Falcon Field Airport Master Plan by City of Mesa, AZ

mesa az

FALCON FIELD IRPORT A IRPORT MASTER P LAN

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN FALCON FIELD AIRPORT Mesa, Arizona Prepared for: The City of Mesa Prepared by:

January 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION STUDY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................... i‐2 MASTER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................. i‐2 MASTER PLAN TASKS .............................................................................................................................. i‐3 Baseline Expectations .................................................................................................................. i‐4 MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS ................................................................................................ i‐5 STUDY PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................................ i‐7 SWOT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... i‐8 SWOT Definitions ........................................................................................................................ i‐8 SWOT Analysis Exercise ............................................................................................................... i‐9 CHAPTER ONE – INVENTORY AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................... 1‐2 Locale ......................................................................................................................................... 1‐2 Transportation Plans .................................................................................................................. 1‐2 Climate and Weather Conditions ............................................................................................... 1‐4 Airport History ........................................................................................................................... 1‐6 Capital Improvement Program ................................................................................................... 1‐6 Airport Administration ............................................................................................................... 1‐8 AIRPORT SYSTEM ROLE .......................................................................................................................... 1‐8 Federal Airport Planning ............................................................................................................ 1‐8 State Airport Planning .............................................................................................................. 1‐11 Regional Airport Planning......................................................................................................... 1‐11 Local Airport Planning .............................................................................................................. 1‐12 AVIATION ACTIVITY .............................................................................................................................. 1‐14 Operations ............................................................................................................................... 1‐14 Based Aircraft ........................................................................................................................... 1‐16 AIRSIDE FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 1‐17 Runways ................................................................................................................................... 1‐17 Helicopter Parking .................................................................................................................... 1‐18 Taxiways ................................................................................................................................... 1‐18 Airfield Pavement Condition .................................................................................................... 1‐21 Airfield Lighting ........................................................................................................................ 1‐22 Airfield Signage ........................................................................................................................ 1‐25 Airport Markings ...................................................................................................................... 1‐25 Navigational Aids ...................................................................................................................... 1‐26 Weather and Communication .................................................................................................. 1‐26 LANDSIDE FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................ 1‐27 Falcon Field Terminal ............................................................................................................... 1‐27

CHAPTER ONE – INVENTORY (Continued) Aircraft Hangar Facilities .......................................................................................................... 1‐28 Aircraft Parking Aprons ............................................................................................................ 1‐31 Aviation Services ...................................................................................................................... 1‐32 Vehicle Parking ......................................................................................................................... 1‐33 Fuel Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 1‐34 Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) .................................................................................... 1‐35 Aircraft Wash Rack ................................................................................................................... 1‐35 Aircraft Maintenance Facility ................................................................................................... 1‐35 Vehicle Airfield Access and Perimeter Fencing ......................................................................... 1‐36 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 1‐36 AREA AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ....................................................................................... 1‐36 Airspace Structure .................................................................................................................... 1‐36 Airspace Control ....................................................................................................................... 1‐42 Airport Traffic Control Tower ................................................................................................... 1‐42 Flight Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 1‐43 Local Operating Procedures ..................................................................................................... 1‐45 Boeing Test Flight Area ............................................................................................................ 1‐46 Noise Abatement Rules and Procedures .................................................................................. 1‐46 VICINITY AIRPORTS .............................................................................................................................. 1‐46 LAND USE ............................................................................................................................................. 1‐50 Existing Land Use...................................................................................................................... 1‐50 Zoning ...................................................................................................................................... 1‐50 SOCIOECONOMICS ............................................................................................................................... 1‐55 Population ................................................................................................................................ 1‐55 Employment ............................................................................................................................. 1‐57 Income ..................................................................................................................................... 1‐58 ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY ............................................................................................................. 1‐62 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 1‐62 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 1‐63 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 1‐65 Coastal Resources .................................................................................................................... 1‐66 Department of Transportation (DOT) Act: Section 4(f) ............................................................ 1‐66 Farmlands ................................................................................................................................ 1‐67 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention .................................................. 1‐67 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources ............................................ 1‐70 Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 1‐70 Natural Resources and Energy Supply ...................................................................................... 1‐70 Noise and Compatible Land Use ............................................................................................... 1‐71 Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks .............................................................................................................................. 1‐71 Visual Effects ............................................................................................................................ 1‐73 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 1‐74

CHAPTER TWO – FORECASTS NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS AND FORECASTS ..................................................................................... 2‐3 National Trends .......................................................................................................................... 2‐3 FAA General Aviation Forecasts ................................................................................................. 2‐3 General Aviation Aircraft Shipments and Revenue .................................................................... 2‐7 Risks to the Forecasts ................................................................................................................. 2‐8 AIRPORT SERVICE AREA ......................................................................................................................... 2‐8 SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS FOR THE SERVICE AREA .................................................................... 2‐12 Population ................................................................................................................................ 2‐12 Employment ............................................................................................................................. 2‐14 AVIATION FORECAST METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 2‐15 AVIATION FORECASTS .......................................................................................................................... 2‐16 FAA Terminal Area Forecast ..................................................................................................... 2‐17 Registered Aircraft ................................................................................................................... 2‐18 Based Aircraft ........................................................................................................................... 2‐21 Based Aircraft Fleet Mix ........................................................................................................... 2‐25 Annual Aircraft Operations ...................................................................................................... 2‐27 Peaking Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 2‐38 Annual Instrument Approaches ............................................................................................... 2‐39 Forecast Comparison to the FAA TAF ....................................................................................... 2‐40 Forecast Summary ................................................................................................................... 2‐41 AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT/RUNWAY CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................... 2‐41 Aircraft Classification ............................................................................................................... 2‐41 Airport and Runway Classification ............................................................................................ 2‐44 CRITICAL DESIGN AIRCRAFT ................................................................................................................. 2‐46 Airport Critical Design Aircraft ................................................................................................. 2‐47 Runway Design Code ................................................................................................................ 2‐47 Airport Design Summary .......................................................................................................... 2‐48 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 2‐51 CHAPTER THREE – FACILITY REQUIREMENTS PLANNING HORIZONS ............................................................................................................................ 3‐2 AIRFIELD CAPACITY AND DELAY ............................................................................................................. 3‐3 Factors Affecting Annual Service Volume ................................................................................... 3‐3 Calculation of Annual Service Volume ........................................................................................ 3‐7 Aircraft Delay ............................................................................................................................. 3‐8 Capacity Analysis Conclusion .................................................................................................... 3‐10 AIRSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................... 3‐10 Runway Design Standards ........................................................................................................ 3‐11 Runway Elements ..................................................................................................................... 3‐20 Taxiways ................................................................................................................................... 3‐29 Navigational and Approach Aids .............................................................................................. 3‐33

CHAPTER THREE – FACILITY REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Airfield Lighting and Signage .................................................................................................... 3‐35 LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 3‐36 General Aviation Terminal Facilities ......................................................................................... 3‐36 Aircraft Hangars ....................................................................................................................... 3‐39 Aircraft Parking Aprons ............................................................................................................ 3‐41 Airport Support Facilities.......................................................................................................... 3‐42 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 3‐45 CHAPTER FOUR – AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES PLANNING OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................... 4‐2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS AIRPORT PLANS .................................................................................................. 4‐2 NO ACTION/NON‐DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. 4‐3 AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................. 4‐4 AIRPORT LAND USE ................................................................................................................................ 4‐8 Airfield Operations ..................................................................................................................... 4‐8 Aviation Development ............................................................................................................. 4‐11 Non‐Aviation Development ...................................................................................................... 4‐11 ANALYSIS OF AIRSIDE CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................. 4‐11 Airport Design Criteria.............................................................................................................. 4‐12 Ultimate Runway 4L‐22R Design Alternatives .......................................................................... 4‐12 Runway Protection Zones ........................................................................................................ 4‐17 Preliminary Engineering Analysis for Ultimate Runway 4L‐22R Design .................................... 4‐19 Ultimate Runway 4L‐22R Design Alternatives Summary .......................................................... 4‐20 Taxiway Design and Geometry ................................................................................................. 4‐20 Taxiway Exit Analysis ................................................................................................................ 4‐26 Preliminary Engineering Analysis for Taxiway Design and Geometry ....................................... 4‐30 Airside Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4‐30 ANALYSIS OF LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 4‐30 Aviation Activity Levels............................................................................................................. 4‐31 Separation Standards ............................................................................................................... 4‐32 Hangar Development ............................................................................................................... 4‐32 Airport Support Facilities.......................................................................................................... 4‐35 Building Restriction Line ........................................................................................................... 4‐35 Landside Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 4‐36 Preliminary Engineering Analysis for Landside Considerations ................................................ 4‐44 Non‐Aviation Development Opportunities ............................................................................... 4‐47 Landside Summary ................................................................................................................... 4‐49 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 4‐49

CHAPTER FIVE – RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT MASTER PLAN CONCEPT ........................................................................................................................ 5‐2 AIRSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ......................................................................................................... 5‐2 Runway Dimensional Standards ................................................................................................. 5‐5 Additional Taxiways Serving Runway 4L‐22R ............................................................................. 5‐6 Airfield Geometry Enhancements .............................................................................................. 5‐6 Midfield Taxiway B Improvements ............................................................................................. 5‐7 Midfield Connector Taxiways ..................................................................................................... 5‐7 Taxiway D9 Relocation ............................................................................................................... 5‐8 Holding Bays ............................................................................................................................... 5‐8 No‐Taxi Pavement ...................................................................................................................... 5‐8 Approach Protection .................................................................................................................. 5‐9 LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT...................................................................................................... 5‐9 Dual‐Lane Taxilane Development Serving East Landside Area ................................................. 5‐10 Aviation Development Potential .............................................................................................. 5‐10 Roadway Access in East Landside Area .................................................................................... 5‐11 Non‐Aviation Related Revenue Support ................................................................................... 5‐11 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 5‐11 Potential Environmental Concerns ........................................................................................... 5‐12 AIRPORT RECYCLING, REUSE, AND WASTE REDUCTION ....................................................................... 5‐20 Existing Services ....................................................................................................................... 5‐24 Solid Waste Management System ............................................................................................ 5‐26 Solid Waste and Recycling Goals .............................................................................................. 5‐26 MASTER PLAN CONCEPT SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 5‐26 CHAPTER SIX – CAPITAL PROGRAM AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 6‐1 Short Term Program ................................................................................................................... 6‐6 Intermediate Term Program .................................................................................................... 6‐11 Long Term Program .................................................................................................................. 6‐12 Capital Improvement Program Summary ................................................................................. 6‐14 Environmental Overview Summary of Airport Development Schedule ................................... 6‐14 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING SOURCES ...................................................................................... 6‐16 Federal Grants .......................................................................................................................... 6‐16 State Funding Programs ........................................................................................................... 6‐19 Local Funding ........................................................................................................................... 6‐20 MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................... 6‐22

EXHIBITS Introduction A PROJECT WORK FLOW ................................................................................................................. i‐6 Chapter One 1A LOCATION/VICINITY MAP ........................................................................................................... 1‐3 1B CLIMATE DATA ........................................................................................................................... 1‐5 1C AIRCRAFT OPERATION ACTIVITY .............................................................................................. 1‐15 1D EXISTING AIRSIDE FACILITIES .................................................................................................... 1‐19 1E PAVEMENT CONDITIONS PER 2017 ADOT PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROGRAM .................. 1‐23 1F EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 1‐29 1G AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION / VICINITY AIRSPACE ........................................................... 1‐38 / 1‐39 1H RECOMMENDED NOISE ABATEMENT PRACTICES FOR FIXED‐WING AIRCRAFT ........................ 1‐47 1J RECOMMENDED NOISE ABATEMENT PRACTICES FOR HELICOPTERS ....................................... 1‐48 1K VICINITY AIRPORTS ........................................................................................................ 1‐51 / 1‐52 1L EXISTING LAND USE MAP ......................................................................................................... 1‐53 1M ZONING MAP ............................................................................................................................ 1‐54 1N AIRFIELD OVERLAY ZONE .......................................................................................................... 1‐56 1P FALCON FIELD ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AREA ............................................................................... 1‐59 1Q CITY OF MESA SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE ................................................................................ 1‐61 1R NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ....................................................................... 1‐64 1S ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES .............................................................................................. 1‐68 Chapter Two 2A NATIONAL GENERAL AVIATION/AIR TAXI FORECASTS ................................................................ 2‐5 2B AIRPORT SERVICE AREA ............................................................................................................ 2‐11 2C REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS .......................................................................................... 2‐22 2D BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ................................................................................................... 2‐26 2E GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS FORECASTS ......................................................................... 2‐33 2F FORECAST SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 2‐42 2G AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS ................................................................................ 2‐43 2H AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES .................................................................................................... 2‐45 2J JET OPERATIONS BY REFERENCE CODE .................................................................................... 2‐49 Chapter Three 3A AIRFIELD CAPACITY FACTORS ..................................................................................................... 3‐4 3B CAPACITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 3‐9 3C AIRFIELD SAFETY AREAS, SEPARATION, AND GEOMETRY STANDARDS .................................... 3‐13 3D WINDROSE ............................................................................................................................... 3‐21 3E RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 3‐25 3F AIRSIDE FACILITIES SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 3‐37 3G LANDSIDE FACILITIES SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 3‐46

EXHIBITS (Continued) Chapter Four 4A CURRENT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN ..................................................................................... 4‐5 / 4‐6 4B PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 4‐7 4C PRELIMINARY AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN .................................................................................... 4‐9 4D ULTIMATE RUNWAY 4L‐22R DESIGN ........................................................................................ 4‐15 4E TAXIWAY DESIGN AND GEOMETRY STANDARDS ...................................................................... 4‐23 4F TAXIWAY EXIT UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 4‐27 4G LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................... 4‐33 4H NORTHWEST LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 1 .................................................................................. 4‐37 4J NORTHWEST LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 2 .................................................................................. 4‐39 4K SOUTH LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 1 ........................................................................................... 4‐40 4L SOUTH LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 2 ........................................................................................... 4‐42 4M EAST LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 1 ............................................................................................... 4‐43 4N EAST LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 2 ............................................................................................... 4‐45 4P NON‐AVIATION DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 1 ...................................................................... 4‐48 4Q NON‐AVIATION DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 2 ...................................................................... 4‐50 Chapter Five 5A RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT ................................................................................. 5‐3 5B EXISTING (2017) NOISE CONTOURS ......................................................................................... 5‐17 5C ULTIMATE (2037) NOISE CONTOURS ........................................................................................ 5‐18 5D WASTE STREAMS ...................................................................................................................... 5‐23 5E TRASH BIN LOCATIONS ............................................................................................................. 5‐25 5F WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 5‐27 Chapter Six 6A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................................................... 6‐4 6B CIP DEVELOPMENT STAGING ..................................................................................................... 6‐7 APPENDIX A – GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX B – FAA FORECAST APPROVAL LETTER APPENDIX C – PROJECT COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX D – ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS APPENDIX E – AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS

INTRODUCTION

This Master Plan provides an evaluation of Falcon Field Airport’s (Airport) aviation demand and an over‐ view of the systematic development that will best meet those demands. The Master Plan establishes development objectives and provides for a 20‐year planning period that details the rationale for various study elements including airfield configuration, facility development, on‐airport land use recommenda‐ tions, and support facilities. It also serves as a strategic tool for establishing improvement priorities and justifying the need for federal and state funding assistance. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that airports update their Master Plan every seven to 10 years, or as necessary, to address local changes at an airport. The last Master Plan for the Airport was completed in 2010. The preparation of this Airport Master Plan is necessary as a timely reassessment of the development direction of the Airport to meet the needs of the local economy and an ever‐changing air transportation industry. The Master Plan has been undertaken to evaluate the Airport’s capabilities and role, to forecast future aviation demand, and to plan for the development of new or expanded facilities that may be required to meet that demand. The ultimate goal of the Master Plan is to provide guidelines for the Airport’s overall maintenance, development, and operation in an environmentally and fiscally responsible manner while adhering to appropriate FAA and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) – Aeronautics Group standards.

