: PFC
Runway Edge Lights: Medium Intensity
PCN:
Single Wheel: 24,000 lbs.
Double Wheel:
Double Tandem:
Dual Double Tandem:
Runway 04 Runway 22
True Alignment: 56 236
Traffic Pattern: Left Left
Markings: Non-precision instrument Basic
Markings Condition: Good Good
Latitude: 36-27-13.4566 N 36-27-45.4296 N
Longitude: 105-40-50.1948 W 105-39-51.2469 W
Elevation: 7048.9 ft. 7094.5 ft.
Threshold Crossing Height: 30 ft. AGL
Visual Glide Path Angle: 3.3 3.5
Visual Slope Indicator: 2-light PAPI on left 2-light PAPI on left
Runway End Identifier
Lights:
Yes Yes
TDZE: 7067 ft. 7095 ft.
HELIPORTS None
CHARTS Chart data valid from 0901Z 07/24/14 to 0901Z 08/21/14.
OWNER MANAGER
TOWN OF TAOS JOHN THOMPSON
400 CAMINO DE LA PLACITA 400 CAMINO DE LA PLACITA
TAOS, NM 87571 TAOS, NM 87571
Phone: 575-751-2000 Phone: 575-758-4995
REMARKS
AVOID OVERFLIGHT OF TAOS PUEBLO WORLD HERITAGE SITE 5 NM EAST OF ARPT.
RY 04/22 PARALLEL TWY HAS RETRO-REFLECTORS.
RAMP HAS RESERVED PARKING SPOT FOR MEDICAL TRANSPORT HELICOPTER, CLEARANCE
FOR 7 FT ROTOR.
2. Eminent Construction/Expansion
Bidding processes have begun on the construction of a new 8,600-foot by 100-foot runway (Runway
12/30) capable of accommodating Airport Reference Code (ARC) C-II aircraft. The proposed airfield
system complex consists of the runway (able to accommodate aircraft C: Approach speed [121 - 141)
knots, II: Wingspan [49 - 79) feet and weighing up-to 60,000 pounds) and full length parallel taxiway;
runway lighting; navigational aids (NAVAIDs) for Category I Instrument Landing System (ILS)
capabilities; runway safety areas (RSAs) and runway protection zones (RPZs), and associated grading,



drainage, and utility relocations; installation of a Remote Transmitter/Receiver (RTR) located on
airport property to allow aircraft operators at SKX to communicate with airport traffic control (ATC)
in Albuquerque while at SKX.
3. FAA Land Use Requirements
FAA requirements for approval and funding of AIP projects were meet in the EIS and project
approval processes. We have concerns about the amount of existing residential properties depicted
below, the proposed left VFR traffic patterns and possible IFR departures turning left departing RWY
12.

EIS, Appendix T, Figure 4.2.2-1
Couple these concerns with the noise contouring calculations, and subsequent mapping that
indicates acceptable levels in all zones associated with the expansion. The only caveat is to obtain
avigation easements for the small portions of the Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) as needed. These
FAA/Airport zones are clearly documented in the chart below. This presents a classic case of the FAA
doing what it is required to do, but the city and county not addressing the surrounding land use
issues needing to be modified in support the airport and the future uses that can be accepted in the
areas immediately surrounding the airport. The Record of Decision should have triggered immediate
actions by the city and county.




ALP Land Use Drawing

4. The Problem
Because the FAA has no land use control powers, it is important that local planners are aware of the
various, critical safety considerations when siting developments around airports. The development
of land uses that are not compatible with airports and aircraft noise is a growing concern across the
country. In addition to aircraft noise, there are other issues, such as safety and other environmental
impacts to land uses around airports which need to be considered when addressing the overall issue
of land use compatibility. Although several federal programs include noise standards or guidelines as
part of their funding-eligibility and performance criteria, the primary responsibility for integrating
airport considerations into the local land use planning process rests with local governments.

The four basic land use categories of land use are residential, public, commercial/industrial and
agricultural/recreational. The most concerning issues associated with the proposal are the
residential and any non-compatible commercial properties in close proximity to the airport and its
traffic patterns, specifically to the southeast of the airport property. Because the EIS and Record of
Decision addresses impacts based on noise levels, it accepts that if the noise levels remain within
acceptable levels that there is no impact, insignificant and/or acceptable impacts.
We take exception to this methodology at SKX in light of the development directly adjacent to the
southeast end of the RPZ and extended centerline of the proposed Runway 12 departure corridor



and within the approach surface for Runway 30 along Camino Tortuga and east toward Avenida De
Veronica. This is very important since arriving and departing are such critical phases of flight. The
graphic below show the dispersal of arrival and departure aircraft accidents in relation to the runway
in use (Not at SKX). The area depicted is approximately 5 miles wide and 4.75 miles prior to and 2.5
miles after arrival threshold for arrivals and 5 miles wide and 4.75 miles after takeoff roll begins for
departures.

Arrival Accidents Graphic Departure Accidents Graphic

In the graphic below depicts the Environmental Impact Studys detailed study area for land use in
magenta on the following page. It is important to note that the area only extends approximately
1.25 miles from the end on runways 12/30.



EIS, Appendix T, Figure 4.2.2-1
Due to existing land use conditions the possible mitigation strategy of a right turn out for departures
off of Runway 12 (not depicted in FEIS), when it is required for departure, would provide the highest
level of safety. Additionally VFR pattern traffic utilizing left traffic on Runway 12 as well as Runway
22 should be advised to remain west and north of the landfill to minimize bird strike potential. The
residential structures presenting the most concern are outlined in red on the graphic below. Also
shown is an approximate right turn out in yellow.

October 2013 Ariel Graphic
Oct 2013 Image



It should be apparent that this mitigation is just a possibility for IFR departures and does not resolve
the many other issues that drove the compromises reached in approving this airport expansion. We
believe that the land use issues need to be looked at strongly by the City of Taos in conjunction with
the County of Taos and other parties that may require involvement.
5. Land Use Legislation and/or Action Needed
We further recommend that the City of Taos (Airport)and Taos County come together to assume a
leadership role in adopting well-reasoned airport compatibility and hazard zoning in and around
Taos and the SKX airport.
The most common land use control is zoning. Zoning is an exercise of the police powers of a state or
local government which enables that government to designate the uses that are permitted for each
parcel of land. It normally consists of a zoning ordinance which specifies land development and use
constraints. One of the primary advantages of zoning is that it may be used to promote land use
compatibility while leaving the land in private ownership, on the tax rolls, and economically
productive. Although most cities and larger towns have zoning authority, it should be remembered
that rural areas often are not subject to this remedy, since in many states, counties have only limited
(or no) zoning authority.

In order for zoning to work effectively it should be based upon a comprehensive plan. This plan must
consider the total needs of the community along with the specific needs of the airport. A
comprehensive plan defines the goals and objectives of a community and zoning is one of the tools
available to the community for implementing that plan. Zoning can and should be used
constructively to increase the value and productivity of the affected land. For zoning to be viable,
there should be a reasonable present or future need for each designated use. Within its limitations,
zoning is a preferred method of controlling land use in noise and safety impacted areas.
What Areas Are Eligible for Zoning
The area that can be zoned for airport compatible land uses is called the controlled compatible land
use area in other states with legislation addressing Airport Zoning or having an Airport Zoning Act
(AZA). An airports controlled compatible land use area is applicable to any instrument or primary
runway.
An instrument runway is defined as a runway of at least 3,200 feet in length for which there is an
existing or planned standard instrument approach procedure.
A primary runway is defined as a runway also at least 3,200 feet in length on which a majority of an
airports operations take place.
To be eligible for compatible land use zoning under an AZA, an instrument and/or primary runway
must have, or be planned to have a paved surface. These eligibility criteria can, and often do, apply
to the same physical runway. Future runways may also be zoned if they are identified on an
approved airport layout plan (ALP) or other planning document and meet the above eligibility
criteria.
A controlled compatible land use area extends 5 miles beyond each end of an eligible runway and
1.5 miles on each side of the extended runway centerline (See the diagram below). These are the
maximum limits of the area that can be zoned, not necessarily the limits of the areas that must or
should be zoned.



Controlled Compatible Land Use Area

The controlled compatible land use area is significantly larger than the noise compatibility guidelines
depicted for SKX in the following diagrams.




In these diagrams relating to noise impacts the Airport Influence Area extends approximately 2640
feet (1/2 mile) west of Runway 12 and only extends 15800 feet (3 miles) from the end of the runway.

An example (not SKX) of the noise contours in relationship to the airport property and the controlled
compatible land use area is depicted in the diagram below.

DNL Contours in context with Airport Property and the Controlled Compatible Land Use Area



The Taos Regional Airport (SKX) controlled compatible land use area, as we are recommending, is
depicted in this graphic.

SKX Controlled Compatible Land Use Area



Activities meeting criteria for inclusion in zoning in the controlled compatible land use area are
limited to those in the chart below; to the extant practical.

Controlled Compatible Land Use Area Activities

Hazard Zoning

The areas that can be hazard zoned are not specifically defined. However, it is generally accepted
that the imaginary surfaces described in the applicable sections of Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) Part 77 are the minimum areas that should be protected under a hazard zoning regulation.
This area is depicted in the graphic on the following page.




Note that airport compatible land use zoning under an Airport Zoning Act (AZA) refers to the use of
land adjacent to an airport that does not endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the owners,
occupants, or users of the land because of the levels of noise or vibrations or the risk of personal



injury or property damage created by the operations of the airport; and airport hazard zoning refers
to the regulation of a structure or object of natural growth that obstructs the airspace required for
the taking off, landing, and flight of aircraft.

In other words, airport compatible land use zoning protects adjacent property from the airport and
hazard zoning protects the airport from adjacent properties.

It is our recommendation that at a minimum Taos County institute a moratorium on further building
in the County Rural Area Zone along the extended runway centerline, northeast and southwest of
Camino Tortuga until it turns northeast bound along is southern end, until such time as an airport
zoning plan and map are approved. There appears to be a platted subdivision that would allow
building under the Ruways12/30 centerline immediately adjacent to the airport property. The lots
east of Camino Tortuga present a higher level of safety but will be subjected to higher noise levels.
6. Conclusion
Of course the appropriate entities will need to come together and discuss the issues and the specific
items to be included in each type of zoning or regulation. However Runway 12 departures encounter
land use issues with a subdivision that would allow building under the Runway(s) 12/30 centerline
immediately adjacent to the airport property. This alone should be sufficient reason to assemble the
land use stakeholders and address land use without further delay.


