With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". themselves give rise to a compensable taking of those easements. The documents do not purport to take anything from plaintiffs. Indeed, the June 2005 letter contemplated a voluntary purchase of the required easement from plaintiffs, while the environmental assessment determined that clearance easements would have to be acquired from the owners of the subjacent land at some point in the future. In addition, the construction of a runway, without more, cannot effect a taking of an avigation easement over nearby property. The construction of a new runway, or the extension of an existing runway, may result in the taking of an avigation easement by increasing the number or intensity of flights over a nearby property. See, e.g., Jensen v. United States, 305 F.2d 444, 446-48 (Ct.Cl.1962) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs assert that the construction of

A: holding that the introduction of new aircraft and them use for field mirror landing practice resulted in the taking of a second avigation easement
B: recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance
C: holding that the extension of two existing runways on a military base which al lowed b47s and b52s to pass over nearby properties at a low altitude effected the taking of an avigation easement
D: holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement
C.