Introduction

i-1

An important outcome of the Airport Master Plan process is a recommended development plan that reserves sufficient areas for future facility needs. Such planning will protect development areas and ensure they will be readily available when required to meet these needs. The intended outcome of this study is a detailed on‐airport land use concept which outlines specific uses for all areas of airport prop‐ erty, including strategies for revenue enhancement.

STUDY OVERVIEW The City of Mesa (City) is responsible for funding capital improvements at the Airport, as well as obtaining FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group development grants. In addition, the City oversees facility enhance‐ ments and infrastructure development conducted by private entities at the Airport. The Master Plan is intended to provide guidance for future development and justification for projects for which the Airport may receive funding through an updated capital improvement program (CIP) to demonstrate the future investment required by the City of Mesa, as well as the FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group. The Airport Master Plan will follow a systematic approach outlined by the FAA to identify airport needs in advance of the actual need for improvements. This is done to ensure that the City can coordinate environmental reviews, project approvals, design, financing, and construction to minimize the negative effects of maintaining and operating inadequate or insufficient facilities. The intended result is a recom‐ mended development concept which outlines the proposed uses for all areas of the Airport. The City has contracted with the airport planning firm of Coffman Associates, Inc. to undertake the Air‐ port Master Plan. Coffman Associates is an airport consulting firm that specializes in master planning and environmental studies. The study is prepared in accordance with FAA requirements, including Ad‐ visory Circular (AC) 150/5070‐6B, Airport Master Plans, and AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design.

MASTER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the Airport Master Plan is to develop and maintain a financially feasible, long term development program which will satisfy aviation demand of the region, while also being compatible with area development, other transportation modes, and the environment. Accomplishing this objective requires an evaluation of the existing Airport to make a determination of what actions should be taken to maintain a safe, adequate, and reliable facility. This Master Plan is intended to provide guidance through an updated CIP to demonstrate the future investments required by the City. The new planning study also provides justification for new priorities. The plan will be closely coordinated with other planning studies in the area and with aviation plans de‐ veloped by the FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group. This study will also utilize historical planning efforts (i.e., Mesa‐Falcon Field Airport Master Plan, 2010 and the most recent update to the Airport Layout Plan [ALP] in 2016).

Introduction

i-2

Specific goals and objectives to be considered in the Airport Master Plan include, but are not limited to, the following:  Justify proposed development through the technical, economic, and environmental investigation of alternatives;  Provide an effective graphic presentation of the development of the Airport and anticipated on‐ Airport land uses that account for aviation and potential non‐aviation uses;  Determine the Airport’s current and future critical design aircraft;  Establish a realistic schedule for the implementation of the proposed development plan, partic‐ ularly the short term (1‐5 years) CIP;  Present a plan that adequately addresses local, state, and federal regulations;  Determine the projected facility needs of Airport users through the year 2036, by which to sup‐ port airport development alternatives;  Recommend improvements that will enhance the Airport’s safety capabilities to the maximum extent possible;  Produce accurate base maps of existing and proposed facilities and updated ALP drawings con‐ sistent with FAA standards which will be utilized by the FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group in determining Airport grant eligibility and funding;  Consider sustainability efforts, specifically waste and recycling improvements, as part of the FAA’s updated standards; and  Develop a robust and productive public involvement program throughout the planning process.

MASTER PLAN TASKS The Master Plan for the Airport specifically addresses the following tasks:  Assist the City of Mesa, through a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) which is made up of a group of stakeholders including government representatives, Airport users and tenants, and local community leaders, in determining a vision for the Airport;  Conduct a series of Public Information Workshops to allow the general public an opportunity to be informed on the Airport and provide input related to the study process; Introduction

i-3



Conduct a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, identifying strengths, weaknesses, realistic markets, goals, resources, and strategies to move forward. This analysis will factor the strengths and weaknesses of the Airport to include physical and opera‐ tional features. The analysis will also present the same for competing airports in the region;



Based on the realistic evaluation of the facility in terms of configuration, condition, amenities, location, competition, and forecasted aviation demand, establish goals and priorities for the Air‐ port to meet that vision;



Identify airfield alternatives based on goals and opportunities, as well as applicable FAA design standards. The analysis will include an evaluation of the airfield geometry to address potential runway incursion hot spots and non‐standard conditions and provide recommendations for con‐ formance and improvement;



Provide a landside development plan that identifies areas for accommodating the forecasted growth of aviation and aviation‐related businesses and, if appropriate, areas for non‐aviation revenue‐producing opportunities. Consideration will be given to the potential for new or ex‐ panded aviation facilities, including, but not limited to, aircraft storage hangar capacity, aircraft parking apron space, and support facilities;



Assess compatible land uses near the Airport; and



Prioritize pavement/facility preservation and rehabilitation recommendations in order of great‐ est overall positive impact.

BASELINE EXPECTATIONS A study such as this typically requires some baseline expectations that will be used throughout the anal‐ ysis. The baseline expectations for this study include:  The Airport will continue to operate as a publicly‐owned, general aviation reliever airport through the 20‐year planning period;  The Airport will continue to serve general aviation tenants and itinerant and/or local aircraft op‐ erations by general aviation, air taxi, and military operators;  The general aviation industry will grow through the planning period as projected by the FAA. Specifics of projected growth in the national general aviation industry are contained in Chapter Two of the Master Plan; and  A federal and state airport improvement program will be in place through the planning period to assist in funding capital development needs. Introduction

i-4

MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS The Airport Master Plan is being prepared in a fashion pursuant to the scope of services that has been coordinated with the City and the FAA. The study has 10 specific elements that are intended to assist in the identification of future facility needs and which provide the supporting rationale for their implemen‐ tation. Exhibit A provides a graphical depiction of the elements and process involved with the study. Element 1 – Initiation includes the development of the scope of services, budget, and schedule. A PAC is also formed and study material will be assembled in a workbook format. General background infor‐ mation will be established that will include outlining the goals and objectives to be accomplished during the Master Plan. Element 2 – Inventory summarizes facilities and operational data, area airspace, weather conditions, population and economic data, vicinity land uses, and environmental conditions of the Airport and sur‐ rounding area. New aerial photography and planimetric mapping of the Airport is also obtained to aid in the study process. An Airports Geographic Information System (AGIS) survey is also implemented into this element and includes the collection of detailed Airport and aeronautical data. Element 3 – Forecasts examines the potential aviation demand for general aviation, air taxi, and military activity at the Airport over a 20‐year period. Specific indicators for based aircraft, aircraft operations, and peaking characteristics will be analyzed. The results of this effort are used to determine the types and sizes of facilities which would be required to meet the projected aviation demand at the Airport through the long term planning period. Element 4 – Facility Requirements converts aviation demand needs into types and volumes of actual physical facilities required to meet existing and forecast demands in aviation activity. The critical design aircraft and physical planning criteria based upon AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, is also established in preparation of a needs assessment for airside and landside facilities. Element 5 – Airport Alternatives considers a variety of solutions to accommodate projected airside and landside facility needs through the long term planning period. An analysis is completed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each proposed development alternative, with the intention of determining a single direction for development. Element 6 – Recommended Master Plan Concept/Capital Program provides both a graphic and narra‐ tive description of the recommended plan for the use, development, and operation of the Airport. A detailed CIP is included which defines the schedule and costs for the recommended development pro‐ jects. In addition, an economic benefit analysis is conducted to measure and analyze the economic im‐ pacts of the Airport. Element 7 – Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Drawing Set is developed to depict existing and proposed facilities and provides the official ALP drawings that are produced as a result of the recommended development plan. These drawings are used by the FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group in determining grant eligibility and funding. Introduction

i-5

PAC #1 INVENTORY

• Airport Facilities • Airspace and Air Traffic Activity

• Airport Access and Parking, Utilities, and Aerial Photography

• Area Socioeconomic Data • Local Planning and Land Use • AGIS Survey

Working Papers

FORECASTS • Based Aircraft and Fleet Mix • Annual Operations

• Peaking Characteristics • Critical Aircraft Analysis

PAC #2

Working Papers

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS PIW #1

• Design Categories • Runway Length and Strength

• Support Facilities • Taxiways • Airfield Capacity

• Hangar Facilities • Terminal Building

• Aprons • Navigational Aids

Working Papers

AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES • Evaluate Development Scenarios - Airside - Landside - Support

Working Papers

PAC #3

PIW #2

RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT/ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW • Detailed Master Plan Facility and Land Use Plans

• Review/Evaluation of NEPA Environmental Categories

• Noise Exposure • Recycling Plan

Working Papers

FINANCIAL PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS • Airport Development Schedule • Economic Benefit Analysis

• Cost Estimates

• Funding Sources

Working Papers

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS • Airport Layout Plan • Landside Drawing

• Airspace/Approach Drawings • On-Airport Land Use Plan

• Property Map • Land Use Plans

Working Papers

PAC #4

PIW #3

DRAFT Master Plan

Master Plan/ ALP Approvals

FINAL Master Plan

PAC: Planning Advisory Committee PIW: Public Information Workshop

Introduction

i-6

Exhibit A PROJECT WORK FLOW

Element 8 – Environmental Evaluation provides the City with proper guidance regarding, and to facili‐ tate compliance with, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Throughout the study process, en‐ vironmental factors are evaluated that assess existing and future conditions on and adjacent to the Air‐ port. This preliminary environmental evaluation follows FAA guidelines in implementing NEPA. A recy‐ cling plan will also be prepared that explores existing recycling efforts at the Airport and will outline opportunities to improve the diversion of waste from landfills. Element 9 – Public Coordination and Communication provides opportunities to inform the public on the Master Plan process. Working papers are prepared at various milestones in the planning process. A series of PAC meetings and Public Information Workshops are also planned during the process to discuss study findings. Element 10 – Final Reports and Approvals provide documents which depict the findings of the study effort and present the study and its recommendations to appropriate local organizations. The final doc‐ ument incorporates the revisions to previous working papers prepared under earlier elements into a usable Master Plan document.

STUDY PARTICIPATION The Airport Master Plan is of interest to TABLE A Planning Advisory Committee ‐ Representing Entities many within the local community and re‐ gion. This includes local citizens, local Falcon Field Airport Master Plan businesses, community organizations, City City of Mesa – Falcon Field Airport Administration City of Mesa – Planning Department officials, Airport users, Airport tenants, City of Mesa – Engineering Department and aviation organizations. As a compo‐ City of Mesa – Economic Development nent of the regional, state, and national Federal Aviation Administration aviation systems, the Master Plan is of im‐ Arizona Department of Transportation – Aeronautics Group portance to both state and federal agen‐ Falcon Field Airport Traffic Control Tower cies responsible for overseeing the air Arizona Military Airspace Working Group Arizona State Land Department transportation system. Arizona Pilots Association To assist in the development of the Airport National Business Aviation Association Master Plan, the City has assembled a PAC Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Experimental Aircraft Association that consists of a group of stakeholders in‐ Falcon Field Tenants and Users Association cluding government representatives, Air‐ Maricopa Association of Governments port users and tenants, and local commu‐ Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport nity leaders to act in an advisory role in the Airport Tenants/Users development of the Master Plan. Mem‐ Citizen/Business Representatives East Valley Partnership bers of the PAC will meet four times at des‐ ignated points during the study to review study materials and provide comments to help ensure that a realistic, viable plan is developed. Table A provides a list of those entities that are represented on the PAC. Introduction

i-7

Draft working paper materials will be prepared at various milestones in the planning process. The work‐ ing paper process allows for timely input and review during each step within the Master Plan to ensure that all issues are fully addressed as the recommended program develops. A series of open house Public Information Workshops are also conducted as part of the study coordina‐ tion effort. These workshops are designed to allow any and all interested persons to become informed and provide input concerning the Master Plan process. Notices of meeting times and locations are ad‐ vertised through local media outlets. Draft working papers and other information related to the Master Plan are available to the public via a website dedicated to the study at: http://falconfield.air‐ portstudy.com.