TABL E 4 . 2
A I R C R A F T T H A T M A K E U P 7 5 P E R C E N T O F T H E F L E E T *
Taos Municipal Airport
Envi ronment al I mpact St at ement
A i r c r a f t
Estimated MCTOW (in
thousand pounds)
Engine Type
Airport
R e f e r e n c e
C o d e
Aer o Commander 1 5 . 0 J e t B - l
Beech Starship 2000 12. 5
Turboprop
C - l l
Beech Super King Air 200 12. 5
Turboprop
B - l l
Beech Super King Air 300
12. 5
Turboprop
B - l l
Beechcraft Beechjet 400
1 8 . 3 J e t B - l
Canadair CL-601 Challenger 4 3 . 1
J e t
C - l l
Ce s s n a Ci t a t i o n 1 14. 7 J e t B - l
C e s s n a C i t a t i o n l i 1 4 . 1 J e t B - l l
Cessna Ci t at i on V 1 4 . 1 J e t C- l l
Cessna Ci t at i on VI I 20. 0 J e t C - l l
Cessna Ci t at i on X 36. 0 J e t C - l l
Dassaul t Fal con 10 1 8 . 3 J e t B - l
Dassaul t Fal con 20 2 8 . 7 J e t B- l l
Dassaul t Fal con 200
1 8 . 3
J e t B - l l
Dassaul t Fal con 2000 36. 0 J e t C- l l
H a w k e r S OO- X P 28. 0
J e t B- l l
I s r a e l i A i r c r a f t 11 2 3 We s t w i n d 1 5 . 0 J e t
C- l
I sr ael i Ai r cr af t 1124 West wi nd 23. 5
J e t C - l
I srael i Ai rcraf t 1125 Ast ra 2 3 . 5
J e t
B - l l
L e a r J e t 2 3 1 5 . 0 J e t C - l
Lear Jet 24
1 5 . 0
J e t
C - l
Lear Jet 25 1 5 . 0 J e t C- l
LearJet 31 1 8 . 3 J e t
B - l
Lear Jet 36 1 8 . 3 J e t C - l
L e a r J e t 4 5 1 8 . 3 J e t
C - l
L e a r J e t 5 5 1 8 . 3 J e t C - l
L e a r J e t 6 0 1 8 . 3
J e t
D- l
Swearingen Metro II
1 2 . 5
Turboprop
B - l
Swearingen Metro III
1 2 . 5
Turboprop
B - l
Swearingen Meriin IV
12. 5
Turboprop
B- l l
Fairchild-bornier 328J 34. 5
J e t
B-ii
* Aircraft with maximum certicated takeoff weights of more than 12,500 lbs. and up to and including
60, 000 l bs.
Airport Reference Codes
Approach Speed: A<91 kts. Wingspan: I <48.9 ft.
B 9 1 t o 1 2 0 . 9 k t s . I I 4 9 t o 7 8 . 9 f t .
C 1 2 1 t o 1 4 0 . 9 k t s . I l l 7 9 t o 1 1 7 . 9 f t .
D 141 to 165.9 kts.
Source: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 2000.
Pl a i n t i f f s Ex h i b i t
w:taos\Fac_Req_Taaes.xls\9f6/2006
When adjusting for the later projected 2016 implementation year and adding the With-Project aircraft
operations to the FAA's 2011 TAF, the comparison of the forecasts revealed that the TAF forecast was
one percent higher in 2015 than the EIS forecast, ve percent higher in 2018, and seven percent higher in
2020. These differences in the projected levels of aviation activity were found to be within the FAA's
criterion for determining consistency with the TAF. The FAA has also determined that the 2010 and
2018 activity levels documented in the DEIS accurately portray the future No-Project and With-Project
condition expected for 2015 and 2020. The environmental analyses contained in the DEIS are valid.
1.6.2.5 Faci l i ty Requi rements
The existing facilities at SKX were examined for their ability to meet, or accommodate, the aviation
demand projected to occur through the year 2018. The facility requirements analysis focused on four
parts of the airport system; airside, landside, airspace, and ancillary facilities, which are explained in the
following paragraphs. The following summarizes the results of this analysis conducted for this EIS. The
complete text of the facility requirements analysis is contained in Appendix C of this EIS.
Ai r s i d e Fa c i l i t y Re q u i r e me n t s
The airside requirements include the recommendation for a new, longer runway at SKX. The new runway
would allow the airport to better accommodate wind conditions and improve operational performance to
provide a higher percent of annual wind coverage to the smallest and tightest aircraft at SKX and would
provide sufcient runway length to accommodate the existing and future design aircraft operating at SKX.
The best orientation for the proposed runway at SKX was determined based on airport-specic wind
conditions, local land forms (topography), and adjacent off-airport land uses. The analysis conducted by
FAA indicated that a runway with a compass alignment of 120 degrees/300 degrees (Runway 12/30)
provided greater than the FAA recommended 95 percent annual wind coverage for all current and future
aircraft operating at the airport. This alignment also avoided mountainous terrain near the airport and an
area of dry-wash drainage channels. A signicant feature of the Runway 12/30 orientation is the fact that
this runway alignment enabled the avoidance of any physical disturbance to Taos Pueblo Tract A land,
and it did not require the need to purchase any Taos Pueblo Tract A property (see Figure 1.2-2). A more
detailed explanation of the new runway orientation analysis is contained in Appendix C of this EIS.
According to the projected types of aircraft using SKX and FAA's Microcomputer Airport Design Program,
it was determined that the proposed runway at SKX should be 8,600 feet in length, 100 feet wide, and be
able to accommodate aircraft weighing up to 60,000 pounds. The proposed length and strength takes
into account both the aircraft performance and the density altitude (elevation and temperature
considerations). A new full-length parallel taxiway (with identical pavement strength) was recommended
for efcient use of the proposed runway system. Also recommended was the shortening of existing
Runway 4/22 by 420 feet on the southwest end to enable the Runway 4 RPZ to be entirely contained on
existing airport property (in accordance with the guidance in FAA Order 5100.38C Paragraph 701b(1)).
Ten additional T-hangars could be built in space reserved on the Runway 22 end, based on existing
FAA Order 5050.4B, Natbnal Environmental Pc^icy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, Paragraph 504.b.
1 . 3 4 Ta o s R e g i o n a l A i r p o r t
Fi nal Envi ronmental Impact Statement
Pl a i n t i f f s Ex h i b i t
'
2.1
SECTION 2.0
PURPOSE AND NEED
INTRODUCTION
Taos Regional Airport ("SKX" or "the Airport") is operated by the Town of Taos and is situated southwest
of Taos, New Mexico. The Airport serves the general aviation needs of the local area. The Airport has
one runway (4/22) that is 5,798 feet long by 75 feet wide. There were 13,600 aircraft operations at SKX
in 2010.
2.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Town of Taos desires to correct the operational deficiencies of the existing runway system at SKX
and improve safety of the operating environment at the airport. The FAA has a statutory authority to both
support and promote national transportation policies, to prescribe standards and regulations relating to its
aviation safety duties and powers, and to ensure that the safe operation of the airport and airway system
is its highest priority.
2.2.1 PURPOSE FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The purpose for the proposed improvements is to correct the existing operational deficiencies at SKX.
The project would improve safety and efficiency at SKX by:
Providing a runway that meets FAAs recommended annualized (>95%) and
seasonal (December-March and May-August) runway wind coverage and
Providing a runway of sufficient length to improve payload capacities of the existing
and forecast design aircraft serving the Town of Taos.
2.2.2 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Improving the safety and utility of SKX requires that an additional runway be constructed and that
additional runway length be provided. The FAA has determined that the proposed improvements at SKX
are needed because:
The existing single runway (Runway 4/22) does not provide adequate annual wind
coverage for the majority of aircraft (small single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft
having a Maximum Certificated Take-off Weight (MCTOW) of 12,500 pounds or less)
currently using the airport and projected to continue to make up the majority of
aircraft using SKX.
Existing Runway 4/22 does not provide sufficient runway length for the design aircraft
(high performance turboprop and small cabin-class jet aircraft-i.e., Learjet 60 or
Cessna Citation -having a MCTOW of 60,000 pounds or less) included in the
existing and forecast aircraft fleet.
2-1
Record of Decision
EXHIBIT 10
'
'
'
2.2.3 P URPOSE AND NEED SUMMARY
Currently, SKX has several deficiencies in its design that should be remedied. The Purpose and Need for
the Proposed Project at SKX is to remedy these existing deficiencies. These deficiencies limit SKXs
ability to safely accommodate all current and projected aviation demand, and limit the operational
efficiency of aircraft utilizing the airport. General aviation users of the airport have expressed concerns
about unsafe conditions due to wind and density altitude effects on the existing runway system during
pilot surveys and the FAAs Public Seeping Meeting conducted in the Town as part of Phases 1 and 2 of
the EIS. Concerns expressed by the users of the airport were confirmed by the FAA through analyses of
wind coverage and runway length requirements conducted for the EIS in accordance with procedures and
guidelines contained in the FAA's Advisory Circulars (ACs) on airport design and operation (FAA AC
150/5300-13, Airport Design; FAA AC 150/5325-48, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design). It
should be noted that the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 2001-2005, states
that, overall, few accidents are attributable to airport deficiencies, and "the success of airports in not
becoming a link in the chain of events or circumstances that lead to an accident can be attributable to
their adherence to Federal standards for design and operation."
The overall goal of the Town is to develop an airport facility that provides enhanced safety and utility of
SKX for all users by providing sufficient runway length for the most demanding family of aircraft (high
performance turboprop and small cabin class jet aircraft with a Maximum Certified Take-off Weight
(MCTOW) of 60,000 pounds or less) included in the existing and projected aircraft fleet It is anticipated
that as the longer Runway 12/30 becomes available for use, a slightly higher number of cabin-class
turboprop and jet aircraft will utilize the airport. Because of limitations related to factors such as density
altitude, available runway length, and the aeronautical role of the airport, the likelihood of larger narrow-
body commercial aircraft operating at SKX is remote.
In addition to the design/operational deficiencies described above, it is important to note that SKX cannot
adequately fulfill its role in the local and state airport system as defined in the 2000 New Mexico Airport
System Plan (NMASP). In accordance with the NMASP, SKX should provide access to business aircraft
within 30 minutes driving time of nearby population centers, like the Town of Taos. Runway length
analysis undertaken for the EIS has revealed that these aircraft require a greater runway length than that
existing at SKX. The added length would allow all existing and forecast aircraft at SKX to operate more
efficiently in SKXs high-altitude, low-density environment. That is, aircraft will be able to carry payloads
that are at or near their design payload capacities.
2-2
Record of Decision
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Taos Municipal Airport
Taos, New Mexico
COOPERATTNG AGENCY AGREHME- NnT
This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) is by and between the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) as Federal lead agency, and Taos Pueblo Tribal
Government (Taos Pueblo), a sovereign entity acting as a Federal cooperating agency in
the proposed Taos Airport expansion, subject of an environmental impact statement
(EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).
I . PURPOSE.
The purpose of this MCA between the FAA and the Taos Pueblo is.
(1) to provide a framework for cooperation and coordination in compietion
of the environmental impact analysis on the proposed Taos airport
expansion; and
(2) to dene the respective roles, obligations, and jurisdictional authority of
each entity in the environmental review process; and
(3) to connn the formal designation of Taos Pueblo as a cooperating
agency with jurisdictional responsibilities and expertise in the
environmental assessment process on the proposed project; and
(4) to ensure that the working relationship between FAA and Taos Pueblo
meets the purposes and intent of NEPA and its accompanying
r e g u l a t i o n s . . ,
n. I NTRODUCTI ON.
Under the involved NEPAEIS process, both FAA and Taos Pueblo have
interests in and responsibilities for maintaining the "quality of the human environment" as
it relates to any potential adverse impacts of the proposed Taos Airport expansion on
Tribal lands and culture.
Plaintiffs Exhibit I J
Sheet: of:
N
o
.
P
r
o
je
c
t