SWOT ANALYSIS A SWOT analysis is a strategic business planning technique used to identify Strengths, Weaknesses, Op‐ portunities, and Threats associated with an action or plan. The SWOT analysis involves identifying an action, objective, or element, and then identifying the internal and external forces that are positively and negatively impacting that action, objective, or element in a given environment. For this study, the SWOT analysis factors are being applied to the Airport within the confines of the Master Plan. As a result, it provides a continuous vision and direction for the development of the Master Plan. SWOT DEFINITIONS As previously discussed, this particular SWOT analysis groups information into two categories:  Internal – attributes of the Airport and market area that may be considered strengths or weak‐ nesses to the action, objective, or element.  External – attributes of the aviation industry that may pose as opportunities or threats to the action, objective, or element. The SWOT further categorizes information into one of the following:  Strengths – internal attributes of the Airport that are helpful to achieving the action, objective, or element.  Weaknesses – internal attributes of the Airport that are harmful to achieving the action, objec‐ tive, or element.  Opportunities – external attributes of the industry that are helpful to achieving the action, ob‐ jective, or element.  Threats – external attributes of the industry that are harmful to achieving the action, objective, or element. Introduction

i-8

SWOT ANALYSIS EXERCISE The SWOT analysis for the Airport is based upon information gathered during the first PAC meeting that was conducted in November 2017. As previously discussed, the PAC is a diversified group of stakehold‐ ers, community leaders, and governmental agencies that represent several interests in the Airport. A SWOT analysis was conducted with this group to identify key factors that might be addressed in the Master Plan. A summary of the results from the SWOT analysis exercise is shown in Table B on the next page. These results were used to frame the subjective or judgmental processing of the data presented in the Master Plan. TABLE B SWOT Analysis Falcon Field Airport Master Plan

STRENGTHS

INTERNAL (attributes of the Airport market area)

EXTERNAL (attributes of the industry)

WEAKNESSES

 Reputation/recognition as being a premier general aviation airport at the national level  Availability of developable land  Professional Airport management team  City Council/City Management involvement and understanding of the Airport  Airspace conducive to experimental flight testing in close proximity to the north  Two runways (for capacity and emergency use)  Weather conditions  Airport is self‐sustaining  Aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF)‐certified fire station on site  Proximity to highway infrastructure  Educational activities offered (flight training)  Security presence at the Airport  Airport traffic control tower OPPORTUNITIES  National and global reputation/recognition  Vicinity to Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport  UAS/drone market  Potential to expand aircraft storage hangars and tiedown areas  Ability to disseminate Airport data to users of the facility / better communicate value of the Airport  Aviation learning center/educational potential  Ability to increase tenant base  Diversified economy that serves the local area  Multitude of aviation services that can be offered at the Airport  Hangar waiting list (demand for more based air‐ craft)

 Shorter runway length compared to others in the regional area  Businesses near Airport that create runway safety and protection zone issues  Turf area north of runway system unusable, requiring helicopters to use Echo Ramp  Limited helicopter parking  Capacity and airspace constraints  Vehicle segregation on the airfield system  Terrain issues east of the Airport  Communicating/educating the value of the parallel runway system  Age/condition of airport traffic control tower  Quality of operations (flight training vs. busi‐ ness use)  Communicating the value and role of the Air‐ port

      

THREATS National pilot shortage Encroachment (residential) around the Airport and compatibility with aviation activities Aviation privatization (impacts to the general aviation industry) Capacity constraints UAS/drone market Competition at other airports in the Phoenix metropolitan area Future funding availability (competitive nature of federal/state funds)

Introduction

i-9

INVENTORY

CHAPTER 1

The inventory chapter of existing conditions is the initial step in the preparation of the Falcon Field Air‐ port (Airport) Master Plan. The inventory will serve as an overview of the Airport’s physical and opera‐ tional features, including facilities, users, and activity levels, as well as specific information related to the airspace, air traffic activity, adjacent land use and zoning, and role of the Airport. Finally, a summary of socioeconomic characteristics and review of existing environmental conditions on and adjacent to the Airport are detailed, which will provide further input into the study process. The information that follows serves as the baseline for the remainder of the Master Plan. The initial action necessary in preparing a Master Plan is the collection of all pertinent data that relates to the area served by the Airport, as well as the Airport itself. This inventory was conducted using the following sources of information:      



Mesa 2040 General Plan, adopted June 2014 Mesa‐Falcon Field Airport Master Plan, Jan‐ uary 2010 Mesa‐Falcon Field Airport Forecast Update, July 2012 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, October 2016 General Aviation Airports: A National Asset, 2012 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan

Inventory

       

1-1

2040 Regional Transportation Plan, Sep‐ tember 2017 Falcon Field Sub‐Area Plan, April 2007 Falcon Field Economic Activity Area Strate‐ gic Plan, August 2014 Airport communication On‐site visits Aerial and ground photography Interviews with Airport staff, tenants, and users Federal, state, and local publications Project record drawings

AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS The purpose of this section is to summarize various studies and data collected to provide an understand‐ ing of the characteristics of the Airport and the regional area. This information serves as a baseline when developing forecasts for critical airport infrastructure to support demand over the planning period. LOCALE Falcon Field Airport is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Mesa and Maricopa County, Arizona. Mesa, located on the east side of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, has a land area of approximately 133 square miles. It is situated in eastern Maricopa County, with Pinal County in close proximity to the east. The City of Mesa shares its boundary with several neighboring communities that include Apache Junction, Queen Creek, Gilbert, Chandler, and Tempe, and the Salt‐River Pima‐Mar‐ icopa Indian Reservation. Exhibit 1A depicts the regional setting. The Airport is comprised of 784 acres of land and is situated in the north quadrant of the City. This in‐ cludes approximately 575 acres with direct airfield access and over 200 acres to the south and west that are segregated from the airfield by public roadways. The 575 acres of property are bound by East McDowell Road to the north, North Higley Road to the east, East McKellips Road to the south, and North Greenfield Road to the west. The Airport is provided excellent access to regional highway infrastructure. Loop 202 is located approxi‐ mately 1.5 miles north of the Airport and creates a bypass around the City of Mesa, providing access to Phoenix to the west. Loop 202 also connects directly with U.S. Highway 60 farther south and Loop 101 farther west. These major thoroughfares connect to U.S. Interstates 10 and 17 and further link the Phoe‐ nix metropolitan area to other cities in the greater southwest region of the United States. TRANSPORTATION PLANS Within the Mesa 2040 General Plan, adopted by the City of Mesa City Council in June 2014, the City has outlined general policies and strategies for maintaining and developing an adequate transportation sys‐ tem serving the incorporated area. The City has emphasized the development of an integrated transpor‐ tation system that supports shorter trips, sustainable mode choices, a high quality of life, economic de‐ velopment, and the creation of high‐quality jobs related to the overall transportation network. As such, the City has set out to achieve the following goals:  Develop a safe and efficient transportation system that provides access to all public places by multiple modes of travel and by various users.  Develop inviting streets that identify with the context of the surrounding neighborhood and help to create a sense of community and vibrant public space.  Develop a transportation network concentrated on activity centers that encourage dense, di‐ verse public places and fosters economic growth. Inventory

1-2

LOCATION

£ ¤ 160

£ ¤

Grand Canyon National Park

191

Canyon De Chelly NMON

Lake Meade NRA ARIZONA

£ ¤ 93

£ ¤ 66

£ ¤ 180

§ ¦ ¨ 40

Kingman

Petrified Forest NP

¦ ¨ FLAGSTAFF § 40

§ ¦ ¨

Sedona

Prescott

Lake Havasu City

£ ¤ £ ¤ 93

£ ¤ 180

§ ¦ ¨ 17

£ ¤ 89

£ ¤ 60

§ ¦ ¨ 10

£ ¤

£ ¤ 180

Scottsdale le e

Phoenix

Mesa

§ ¦ ¨

£ ¤

Falcon Field Airport

£ ¤ 666

£ ¤

£ ¤ 191

§ ¦ ¨ 8

Yuma

£ ¤ 666

£ ¤ 77

§ ¦ ¨

Tucson

Organ Pipe Cactus NMON

Saguaro NP

§ ¦ ¨ 10

§ ¦ ¨

£ ¤ 666

Sierra Vista Nogales

202

Falcon Field Airport

N. Power Rd.

nal lt Ca seve Roo

N. Higley Rd. d.

202

E. McDowwel Rd. N. Recker Rd.

N. Greenfield eenfield enfi ld d Rd. d.

E. McKellips Rd.

VICINITY Inventory

1-3

Exhibit 1A LOCATION/VICINITY MAP

The Mesa 2040 General Plan goes on to identify aviation as an important component to the City’s trans‐ portation structure. The aviation element of the City’s transportation plan gives an overview of Falcon Field Airport as well as Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport. The plan further outlines their current status and important future roles within the City’s transportation structure. CLIMATE AND WEATHER CONDITIONS Knowledge of climate and typical regional weather conditions greatly enhances a pilot’s flying capabili‐ ties. Likewise, the ability to prepare for these conditions enhances the use of an airport. High surface temperatures and high humidity increase runway length requirements. Runway orientation is depend‐ ent on predominant wind patterns for the area. Cloud cover percentages and frequency of other climatic conditions also determine the need for navigational aids and lighting. The overall climate in Mesa is described as warm and dry. Summers are very warm with rain and thun‐ derstorms occurring during the late summer monsoon season. The spring and fall are typically drier, and winters are usually mild with little rain. The hottest days typically have fair skies and low humidity. Weather data in Exhibit 1B is provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) via the limited aviation weather reporting station (LAWRS) currently located at the Airport. This data shows an average annual high temperature of 87.2 degrees and an average annual low temperature of 55.3 degrees. July is the hottest month of the year with average highs reaching nearly 105 degrees, and December is the coolest month of the year with average lows down to 37 degrees. Precipitation is most plentiful during the winter months as well as the late summer monsoon season. Snowfall in the region is very rare. Wind patterns for the Airport indicate winds are typically out of the southwest, and wind speeds reach their peak in the springtime. April averages the fastest wind speeds at 8.6 knots. Table 1A indicates that visual meteorological conditions (VMC) occur 99.65 percent of the time. When under VMC conditions, pilots can operate using visual flight rules (VFR) and are responsible for maintain‐ ing proper separation from objects and other aircraft. Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) ac‐ count for all weather conditions less than VMC conditions that still allow for aircraft to safely operate under instrument flight rules (IFR). Under IFR, pilots rely on instruments in the aircraft to accomplish navigation. Less than IMC, or poor visibility conditions (PVC), are weather conditions that are lower than instrument approach minimums, making the Airport inaccessible to most air traffic. IMC and PVC condi‐ tions combined occur well under one percent of the time annually at the Airport. TABLE 1A Weather Conditions Falcon Field Airport Condition Cloud Ceiling Visibility Percent of Total VMC > 1,000' AGL > 3 statute miles 99.65% IMC > 500' AGL and < 1,000' AGL 1‐3 statute miles 0.21% PVC < 500' AGL < 1 statute mile 0.14% VMC ‐ Visual Meteorological Conditions PVC ‐ Poor Visibility Conditions IMC ‐ Instrument Meteorological Conditions AGL ‐ Above Ground Level Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ‐ National Climatic Data Center. Airport observations from January 2008 – December 2017.

Inventory

1-4

MONTHLY TEMPERATURES

110

102.7

100

94.6

Temperature (˚F)

90 80 70 60 50

85.8

85.2

78.3 69.4 54.2

72.6 57.1 41.7

77.4 68.8

104.8

103.3

75.3

83.9

74.8 68.2

67.7

99.5

60.2

89.3 72.9 56.4

51.8 45.7

77.6 68.2 61.2 52.9 44.7 37.6

30 20

10 0

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

MONTHLY PRECIPITATION

1.4

Precipitation (in inches)

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

1.12

1.18

0.38

0.12

0.03

1.02

1.22

0.77

0.7

0.64

1.13

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

7.55

7.51

7.3

6.99

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

MONTHLY WIND DATA

10 Wind Speed (in knots)

8.58 8 7.52

7.26

8.51

7.55

7.69

8.01

June

July

6 4 2 0

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

Source: NOAA temperature and precipitation climate normal, Station ID: GHCND: USW00053914 (1981-2010).

Inventory

1-5

Exhibit 1B CLIMATE DATA

AIRPORT HISTORY Falcon Field Airport was built in 1941 as a training base to aid in the training of British pilots during World War II. Initially, the Airport had one unpaved runway that was 2,600 feet in length. Shortly after the training facility opened, the United States became involved in the war and American pilots began using the airfield for training purposes as well. In 1948, the federal government deeded the property to the City of Mesa as a municipal airport. The City contracted daily operations of the airfield through a private operator until 1968, during which time the City assumed full responsibility of operating the Airport. It has remained under the ownership and oper‐ ation of the City ever since. In the late 1960s, the initial runway was lengthened to 4,300 feet and wid‐ ened to 100 feet. Beginning in the 1980s, the Airport underwent numerous upgrades to include the extension of the main runway to its present length of 5,100 feet, the construction of the parallel runway, and implementation of approach lighting and navigational aids. The present‐day Airport has evolved into one of the nation’s premier general aviation airports as it ac‐ commodates a significant number of based aircraft and annual aircraft operations. The City of Mesa is dedicated to continuing to enhance the airfield to meet the demands of general aviation operators that utilize the facility. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM To assist in funding capital improvements, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Arizona De‐ partment of Transportation (ADOT) – Aeronautics Group have provided funding assistance to the City of Mesa through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and Arizona Aviation Fund. Table 1B summarizes approximately $16.6 million in grant‐aided capital improvement projects undertaken at the Airport since 2008. Of this total, the Airport has received over $10.6 million in federal grants and $6 million in state grants. This has included funding for a variety of projects related to airfield safety, drainage, pavement construction, pavement rehabilitation, and airport planning. For projects that are grant eligible, Airport staff must coordinate with other City of Mesa departments as well as the FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group on funding and construction schedules. In addition, Airport staff coordinates with businesses and tenants in an effort to minimize operational impacts asso‐ ciated with construction schedules. Currently, the Airport is undertaking a multi‐million‐dollar project to upgrade the airfield lighting system with light emitting diode (LED) technology on the runway and taxiway system. In addition, the Airport is in the process of installing an automated surface observation system (ASOS) which will provide 24‐hour weather information to pilots.

Inventory

1-6

TABLE 1B Capital Improvement History ‐ Grant Funding Since 2008 Falcon Field Airport Grant Year Project Description Number FEDERAL GRANTS 2008 3‐04‐0023‐17 Install Perimeter Fencing 2009 3‐04‐0023‐18 Expand Apron; Improve Runway Safety Area on Runway 4R‐22L 2010 3‐04‐0023‐19 Construct Taxiway B (Phase I); Install Airfield Guidance Signs 2010 3‐04‐0023‐20 Improve Airfield Drainage 2011 3‐04‐0023‐21 Construct Taxiway B (Phase II) 2012 3‐04‐0023‐22 Install Taxiway Lighting (Runway Guard Light System) 2013 3‐04‐0023‐23 Install Taxiway Lighting 2014 3‐04‐0023‐24 Construct Taxiway 2015 3‐04‐0023‐25 Construct Taxiway 2016 3‐04‐0023‐26 Construct Taxiway 2017 3‐04‐0023‐27 Rehabilitate Runway and Taxiway Lighting 2017 3‐04‐0023‐28 Update Airport Master Plan Subtotal Federal Grants STATE GRANTS 2008 8S28 Construct Echo Ramp Expansion 2008 8S29 Design Northwest Taxiway Extension 2008 8F99 Install Perimeter Fencing (Phase II) 2009 9F03 Install Perimeter Fencing (Final Phase) 2009 9F47 Expand Apron; Improve Runway Safety Area on Runway 4R‐22L 2010 10F35 Design Taxiway B to Include Airfield Signage and Lights 2011 1F05 Improve Airfield Drainage 2012 2F93 Construct Taxiway B to Include Airfield Signage and Lights 2012 2S67 Reconstruct Terminal Aircraft Parking Apron 2013 3S1V Design/Construct PAPI and REILs on Runway System; Airfield Signage 2013 3S1N Pavement Rehabilitation on Runway 4R‐22L 2013 3F3O Design Runway Guard Light System 2014 4F2T Install Taxiway Lighting (Runway Guard Light System) 2014 4S1D Reconstruct Portions of Runways and Taxiways 2014 4S3N Reconstruct Aircraft Parking Apron 2015 5S1M Design Blast Pads for Runway 4L‐22R 2015 5F2C Design Taxiway A and C 2015 5S3D Design High‐Speed Exit Taxiways for Runway 4L‐22R 2016 6S1R Construct Blast Pads for Runway 4L‐22R 2016 6F2A Construct Taxiway A Reconfiguration 2017 7F1Z Construct Taxiway C Reconfiguration 2018 8M11 Rehabilitate Runway and Taxiway Lighting 2018 8M12 Update Airport Master Plan Subtotal State Grants TOTAL ALL GRANTS Source ‐ Airport Records; FAA; ADOT ‐ Aeronautics Group

Total Grant Amount $535,000 $1,086,750 $135,000 $373,569 $1,567,500 $80,224 $575,542 $349,356 $1,538,231 $1,984,926 $1,827,514 $520,518 $10,574,130 $635,134 $270,000 $10,218 $14,080 $19,151 $3,552 $9,831 $41,250 $1,472,412 $310,780 $336,534 $3,938 $24,694 $272,933 $1,709,304 $53,082 $16,822 $85,933 $425,500 $73,132 $97,437 $89,710 $25,552 $6,000,979 $16,575,109

Inventory

1-7

AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION The Airport is owned and operated by the City of Mesa. Day‐to‐day operation of the Airport is overseen by the Airport Director and a staff serving in a variety of roles. The following roles make up the adminis‐ trative structure of the Airport:  Airport Director  Marketing and Communications Specialist  Economic Development Project Manager  Airport Administration Supervisor  Program Assistant  Airport Projects and Operations Supervisor  Financial Coordinator  Administrative Support Assistants (2)  Airport Maintenance and Operations Foreman  Airport Maintenance and Operations Technicians (2)

AIRPORT SYSTEM ROLE Airport planning exists on many levels: national, state, regional, and local. Each level has a different em‐ phasis and purpose. On the national level, Falcon Field Airport is included in the National Plan of Inte‐ grated Airport Systems (NPIAS). At the state level, the Airport is included in the 2008 Arizona State Air‐ ports System Plan (SASP). At the regional level, the Airport is included in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The local planning document is primarily the Airport Master Plan, which was last updated and approved by the City of Mesa in 2010. FEDERAL AIRPORT PLANNING The role of the federal government in the development of airports cannot be overstated. Many of the nation’s existing airports were either initially constructed by the federal government, or their develop‐ ment and maintenance was partially funded through various federal grant‐in‐aid programs to local com‐ munities. In large measure, the system of airports existing today is due, in part, to the existence of fed‐ eral policy that promotes the development of civil aviation. As part of a continuing effort to develop a national airport system to meet the needs of civil aviation and promote air commerce, the United States Congress has continually maintained a national plan for the development and maintenance of airports. The FAA maintains a database of airports that are eligible for AIP funding that are for public use called the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS categorizes these facilities by the type of activities that take place, including commercial service, cargo service, reliever operations, and general aviation (as seen in Table 1C). Inventory

1-8

TABLE 1C Airport Classifications Airport Classifications

Commercial Service: Publicly owned air‐ ports that have at least 2,500 passenger boardings each calen‐ dar year and receive scheduled passenger service

Primary: Have more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year

Nonprimary

Hub Type: Percentage of Annual Passenger Boardings (enplanement) Large: 1% or more Medium: At least 0.25%, but less than 1% Small: At least 0.05%, but less than 0.25% Nonhub: More than 10,000, but less than 0.05% Nonhub: At least 2,500 and no more than 10,000

Common Name Large Hub Medium Hub Small Hub Nonhub Primary Nonprimary Commercial Service

Nonprimary Reliever Not Applicable (Except Commercial Service) General Aviation Source: https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/categories/

Falcon Field Airport is classified as a non‐primary “Reliever” airport in the NPIAS. Due to different oper‐ ating requirements between small general aviation aircraft and large commercial aircraft, general avia‐ tion pilots often find it difficult to use a congested commercial service airport. In recognition of this, the FAA has encouraged the development of high‐capacity general aviation airports in major metropolitan areas. These specialized airports, called relievers, provide pilots with attractive alternatives to using con‐ gested hub airports. They also provide general aviation access to the surrounding area. The following represents reliever airport eligibility requirements:  The airport must be open to the public;  The airport must maintain 100 or more based aircraft; or,  The airport must have at least 25,000 annual itinerant operations. While the Airport is classified in the NPIAS as a reliever airport, it has also been identified in the General Aviation Airports: A National Asset (2012) study as a “Regional” airport. This study identified 84 airports within the national grouping. The FAA describes the regional group as airports that support regional economies by connecting communities to regional and national markets. These airports have high levels of activity with some jets and multi‐engine propeller aircraft. These airports average about 90 total based aircraft, including three jets. Table 1D further defines the various roles that general aviation facilities provide for their service areas.

Inventory

1-9

TABLE 1D General Aviation Airport Descriptions Role Description Supports the national and state system by providing communities with access to national and international mar‐ National kets in multiple states and throughout the United States. Regional Supports regional economies by connecting communities to statewide and interstate markets. Local Supplements communities by providing access to primarily intrastate and some interstate markets. Links the community with the national airport system and supports general aviation activities (e.g., emergency Basic services, charter or critical passenger service, cargo operations, flight training and personal flying). Unclassified Provides access to the aviation system. Source: https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/categories/

The current national airport system plan is the NPIAS 2017‐2021. A primary purpose of the NPIAS is to identify the airports that are important to national transportation, which includes all commercial service airports, all reliever airports, and selected general aviation airports. The NPIAS identifies 3,340 public‐ use airports (3,332 existing and eight proposed) which are eligible to receive development grants under the FAA AIP. The plan estimates that approximately $32.5 billion in AIP‐eligible airport projects will re‐ quire financial assistance between 2017 and 2021. Table 1E identifies the type of airports included in the NPIAS. TABLE 1E Activity and Development at NPIAS Airports Number of Airport Percentage of Airports Category NPIAS Airports 30 Large Hub 1% 31 Medium Hub 1% 72 Small Hub 2% 249 Nonhub 7% Primary 382 11% Subtotal 89 National 3% 531 Regional 16% 1,261 Local 38% 813 Basic 24% 256 Unclassified 8% Nonprimary 2,950 89% Subtotal Total NPIAS 3,332 100% Airports

Percentage of 2014 Total Enplanements1 72 15 8 4

Percentage of All Based Aircraft2 0.7% 1.7% 4.7% 11.6%

Percentage of NPIAS Cost3 20.9% 9.6% 12.8% 16.2%

99%

18.6%

59.4%

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

11.5% 25.6% 21.2% 3.2% 1.0%

5.4% 12.2% 15.3% 6.6% 0.03%

n/a

62.6%

39.5%

99%

81.2%

99.0%

1 The remaining one percent of enplanements occurred at non‐NPIAS airports 2 Based on an active general aviation fleet of 203,880 aircraft in 2015 3 These costs are rounded and do not include the cost for new airports (one percent)

Source: 2017 – 2021 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)

In summary, Falcon Field Airport is a general aviation reliever airport that serves as an alternative for corporate, military, public safety, recreational, and instructional aviation uses so that Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport can focus on international and domestic com‐ mercial airline services. Inventory

1-10

STATE AIRPORT PLANNING At the state level, Falcon Field Airport is included in the SASP, which includes 83 airports, 59 of which are NPIAS‐classified. The study classifies airports in the state by role. Table 1F presents the functions of the airport roles, including the “Reliever” classification for the Airport, highlighted in bold text. TABLE 1F Airport Roles Arizona Airports Functional Roles

Commercial Service

Typical Airport Reference Code Consistent with Master Plan

Reliever General Aviation ‐ Community

Up to C/D‐III Up to B‐II

General Aviation ‐ Rural

Up to B‐I

General Aviation ‐ Basic

A‐I

Role

Function Enplane 2,500 or more passengers annually and re‐ ceive scheduled passenger service. Relieve congestion at a commercial service airport. Serve regional economies, connecting state and na‐ tional economies, and serve all types of general avi‐ ation aircraft. Serve a supplemental role in local economies, pri‐ marily serving smaller business, recreational, and personal flying. Serve a limited role in the local economy, primarily serving recreational and personal flying.

Source: 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan

The purpose of the SASP is to provide a framework for the integrated planning, operation, and develop‐ ment of Arizona’s aviation assets. The SASP defines the specific role of each airport in the state’s aviation system and establishes funding needs. The SASP provides policy guidelines that promote and maintain a safe aviation system in the state, assess the state’s airport capital improvement needs, and identify re‐ sources and strategies to implement the plan. Of the 83 airports in the SASP, 11 are designed as com‐ mercial service airports, eight as reliever airports, 29 as general aviation – community airports, 25 as general aviation – rural airports, and 10 as general aviation – basic airports. It is important to note that the ADOT – Aeronautics Group is currently updating the SASP. To date, draft documents have been prepared that define aviation system goals and performance measures, identifi‐ cation of state airport assets, forecasts of aviation demand, and an airport classification analysis. It is important to note that the draft SASP continues to classify Falcon Field Airport as a reliever facility. REGIONAL AIRPORT PLANNING At the regional level, Falcon Field Airport is included in the MAG RTP, which was most recently approved in September 2017. The RTP is a performance‐based plan that provides a broad vision for the regional transportation system that serves Maricopa County for the next two decades. It addresses several trans‐ portation modes that include freeways and other highways, streets, transit, airports, bicycle and pedes‐ trian facilities, freight, demand management, system management, and safety. Furthermore, it examines Inventory

1-11

the future air transportation needs of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area with the aim of maximizing the transportation and economic benefits of airports, while minimizing any adverse impacts related to congestion, the environment, and airspace. According to the regional aviation profile in the RTP, of the 16 airports, two are established as commer‐ cial service airports, six are classified as relievers, and seven are given general aviation status. Luke Air Force Base is also included as the only military airport. Falcon Field Airport is classified as a reliever air‐ port in the RTP, identifying it as a facility that relieves congestion at a commercial service airport by providing an alternative for general aviation operations. LOCAL AIRPORT PLANNING The most common local airport planning document is an Airport Master Plan, which the FAA recom‐ mends an airport update every seven to 10 years. In addition to a Master Plan, entities often provide additional local planning through a variety of studies including strategic plans, sub‐area plans, etc. Airport Master Plan The Airport Master Plan is the primary planning document at the local level. The Master Plan is intended to provide a 20‐year vision for airport development based on aviation demand forecasts. Over time, the forecast element of the Master Plan typically becomes less reliable due to changes in aviation activity and/or the economy. The most recent update to the Falcon Field Airport Master Plan was done in 2010. In addition, an Airport Forecast Update was prepared in 2012 to assess and forecast potential aviation demand given the impacts of the economic recession that was occurring at that time. Therefore, this is an appropriate time to update the Master Plan and revisit development assumptions from the previous planning study. One component of the Airport Master Plan is a set of Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawings that are used to depict existing and future development on the airport. It should be noted that the Airport has contin‐ ually updated its ALP drawings as needed, with the most recent version completed in December 2016. Falcon Field Sub‐Area Plan The Falcon Field Sub‐Area Plan, adopted by the City of Mesa City Council in April 2007, identifies the Falcon Field area as one of Mesa’s sub‐areas that has unique characteristics which set it apart from the surrounding area. The plan establishes strategies to guide all development and redevelopment potential within the Falcon Field Sub‐Area through the following:  A vision statement reflecting present characteristics and desired future conditions;  Strategies for action to achieve the vision;  Architectural character policies; Inventory

1-12

 

An image building plan showing the location of gateway features and streetscape types; and A land use plan to guide future land development in the area.

Through the study process, the plan identifies the Falcon Field Sub‐Area as a vibrant and progressive urban center that serves an oasis of aviation related businesses and recreation; an abundant, high‐qual‐ ity employment area for professionals, technical experts, and highly skilled labor; as a regional enter‐ tainment center that attracts the presence of distant visitors, local employees, and area residents; and possesses aesthetic beauty, scenic vistas, quality architecture, and natural desert landscape. Contained in one of the land use strategies of the plan is the recommendation that Falcon Field Airport continually update its Master Plan to help guide the future of the Airport and serve to minimize potential land use conflicts. Falcon Field Economic Activity Area Strategic Plan The Falcon Field Economic Activity Area Strategic Plan, completed in August 2014, was directed by the City of Mesa City Council to accelerate the pace of economic progress and ensure the area surrounding Falcon Field Airport continues to grow and excel. The plan establishes the Falcon Field Economic Activity Area (FFEAA), which is located in the northeast corner of the City of Mesa and encompasses approxi‐ mately 35 square miles. A strategic visioning commission was set forth to examine the strengths, chal‐ lenges, opportunities, untapped growth sectors, and potential barriers to success of the area to help guide future development efforts. The strategic vision is for the FFEAA to be recognized locally and na‐ tionally as a vibrant aerospace, aviation, and defense hub and a premier location for companies in in‐ dustry sectors seeking a highly attractive, competitive operating environment in which to grow. The recommendation from the strategic visioning commission discusses two distinct components for accomplishing the overall mission of the strategic plan. These include 1) Business Development and 2) Branding and Marketing. As a result, a series of goals and objectives were identified to help accomplish the mission. The goals and objectives include:  Goal 1 – Create and Retain Quality Jobs ‐ Objective 1: Business attraction. Generate quality leads of businesses exploring relocation or expansion opportunities. ‐ Objective 2: Business retention and expansion. ‐ Objective 3: Product development. Identify feasible opportunities for tourism and commer‐ cial development that may yield return on investment for the FFEAA. ‐ Objective 4: Maintaining high quality neighborhoods.  Goal 2 – Build Awareness, Increase Visibility, and Aggressively Promote FFEAA as an Attractive Destination for Businesses to Grow ‐ Objective 1: Create brand strategy for the FFEAA. ‐ Objective 2: Create a marketing and communications plan for the FFEAA.

Inventory

1-13

Moving forward, it is important that this Airport Master Plan Update consider and complement the goals and objectives outlined in the Falcon Field Sub‐Area Plan and the Falcon Field Economic Activity Area Strategic Plan.