N
o
.
D
a
t
e
A
p
p
r
v
d
.
T
H
E

P
R
E
P
A
R
A
T
IO
N

O
F

T
H
IS

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

W
A
S

F
IN
A
N
C
E
D

IN

P
A
R
T
,
T
H
R
O
U
G
H

T
H
E

A
IR
P
O
R
T

IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T

P
R
O
G
R
A
M

F
IN
A
N
C
IA
L
A
S
S
IS
T
A
N
C
E
F
R
O
M
T
H
E
F
E
D
E
R
A
L
A
V
IA
T
IO
N
A
D
M
IN
IS
T
R
A
T
IO
N
A
S
P
R
O
V
ID
E
D
U
N
D
E
R
T
IT
L
E
4
9
, U
N
IT
E
D
S
T
A
T
E
S
C
O
D
E
, S
E
C
T
IO
N
4
7
1
0
4
.
T
H
E
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S
D
O
N
O
T
N
E
C
E
S
S
A
R
IL
Y
R
E
F
L
E
C
T
T
H
E
O
F
F
IC
IA
L
V
IE
W
S
O
R
P
O
L
IC
Y
O
F
T
H
E
F
A
A
. A
C
C
E
P
T
A
N
C
E
O
F
T
H
IS
P
L
A
N
B
Y
T
H
E
F
A
A

D
O
E
S

N
O
T

IN

A
N
Y

W
A
Y

C
O
N
S
T
IT
U
T
E

A

C
O
M
M
IT
M
E
N
T

O
N

T
H
E

P
A
R
T

O
F

T
H
E

U
N
IT
E
D

S
T
A
T
E
S

T
O

P
A
R
T
IC
IP
A
T
E

IN

A
N
Y
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
D
E
P
IC
T
E
D
T
H
E
R
E
IN
N
O
R
D
O
E
S
IT
IN
D
IC
A
T
E
T
H
A
T
T
H
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
IS
E
N
V
IR
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
L
Y
A
C
C
E
P
T
A
B
L
E
O
R
W
O
U
L
D
H
A
V
E
J
U
S
T
IF
IC
A
T
IO
N
IN
A
C
C
O
R
D
A
N
C
E
W
IT
H
A
P
P
R
O
P
R
IA
T
E
P
U
B
L
IC
L
A
W
S
.
R
e
v
is
io
n

/

D
e
s
c
r
ip
t
io
n
D
r
w
n
.
F
ile
C
h
k
d
.
G
r
a
n
d

J
u
n
c
t
io
n
,

C
O

p
h
:

9
7
0
.
2
4
2
.
0
1
0
1

f
a
x
:

9
7
0
.
2
4
1
.
1
7
6
9
G
ilb
e
r
t
,

A
Z

p
h
:

6
0
2
.
8
0
3
.
7
0
7
9
A
lb
u
q
u
e
r
q
u
e
,

N
M

p
h
:

5
0
5
.
5
0
8
.
2
1
9
2

f
a
x
:

5
0
5
.
5
0
8
.
2
7
9
5
w
w
w
.
a
r
m
s
t
r
o
n
g
c
o
n
s
u
lt
a
n
t
s
.
c
o
m
1 1
A
I
P

N
o
.

3
-
3
5
-
0
0
4
1
-
0
2
8
-
2
0
1
2
A
I
R
P
O
R
T

L
A
Y
O
U
T

P
L
A
N
S
T
A
O
S

R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L

A
I
R
P
O
R
T
T
A
O
S
,

N
E
W

M
E
X
I
C
O
0
1
2
6
1
1
5
0
3
/
2
0
1
3
O
F
F

A
I
R
P
O
R
T

L
A
N
D

U
S
E
6
1
1
5
5
0
7
B
K
R
J
Z
P
D
A
C
1 2 3
OFF AIRPORT
LAND USE
0
SCALE IN FEET
3000 6000
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
Land Use Category
- -
- -
- -
- -
- (2,5)
- -
++
- (2)
- (2)
- -
- -
++
- (1,3)
- (1,3)
- (3)
- (3)
++
o (3)
++
++
++
- (3)
- -
++
o (3)
o (3)
o (3)
o (3)
++
+
++
++
++
+
- (4)
++
+
+
+
+
++
++
++
++
++
++
o
++
Residential
Public
Commercial and Industrial
Agricultural and Recreational
cropland
livestock breeding
parks, playgrounds, zoos,
golf courses, riding stables,
water recreation
outdoor spectator sports
amphitheaters
open space
CRITERIA
Land Use
Availability
++ Clearly
Acceptable
+ Normally
Acceptable
o Conditionally
Acceptable
- Normally
Unacceptable
- - Clearly
Unacceptable
Interpretation/Comments
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) AS DIMENSIONED
ON SHEET 2 OF AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN.
APPROACH SURFACE AS DESCRIBED ON THE FAR
PART 77 DRAWING OF THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN.
TYPICAL TRAFFIC PATTERN DIRECTION AND FLIGHT TRACK AREA.
EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE
FUTURE AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

H
CHURCH
SCHOOL
HOSPITAL
LEGEND
ZONE D
Airport
Influence
(AIZ)
ZONE A
Runway
Protection
(RPZ)
ZONE B
Approach
(AZ)
ZONE C
Traffic
Pattern
(TPZ)
NO HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANT RING
An FAA Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" must
be submitted for any construction or alteration (including hangars and other
on-airport and off-airport structures, towers, etc.) within 20,000 horizontal
feet of the airport greater in height than an imaginary surface extending
outward and upward from the runway at a slope of 100 to 1 or greater in
height than 200 feet above ground level.
The activities associated with the specified land use will
experience little or no impact due to airport operations.
Disclosure of airport proximity should be required as a
condition of development.
The specified land use is acceptable in this zone or area.
Impact may be perceived by some residents. Disclosure
of airport proximity should be required as a condition of
development. Dedication of avigation easements may
also be advisable.
If appropriate disclosure avigation easements and density
limitations are put in place, residential uses and uses
involving indoor public assemblies are acceptable.
Specified use should be allowed only if no reasonable
alternative exists. Disclosure of airport proximity and
avigation easements must be required as a condition of
development.
Specified use must not be allowed. Potential safety or
overflight nuisance impacts are likely in this area.
single-family, nursing homes, mobile homes,
multi-family, apartments, condominiums
transient lodging, hotel, motel
schools, libraries, hospitals
churches, auditoriums, concert halls
transportation, parking, cemeteries
offices, retail trade, service
commercial, wholesale trade,
warehousing, light industrial,
general manufacturing, utilities,
extractive industry
NOTE: DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHICH ARE WILDLIFE ATTRACTANT, INCLUDING SEWERAGE PONDS AND
LANDFILLS, WITHIN 10,000 FEET OF THE AIRPORT ARE UNACCEPTABLE. (REF.: FAA AC 150/5200-33)
(1) If allowed, avigation easements and disclosure must be required as a condition of development.
(2) Any structures associated with uses allowed in the RPZ must be located outside the RPZ.
(3) If no reasonable alternative exists, use should be located as far from extended centerline as
possible.
(4) If no reasonable alternative exists, use should be located as far from extended runway centerline
and traffic patterns as possible.
(5) Transportation facilities in the RPZ (i.e. roads, railroads, waterways) must be configured to
comply with Part 77 requirements.
ZONE B
(AZ)
ZONE A
(RPZ)
ZONE C
(TPZ)
ZONE A
(RPZ)
ZONE B
(AZ)
ZONE D
(AIZ)
ZONE C
(TPZ)
ZONE A
(RPZ)
ZONE B
(AZ)
ZONE D
(AIZ)
EXHIBIT 14(A)
EXHIBIT 14(B)
E
X
H
I
B
I
T