AVIATION ACTIVITY Records of airport operational activity are essential for determining required facilities (types and sizes), as well as eligibility for federal funding. Airport staff and the FAA record key operational statistics includ‐ ing aircraft operations and based aircraft. Analysis of historical activity levels aid in projecting future trends which will enhance the Airport’s ability to plan for facility demands in a timely manner. The fol‐ lowing sections detail specific operational activities. OPERATIONS Aircraft operational statistics at the Airport are recorded by the FAA airport traffic control tower (ATCT), which classifies operations as either a takeoff or a landing. The ATCT is open from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. The ATCT becomes operational at 5:30 a.m. from May 15 to August 15 each year. Aircraft opera‐ tions are segregated into four general categories: air carrier, air taxi, military, and general aviation.  Air Carrier – operations performed by commercial airline aircraft with greater than 60 seats.  Air Taxi – operations associated with commuter aircraft, but also include for‐hire general aviation aircraft.  Military Operations – operations conducted by airplanes and helicopters with a military identifi‐ cation.  General Aviation – includes all other aviation activity from small ultralights to large business jets. Records of airport operational activities are essential for determining required facilities (types and sizes), as well as eligibility for federal funding. A detailed account of aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) is available dating back to 2005. Exhibit 1C provides a summary of operational statistics, including the breakdown of itinerant and local operations. According to ATCT counts, the Airport experienced its peak annual airport operations level in 2008 with over 319,000 operations. In the following years, total oper‐ ations decreased significantly, to a low of 190,605 in 2012. This was a common occurrence at airports across the country due to the economic recession that the United States experienced during this timeframe. Since 2014, the Airport has experienced noticeable gains in overall activity, peaking at over 291,000 operations in 2017. Operations are further sub‐categorized as either itinerant or local. Itinerant operations are those made by aircraft which arrive from or depart to destinations outside the local operating area. Local operations are associated primarily with touch‐and‐go or pilot training activity. Since 2005, local operations have averaged approximately 54 percent of total operations, with itinerant operations averaging approxi‐ mately 46 percent. Inventory

1-14

Air Carrier

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total:

47 9 20 6 1 9 5 6 5 18 10 27 9 172

ITINERANT Air General Taxi Aviation 8,196 6,320 6,892 3,813 2,652 2,818 2,717 2,891 3,264 38,805 49,728 58,671 65,668 252,435

Annual Operations (in thousands)

Military

124,582 115,610 134,773 135,382 114,050 102,548 98,229 90,900 106,292 64,718 49,457 48,297 51,754 1,236,592

3,654 3,129 1,746 2,006 2,425 2,203 2,579 3,776 3,825 2,859 1,985 3,180 3,693 37,060

Total

Civil

Military

136,479 125,068 143,431 141,207 119,128 107,578 103,530 97,573 113,386 106,400 101,180 110,175 121,124 1,526,259

133,087 123,728 170,026 178,066 136,024 106,950 116,257 92,687 149,925 129,839 149,464 152,579 169,952 1,808,584

617 285 672 146 81 93 293 345 385 184 81 364 381 3,927

Total

Total Operations

133,704 124,013 170,698 178,212 136,105 107,043 116,550 93,032 150,310 130,023 149,545 152,943 170,333 1,812,511

270,183 249,081 314,129 319,419 255,233 214,621 220,080 190,605 263,696 236,423 250,725 263,118 291,457 3,338,770

Annual Airport Operations 2005-2017

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Itinerant Operations

2010

2011

2012

Local Operations

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Total Operations

Monthly Operations 2010-2017

Monthly Operations (in thousands)

LOCAL

25 20 15 10 5 0

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N DJ F M A M J J A S O N D

2010

2011

2012

2013

Monthly Operations

Inventory Source: Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS) (Accessed February 2018)

1-15

2014

2015

2016

2017

Trend Line

Exhibit 1C AIRCRAFT OPERATION ACTIVITY

The largest percentage of aircraft activity experienced at the Airport falls within the general aviation category and can range from small aircraft conducting recreational flights, up to large corporate jets transporting passengers for business purposes. It is important to note that a significant increase in air taxi activity has been realized at the Airport in recent years, starting in 2014. During this same time, the Airport has experienced a decrease in itinerant general aviation operations. This is due to ATCT person‐ nel changing the procedures by which aircraft operations are counted at the Airport. All itinerant flight training activity associated with the CAE Oxford Aviation Academy, which was previously counted as general aviation itinerant activity, is now recognized as air taxi operations. As a result, the air taxi oper‐ ations have noticeably increased in recent years. It should be pointed out that these operations are not typical of air taxi activity as defined by the FAA. According to ATCT personnel, approximately five percent of the logged air taxi activity is actual air taxi per FAA standards, constituting “on‐demand” commercial transport of persons or property in accordance with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 and Subchapter K of Title 14 CFR Part 91. Military activity has constituted a small percentage of annual aircraft operations during the past several years. This activity can include fixed‐wing aircraft, as well as helicopter activity associated with military operations, which includes those helicopters associated with Boeing adjacent to the north side of the Airport. Although ATCT records have logged a minimal number of air carrier operations over the years, this activity does not occur at the Airport. It is likely these air carrier operations are overflights associated with aircraft utilizing Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport or Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport. Chap‐ ter Two will provide more details as to specific types of aircraft operations conducted at the Airport. An examination of monthly total operations at the Airport from January 2010 through December 2017 also illustrates that overall operations are on the rise at the Airport, as indicated by the increasing trend‐ line on Exhibit 1C. Seasonal fluctuations are evident over the course of the past several years, which can be attributed primarily to the large presence of flight training activity occurring in the spring and fall months when the temperatures in the Phoenix metropolitan area are more conducive to flying. Over this time period, the Airport has averaged 20,112 operations per month. In 2017, the Airport averaged 24,288 operations per month, well above the average experienced since 2010. BASED AIRCRAFT Identifying the current number of based aircraft is important to the master planning analysis as this number helps determine existing demand for a number of different facilities, including aircraft storage hangar space, parking aprons, pilot and passenger services, and various other aircraft support facilities. Historic data for based aircraft was retrieved from Airport records, as well as the previous Master Plan. As detailed in Table 1G, the Airport has experienced a general decrease in the overall number of based aircraft during the past 10 years; however, the 2017 total increased by 32 aircraft compared to 2016. There are currently 719 based aircraft at Falcon Field Airport, which includes the following fleet mix:

Inventory

1-16

     

582 – Single Engine Piston 76 – Multi‐Engine Piston 14 – Turboprop 7 – Jet 39 – Helicopter 1 – Other

Other sources that contain estimates for based aircraft at the Air‐ port include the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and the FAA’s National Based Aircraft Inventory Program. The January 2018 TAF estimates 660 based aircraft at Falcon Field Airport. The National Based Aircraft Inventory Program, accessed in Jan‐ uary 2018, identifies a based aircraft count of 642, which is less than the actual Airport records count and TAF estimate. Of the 642 aircraft within the inventory system, 636 aircraft have been validated, meaning that each aircraft account has been verified. As previously noted, the Master Plan is utilizing actual Airport records for based aircraft (719 in 2017), as this number is what the Airport has reported with ADOT in its most recent quarterly survey.

TABLE 1G Based Aircraft Falcon Field Airport Year Based Aircraft 2000 900 2001 899 2002 917 2003 939 2004 922 2005 926 2006 919 2007 924 2008 873 2009 850 2010 800 2011 791 2012 748 2013 742 2014 735 2015 702 2016 687 2017 719 Source: Airport Records; 2010 Airport Master Plan; 2012 Airport Forecast Up‐ date

AIRSIDE FACILITIES Airport facilities can be functionally classified into two broad categories: airside and landside. The airside category includes those facilities directly associated with aircraft operations. The landside category in‐ cludes those facilities necessary to provide a safe transition from surface to air transportation and sup‐ port aircraft parking, servicing, storage, maintenance, and operational safety. This section describes the airfield facilities, including runways, taxiways, lighting, marking, navigational aids, and weather report‐ ing. Airside facilities are depicted and detailed on Exhibit 1D. RUNWAYS Falcon Field Airport is served by a parallel runway system. Runway 4R‐22L measures 5,101 feet long and 100 feet wide. Runway 4L‐22R is 3,799 feet long and 75 feet wide. The two runways are separated by 700 feet from centerline to cen‐ terline, which is the minimum separation allowed for a par‐ allel runway system. Each runway is comprised of an asphalt surface. Runway 4R Landing Threshold Inventory

1-17

Runway gradient describes the average slope of a runway and is determined by dividing the runway’s high and low points by its length. Runway 4R‐22L slopes up from the Runway 4R end toward the Runway 22L end by 20 feet, resulting in a 0.56 percent gradient. Runway 4L‐22R contains a gradient of 0.53 per‐ cent, sloping upward from Runway 4L. Runway load bearing strength for both runways is shown on Exhibit 1D. Single wheel loading (SWL) re‐ fers to design aircraft landing gear with a single wheel on each main landing gear strut. Dual wheel load‐ ing (DWL) refers to design aircraft landing gear with two wheels on each main landing gear strut. Dual tandem wheel loading (2D) refers to two wheels side‐by‐side followed by two additional wheels side‐by‐ side on each main landing gear strut. HELICOPTER PARKING There are two designated transient helicopter parking pads located approximately 250 feet northeast of the ATCT. The parking pads are dimensioned 60 feet long by 60 feet wide and are constructed of concrete. They each have a published weight‐bearing capacity of 45,000 pounds SWL and are rated in “good” condition by the FAA. Helicopter Parking TAXIWAYS The taxiway system, shown on Exhibit 1D and summarized in Table 1H, consists of parallel, connecting, access, and entrance/exit taxiways. Taxiway pavement is constructed of asphalt and varies in width from 40 feet to 150 feet. For reference, runway to taxiway separation distances shown on Exhibit 1D are measured from centerline to centerline. Hold aprons are also available on Taxiways A and C, serving the areas between the parallel runway sys‐ tem. In addition, a hold apron serves Runway 22L and holding bays serve Runway 4R. Two hold aprons are also situated adjacent to Taxiway E, serving each end of Runway 4L‐22R. The hold aprons allow pilots to perform flight checks, including engine run‐ups, and a location where ATCT personnel can instruct pilots to wait for clearance to enter the runway. The FAA has historically designated a Hot Spot on the airfield associated with the close proximity of Taxiways D1 and D2. The location and description of this Hot Spot is included on Exhibit 1D. It should be noted that recent airfield geometry improvements have been made in this area on the airfield to help improve overall safety and circulation associated with this Hot Spot.

Inventory

1-18

RUNWAY DATA Runway 4L-22R 3,799 75 150 x 95 (both ends) Asphalt None Good Basic

ry lo al M

e rcl Ci

LAWRS L y

n Ru

Th un

nD lco

ATCT/Rotating A Beacon B

H Holding

e riv

ird D

riv e

Eagle Drive

un ne r

Dr ive

LEGEND Airport Property Line

KEY

HS1

GPS - Global Positioning System HS - Hot Spot MIRL - Medium Intensity Runway Lights PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator RNAV - Area Navigation

Fighter Aces Drive

Complex intersection. Aircraft approaching Rwy 4R from the ramp and destined for Rwy 4R or Rwy 22L sometimes miss the turn into Twy D and enter onto Rwy 4R at Twy A.

Taxiway

Falcon Drive

Cana

Blast Pad

Helicopter H Parking P

x 1’ 10 , (5 D6

) 0’ 10 D7

-2

PAPI-4L L REILss

PAPI-2L D

Segmented d Circle// Windcone Hold H Apron A

Hold Apron H

PAPI-4L L

n Ru

E1 Hold Apron REILss Blast Pad Supplemental Windcone

9 79

Supplemental Windcone S

) 5’

-2

PAPI-2L

’x

R REILs

D10

North Higley Rd.

ay xiw a T

Blast Pad

r ad Ro

evelt

Roos

Inventory

Type Connector Exit/Connector/Access Connector Parallel/Connector Entrance/Connector Exit/Connector Exit/Connector Exit/Connector Exit/Connector Exit/Connector Exit/Connector Exit/Connector Exit/Connector Entrance/Connector Parallel/Connector Entrance/Connector Exit/Connector Exit/Connector Entrance/Connector Connector/Access

R REILs

Taxiway

North Greenfield Rd.

PAPI-2L (both ends) 4.00 degrees (both ends) Yes (both ends) RNAV (GPS) - Rwy 4L

TAXIWAYS Width (feet) 50 70-150 50 50 75 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 40 40 40 40 40 50-100

0’ 25

VISUAL AND INSTRUMENT APPROACH AIDS

A ASOS

Hold Apron Blast Pad

12,500 Not Reported Not Reported MIRL Rwy 4L - Left / Rwy 22R - Right

Approach Slope Indicators PAPI-4L (both ends) Visual Glide Angle 4.00 degrees (both ends) Runway End Identification Lights (REILs) Yes (both ends) Instrument Approach Aids RNAV (GPS) - Rwy 4R

Taxiway Designation A B C D D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 E E1 E2 E3 E4 Other Taxiways

To Boeing Company T East McDowell Rd

0’ 20

Runway 4R-22L Length (feet) 5,101 Width (feet) 100 Blast Pad Dimensions (feet) 150 x 130 (both ends) Runway Pavement Surface Material Asphalt Runway Pavement Surface Treatment None Runway Pavement Condition (FAA Reported) Good Runway Pavement Markings Non-Precision Runway Pavement Load Bearing Strength (lbs.) Single Wheel Loading (SWL) 38,000 Dual Wheel Loading (DWL) 60,000 Dual Tandem Wheel Loading (2D) 90,000 Runway Lighting MIRL Traffic Pattern (FAA Reported) Rwy 4R - Right / Rwy 22L - Left

WEATHER AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS East McKellips Rd.

800

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

1-19

Airport Beacon Lighted Windcones and Segmented Circle Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT): 124.6 MHz Automated Terminal Information Service (ATIS): 118.25 MHz Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF): 124.6 MHz Limited Aviation Weather Reporting System (LAWRS) Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS): Awaiting Commission

Exhibit 1D EXISTING AIRSIDE FACILITIES

This page intentionally left blank

Inventory

1-20

TABLE 1H Taxiway Data Falcon Field Airport Designation Width A 50’

Length 1,100’

Description Connector taxiway between the Runway 4R and 4L thresholds. Also leads to hold aprons between the runways. B 70’‐150’ 3,500’ Exit taxiway serving Runways 4R‐22L and 4L‐22R. Connector between both runways. Provides access to development on the north and south sides of the airfield. C 50’ 1,300’ Connector taxiway between the Runway 22L and 22R thresholds. Also leads to hold aprons between the runways. D 50’ 5,000’ Parallel taxiway serving Runway 4R‐22L. D1 75’ 200’ Entrance taxiway serving the Runway 4R threshold. Connects Runway 4R‐ 22L and parallel Taxiway D. D2 50’ 200’ Exit taxiway serving Runway 4R‐22L. Connects Runway 4R‐22L and parallel Taxiway D. D3 – D8 50’ 200’ Angled (high‐speed) exit taxiways serving Runway 4R‐22L. Connect Runway 4R‐22L and parallel Taxiway D D9 50’ 200’ Exit taxiway serving Runway 4R‐22L. Connects Runway 4R‐22L and parallel Taxiway D. D10 50’ 200’ Entrance taxiway serving the Runway 22L threshold. Connects Runway 4R‐ 22L and parallel Taxiway D. E 40’ 3,700 Parallel taxiway serving Runway 4L‐22R. Entrance taxiway serving the Runway 4L threshold. Connects Runway 4L‐22R E1 40’ 150’ and parallel Taxiway E. Angled (high‐speed) exit taxiways serving Runway 4L‐22R. Connect Runway E2 – E3 40’ 150’ 4L‐22R and parallel Taxiway E. Entrance taxiway serving the Runway 22R threshold. Connects Runway 4L‐ E4 40’ 150’ 22R and parallel Taxiway E. Connect to various airfield taxiways mentioned above. Provide access to de‐ Other Taxiways 50’‐100’ Over 3,000’ velopment on the north and south sides of the airfield. Source: Coffman Associates analysis.

AIRFIELD PAVEMENT CONDITION As a part of ADOT’s Airport Pavement Preservation Program (APPP), Falcon Field Airport’s airfield pave‐ ments are inspected on a three‐year cycle. Pavements are assessed using the pavement condition index (PCI) methodology for visually assessing pavement conditions. PCI provides a numerical indication of overall pavement condition. Types and amounts of deterioration are used to calculate the PCI value of the section. The PCI ranges from 0 to 100, with 100 representing a pavement in excellent condition. The Airport’s pavements were last inspected on May 15‐16, 2017. The PCI ratings, surface types, and surface areas reported for each pavement section on the Airport are depicted on Exhibit 1E. Runway 4R‐ 22L was found to have a PCI rating of 82, and Runway 4L‐22R had a PCI of 75. The main taxiways serving the airfield system were found to possess PCIs of 65 to 85 on average. The main aircraft parking aprons on the north and south sides of the parallel runway system ranged from 60 to 85. At the time of the inspection, there were three areas of pavement on the Airport that contained PCIs below 55. There were also several areas of pavement that exhibited PCIs above 85, to include Taxiways A and C that have been Inventory

1-21

recently constructed on the airfield. The overall airfield pavement condition is evidence that the Airport and City of Mesa, in conjunction with the FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group, continue to invest in the well‐being of the facility. AIRFIELD LIGHTING Airfield lighting systems extend an airport’s usefulness into pe‐ riods of darkness and/or poor visibility. A variety of lighting sys‐ tems are installed at the Airport for this purpose. They are cat‐ egorized by function as follows: Airport Identification Lighting: The location of the Airport at night or during low‐visibility weather is universally identified by a rotating beacon. A rotating beacon projects two beams of light, one white and one green, 180 degrees apart. The beacon is located on the roof of the ATCT. Airport Beacon atop the ATCT Runway Pavement and Edge Lighting: Pavement edge lighting utilizes light fixtures placed near the edge of the pavement to define the lateral limits of the pavement. This lighting is essen‐ tial for safe operations during night and/or times of low visibil‐ ity in order to maintain safe and efficient access to and from the runway and aircraft parking areas. Runways 4R‐22L and 4L‐22R are equipped with a medium intensity runway lighting (MIRL) system. It is important to note that Runway 4L‐22R is closed when the ATCT closes (9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). As such, the MIRL associated with this runway is turned off during this time. Visual Approach Lighting: Visual approach aids have been in‐ stalled at the Airport to assist pilots in determining the correct PAPI‐2 serving Runway 22R descent path to the runway end during an approach to the Air‐ port. A four‐box precision approach path indicator (PAPI‐4) is available on approach to each end of Run‐ way 4R‐22L. A two‐box PAPI system (PAPI‐2) serves each end of Runway 4L‐22R. When the system of red and white lights is interpreted by the pilot, they are given an indication of being above, below, or on the designated descent path to the runway threshold. A PAPI system has a range of five miles during the day and up to 20 miles at night. Each PAPI at the Airport provides a 4.00‐degree glide path which is greater than normal to allow a higher aircraft descent path, thus helping to mitigate noise in areas adjacent to the runway approaches. Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs): REILs provide a visual identification of the runway end for landing aircraft. The REILs consists of two synchronized flashing lights, located laterally on each side of the run‐ way end, facing the approaching aircraft. These flashing lights can be seen day or night for a distance of up to 20 miles depending on visibility conditions. Each runway threshold at the Airport is equipped with REILs. Inventory

1-22

LEGEND Airport Property Line 86-100 PCI Rating 56-85 PCI Rating 0-55 PCI Rating

East McDowell Rd

PCI - Pavement Condition Index

C C

ry lo al M

e rcl Ci E3

’x

’) 75

evelt

Roos

North Greenfield Rd.

D10

y wa

2 L-

L 22 R-

) 0’ 10

Th un

nD lco

e riv

ird D

riv e

Eagle Drive D4

Cana

w un

’x 01 1 , (5 D6

North Higley Rd.

ay xiw a T

r ad Ro

un ne r

Dr ive

D2 D1

Taxiway

Falcon Drive

Fighter Aces Drive

East McKellips Rd.

800

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

Inventory

1-23

Exhibit 1E PAVEMENT CONDITIONS PER 2017 ADOT PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROGRAM

This page intentionally left blank

Inventory

1-24

Taxiway Lighting: All airfield taxiways serving the runway system are equipped with blue medium in‐ tensity taxiway lights (MITL). Other taxiways that serve more remote landside areas are unlit, but in some instances, are provided with centerline and edge reflectors. Pilot‐Controlled Lighting: During nighttime hours when the ATCT is closed (9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.), pilots can utilize the pilot‐controlled lighting system (PCL) to activate certain airfield lights from their aircraft through a series of clicks of their radio transmitter utilizing the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) frequency (124.6 MHz). The MIRL for Runway 4R‐22L are preset to low intensity and can be increased in intensity utilizing this system. As stated earlier, the MIRL for Runway 4L‐22R is unavailable when the ATCT is closed. AIRFIELD SIGNAGE The airport has a runway/taxiway signage system that assists pilots in identifying their location on the airfield and directing them to their desired location. The presence of runway/taxi‐ way signage is an essential component of a surface movement guidance control system necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport. The signage system installed at Fal‐ con Field Airport includes runway and taxiway designations, holding positions, routing/directional, and runway exits. Dis‐ tance remaining signs are also implemented on Runway 4R‐ 22L. The majority of airfield signs are lit. Signs not lit are re‐ flective to allow enhanced awareness during nighttime condi‐ Airfield Signage and Lighting tions. AIRPORT MARKINGS Pavement markings aid in the movement of aircraft along airport surfaces and identify closed or hazard‐ ous areas on the airport. Runway 4R‐22L has non‐precision markings that include threshold, designation, centerline, edge, and aiming points. Runway 4L‐22R has basic markings which include runway designa‐ tions, centerline, edge, and touchdown points. Blast pads marked with yellow chevrons also serve each runway end. The blast pad is a surface adjacent to the ends of the runway provided to reduce the erosive effect of jet blast and propeller wash. Each end of Runway 4R‐22L is equipped with a 150‐foot long by 130‐foot‐wide blast pad. Blast pads are also provided on each end of Runway 4L‐22R, measuring 150 feet long by 95 feet wide. Taxiway and taxilane centerline markings are provided to assist pilots in maintaining proper clearance from pavement edges and objects near the taxiways. Taxiway markings also include hold lines located

Inventory

1-25

Taxiway/Taxilane Centerline and Hold Line Markings

on the entrance/exit taxiways serving Runways 4R‐22L and 4L‐22R. The hold line positions function to keep air‐ craft from entering the runway environment without clearance. Hold lines on the entrance/exit taxiways as‐ sociated with Runway 4R‐22L are situated 200 feet from the runway centerline. Hold lines on those taxi‐ ways serving Runway 4L‐22R are located 125 feet from the runway centerline. Aircraft movement areas on various parking aprons are identified with centerline markings. Aircraft tiedown positions are identified on various apron sur‐ faces as well.

NAVIGATIONAL AIDS Navigational aids are electronic devices that transmit radio frequencies into point‐to‐point guidance and position information. The types of electronic navigational aids available for aircraft flying to or from the Airport include the global positioning system (GPS). GPS was initially developed by the United States Department of Defense for military navigation around the world. GPS differs from other navigational aids in that pilots are not required to navigate using a specific ground‐based facility. GPS uses satellites placed in orbit around the earth to transmit electronic radio signals, which pilots of properly equipped aircraft use to determine altitude, speed, and other navigational information. With GPS, pilots can di‐ rectly navigate to any airport in the country and are not required to navigate to a specific ground‐based navigational facility. WEATHER AND COMMUNICATION As stated previously, Falcon Field Airport is served by an LAWRS which reports cloud height, weather, obstructions to visibility, temperature, dewpoint, surface wind, and al‐ timeter settings. The LAWRS is located between the par‐ allel runways and approximately 325 feet west of midfield Taxiway B. Automated terminal information service (ATIS) broadcasts are updated hourly (at a minimum) and pro‐ vide arriving and departing pilots with the current surface weather conditions, communication frequencies, and other important Airport‐specific information. ATIS broad‐ casts on radio frequency 118.25 MHz. ASOS to be Commissioned Previously reported, the Airport is in the process of installing an ASOS on the airfield. An ASOS reports automated aviation weather observations 24 hours per day. The system updates weather observations Inventory

1-26

every minute, continuously reporting significant weather changes as they occur. The ASOS system reports cloud ceiling, visibility, temperature, dew point, wind direction, wind speed, altimeter setting (barometric pressure), and density altitude (airfield elevation corrected for temper‐ ature). The ASOS equipment is located on the northeast side of the airfield approximately 400 feet north of the Runway 22L threshold. Once the ASOS becomes commis‐ sioned for use, it is expected to replace the LAWRS. Falcon Field Airport is equipped with a lighted wind cone and segmented circle between the parallel runway sys‐ Segmented Circle and Lighted Wind Cone tem approximately 400 feet southwest of midfield Taxi‐ way B. The wind cone indicates wind direction and speed to pilots, and the segmented circle indicates aircraft traffic pattern information. Supplemental lighted wind cones are at the approach ends of Runway 4R‐22L.

LANDSIDE FACILITIES Landside facilities are those that support the aircraft and pilot/passenger handling functions as well as other non‐aviation facilities typically providing a revenue stream to the airport. These facilities include general aviation facilities, as well as support facilities such as fuel storage, vehicle parking, roadway ac‐ cess, and aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF). The primary landside facilities at the Airport are identi‐ fied on Exhibit 1F. FALCON FIELD TERMINAL The recently completed state‐of‐the‐art terminal building at the Airport was reopened in late 2015 after a nearly year‐long renovation project that upgraded and expanded the facility for use by pilots, passen‐ gers, the general public, and Airport administration. The nearly $2 million project was funded by the Airport’s enterprise fund. The 5,600 square‐foot single‐story building includes the following:  Conference room  Lobby and public waiting area that in‐ clude charging stations  Restrooms  Snack machines  Airport administration offices  Water stations In addition, the exterior of the building was enhanced and features a variety of amenities for pilots, passengers, and the general public including:  Shaded aircraft viewing  Free binoculars  Seating  Sidewalk painted like a runway  Desert landscaping Inventory

1-27

The terminal building is open 24 hours per day, seven days per week from the airside for pilots and passengers. Airport tenants can access the terminal building from the landside front door using their gate access badge. AIRCRAFT HANGAR FACILITIES Hangar facilities at the Airport are comprised of conven‐ tional hangars, executive hangars, T‐hangars, linear box hangars, and covered tiedowns. Conventional hangars provide a large open space, free from roof support struc‐ tures, and have the capability to store several aircraft sim‐ ultaneously. Conventional hangars are often utilized by airport businesses, such as fixed base operators (FBOs) and large aircraft maintenance providers. Conventional hang‐ ars are typically 10,000 square feet or larger. Executive hangars provide the same type of aircraft stor‐ Conventional Hangar age as conventional hangars but are typically smaller than 10,000 square feet. These hangars are normally utilized by individual owners to store several aircraft or by smaller air‐ port businesses. This type of hangar is becoming more popular at general aviation airports and often is included in a larger contiguous facility that contains several sepa‐ rate hangar facilities. T‐hangars and linear box hangars provide for separate air‐ craft storage facilities within a larger hangar complex. These hangars typically provide space for only one aircraft and are used for private storage only. Covered tiedowns serve the same purpose as T‐hangars and linear box hang‐ ars, except that they are not enclosed. They are tiedown Executive Hangar spaces with a protective roof covering. As shown on Exhibit 1F, there are 90 separate hangar facil‐ ities at the Airport providing approximately 1,396,500 square feet of hangar, maintenance, and office space. Con‐ ventional hangar space at the Airport totals approximately 363,800 square feet in 19 separate hangars. The Airport also has 11 linear box hangar complexes totaling approximately 301,200 square feet. Within the linear box hangar com‐ plexes are 101 separate storage units. There are 11 separate executive hangar facilities totaling approximately 51,400 square feet. T‐hangars comprise the largest amount of hangar space at the Airport, totaling approximately 579,100 T‐Hangars Inventory

1-28

To Boeing Company T East McDowell Rd

ay xiw a T

ry lo al M

’)

s wn o d Tie

2 L-

Fuel Farm m

32 33

riv e

Eagle Drive

Fuel Farm m 30 s on H Helipads n r ow Ap

ied inal tT f rm a rcr15 Te i A

ird D

n lco Fa

Th un de rb

ad Ro

Fuel Farm F

34 C D 41 E F m r a SS F 28 nn 14 35 40 H I er el B O u Dr F 36 ive CT G A J K 42 27 CT M L 37 CT 39 N 43 8 38 44 13 MM 9 26 CT CT 7 CT GG P R S Q Fighter Aces Drive NN BB HH U V T 12 OO CC II X Y W 10 PP DD JJ AA Z QQ EE KK 11 25 RR FF LL Taxiway D3

2 R-

20 ns w do 19 Tie t f a r 18 rc ive Ai Dr

ns ow ied tT af rcr Ai

’x 01 1 , (5 D6

) 0’ 10

Falcon Drive

Cana

w un

’x

w un

D10

t af rcr i A

C C

e rcl Ci

North Higley Rd.