1
5
The Appraisal Journal, July 2001 312
features
The Impact of Airport Noise
on Residential Real Estate
by Randall Bell, MAI
As populations and airports expand, airport noise is an increasingly im-
portant issue for real estate analysts. In researching real estate damage issues, the
topic of airport noise and its impact on property market values are particularly
well-documented and well-researched areas. This article puts airport noise into
the framework of the Detrimental Conditions (DC) Matrix, outlines the mea-
surement of noise, sets forth some of the health effects of airport noise, and
addresses the impact that airport noise has on property market values. There are
dozens of published studies on the topic, all of which virtually come to the
conclusion that homes under or nearby the flight corridors of national or inter-
national airports experience some diminution in property market values.
An Overview of Detrimental Conditions
Diminution in value is the difference between the before and after market val-
ues of properties that have been damaged or taken. Hundreds of Detrimental
Conditions (DCs) may impact real estate values, including environmental con-
tamination, construction defects, geotechnical issues, eminent domain, economic
declines, proximity issues, natural disasters, and many others. While identify-
ing, categorizing, and analyzing these numerous DCs may seem overwhelming,
the task becomes manageable when the fundamental stages and market value
effects are considered in a logical sequence. The fundamental tools for a DC
analysis, the DC Matrix, the DC Model, The Bell Chart, and the Three DC
Approaches to Value, are set forth within the book Real Estate Damages.
1
On
this basis, airport noise is generally categorized as a Class V Item of Disclosure,
which is defined as being an externality or neighborhood condition, and is gen-
erally permanent in nature.
Detrimental Conditions Stages and Issues Related to Airport Noise
Utilizing the DC Matrix, it is apparent that several issues are relevant in study-
ing airport noise. Based upon this discussion, the DC Matrix as related specifi-
cally to airports could be summarized as shown in Table 1.
abstract
As populations and
airports expand, airport
noise is an increasingly
important issue for real
estate analysts. In research-
ing real estate damage
issues, the topic of airport
noise and its impact on
property market values are
particularly well-docu-
mented and well-re-
searched areas. This article
puts airport noise into the
framework of the Detri-
mental Conditions (DC)
Matrix, outlines the
measurement of noise,
sets forth some of the
health effects of airport
noise, and addresses the
impact that airport noise
has on property market
values.
1. Randall Bell, Real Estate Damages: An Analysis of Detrimental Conditions, (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 1999).
EXHIBIT 16
313
Table 1 The DC MatrixAirport Noise and Residential Properties
Stages
Issues Assessment Repair Ongoing
Cost Assessment by noise engineers Noise mitigation such as Ongoing noise mitigation, i.e.,
and related costs double pane windows, water fountains, background
insulation, etc. music, etc.
Use Not generally applicable Not generally applicable Possible
Risk Not generally applicable Not generally applicable Market resistance, if any, as
demonstrated by market data
2. Lester Reingold, Research not Regulation, Air Transport World (May, 1995): 79.
3. Robert S. Stone, Kenneth R. Regier, and Ellwyn Brickson, The Human Effects of Exposures to Aircraft Noise in a Residential Environment, Division of
Environmental Health, Orange County Health Department (May 19, 1972): 37.
Measuring Airport Noise
The perceptions and impacts of airport noise must
be defined in order for them to be studied. Accord-
ingly, a number of noise measurement methods are
used by noise engineers. The impact of airport noise
and those related perceptions are typically delineated
by noise contour lines that vary from airport to air-
port, depending upon the size of the airport, preva-
lent wind directions, topography, and so forth. By
measuring noise contours, a standard can be derived
whereby the impact of noise from different airports
can be compared.
Noise is unwanted sound. By that definition, the
sound emanating from jet aircraft is considered noise
to most people.
2
The real estate professional needs to
assess the markets perceptions towards airport noise,
knowing that those perceptions are then translated into
sales prices when the properties are sold and other in-
dications of market values. While most agree that ex-
cessive noise is bothersome, it is a subjective issue. For
example, what is more annoyinga single firecracker
or five motorcycles driving by at one-minute intervals?
Is one motorcycle at 73 dB (see Table 2 for noise mea-
surement terms and definitions) for 5 seconds more or
less annoying than a jet at 68 dB for 27 seconds? More-
over, is the noise more annoying during the day or at
night? If at night, how much more annoying is it?
In an effort to answer these questions, there has
been a proliferation of noise measurement terms, tech-
niques, and acronyms. To add to the confusion, there
are ongoing debates over the merits of each approach.
In an effort to provide at least some clarification of
these issues, the following table outlines the primary
noise measurement terms, their meanings, and com-
ments that are summarized from various published
sources. It is important to note that each of the noise
measurement systems is scientifically designed to mea-
sure the level of noise, not the measure of annoyance.
To illustrate this issue, noise measurement meth-
ods measure noise in somewhat the same way the
volume of water in a river can be measured. For ex-
ample, the total gallons flowing past a certain point
per day, the speed of the river, the volume between
two points at a specific period in time, the peak lev-
els, and so forth. However, these measurement tech-
niques are not intended to measure flood-related dam-
age, which in turn cause annoyance. The techniques
themselves are only designed to measure noise.
Noise Mitigation
There are only three ways to mitigate noise: (1) quiet
the source, (2) put more distance between the source
of the noise and the receptor, and (3) build or create
a barrier to the noise. It is often infeasible for
homeowners to have control over quieting the source
of jet noise, and it is equally impractical to move
their house further from the airport. The third choice
is often the only option for homeowners who are
impacted by airport noise. For example, attics and
walls may be insulated and double pane windows
may be installed. On an ongoing basis, background
music, fountains, or running water may drown out
some of the noise. Of course, outside activities such
as barbecues, sports, swimming, and so forth do not
generally benefit from these measures. It is estimated
that airport noise heard within the interior of a prop-
erty with lightweight construction is reduced from
15 to 30 dBAs. According to a 1972 study, the most
recent obtainable, mobile homes reduce jet landing
noise levels by 14 dBA to 23 dB(A).
3
The primary problem with double pane windows
is that they must be kept closed to effectively reduce
airport noise. With the costs of air conditioning, this
can be a significant factor to a household budget
where the climate is mild and where natural breezes
would otherwise cool. Citing these concerns, it is
the impact of airport noise on residential real estate
Table 2 Airport Noise Comparison Chart
Term Meaning Comments
dB Decibels The most fundamental of noise measurements, however, this scale fails to account for noise
frequency.
dB(A) Decibels with The most common measurement of noise, with the A weighting which accounts for the
A Weighting fact that humans do not hear low frequencies and high frequencies as well as they hear
middle frequencies, and corrects for this accordingly.
1
(There are also B and C ratings
that are not discussed here.) The A weighting has become so common that it is often
considered synonymous with dB. It is a geometric (not logarithmic) scale measured in
tenths. The term decibels is derived from decimals, meaning a tenth, and from the
developer, Alexander Graham Bell.
What People Will Accept Without Undue Complaint
2
Location Day dBA Night dBA
Rural residential 3540 2535
Suburban residential 4050 3040
Urban residential 4555 3545
Commercial 5565 4555
Industrial 6070 5060
Estimated Community Response to Noise
3
Noise Level in dB(A) Above Acceptable Level Estimated Community Response
0 No observed reaction
5 Sporadic complaints
10 Widespread complaints
15 Treats of action
20 Vigorous action
Human Effects Criteria for Noise Control
4
Noise Levels at Which
Objectives Harmful Effects Begin to Occur, dB(A)
Prevention of hearing loss 7585
Prevention of extra-auditory physiological effects 6575
Prevention of speech interference 5060
Prevention of interruption of sleep 4550
Satisfying subjective preferences 4550
PNL Perceived An active band analysis that measures noise in one octave intervals. Measures sound in each
Noise Level octave and compensates for discrete tones that are annoying but not necessarily loud,
such as a scratch across a blackboard.
EPNL Effective Similar to PNL but measures noises in one-third octaves. This is a noise measurement
method Perceived where the decibels of the noise of an aircraft includes the loudness
and the frequency Noise Levelspectrum of the noise for takeoffs and landings. This
measurement utilizes EPBdB over time.
EPNdB Effective Noise generated by a single event. Few people can detect a sound below 5 EPNdB. An
Perceived increase of 10 EPBdB is usually perceived as a doubling of loudness.
5
This system requires
Noise Level in rigorous mathematical calculations and accounts for the qualities of jet noise that are
Decibels particularly annoying.
SEL Sound A measurement of noise that accounts for both sound intensity and duration.
6
The net noise
Exposure Level energy is calculated from the area of a triangle formed by the graphically illustrated increase,
peak event, and decrease of a noise event and converted into a one-second measurement.
SENEL Single Event Synonymous with SEL.
Noise
Exposure Level
1. FAA WebPagesApril, 1999. Aircraft Noise: How We Measure It and Assess Its Impact, <http://www.faa.gov/region/aea/noise/tindxbrkdwn.htm>.
2. Table III, What People Will Accept Without Undue Complaint, Table IV, Estimated Community Response to Noise, Orange County Health Department Report
(1972).
3 Ibid.
4. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
315
Table 2 Airport Noise Comparison Chart (continued)
CNR Composite A graphically produced measure which is used to measure aircraft noise annoyance on the
Noise Rating house based on the number of flights, the time of day, and the perceived loudness of
System noise.
7
Any rating less than 100 CNR is designated as CNR Zone 1, from 100 to 115 is
Zone 2, and any CNR greater than 115 is Zone 3.
8
On that basis, a rough approximation
of CNR Zones and dBA can be made of Zone 1 being less than 67 dB(A), Zone 2 ranging
from 67 dBA to 82 dBA, and Zone 3 being greater than 82 dB(A).
9
This is a scientifically
valid approach but on a practical basis has been largely replaced by the DNL measure
(see below) in more current noise studies.
NEF Noise Exposure Provides a measure of the total aircraft-generated noise energy received at locations near an
Forecast airport during a typical 24-hour period, with an added penalty for nighttime (after 10
PM) noise.
10
The NEF method has been adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, which will not guarantee mortgages on properties within NEF 40+ and
generally considers properties with NEF 30+ unacceptable.
11
At below NEF 30, few people
complain. At 30 to 40 NEF, individuals may complain and there may be group action. At
40+ NEF, there are numerous and repeated complaints and group action is probable.
12
NEF = Ldn 65; NEF 40 = Ldn 75.
13
This is a scientifically valid approach but on a practical
basis has been largely replaced by the DNL measure in more current noise studies.
CNEL Community A metric measurement method that is used in some areas of California. It has an additional
Noise Exposure night penalty over and above the DNL method. Specifically, it has a 5 dB(A) penalty for
Level evening noise in addition to the 10 dB(A) penalty of night noise. Thus, CNEL noise
contours tend to be larger than DNL contours.
14
ASDS Aircraft Sound A time above system that measures the time that noise exceeds a certain level, for
Description example, the time during a 24 hour period in which the noise exceeds 85 dB(A). This is a
System scientifically valid approach but on a practical basis has been largely replaced by the DNL
measure in more current noise studies.
DNL or Day Night A sound measurement scale that accounts for nighttime noise levels where sounds between
Ldn Average 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM incur a 10 dB(A) penalty over a 24 hour period, and accounts for
Sound Level various weather patterns that may affect noise levels. This means that one nighttime
event is considered equal to 10 daytime events at the same level. (As an approximate
conversion, NEF 40 = Ldn 75).
15
Generally speaking, this measurement scale converts the
dB(A) of various noise events into SEL, which measures the noise level of each individual
event in a one-second period. These individual events are then computed over the 24
hour period to reflect a DNL.
One should be cautious before using DNL measurement in measuring disruption or
annoyance; however, according to one study, Ldn has been correlated to the following:
16
Disruption DNL or Ldn Level
Low 6065 Ldn
Moderate 6070 Ldn
Substantial 7075 Ldn
Severe 7580 Ldn
The FAA identifies a DNL level of 65 generally as the threshold noise level of aviation
noise. The EPA identifies 55 DNL as a threshold level. These disparities, however, do not
mean or suggest that no one is annoyed below these levels, although this error in
judgement is commonly made. According to one study, approximately 12% of people
experiencing noise below 65 DNL are highly annoyed at this level. 55 to 65 DNL is
described as moderate exposure to noise.
7. Peter Mieszkowski and Arthur M. Saper, An Estimate of Airport Noise on Property Values, Journal of Urban Economics (1978): 25.
8. Robert S. Stone, Kenneth R. Regier, and Ellwyn Brickson, The Human Effects of Exposures to Aircraft Noise in a Residential Environment Division of Environmen-
tal Health, Orange County Health Department (May 19, 1972): 2526.
9. Ibid., 32.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc., The Effect of Airport Noise on Housing Values: A Summary Report, Office of Environmental and Energy Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration (September 15, 1994): 19.
16. Marvin Frankel, Aircraft Noise and Residential Property Values: Results of a Survey Study, The Appraisal Journal (January, 1991): 106.
Table 2 Airport Noise Comparison Chart (continued)
DNL or Day Night DNL is not intended or considered to be a good indication of single event noise. A 65
Ldn Average DNL is equivalent to 87.5 dBA with 500 events, 94.4 dBA with 100 events, and 97.4 dBA
Sound Level with 50 events. A single event at 97.4 dBA, while considered somewhat acceptable
under the 65 DNL threshold would actually be equivalent to the noise from a power
mower or a newspaper press.
17
In other words, because of the averaging effect of DNL
noise measurements, a person could be abruptly aroused from sleep every night, but the
remaining 24 hours of quiet would result in a DNL measurement that would be very low,
yet erroneously suggesting that there was no annoyance.
The DNL is a scientifically valid measurement of noise; however, some have inferred that
its measurements reflect something that it is simply not designed to do. For these and
other reasons, the interpretations of the DNL method are controversial and considered by
many to be a fictitious averaging of sound. Accordingly, it has been widely criticized for
understating the practical effects of noise and the related annoyance.
18
Leq Level of Measures the number of events or energy summation, the exposure level, and the time-
Equivalent average of sound over a specified period of time.
19
This method of measuring the
Sound volume of noise collected has been compared similarly to the way rainwater is
collected in a coffee can over a period of time.
NNI Noise and Like NEF (see below), NNI combines measures of loudness and number of events into a
Number single cumulative index. 30 NNI equals 73 planes a day at 82 PNdBabout as loud as a
Index vacuum cleaner at 10 feet. It differs from NEF in the way that it measures loudness as the
maximum perceived noise level for each event. Like NEF, it is a cumulative energy
measure and therefore may mask the hedonic effects of loudness and number of events.
20
The measure is further criticized as understating annoyance.
21
This is a system utilized
primarily in Great Britain.
19. Ibid.
20. Terrence J. Levesque, Modeling the Effects of Airport Noise on Residential Housing Markets, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (May, 1994): 200.
21. M. E. Paul, Can Aircraft Nuisance Noise be Measured in Money? Report of the Commission on the Third London Airport, H. M. S. O. (1971): 299.