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

49 53 52 54

LEGEND Airport Property Line

24 East McKellips Rd.

# A-K L M-N O P-SS CT

800

SCALE IN FEET

evelt

Inventory

Facility Type Conventional Hangar/Museum Fire Station Linear Box Hangars Linear Box Hangars Conventonal Hangar Executive Hangar Conventional Hangar Conventional Hangar Conventional Hangar City Park Office Building Office Building Office Building Conventional Hangar/Offices Conventional Hangar Airport Administration Conventional Hangar/Offices Office Building/Classrooms Linear Box Hangars Conventional Hangar Executive Hangar Office Building Restaurant Restaurant Office Building Office Building Conventional Hangar Executive Hangar Conventional Hangar Conventional Hangar/Offices Conventional Hangar Executive Hangar Executive Hangar Conventional Hangar Executive Hangar Executive Hangar Executive Hangar Conventional Hangar Conventional Hangar Maintenance Building Public Building Executive Hangar Wash Facility Conventional Hangar Conventional Hangar Administration Offices Warehouse Paint Shop Delivery Center Conventional Hangar Linear Box Hangars Linear Box Hangars Linear Box Hangars Linear Box Hangars Linear Box Hangars Linear Box Hangars Executive Hangar

North Greenfield Rd.

BUILDING INVENTORY

Tenant Name Commemorative Air Force Airbase Arizona City of Mesa Fire Station #208 Falcon 7, LLC (Businesses and Private Aircraft Storage) Falcon 7, LLC (Businesses and Private Aircraft Storage) FTH, LLC Empire Southwest, LLC Falcon Warbirds Aviation Dynamics Precision Heli-Support/Precision Avionics Falcon Field Park 32 Falcon Field Corporate Building Civil Air Patrol Weaver Building, LLC (Southwestern Eye Center) Falcon Executive Aviation Falcon Executive Aviation Airport Terminal Building Heliponents, Inc. CAE Oxford Aviation Academy/Falcon Office Center CAE Oxford Aviation Academy/Falcon Office Center Marsh Aviation/Floyd Stillwell City of Mesa - Police Aviation Thunderbird Airport Plaza Desert Eagle Brewing Company/Steak and Stone/Hearthstone The Monastery Falcon Corporate Center Falcon Holdings, LLC (Bob's Pilot Shop) Classic Air Aviation, LLC Canyon State Aero, LLC Starman Bros. Auction ITP Aero/HVS Starman Bros. Auction ITP Aero/HVS Private Aircraft Storage AZ Aircraft Interior Design DGA Restorations W.E.B. Holdings, LLC Lycon Inc. of Arizona Performance One/North American Aviation Performance One/North American Aviation Airport Operations and Maintenance Building United States Post Office AZ Aircraft Painting, LLC Aircraft Wash Rack Wings of Flight Foundation/Killian Investments MD Helicopters MD Helicopters MD Helicopters MD Helicopters MD Helicopters MD Helicopters Falcon Hangar, LLC (Businesses and Private Aircraft Storage) Reilly Aviation (Businesses and Private Aircraft Storage) Reilly Aviation (Businesses and Private Aircraft Storage) Reilly Aviation (Businesses and Private Aircraft Storage) Reilly Aviation (Businesses and Private Aircraft Storage) Reilly Aviation (Businesses and Private Aircraft Storage) KMB Helicopters

Roos

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

BUILDING INVENTORY

Tenant Name Private Aircraft Storage Private Aircraft Storage Private Aircraft Storage Private Aircraft Storage Private Aircraft Storage Private Aircraft Storage

1-29

FUEL FARMS (Associated with Commercial Re-Sale) Facility Type T-Hangars Linear Box Hangars T-Hangars Linear Box Hangars T-Hangars Covered Tiedowns

Fuel Storage Location Fuel Farm #1 Fuel Farm #2 Total Fuel Capacity

Fuel Storage Amount (Gallons) by Type 100LL Jet A 20,000 12,000 None 20,000 20,000 32,000

Exhibit 1F EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES

This page intentionally left blank

Inventory

1-30

square feet in 43 separate complexes. Over 400 individual storage units are contained within the T‐hangar complexes. Finally, six covered tiedown facilities are on the Airport and provide 118 separate storage units comprising approximately 101,000 square feet. Linear Box Hangars Covered Tiedowns AIRCRAFT PARKING APRONS There are several designated aircraft parking apron areas at the Airport. The primary apron area on the south side of the parallel runway system extends approximately 4,100 feet along the south side of Taxiway D and has approxi‐ mately 120,000 square yards of pavement for aircraft and circulation taxilanes. It contains 135 marked tiedowns for smaller general aviation aircraft and ample space for larger aircraft adjacent to the terminal buildings and FBOs. In ad‐ dition, helicopter parking is located adjacent to the east side of the main terminal area. On the north side of the par‐ allel runway system, a large parking apron consisting of ap‐ proximately 51,500 square yards of pavement accommo‐ Aircraft Parking Apron dates 132 marked tiedowns. On the south side of the Air‐ port adjacent to the T‐hangar complexes is another area for dedicated aircraft parking that is made up of 14,400 square yards of apron space and 35 marked tiedowns. There are several other dedicated parking aprons adjacent to specialty aviation service operators (SA‐ SOs) that conduct aviation activity on the north and south sides of the Airport. These areas consist of approximately 52,300 square yards of additional parking and circulation and approximately 50 tiedowns. There are also parking apron areas located throughout the airport in close proximity to conventional, executive, linear box hangars, and tiedowns. All totaled, there are approximately 238,200 square yards of aircraft parking apron offered at the Airport. Within these areas, approximately 350 marked tiedown positions are offered for general aviation air‐ craft. Additional unmarked areas can be configured to meet the demands of larger business jet aircraft. Inventory

1-31

AVIATION SERVICES Those businesses that choose to locate on an airport or adjacent to an airport provide a significant im‐ pact not only to the airport, but also to the region. Encouraging businesses to locate in the vicinity of an airport is a good practice for a number of reasons. First, the business will benefit from being near a commerce and transportation hub. Second, the community will benefit because the airport will develop a buffer of industry and manufacturing that will restrict incompatible land uses, such as residential hous‐ ing, from locating too close to the airport. Third, business development on and around airports can gen‐ erate a direct revenue stream to the airport. Some airports have done this successfully, leading to airport self‐sufficiency, and such is the case for Falcon Field Airport. An array of general aviation services is available at the Airport. This includes aircraft rental, flight training, aircraft maintenance, aircraft avionics, aircraft charter, aircraft management, aircraft fueling, aircraft painting, aircraft sales, aircraft detailing, hangar rental, pilot supplies, rental cars, restaurants, and many other services. There are currently two FBOs on the airfield that provide aviation fueling services: Falcon Executive Avi‐ ation and Heliponents, Inc. Falcon Executive Aviation: Falcon Executive Aviation is a full‐ service FBO at the Airport that provides a variety of general aviation services on the south side of the Airport adjacent to the west side of the terminal building. It operates its FBO ac‐ tivities from two hangar facilities that provide aircraft mainte‐ nance, hangar space, offices, flight planning, a pilot’s lounge, and other amenities. Full‐service Jet A and 100LL fuel and self‐ service 100LL are offered. Heliponents, Inc.: Heliponents is an FBO located on the south side of the Airport and farther east adjacent to one of the Falcon Executive Aviation main aircraft parking aprons. Heliponents operates out of a single facility that provides space for hangar storage and of‐ fices and is an FAA repair station for several types of aircraft and helicopters. Jet A fuel is offered at its location. Other SASOs, businesses, and organizations located at the Airport include:  Starman Bros. Airline Services  Floyd Stillwell/Marsh Aviation  FTH, LLC  Custom Connections of Arizona Heliponents, Inc.  Airplane Rental Ventures/SKA Holding Inventory

1-32

                       

Falcon Aero Manufacturing Lycon, Inc. of Arizona Classic Air Aviation, LLC AZ Aircraft Interior Design A&R Aircraft Services, LLC HVS LLP Performance One Precision Heli‐Support Precision Avionics AZ Aircraft Painting, LLC Airplane Rental Ventures Canyon State Aero, LLC Fly‐N‐Buy Civil Air Patrol DEA‐GA MD Helicopters Lemac Aviation Valley Avionics CAE Oxford Aviation Academy 32 Falcon Field Bob’s Pilot Shop/Falcon Holdings, LLC KMB Helicopters/General Aviation Services Falcon Hangar, LLC Reilly Aviation Thunderbird Management

                       

Commemorative Air Force Airbase Arizona Falcon Warbirds, LLC Mace Aviation U.S. Postal Service Mesa‐Police Aviation Mesa Fire Station #208 National/Alamo Rental Car Desert Eagle Brewing Company Steak and Stone/Hearthstone Restaurant The Monastery Restaurant Various Real Estate and Financial Services DGA Restorations W.E.B. Holdings Falcon 7 Falcon Corporate Center Boeing Empire Southwest Falcon Office Center High Country Hangars Killian Investments Wings of Flight Foundation Leslie Switzer/Dean Altman North American Aviation Warbirds Unlimited

These SASOs, businesses, and organizations listed above play an important role to the overall activity and vitality of the Airport. This includes MD Helicopters, which maintains a large presence on the north side of the Airport. The company designs and manufactures the full line of MD‐series helicopters and continues to grow in its market share of helicopter manufacturing and training. In addition, CAE Oxford Aviation Academy provides specialized flight instruction services to between 350 and 400 students reg‐ ularly. Its fleet consists of approximately 55 aircraft that fly an average of 300 hours per day. VEHICLE PARKING There are several parking lots available for vehicle use at Falcon Field Airport. A designated parking area for vehicles adjacent to the south side of the terminal building is accessible from Falcon Drive. A total of 44 parking spaces are included in this area. Adjacent to the west side of the terminal building is the Falcon Executive Aviation FBO, which provides for approximately 45 marked parking spaces. Heliponents, the other designated FBO on the airfield, offers 25 marked parking spaces.

Inventory

1-33

Other parking areas on the Airport are located adjacent to aviation related and non‐aviation related businesses on the north and south sides of the Airport. MD Helicopters provides for approximately 450 marked parking spaces on the north side of the Airport. Approximately 180 marked parking spaces are offered through CAE Oxford Aviation Academy complexes. The Commemorative Air Force Museum also accommodates 150 vehicle parking spaces on the southwest side of the Airport. Non‐aviation related businesses make up an additional 700 marked parking spaces, which includes approximately 65 parking spaces associated with the U.S. Post Office in the southeast area of the Airport. The ATCT and City of Mesa Fire Station #208 also provide parking spaces for their personnel. The ATCT contains 16 controlled‐access parking spaces and the Fire Station accommodates approximately 80 marked parking spaces. All totaled, there are approximately 1,800 marked automobile parking spaces serving a variety of activities at Falcon Field Airport. FUEL FACILITIES There are four fuel farms located on the Airport that cur‐ rently store aviation fuel. Falcon Executive Aviation op‐ erates one fuel farm that consists of underground tanks providing for 12,000 gallons of Jet A fuel storage and 20,000 gallons of 100LL storage. Heliponents operates a 20,000‐gallon capacity underground Jet A fuel storage tank. It is important to note that these are the only fuel farms at the Airport associated with the commercial re‐ sale of aviation fuel. The third fuel farm is located adjacent to the City of Mesa’s Police Aviation Division. This fuel farm consists of Falcon Executive Aviation Self‐Service Fueling one underground tank providing for 12,000 gallons of Jet A fuel storage. An aboveground fuel farm associated with the Commemorative Air Force Museum provides one 10,000‐gallon capacity tanks for 100LL fuel. Falcon Executive Aviation provides full‐service fueling ca‐ pabilities via fuel trucks. It has a fleet of six fuel delivery trucks that consist of four 100LL fuel trucks that each store 1,000 gallons of fuel, as well as two Jet A fuel trucks, one having a storage capacity of 5,000 gallons and one having a storage capacity of 3,000 gallons. Self‐ service 100LL fueling capability is also offered by Falcon Executive Aviation. Heliponents only offers self‐service Heliponents, Inc. Fuel Farm and Self‐Service Fueling Jet A fuel. Inventory

1-34

AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING (ARFF) The City of Mesa Fire Station #208 is situated on the south‐ west side of the Airport and fronts East McKellips Road. The facility is designed to provide emergency and rescue services to the Airport and surrounding area. Eight full‐time firefight‐ ers are assigned to the facility 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Fire Station #208 is ARFF‐certified, which means it has the equipment and personnel needed to meet certain FAA standards for aircraft emergency situations at Title 14 CFR Part 139 certificated airports. Although Falcon Field Airport Fire Station #208 does not carry a Part 139 certificate and is not required to adhere to ARFF standards, the City of Mesa understands the additional safety benefits that having an ARFF‐certified fire station brings to the Airport. A variety of equipment that is capable of handling fire and rescue operations specific to aircraft emer‐ gencies is present at the fire station. The primary response ARFF vehicle includes an Oshkosh fire truck capable of carrying 1,500 gallons of water, 400 pounds of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), and 450 pounds of Purple K dry chemical. In addition, Fire Station #208 houses Engine #208 which responds to all types of emergency calls. Fire department personnel at the fire station have direct communication with airport operations and ATCT personnel, allowing immediate emergency services to the airfield when needed. AIRCRAFT WASH RACK A recently completed aircraft wash rack that includes a 3,000 square‐foot covered and lighted service bay, a 3,000 square‐foot open‐air service bay, and a waste disposal station is also available. This facility is located in the southeast area of the Airport adjacent to several T‐hangar and covered tiedown com‐ plexes. AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE FACILITY A dedicated maintenance facility is located in the southeast area of the Airport with vehicle access pro‐ vided via Roadrunner Drive. It also is provided direct access to the airfield system. This facility provides approximately 7,500 square feet for the storage of maintenance equipment. Inventory

1-35

VEHICLE AIRFIELD ACCESS AND PERIMETER FENCING Ground vehicles authorized by the Airport to operate on move‐ ment and safety areas are limited to those vehicles necessary for airport operations. These include airport maintenance vehi‐ cles, police patrols, fire and rescue vehicles, aircraft fuel and service vehicles, and others authorized by the Airport such as FBO vehicles, construction vehicles, FAA, and Airport staff. Airport service roads provide access to the perimeter of the air‐ field to authorized ground vehicles. The entire perimeter of the Airport is fenced with eight‐foot chain‐link fencing that totally encloses airfield sensitive areas Perimeter Access Road and Fencing and aircraft movement areas to prevent the inadvertent access onto the Airport by vehicles and/or pedestrians. Signs prohibiting unauthorized entry are dis‐ played on gates, fences, buildings, and other prominent locations to control inadvertent entry to the airfield. A series of controlled‐access gates and manual access gates are installed in various locations to provide access for commercial and individual tenants on the airfield. UTILITIES Utility availability and capacity are critical elements when considering future expansion for both airside and landside components at an airport. The Airport is presently supplied by electricity, natural gas, water and sanitary sewer. Electric utility services are provided by the Salt River Project Agricultural Improve‐ ment and Power District (SRP) as the Airport is not within the City of Mesa’s electric service area. The Airport is, however, within the City’s service area for natural gas, water and sanitary sewer services.