reported that some home owners in Australia have gone
to the extreme of installing microphones, micro-pro-
cessors, and mechanical arms that shut the windows
temporally as nearby jets take off and land at a nearby
airport.
There are many instances where adequate noise
mitigation was simply not possible and the highest and
best use was indeed impacted. For example, large resi-
dential neighborhoods were demolished near Los An-
geles International, Sea-Tac, and Phoenix Sky Harbor
Airports. At the Las Vegas International Airport, a large
subdivision, with noise levels under the 65 DNL levels
established by the FAA were purchased and subse-
quently rented by the County. This reflects the con-
cept that property owners may react more negatively
than renters do. While generally there is no impact on
the highest and best use of a residential property due to
aircraft noise, these instances show that in more ex-
treme situations, the noise issues cannot be mitigated
and the highest and best use has changed from resi-
dential to some other use. Based upon factors like these,
when considering airport noise, it may not be prudent
to construct new residential improvements to replace
older residential improvements that are at the end of
their physical life. While this article focuses on noise
issues, air quality, jet blasts, and health issues might
also be additional issues that the analyst must consider.
Airport Noise and Health-Related Issues
While a real estate analyst primarily focuses on and
measures the impact of airport noise on property mar-
ket values, it should be noted that airport noise is asso-
ciated with a variety of costs, of which the impact on
real estate is only one. In addition, airport operations
may cause a variety of effects such as noise, visual im-
pairment, pollution, traffic, emotional, and health-re-
lated effects. Of course, these other costs are outside
the scope of the real estate analysts direct realm of ex-
pertise. However, it would be naive to assume that real
estate is the only issue. Some of these other issues are
briefly addressed here.
Some speculate that noise is not a major health
problem because people adapt to it; however, accord-
ing to one published source, this is a myth.
4
Noise re-
Environmental Health, Orange County Health Department (May 19, 1972): 2.
317
5. W. C. Meecham, and N. A. Shaw, Increase in Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft Noise, Schriftenreihe des Vereins fur Wasser-, Boden-und Lufthygiene (88,
1993): 428441.
Environmental Health, Orange County Health Department (May 19, 1972).
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Lester Reingold, Research not Regulation, Air Transport World (May, 1995): 79.
10. Alan Collins and Alec Evans, Aircraft Noise and Residential Property Values: An Artificial Neural Network Approach, Journal of Transport Economics
and Policy (May, 1994): 194.
lated stress has a measurable impact on human health.
A 1993 study of Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX) indicated that cardiovascular disease increased
18%, and accidental deaths increased 60% for people
over 75. Suicides doubled for people between 45 and
54. Approximately 60 more people died each year.
5
A
British study of doctors working at Springfield Mental
Hospital shows that admissions per 1,000 people who
live near Londons Heathrow Airport are significantly
higher than those from a population in a near-by qui-
eter area.
The Orange County Health Department in Cali-
fornia published one of the most comprehensive health-
related studies reviewed.
6
It utilizes the CNR Zones 1,
2, and 3 to reflect various impacts on health. It states
that airport noise can specifically cause sleep distur-
bance, physiological stress reactions, temporary thresh-
old shifts in hearing, interference with speech and com-
munications, and psychological distress. Further, the
study cites that health is not simply the absence of or-
ganic disease, but rather a total state of physical, men-
tal, and emotional well being. The study further states
it is clear that excessive and needless noise constitutes
a nuisance at best, a health hazard at worst.
The effects of noise on people can take many
other forms as well
7
:
1. Noise can interfere with speech and other forms
of communication.
2. Noise can produce physiological stress reactions
with may turn out to have significant long-term
health implications.
3. Noise can be a major source of annoyance by
disturbing sleep, rest, and relaxation.
4. Noise can interfere with the performance of
complicated tasks.
5. Noise can reduce the opportunity for privacy.
6. Noise can cause temporary hearing losses, which,
if repeated, will result in chronic hearing loss.
The report further states:
Typically, an emotional reaction occurs when a ho-
meowner, for example, purchases a residence near an
airport or freeway without really being aware of the
noise, perhaps because the decision to buy is made
on a weekend when the noise level is at its lowest.
However, after an investment is made, and the full
extent of the noise is realized, a feeling of regret and
depression occurs. One couple interviewed during a
community noise survey of Seal Beach bought a home
adjacent to the San Diego freeway where sound levels
average 60 dBA at night and 73 dBA during the day.
Then, after living there a few days, they put the prop-
erty up for sale. That was over four years ago and they
still cant sell the house. Their daughter of five years is
reportedly developing hearing problems and has dif-
ficulty understanding the difference between similar
words like candy, sandy, or dandy. This couple realizes
their error but can do nothing to rectify it. There is
little doubt that they have been seriously affected, psy-
chologically, by this situation.
8
The report goes on to describe numerous and
various noise (specifically airport noise) related dis-
orders, including (a) subjective, or mental health,
effects, (b) sleep disturbance and deprivation, (c)
interference with speech and communication, (d)
physiological effects, and (e) hearing loss.
The Impact of Airport Noise on Market
Values
When commercial jet operations commenced in
1959, the Federal Aviation Administrator had to get
an unlisted home phone number because outraged
citizens called him at night and harassed him about
aircraft noise.
9
The subject still strikes an emotional
cord with many people today, and the body of pub-
lished literature consistently reflects a real and nega-
tive impact on property market values. Some have
speculated that the convenience and economic rev-
enues from an airport serve to offset any diminution
in value; however, nothing in the body of published
literature supports this notion. In fact, it is directly
dispelled in an article published in the Journal of Trans-
port, Economics and Policy, which utilizes hedonic re-
gression to show that NNI 50 properties sustain a
diminution in value ranging from approximately -
7% to -12%.
10
While tremendous economic benefits
and revenues clearly are associated with a large air-
port, those under or nearby the flight path tend to
suffer a net negative impact.
12. Ibid.
13. M. E. Paul, Can Aircraft Nuisance Noise be Measured in Money? Report of the Commission on The Third London Airport, H. M. S. O. (1971): 298.
14. These market participants are termed the survivor population.
15. This is called the enticed population.
16. These market participants are termed the exodus population.
18. Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc., The Effect of Airport Noise on Housing Values: A Summary Report, Office of Environmental and Energy Federal Aviation
Administration (September 15, 1994): 17.
19. A quiet threshold is generally considered to be that in an otherwise similar neighborhood but without airport noise.
The issues are widespread. Approximately six
million Americans currently reside on 900,000 acres
of land exposed to levels of aircraft noise that creates
a significant annoyance for most residents (NEF 30+).
Furthermore, 600,000 Americans reside in areas that
are severely impacted by aircraft noise, that is, areas
in excess of NEF 40.
11
Despite the magnitude of noise
problems, no single or universal criterion defines a
noisy airport.
12
The fact that a property is situated near a noise
source is not automatic evidence of a loss in market
value. The analyst must therefore find and employ
valid methods of accurately measuring market value
loss. Measuring the impact of noise on property mar-
ket values is generally a relatively simple concept of a
paired-sales analysis; however, linear regressions and
hedonic modeling are also frequently used. Unfortu-
nately, as illustrated in the discussion of various noise
measurement methods, no single standard exists,
which adds to the complexity of a study. However, in
context of these various methods, consistent themes
and correlations emerge.
In studying the most likely impact of airport noise
on real estate damages, it should be recognized that
there are outlying extremes. Like many detrimental
conditions, there is a segment of the market that ap-
pears to be almost immune to the effects, while at the
opposite extreme there is often a segment that will not
purchase a property at any cost that is impacted by a
detrimental condition. For example, a portion of the
population seems more or less imperturbable.
13, 14
If
located close to an airport or under a flight path, these
people are still not seriously disturbed.
Nevertheless, for most people, noise is a signifi-
cant issue, and there is a segment of the population
that will live under a major flight corridor if enticed
through a discount on the price.
15
However, a slight
majority of the market will not purchase a property
that is close to a major airport at any discount.
16
Simi-
larly, a significant portion of the market will neither
purchase a property that is close to a motorway, nor
one that is a few miles from a major airport.
17
Fur-
thermore, those with special political agendas, such
as pro- or anti-airport groups, often selectively cite
study results such as these. A proper and unbiased
study should consider the net effects of these issues
on balance.
While some real estate analysts may initially be-
lieve that any potential buyer will purchase a dam-
aged property if discounted enough, this is simply
not true. To illustrate, consider a run down house in
the middle of a heavy industrial area. Certainly a sig-
nificant portion of the typical residential market will
simply not purchase the property at any discount, as
they simply will not live in such an area under any
conditions and have no interest in buying, renting,
or reselling such properties.
One of the most important studies published to
date was conducted for the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration in 1994.
18
It studied three airports using a
regression analysis: Baltimore/Washington Interna-
tional Airport (BWI), Los Angeles International Air-
port (LAX), and John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK) in
New York. The results indicated a consistent negative
impact on residential property market values.
The BWI study had significant limitations, yet
reflected homes near airports that would have a mar-
ket value loss ranging from -$627 to -$14,595 per
home. The LAX study was more straightforward. It
included a study of both low priced and moderately
priced neighborhoods. The study indicated that the
adjusted market value of a low priced home was
$1,268 less if impacted by airport noise, or -0.07 per
dBA above a quiet threshold.
19
Moderately priced
homes incurred a $60,873 loss if impacted, or 1.12%
per dBA above a quiet threshold (which is not speci-
fied). Losses of the total home market value ranged
from -0.8% for low priced homes and ranged from -
15.7% to -19% for moderately priced homes.
The JFK study includes low, moderately, and
high priced homes. It indicates a loss of -0.12% per
dBA for low priced homes, -0.46% per dBA for mod-
erately priced homes, and -1.35% per dBA for high
priced homes.
The FAA study, while lacking a complete discus-
sion of many issues, yields some significant informa-
319
Table 4 Percentage Depreciation of House Property Values Compared with Houses Outside
the 35 NNI Contour
Class of Property 3545 NNI 45+ NNI
Low 4.5 10.3
Medium 9.4 16.5
High 16.4 29.0
Table 3 Percentage of Price Depreciation of House Value
Noise Zones
Class of Property 3545 NNI 4555 NNI 55+ NNI
Low 0.0 2.9 5.0
Medium 2.6 6.3 10.5
High 3.3 13.3 22.5
20. John P. Nelson, Airport Noise, Location Rent, and the Market for Residential Amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (March
27, 1979): 329.
21. Peter W. Abelson, Property Prices and the Value of Amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (January 5, 1979): 23.
22. Dean Uyeno, Stanley W. Hamilton, and Andrew J. G. Biggs, Density of Residential Land Use and the Impact of Airport Noise, Journal of Transport
Economics and Policy (January, 1993): 9.
23. Jonathan H. Mark, A Preference Approach to Measuring the Impact of Environmental Externalities, Land Economics, (56:1): 85.
25. Eran J. Feitelson, Robert E. Hurd, and Richard R. Mudge, The Impact of Airport Noise on Willingness to Pay for Residences, Pergamon (April 5, 1996): 3.
26. Marvin Frankel, Aircraft Noise and Residential Property Values: Results of a Survey Study, The Appraisal Journal (January, 1991): 108.
tion. First, entry-level homes are impacted less as com-
pared to moderately priced homes. In fact, the loss in
market value low priced homes is generally minimal.
This trend could be expected, as high priced homes
are often in areas with more desirable neighborhood
traits. Second, the study shows that the loss to moder-
ately priced homes is as high as 19%, a significant fig-
ure as conventional loans often require a down pay-
ment of 20%. In other words, homebuyers who pur-
chase a home with out knowledge of plans for an air-
port to be built nearby may stand to lose most or all of
their equity if an airport is subsequently developed.
Further, the reduction in value of a high priced home
will be approximately 2.5 times that of a moderately
priced home. This finding is also illustrated by a Brit-
ish study (see Table 3).
The FAA study correlates fairly well with a variety
of other published studies. A study published in the
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
indicates that an increase of NEF 5 over threshold noise
levels would decrease the market value by 2.5%.
20
An-
other study in the same journal indicates a diminution
in value of 0.67% per NEF. Yet another study in the
same journal reflects a loss of 0.4% per NEF and refers
to other studies with losses of 1% or more per NEF.
21
Additional insights are added by a study published
in the Journal of Transport, Economics and Policy which
indicates that a one unit increase in NEF results in a
diminution in value of 0.65% in property market value
for detached housing.
22
Comparing the market value of properties with
no significant noise (less than 35 NNI) to those with
airport noise, a study published in Land Economics,
indicates whats demonstrated in Table 3.
23
Another
study, also utilizing NNI noise contours, reflects these
results (see Table 4).
24
While utilizing a different noise measurement
method of NNI, these studies reflect much of the same
concepts as other studies. Namely, the higher the rela-
tive price of a property, the higher the diminution in
value. According to the studies above, the highest loss
is 22.5% to 29% for high-class housing, which recon-
ciles somewhat with the 19% loss reflected in the FAA
study for moderately priced housing. These results are
also somewhat consistent with yet another published
study that cites losses of 0.4% to 1.1% per NNI.
25
A study published in The Appraisal Journal further
correlates with many of these findings utilizing the Lnd
method. It indicates a loss of market value ranging from
1.2% of low-impact properties to 21.5% for severely
impacted properties. This study also reflects numerous
instances in which communities or sectors were assigned
to a noise category not consistent to their actual noise
status.
26
These findings reconcile with the comments
previously cited that certain noise averaging meth-
ods are considered controversial.
Conclusions
There are hundreds of DCs that may impact property
market values. Airport noise is generally considered to
be a Class V DC, meaning that it is an externality that
is imposed onto property owners and generally on a
permanent basis. As a Class V issue, airport noise has
specific issues as outlined in the DC Matrix. These are
assessment costs, repair (mitigation) costs, ongoing use
costs, and ongoing market resistance. Noise is mea-
sured in a variety of ways and with various scales, which
can be confusing to the non-noise engineer. The dB(A)
is the basic unit of noise measurement. DNL is largely
used; however, this is a noise averaging method that
has been criticized because it does not address annoy-
ance. Annoyance can therefore be understated by av-
eraging.
As populations expand, so will airports, which in
turn will create more frequent valuation challenges for
real estate analysts. The impact of noise from a na-
A
i
r
p
o
r
t

R
u
n
w
a
y
2
5
R
T
e
s
t

A
r
e
a

L
a
n
d
i
n
g
s
T
e
s
t

A
r
e
a

T
a
k
e
o
f
f
s
T
e
s
t

A
r
e
a

P
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
Control Area B
Similar Properties
No Airport Impact
Control Area A
Similar Properties
No Airport Impact
Exhibit 1 Airport Diminution in Value Study
321
Percentage
Loss in Value of
Housing Due to
Noise in Each
Economoic
Neighborhood
Reactions to
Noise in Each
Economic
Neighborhood
Average Percent of
People Rating Noise
Environment
Unacceptable
0%
5%
10%
25%
60%
90%
0.0%
65
NEF
CNR
DNL
0
70
10
80
20
90
60
30
100
65
40
110
70
50
115
75
5.0%
12.5%
25.0%
Threashhold of
annoyance
No complaints
to authorities
Some complaints
to authorities
Group appeals to
stop noise
Legal action
High Economic
Neighbors
Low Economic
Neighbors
Estimated
Probable
Average
Exhibit 2 Relation Between Various Effects of Habitual Environmental Noise and a Composite
Noise Rating, CNR and NEF
Randall Bell, MAI, is a principal with the firm
Bell Anderson & Sanders LLC with offices in
Laguna Beach, California. His firm specializes in
real estate and environmental damage valuation
assignments nationwide. Mr. Bell is the author of
the Appraisal Institute's text Real Estate Damages,
and was the developer of the Detrimental Condi-
tions and Real Estate Disclosure seminars. Mr. Bell is
a licensed appraiser and broker and has a MBA in
Real Estate from UCLA. Contact:
[email protected].
tional or international airport on residential properties
is universally negative on residential property market
values under or near a heavy flight corridor. A signifi-
cant portion of the population will not live in a home
that is impacted by airport noise at any cost or dis-
count. On the other hand, some of the population
seems more or less impermeable to airport noise. On
balance, the published studies cited here suggest that
detached single-family homes under or nearby a final
or down-wind flight corridor will suffer a measurable
diminution in value. Various studies indicate that there
is a correlation between noise levels, as measured by
noise contours, and the diminution in value suffered.
Further, according to the studies completed for the FAA,
detached housing tends to be impacted more than semi-
detached or terraced housing. The data suggests that
more expensive homes tend to be impacted more than
less expensive homes. Rural areas tend to be impacted
more than suburban areas, which in turn tend to be
impacted more than urban areas. Other research indi-
27. Terrence J. Levesque, Modeling the Effects of Airport Noise on Residential Housing Markets, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (May, 1994): 209.
cates that the number of flights is less important than
the loudness and variability of the loudness of single
events.
27
For this reason, single event dBL should be
considered carefully.
Source: Commission of Londons Third Airport Papers and Proceedings VII, Part II, and Furthur Research Team Work 51. DNL and CNL reference added on sale of
NEF30 = 65 DNL and NEF40 + 70 DNL.
'
'
'
relatively low activity level and smaller aircraft associated with the airport, the FAA concluded that the
potential of structural damage at Taos Pueblo is not likely to result from the operation of SKX.
6.2.2 COMPATIBLE LAND USE
The compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated with
the extent of the airport s noise impacts. If the noise analysis indicates that there is no significant impact,
a similar conclusion usually may be drawn with respect to compatible land use. Noise levels associated
with the "Build" Alternatives would not result in any incompatible land uses based on the projected DNL
noise leve ls and FAA Land Use Compatibility Guidelines . The residential land use along Santistevan
Road would experience increased noise and overflights under Alternative 3; however, the increase would
not be considered significant under FAA Guidelines .
All proposed airport improvements associated with Alternatives 2C and 2D would be constructed on
existing a irport property and would, therefore, have no direct effect upon off-airport land uses. Both
alternatives would require the acquisition of avigation easements over County property just east of each
runway end. Acquis ition of the easement will prevent any future incompatible land uses. The Airport
Sponsor does not anticipate any difficulty acquiring the easement. The relocation of the existing end of
Runway 4/22 by 420 feet for Alternative 2C and 2D to the northeast would reduce that runway s length ,
thereby relocating the Runway 4 RPZ entirely onto existing airport property, and off of Taos Pueblo Tract
A. No relocation or wetland impacts, direct use of Section 4(f) or 6(f) protected resources or constructive
use of Section 4(f) resources, or direct historic resource impacts are anticipated for Alternatives 2C, 2D,
or the No-Action Alternative. Adverse effects to historic properties discussed in Section 6.2.8 of this ROD
have been resolved under the Section 106 of the NHPA through an Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
The MOA contains the stipulations agreed to by the Section 106 Consulting Parties to avoid , minimize or
mitigate adverse effects . The signed MOA is made part of FAA s ROD and demonstrates that FAA has
worked with the Consulting Parties to resolve adverse effects under 36 CFR 800 .6. A copy of the MOA
is contained in Appendix B of the FEIS as well as Appendix 3 of this ROD .
In addition, Alternatives 2C, 2D , and 3 would result in floodplain impacts (4 .96, 2.70, and 12.69 acres,
respectively) .
Alternative 3 would have the greatest land use impacts of the three "Build " alternatives , as it would be
constructed partially on approximately 360 acres of property that would need to be acquired by the Town ,
part of which is currently developed for residential use along Santistevan Road . According to property
information provided by Taos County (County) , at least 30 parcels of land would be impacted and up to
eight residential relocations would be necessary under Alternative 3. As discussed in Appendix T of the
FEIS, a review of the updated land use derived from 2011 aerial photographs identified four additional
residences and one business that would require acquisition and relocation within the area that is required
to construct and operate Alternative 3. The type of impact and mitigation for these additional units are
discussed in the FEIS . The Town already owns approximately 29 acres of the property that would be
needed to implement Alternative 3. Approximately 13 acres of 100-year floodplain would be acquired , as
well. No wetland impacts, direct use of Section 4 (f) and 6(f) protected resources , or direct historic
6-9
Record of Decision
EXHIBIT 18
' FAA s approval of the preferred alternative in this ROD signifies that the project meets FAA standards for
Agency approval discussed in Section 2.0 of this ROD . It does not, however, signify an FAA commitment
to provide financial support for this project, which must await future decisions under the separate funding
criteria prescribed by 49 U.S.C. 47115 (d) and 49 U.S.C . 40117 .
In accordance with 40 CFR 1505.3, the FAA will take appropriate steps through Federal funding grant
assurances and grant conditions, airport layout plan approvals , and contract plans and specifications to
ensure that the following mitigation actions are implemented. The FAA will monitor and reevaluate the
implementation of these mitigation measures as necessary. Specific monitoring requirements are
included in the NHPA Section 106 MOA, discussed in more detail below.
7.1 EASEMENT ACQUISITION
The project will require the acquisition of an avigation easement over property adjacent to the new
runway to prevent possible future noncompatible land uses from occurring in the Runway Protection
Zone . See Figure 1.2-1 of the FEIS for the location of the property. Easement acquisition must be done
in compliance with FAA AC 15/5100-17, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport
Improvement Program Assisted Projects, and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URARPAPA , 42 U.S. C. 4601) .
7.2 HISTORIC PROPERTIES (SECTION 106)
FAA has determined that there would be an adverse effect as a result of the "Build" Alternatives because
of the possibility of an increase of some unknown magnitude in the number of uncontrolled overflights
over the Taos Pueblo WHS. The FAA has also determined that there would be an adverse effect
because construction of any of the "Build " Alternatives would result in small increases in visual and
auditory intrusions into some parts of the NRHP-eligible historic district and would cause small increases
in noise levels , overflights, and visual impacts at some of the 80 identified traditional cultural properties
and the Rio Grande Gorge (contributing properties).
As a result of extensive Section 106 coordination meetings and teleconferences, a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) was prepared which specified mitigation stipulations to avoid , minimize, and mitigate
the FAA-determined adverse effects due to the operation of the Proposed Project (see Sections 5.1, 5.7 ,
and 5.8 of the FE IS) . The parties involved in the development of the MOA were the FAA, Taos Pueblo,
New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), National Park Service (NPS) , the Town of Taos,
the New Mexico Department of Transportation Aviation Division (NMDTAD), and the ACHP . The Section
106 consultation process resulted in the approval of the MOA in late 2011 . A copy of the final MOA,
which stipulates the duties and responsibilities of each signatory party, is included in Appendix B of the
FEIS and Appendix 3 of th is ROD .
7.3 WATER QUALITY
These elements of the mitigation program will be developed during the design and permitting stages ,
implemented during the construction phase , and maintained during the operationa l phase of a "Bu ild"
Alternative :
7-2
Record of Decision
. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI ON
FEDERAL AVI ATI ON ADMI NI STRATI ON
AI RPORT I MPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SPONSOR CERTI FI CATI ON
REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION
Town of Taos Taos Regional Airport AIR No. 3-35-0041 -032-2014
( S p o n s o r ) ( A i r p o r t ) ( P r o j e c t N u m b e r )
SCHEDUL E I
RELOCATE RUNWAY 4 END AND CONSTRUCT HAUL ROAD
SCHEDULE I I
CONSTRUCT RUNWAY 12-30, PARALLEL TAXIWAY B. CONNECTING TAXIWAYS AND
HOLDING BAYS, GRADING & DRAINAGE. (WoH<Description)
Title 49, United States Code, section 47105(d), authorizes the Secretary to require certication from the
sponsor that it will comply with the statutory and administrative requirements in carrying out a project under
the Airport Improvement Program (AiP). General requirements on reai property acquisition and relocation
assistance are in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 24. The AIP project grant agreement
contains specic requirements and assurances on the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Act of 1970 (Uniform Act), as amended.
Except for the certied items below marked not applicable (N/A), the list includes major requirements for this
aspect of project implementation, aithough it is not comprehensive, nor does it relieve the sponsor from fully
complying with all applicable statutory and administrative standards.
1. The sponsor's attorney or other ofcial has (will have) good and
sufcient title as well as title evidence on property in the project.
2. If defects and/or encumbrances exist in the title that adversely
impact the sponsor's intended use of property in the project, they
havo boon (will be) extinguished, modied, or subordinated.
3. If property for airport development is (will be) leased, the
following conditions have been met:
a. The term is for 20 years or the useful life of the project,
b. The lessor is a public agency, and
0. The lease contains no provisions that prevent full compliance with the
grant agreement.
4. Property in the project is (will be) in conformance with
the current Exhibit A property map, which is based on deeds,
title opinions, land surveys, the approved airport layout plan, and
project documentation.
5. For any acquisition of property interest in noise sensitive approach
zones and related areas, property interest was (will be) obtained to
ensure land is used for purposes compatible with noise levels
associated with operation of the airport.
6. For any acquisition of property interest in runway protection zones and areas
related to 14 CFR 77 surfaces, property interest was (will be)obtained for the
following:
a. The right of ight,
b. The right of ingress and egress to remove obstructions, and
c. The right to restrict the establishment of future obstructions.
Ye s N o N/ A
ISI !
!
i n !
!
Pl ai nti ffs Exhi bi t
(http://armstrongconsultants.com)

HOME (HTTP://ARMSTRONGCONSULTANTS.COM/) ABOUT (HTTP://ARMSTRONGCONSULTANTS.COM/ABOUT/) SERVICES
(HTTP://ARMSTRONGCONSULTANTS.COM/SERVICES/) GALLERY (HTTP://ARMSTRONGCONSULTANTS.COM/GALLERY/) NEWS
(HTTP://ARMSTRONGCONSULTANTS.COM/NEWS/) CAREERS (HTTP://ARMSTRONGCONSULTANTS.COM/CAREERS/) BIDS & SPECS
(HTTP://WWW.ARMSTRONGCONSULTANTS.COM/PROJECTS/CURRENT.PHP) CONTACT (HTTP://ARMSTRONGCONSULTANTS.COM/CONTACT/)
Current Projects
view cart (http://www.armstrongconsultants.com/shop/index.php?action=viewcart)
Project Information: Bid Information - Taos Regional Airport - 146216
Planholders List Approximate Quantities Bid Tabulation Download Plans & Specs Order Hard Plans & Specs Print This Page
Project Name (Airport)
Taos Regional Airport - 146216
Project Description
Schedule I - Relocate Runway 4 End and Construct Haul Road
Schedule II - Construct Runway 12-30, Parallel Taxiway B, Connecting Taxiways and Holding Bays
Project Number
A.I.P 3-35-0041-032-2014
ACI Number
146216
Opinion of Probable Cost
$7 - $10,000,000.00
Cost for Plans and Specs
$75 Digital
$150 Hardcopy
Project Pre-Bid Meeting Date and Time
August 14, 2014 10:00 a.m
Project Pre-Bid Location
Project Bid Meeting Date and Time
August 28, 2014 2:00 p.m
Project Bid Location
Town of Taos Finance Department
C/O Sharon Voigt, Procurement Ofcer
400 Camino de la Placita, Room 202
Taos, New Mexico 87571
Addendum Dates
Addendum No. 1 Part A - 8/25/2014 (addenda/358addendum1.pdf)
Addendum No. 1 Part B - 8/25/2014 (addenda/358addendum2.pdf)
Scope of Work
Contact Persons
Project Information:
Tim Archibeque
Armstrong Consultants, Inc.
2305 Renard Place SE, Ste 210
Albuquerque, NM 87106
(505)-508-2192
[email protected]
EXHIBIT 20

MINUTES
September 9, 2014
Regular Meeting

Town Council Camber! " 120 Ci#ic $la%a &ri#e
1'00 $M
1( C)** T+ +R&ER ,- T.E .+N+R),*E M)-+R &)NIE* R( ,)RR+NE
Te Regular Meeting o/ te Tao! Town Council wa! calle0 to or0er b1 te .onorable
Ma1or &aniel R( ,arrone at 1'09 p(m(
2( R+** C)**
M!( Renee *ucero, Town Cler2, calle0 roll an0 a 3uorum wa! pre!ent(

To!e pre!ent were'
Mayor, Daniel R. Barrone
Mayor Pro Tem, Frederick A. Peralta
Councilmember, Andrew T. Gonzales
Councilmember, Geore !Fritz" #a$n
Councilmember, %udit$ &. Cantu

)l!o pre!ent were'
Town Manaer, Ric$ard Bellis
Town Attorney, Floyd 'o(ez
Town Clerk, Renee 'ucero
4( $*E&5E +6 )**E5I)NCE
Municipal 7u0ge Ricar0 Ca#e% le0 te au0ience in te $le0ge o/ )llegiance(
4( M+MENT +6 SI*ENCE
8( )$$R+9)* +6 )5EN&)
Mo)e *tem ++.A. ,Public *n-ormational Meetin .(date/ to *tem +0.D.1
*nsert 23ecuti)e 4ession a-ter t$e new *tem +0.D. to discuss (endin or t$reatened
litiation reardin Taos Reional Air(ort e3(ansion (ro5ect (ursuant to 6(en Meetins
Act e3em(tion +07+87+,#/,9/.

Councilmember 5on%ale! ma0e a motion to appro#e a! amen0e0( Councilmember
Page 1
EXHIBIT 21

Councilmember #a$n stated durin t$e election t$is issue came u( twice and at
t$at time $e $ad reser)ations. 4ince t$en $e $as s(ent a reat amount o- time
researc$in t$e (ro5ect and $as talked to o((onents and (ro(onents o- t$e (ro5ect.
#e t$anked t$e Mayor -or allowin t$e (ublic to comment as (re)ious
administrations (robably would not $a)e allowed it. #e also t$anked t$e Town sta--
-or t$e $ard work t$ey $a)e done. Reardless o- t$e decision made today $e
encouraes t$e citizens to continue to make t$eir )oices be $eard. #e stated sta--
$as recommended $a)in o((onents sit on t$e Air(ort Ad)isory Board and a board
t$at will o)ersee construction. #e (ro)ided an e3tensi)e analysis on t$e
e3(ansion. #e also addressed some o- t$e concerns raised by t$e citizens durin
t$e -orum. Councilmember #a$n -urt$er stated Mr. Bellis is committed to continued
dialoue and $is door is always o(en. #e stated i- t$is )enture mo)es -orward $e
will do e)eryt$in (ossible to ensure t$at it (roceeds wit$ accountability. #e
(ro(osed t$at t$e Council not (ursue t$e FAA rant o((ortunity and, rat$er, in)est
t$e matc$ in t$e aceEuias, -armin, small business and sustainability.

Councilmember Cantu t$anked Councilmember #a$n -or bein t$orou$. 4$e
stated 4anta Fe is a s$ell o- w$at it was once known to be. 4$e discussed small
towns t$at mo)ed t$eir (eo(le out and ke(t t$e buildins due to e3(ansions. 4$e
does not want to $ear t$at Taos is not w$at it once was. 4$e su((orts sa-ety and
smart (lannin, but not -or t$e way t$e (ro5ect is bein (ro(osed. 4$e also stated
an u(dated 2n)ironmental *m(act 4tatement is needed. 4$e -urt$er stated s$e
wonders i- t$e Town is caterin to t$ose w$o want to et to t$e ski )alley and not
come down to Taos. Councilmember Cantu also stated t$ere are more (eo(le
o((osed to t$e (ro5ect t$an are -or t$e (ro5ect and em($asized t$at -ederal money
is still ta3(ayerFs money.

Councilmember Gonzales stated $e makes $is decisions based on -act. #e said
$is dad was a well7res(ected business man in t$e community. =$en $is kidneys
were -ailin, $e $ad two o((ortunities to recei)e a kidney and eac$ time, $e could
not take o-- -rom t$e air(ort due to t$e crosswinds. #e asked w$at a li-e is wort$
and stated $e and $is -at$erFs randkids $ad to row u( wit$out $is -at$er. *n Taos
e)eryone relies $ea)ily on -amily. *- $e $ad t$e o((ortunity to sa)e one li-e, $e
would take it. T$e new owner o- t$e Taos 4ki Malley $as made an in)estment on
an o((ortunity based solely on t$e weat$er. T$e Town $as lost economic
o((ortunities because o- t$e uncertainty o- t$e air(ort. Alt$ou$ $e res(ects bot$
sides o- t$e issue, $e will not turn down t$e air(ort.

Te motion pa!!e0( To!e #oting were' )-ES' 5on%ale!, $eralta(
N)-S' Cantu, .an( Ma1or ,arrone bro2e te tie wit a #ote o/ )-E(

Mayor Barrone stated $e does not want Taos to die. #e wants Taos to stay )ibrant
so t$at itsH beauty can be s$ared wit$ t$ose w$o wis$ to )isit.
5( Contract TT"18";2 wit Nortern Mountain Con!tructor!
Con!i0eration an0 appro#al o/ Contract TT"18";2 wit Nortern Mountain
Con!tructor! in te amount o/ D8,041,44;(80 plu! gro!! receipt! ta?
contingent upon /un0ing /rom te 6e0eral )#iation )0mini!tration an0
agenc1 appro#al to con!truct pa!e one o/ Runwa1 12E40 at Tao! Regional
)irport(
Mr. 2s(inoza stated t$is contract is continent u(on -undin -rom Federal A)iation
Page 8
Administration.

Mayor Barrone asked -or clari-ication about t$e low bid t$at came in substantially
lower t$an t$e ot$er bid and t$e enineerFs estimate. Mr. 2s(inoza e3(lained t$e
ot$er bidder was considered non7res(onsi)e due to a lack o- t$e (ro(er Bew
Me3ico Contractors 'icense. Additionally, $e stated t$e ot$er bid came in at
a((ro3imately G>.> million $i$er t$an t$e low bidder ,Bort$ern Mountain
Constructors, *nc./

Councilmember 5on%ale! ma0e a motion to appro#e te contract contingent
upon tere being !u//icient appropriation! a#ailable, continuing
appropriation! being a#ailable /or eac /i!cal 1earH continuing legal
autorit1H an0 all permit! an0 appro#al! are in place( Councilmember $eralta
!econ0e0 te motion(

Mr. Bellis stated t$e contract must be sined wit$in ?0 days -rom t$e bid o(enin
date o- Auust :@
t$
.

Councilmember #a$n stated $e is )ery $a((y t$at a local contractor was awarded
t$is bid. #e stated w$et$er $e )otes yes or no on t$e contract, it is not a re-lection
on t$e contractorHs e3(ertise.

Te motion pa!!e0( To!e #oting were' )-ES' Cantu, 5on%ale!, $eralta(
N)-' .an(

Mayor Barrone t$anked t$e sta-- -or t$eir work on t$is (ro5ect as well as t$e citizens
-or (ro)idin t$eir in(ut.
.( Contract TT"18";1 wit 5arcia Un0ergroun0
Con!i0eration an0 appro#al o/ Contract TT"18";1 wit 5arcia Un0ergroun0 in
te amount o/ D:8;,11:(;4 plu! gro!! receipt! ta? to con!truct Camino 0e la
Merce0 utilitie! an0 roa0wa1(

Councilmember $eralta ma0e a motion to appro#e( 7u0it Cantu !econ0e0
te motion( Te motion $a!!e0( Te Councilmember! #ote0 a! /ollow!'
)1e!' Cantu (
I( Re!olution 14"41 5rant )pplication /or Rural Tran!portation Ser#ice!
Con!i0eration an0 po!!ible appro#al o/ Re!olution 14"41 regar0ing an
application an0 awar0 /or /inancial a!!i!tance un0er te USC Section 8411 o/
te 6e0eral Tran!it )ct /or Rural Tran!portation Ser#ice! e!timate0 at
D424,440 wit a Town Matc o/ D2;<,4:0 /or 6e0eral 6i!cal -ear 2018"201:
@+ctober 1, 2018 to September 40, 201:A(

Councilmember 5on%ale! ma0e a motion to appro#e( Councilmember .an
!econ0e0 te motion( Te motion $a!!e0( Te Councilmember! #ote0 a!
/ollow!' )1e!' Cantu (
Councilmember Peralta was not (resent durin t$e )ote.
7( Re!olution 14"4: =ai#er o/ Imme0iate 6amil1 Member
Con!i0eration an0 po!!ible appro#al o/ Re!olution 14"4:H =ai#ing te
Page 9
EXHIBIT 23
Project Compliance with Administrative, Special Use and Major Development Compatibility Standards
Section 4.7.1 Development Compatibility Standards
1. Use. The development shall be sensitive to and consistent with the existing traditional and
historic uses in the neighborhood, or the applicant shall be able to demonstrate that the
development would provide a substantial benet to, or support to, or would not have a
substantial impact on the immediate neighborhood.
Response:
The airport already exists on the same property the project is being proposed for. IT is
surrounded by long-standing heavy impact commercial and industrial uses, including the
regional landll, Kit Carson propane storage facility. Waste Management's regional depot, a
sawmill, trailer parks, RV park, a brewery, a junk yard and salvage facility, a mobile home salvage
operation, machinery shops, auto repair businesses, a solar farm, gravel pits, 10,000 wags
kennel, an NM DoT maintenance facility and other heavy uses that generate noise, frequent
business-related trafc, heavy equipment trafc and general "nuisance" activities.
The existence of the airport actually increases the commercial value of adjacent properties and
the development of these proposed safety features would clearly improve air trafc safety for
the airport and to the surrounding area from potential aircraft related accidents.
There is no increase in the size, type or frequency of airport operations anticipated with this
project and the realignment of the runways actually should decrease the number of ights,
angle of approach, and height over residential properties in the region, as well as decrease noise
cause by thrust on jets and time of warm up to take off at this high altitude by having an
increased length of runway to take off on.
The existing County recognized neighborhood associations have already adapted their proposed
neighborhood zoning to accommodate the height, land use and other potential safety and
economic considerations in developing their neighborhood plans, so that there should be no
negative aesthetic or economic impact at all on the surrounding area.
Pb i n t i f f s Kx h i b i l
DE PA RT ME NT OF T RA NS P ORTAT I ON - F E DE RA L AV I AT I ON A DMI NI S T RAT I ON 0 MB NO. 2 1 2 0 - 0 5 6 9
11 / 3 ( W2 0 0 r
PART I I
PROJECT APPROVAL I NFORMATI ON
S E C T I ON A
N a m e o f G o v e r n i n g B o d y
Does this assistance request require State, Priority
local, regional, or other priority rating?
Q Yes 0 No
2 . N a m e o f A g e n c y o r B o a r d
Does this assistance request require State, iocal (Attach Documentation)
advisory, educational or health clearances?
!Yes 0 No
3 . ( A t t a c h C o m m e n t s )
Does this assistance request require clearinghouse
review in accordance with 0MB Circular A-95?
!Yes 0 No
Name of Approving Agency
Does this assistance request require State,
local, regional, or other planning approval?
!Yes 0 No
D a t e / /
I t e m s . C h e c k O n e : S t a t e !
Is the proposed project covered by an approved Local 0
c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n ? R e g i o n a l !
0Yes^No Location of plan ^'^^^1-'-
' t e m 6 . N a m e o f F e d e r a l I n s t a l l a t i o n
!Yes 0 No
Will the assistance requested serve a Federal Population beneting from Project
Feder al i nst al l at i on?
' t 6 r n 7 . N a m e o f F e d e r a l I n s t a l l a t i o n
Location of Federa
Percent of Project
Will the assistance requested be on Federal land Location of Federal Land
or i nst al l at i on?
!Yes 0 No
' t s m 8 . S e e i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o b e
Will the assistance requested have an impact provided,
or effect on the environment?
!Yes 0 No
I t e m 9 . N u m b e r o f :
Will the assistance requested cause the displacement Individuals
of individuals, families, businesses, or farms? Families
Bu s i n e s s e s
!Yes IS No
I t em 10. See i nst r uct i ons f or addi t i onal i nf or mat i on t o be pr ovi ded.
Is there other related Federal assistance on this
project previous, pending, or anticipated?
!Yes 0 No
FAA F u r m 5 1 0 0 - 1 0 0 ( 6 - 7 3 ) SUPERSEDES FAA F C M 5 1 0 0 - 1 0 0 ( 9 - 0 3 ) Pa g e 2
2 G
Pl ai nti ffs Exhi l i i l
'
6.2.4 SECONDARY (INDUCED) IMPACTS
The "Build " Alternatives would not result in any appreciable secondary or induced impacts, including
population growth, increased development, and business activity over the existing trends through 2010 .
There is a possibility that the "Build" Alternatives would permit part- and full-time residents and winter
tourists to better utilize air transportation services in the Taos area between years 2010 and 2018 . Some
temporary employment from the Taos area would be utilized during the "Bui ld" Alternatives construction
period ; however, permanent employment increases are not anticipated as a result of any of the "Build"
Alternatives.
6.2.5 AIR QUAUTY
As discussed in Section 1.1 of the Technical Memorandum found in Appendix T of the FEIS, the Airport
Sponsor has indicated that the construction completion date for the proposed improvements at SKX has
been revised from 2010 to 2015. The year 2010 was one of the study years for purposes of evaluating
potential impacts from the Proposed Project in the 2006 DEIS. The FAA reviewed the forecast of aircraft
operations for the proposed construction completion/first year of operation date of 2015 and future
operational year of 2020, based on the 2006 DEIS forecast in comparison with the aviation forecast for
SKX published in the FAA s 2011 Term inal Area Forecast (TAF). Results of this review indicate that the
projected levels of aviation activity based on the 2006 DEIS forecast, as compared to the FAA 's 2011
TAF , were within the FAA's criteria for determining consistency with the TAF as prescribed in FAA Order
5050.4B paragraphs 706.b (3) (a) and (b). Therefore, the FAA has determined that the env ironmental
analyses documented in the 2006 DEIS using 2010 and 2018 activity leve ls accurately portray the future
No-Project and With-Project condition , and the air quality analysis contained in the 2006 DEIS remains
valid .
The FAA reviewed the need for an eva luation of impacts for the 2015 and 2020 operational levels at SKX
pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1 E, Change 1, which outlines the process for determining whether airport-
related improvement projects require analysis under the NEPA (FAA, 2006), and the FAA publication, Air
Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases, which provides guidelines on the
methodology, necessary content, and other requ irements of the analysis, if it is required (FAA, 1997).
Pursuant to the instructions contained in the guidance documents, an air emissions inventory must be
performed for the No-Action Alternative and the "Build" Alternatives if: 1) annual commercial
enplanements exceed 1.3 million passengers and/or 2) general aviation operations are greater than
180,000 annually. (For further discussion on these instructions, see Section 5.5.2 of the FEIS.) The
With-Project general aviation operations at SKX based on the DEIS forecast are projected to be 17,412
in 2015 and 19,148 operations in 2020. Based on these operational leve ls, evaluation of potential
impacts from the project on the National Amb ient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is not requ ired since
activity at SKX would be less than the 180,000 annual operation threshold value . From these f indings,
the planned improvements to SKX are not expected to have a negative effect on a ir quality conditions .
Because SKX is located in an attainment area , the General Conformity requirements also do not apply .
6-12
Record of Decision
EXHIBIT 27
New Mexico State Historic Preservation Ofcer (SHPO), National Park Service (MPS), the Town of Taos,
the New Mexico Department of Transportation Aviation Division (NMDTAD), and the ACHP conducted a
series of meetings and workshops from 2009 through 2011 to discuss, further develop, revise, and
nalize stipulations to mitigate adverse effects on the Taos Pueblo World Heritage Site (WHS) and other
sites of religious and cultural signicance. The Section 106 consultation process resulted in the full
execution of a nal MOA in February 2012. A copy of the nal MOA, which stipulates the duties and
responsibilities of each signatory party, is included in Appendix B-5. The FAA will ensure that the MOA
stipulations, which are summarized below, are carried out. See the Technical Memorandum in
Appendix T of the EIS for further information.
C O O R D I N A T I O N A N D P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T
A public Involvement program was implemented to ensure that information was provided to the general
public and public agencies from the earliest stages of project planning and that input from interested
parties was received and reviewed throughout the EIS process. The primary components of the program
i ncl uded:
A S c o p i n g Me e t i n g ,
An EIS Advisory Committee,
Publ i c Wor kshops,
Cooperating Agency Consultation Meetings,
A FAA/Town Public Information Workshop/Public Hearing, and
Sect i on 106 Consul t at i on Meet i ngs and Tel econf erences.
In addition, press releases, newspaper advertisements, personal notices, and a telephone hotline were
used to inform the public of changes, progress, and the status of the study. Keeping the public informed
and obtaining their input was considered an integral part of the process. Table 7.1 of the EIS
summarizes meetings held in association with the EIS.
Comments received from the public and agencies on the DEIS have been reviewed and considered by
the FAA in the preparation of the FEIS. Comments received and the FAA's responses are included in
Appendix S of the FEIS.
F A A P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E
FAA based its decision on the Preferred Alternative on a number of factors including the alternatives
ability to meet the purpose and need for the proposed project, the environmental impacts of the
alternatives, the cost of the alternatives, and the ability to mitigate unavoidable impacts. In comparing
Alternatives 2C and 2D, FAA determined that they both meet the purpose and need criteria, they have
similar impacts to the natural and physical environment (including noise), and their costs are of the same
magnitude. The main difference between Alternatives 2C and 2D is the area of unavoidable impact to
100-year oodplains. The EIS evaluation indicates that each of the "Build" Alternatives would result in
0 . 0 0 Ta o s R e g i o n a l A i r p o n
Fi nal Envi ronmental Impact Sraremenr
EXHIBIT 2^^

MSJ Finalized

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSJ Finalized

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSJ Finalized

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-1-

EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

You might also like