AREA AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Act of 1958 established the FAA as the responsible agency for the control and use of navigable airspace within the United States. The FAA has established the National Airspace System (NAS) to protect persons and property on the ground and to establish a safe and effi‐ cient airspace environment for civil, commercial, and military aviation. The NAS covers the common net‐ work of U.S. airspace, including air navigation facilities; airports and landing areas; aeronautical charts; associated rules, regulations, and procedures; technical information; and personnel and material. The system also includes components shared jointly with the military. AIRSPACE STRUCTURE Airspace within the United States is broadly classified as either “controlled” or “uncontrolled.” The dif‐ ference between controlled and uncontrolled airspace relates primarily to requirements for pilot Inventory

1-36

qualifications, ground‐to‐air communications, navigation and air traffic services, and weather conditions. Six classes of airspace have been designated in the United States, as shown on Exhibit 1G. Airspace des‐ ignated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is considered controlled airspace. Aircraft operating within controlled airspace are subject to varying requirements for positive air traffic control. Airspace in the vicinity of Falcon Field Airport is also depicted on Exhibit 1G. Class A Airspace: Class A airspace includes all airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to flight level (FL) 600 (approximately 60,000 feet MSL) over the contiguous 48 states and Alaska. This airspace is designated in Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.) Part 71.33 for positive control of aircraft. All aircraft must be on an IFR clearance to operate within Class A airspace. Class B Airspace: Class B airspace has been designated around some of the country’s major airports, such as Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, to separate all aircraft within a specified radius of the primary airport. Each Class B airspace is specifically tailored for its primary airport. All aircraft operating within Class B airspace must have an air traffic control (ATC) clearance. Certain minimum aircraft equip‐ ment and pilot certification requirements must also be met. This airspace is the most restrictive con‐ trolled airspace routinely encountered by pilots operating under visual flight rules (VFR) in an uncon‐ trolled environment. The nearest Class B airspace is centered on Phoenix Sky Harbor International Air‐ port, approximately 14 nautical miles (nm) to the west. Falcon Field Airport is located beneath the outer segment of Class B airspace, which begins at 4,000 feet MSL extending to 9,000 feet MSL. As such, any aircraft operating at the Airport must be equipped with a transponder with Mode C capabilities. Class C Airspace: The FAA has established Class C airspace at approximately 120 airports around the country that have significant levels of IFR traffic. Class C airspace is designed to regulate the flow of uncontrolled traffic above, around, and below the arrival and departure airspace required for high‐per‐ formance, passenger‐carrying aircraft at major airports. In order to fly inside Class C airspace, an aircraft must have a two‐way radio, an encoding transponder, and have established communication with the ATC facility. Aircraft may fly below the floor of the Class C airspace or above the Class C airspace ceiling without establishing communication with ATC. The nearest Class C airspace to the Airport surrounds Tucson International Airport and Davis Monthan Air Force Base. Class D Airspace: Class D airspace is controlled airspace surrounding airports with an ATCT and not classified under B or C airspace designations. The Class D airspace typically constitutes a cylinder with a horizontal radius of four or five nm from an airport, extending from the surface up to a designated ver‐ tical limit, typically set at approximately 2,500 feet above the airport elevation. As shown on Exhibit 1G, Falcon Field Airport operates within Class D airspace beginning at the surface and extending to 3,400 feet MSL during the operational hours of the ATCT. Aircraft operators operating within Class D airspace are required to make contact with ATCT personnel prior to entering or departing the Airport’s airspace and must maintain contact while within the controlled airspace to land at the Airport or to transverse the area.

Inventory

1-37

FL 600

CLASS A

18,000 MSL KEY AGL - Above Ground Level FL - Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet MSL - Mean Sea Level

14,500 MSL

CLASS E

Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for VFR Products," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993.

CLASS B

Nontowered Airport

40 n.m.

CLASS C

30 n.m.

20 n.m.

CLASS D

20 n.m. 700 AGL

1,200 AGL 12 n.m.

10 n.m.

Nontowered Airport

CLASS G DEFINITION OF AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATIONS

Inventory

CLASS A

Generally airspace above 18,000 feet MSL up to and including FL 600.

CLASS B

Generally multi-layered airspace from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's busiest airports.

CLASS C

Generally airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet AGL surrounding towered airports with service by radar approach control.

CLASS D

Generally airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet AGL surrounding towered airports.

CLASS E

Generally controlled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D.

CLASS G

Generally uncontrolled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E.

1-38

Exhibit 1G AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION

Pleasant Valley

52 8

Sky Ranch at Carefree

Salt River Bald Eagle Breeding Area

V 257

Lake Pleasant Bald Eagle Breeding Area

Hells Canyon Wilderness Area

05 V1

VR 24

1-2

245 VR

239

V 327-5 62-567

VR243

42 VR2

Mazatzai Wilderness Area

VR2

Verde River Bald Eagle Breeding Area

ALERT AREA A-231

Four Peaks Wilderness Area

Phoenix Deer Valley

V 16

Glendale Municipal

Phoenix Goodyear

Buckeye

Salt River Bald Eagle Breeding Area

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int'l

Superstition Wilderness Area

Phoenix VORTAC

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT Stellar Airpark

North Maricopa Mountain Wilderness Area

Chandler Municipal R-2310 A,B R-2310 A,C

Gila Bend VORTAC

VR2

Gila Bend

VR267-268-269

V 95

R-2310

06 T3

Estrella Sailport

VR267-26

OUTLAW MOA

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway

Chandler NDB

V 105

V 461

Sierra Estrella Wilderness Area

VR2

North McDowell Bald Eagle Breeding Area

Scottsdale Luke AFB

Ak-Chin Regional

South Maricopa Mountain Wilderness Area

V 94

Coolidge

Casa Grande

Stanfield VORTAC

LEGEND Mode C

Airport with hard-surfaced runways 1,500' to 8,069' in length

Class B Airspace

Airports with hard-surfaced runways greater than 8,069' or some multiple runways less than 8,069'

Class D Airspace

VORTAC

Class E Airspace

Non-Directional Radiobeacon (NDB)

Class E Airspace with floor 700' above surface

Compass Rose

Victor Airways

Alert Area and MOA - Military Operations Area

Military Training Routes

Prohibited, Restricted, and Warning Areas

Wilderness Areas Source: Phoenix Sectional Chart, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, April 27, 2017

Inventory

1-39

Exhibit 1G (continued) VICINITY AIRSPACE

Class E Airspace: Class E airspace consists of controlled airspace designed to contain IFR operations near an airport and while aircraft are transitioning between the airport and enroute environments. Unless otherwise specified, Class E airspace terminates at the base of the overlying airspace. Only aircraft op‐ erating under IFR are required to be in contact with air traffic control when operating in Class E airspace. While aircraft conducting visual flights in Class E airspace are not required to be in radio communications with air traffic control facilities, visual flight can only be conducted if minimum visibility and cloud ceilings exist. Class G Airspace: Airspace not designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is considered uncontrolled, or Class G, airspace. Air traffic control does not have the authority or responsibility to exercise control over air traffic within this airspace. Class G airspace lies between the surface and the overlaying Class E airspace (700 to 1,200 feet above ground level). While aircraft may technically operate within this Class G airspace without any contact with ATC, it is unlikely that many aircraft will operate this low to the ground. Furthermore, federal regulations specify minimum altitudes for flight. F.A.R. Part 91.119, Minimum Safe Altitudes, generally states that except when necessary for takeoff or landing, pilots must not operate an aircraft over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open‐air assembly of persons, at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. Over less congested areas, pilots must maintain an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed above if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically pre‐ scribed for helicopters by the FAA. When the ATCT is inactive, Falcon Field Airport operates within Class G airspace. The Airport’s Class G airspace extends from the surface up to 4,000 feet MSL where Class B airspace begins. Special Use Airspace Special use airspace is defined as airspace where activities must be confined because of their nature or where limitations are imposed on aircraft not taking part in those activities. The designation of special use airspace identifies for other users the areas where military activity occurs, provides for segregation of that activity from other fliers, and allows charting to keep airspace users informed. These areas are depicted on Exhibit 1G. Victor Airways: For aircraft arriving or departing the regional area using very high frequency omnidirec‐ tional range (VOR) facilities, a system of Federal Airways, referred to as Victor Airways, has been estab‐ lished. Victor Airways are corridors of airspace eight miles wide that extend upward from 1,200 feet above ground level (AGL) to 18,000 feet MSL and extend between VOR navigational facilities. Victor Air‐ ways are shown with blue lines on Exhibit 1G. Inventory

1-40

For aircraft enroute or departing the Airport, there are several Victor Airways available converging at the Phoenix very high frequency omnidirectional range with tactical navigation (VORTAC) adjacent to Phoe‐ nix Sky Harbor International Airport. Military Operations Areas: A military operations area (MOA) is an area of airspace designated for mili‐ tary training use. This is not restricted airspace; however, pilots who use the airspace should be on alert for the possibility of military traffic. A pilot may need to be aware that military aircraft can be found in high concentrations, conducting aerobatic maneuvers and possibly operating at high speeds at lower altitudes. The activity status of an MOA is advertised by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and noted on sectional charts. The Outlaw MOA is located approximately 17 miles east of the Airport. There are no MOAs in close proximity to the Airport, most likely due to the congested nature of the airspace in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Restricted Airspace: Restricted areas contain airspace identified by an area on the surface of the earth within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restrictions. Activities within these areas must be confined because of their nature or limitations imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities or both. Restricted areas denote the existence of unusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft such as artillery firing, aerial gunnery, or guided missiles. Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the aircraft and its occupants. Restricted areas are published in the Federal Register and constitute Title 14 CFR Part 73, Special Use Airspace. Restricted airspace R‐2310A, B, and C lie within the Outlaw MOA to the southeast, well outside the air‐ space associated with the Airport. Alert Areas: Alert areas are often associated with high concentrations of military aircraft performing training maneuvers. Military activities in these areas typically operate at lower altitudes and may occur any time of the day or night. General aviation flights are not restricted within these areas, but pilots are strongly cautioned to be alert for high‐speed military training aircraft. Alert Area A‐231 is located approximately 26 miles northwest of the Airport. This alert area is associated with Luke Air Force Base. Prior to May 2010, Alert Area A‐231 was the only charted advisory alerting aircraft of concentrated student jet fighter training near the vicinity of Luke Air Force Base. As a result of an average of five near mid‐air collisions (NMAC) per quarter and in an effort to improve flight safety, the FAA mandated two‐way radio communication near common fighter training areas and critical flight paths near Luke Air Force Base in the form of a Special Air Traffic Rule (SATR), which amended Title 14 CFR Part 93. The SATR was implemented in May 2010 and mandates two‐way radio communication within the vertical and lateral boundaries of the charted area during periods of fighter training activity as described in the CFRs. The SATR has significantly improved flight safety in the vicinity of the largest military fighter training base in the world.

Inventory

1-41

Military Training Routes: Military training routes (MTRs) are designated airspace that has been gener‐ ally established for use by high performance military aircraft to train below 10,000 feet AGL and in excess of 250 knots. There are VR (visual) and IR (instrument) designated MTRs. MTRs with no segment above 1,500 feet AGL will be designated with the “VR” or “IR,” followed by a four‐digit number (e.g., VR1520, IR1521). MTRs with one or more segments above 1,500 feet AGL are identified by the route designation, followed by a three‐digit number (e.g., VR531). The arrows on the route show the direction of travel. There are numerous MTRs in the region. Wilderness Areas: Several wilderness areas exist in proximity to Falcon Field Airport. Aircraft are re‐ quested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above the surface of designated National Park areas, which includes wilderness areas and designated breeding grounds. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91‐ 36C defines the “surface” as the highest terrain within 2,000 feet laterally of the route of flight or the uppermost rim of a canyon or valley. The Airport is located within 20 miles of three wilderness areas including the Salt River, North McDowell, Verde River Bald Eagle Breeding Areas. AIRSPACE CONTROL The FAA has established 21 Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) throughout the continental United States to control aircraft operating under IFR within controlled airspace and while enroute. An ARTCC assigns specific routes and altitudes along Federal Airways to maintain separation and orderly traffic flow. The Albuquerque ARTCC controls IFR airspace enroute to and from Falcon Field Airport. Flight service stations (FSS) are air traffic facilities which provide pilot briefings, flight plan processing, inflight radio communications, search and rescue (SAR) services, and assistance to lost aircraft and air‐ craft in emergency situations. FSSs also relay air traffic control clearances, process NOTAMs, broadcast aviation meteorological and aeronautical information, and notify Customs and Border Protection of trans‐border flights. The Prescott FSS is the nearest FSS Facility to the Airport. AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER As previously detailed, the Falcon Field ATCT operates daily from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. From May 15 to August 15, the ATCT opens at 5:30 a.m. The tower is operated by the FAA. The ATCT is located on the south side of the parallel runway system, approximately 850 feet south of the Runway 4R‐22L centerline and immediately adja‐ cent to the east side of the terminal building. It is acces‐ sible via Falcon Drive extending north from East McKel‐ lips Road. Tower employees utilize the employee park‐ ing lot on the southwest side of the ATCT. Airport Traffic Control Tower

Inventory

1-42

The primary responsibilities for tower controllers are to sequence and separate local arriving and de‐ parting traffic and to provide ground control direction to aircraft taxiing on the ground. Tower radio frequencies are 124.6 MHz for Tower; 121.3 MHz for Ground; 120.7 for Phoenix Approach; and 120.7 for Phoenix Departure. When the tower is not operational, 124.6 MHz reverts to the CTAF and serves as the primary communication frequency. FLIGHT PROCEDURES Flight procedures are a set of predetermined maneuvers established by the FAA, using electronic or vis‐ ual navigational aids that assist pilots in locating and landing or departing from an airport. For Falcon Field Airport, there are instrument approach procedures as shown on Table 1J. Instrument Approach Procedures Instrument approach procedures are a series of predetermined maneuvers established by the FAA, using electronic navigational aids that assist pilots in locating and landing at an airport, especially during in‐ strument flight conditions. There are currently three published instrument approach procedures at the Airport. Precision instrument approaches provide vertical descent information and course guidance in‐ formation to the pilot. Non‐precision approaches only provide course guidance to the pilot; however, the relatively new area navigation (RNAV) GPS localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) ap‐ proaches are currently categorized by the FAA as a non‐precision approach even though it provides ver‐ tical guidance. Only non‐precision approaches are available for aircraft approaching Falcon Field Airport. The capability of an instrument approach procedure is defined by the visibility and cloud ceiling mini‐ mums associated with the approach. Visibility minimums define the horizontal distance the pilot must be able to see in order to complete the approach. Cloud ceilings define the lowest level a cloud layer (defined in feet above the ground) can be situated for the pilot to complete the approach. If the observed visibility or cloud ceilings are below the minimums prescribed for the approach, the pilot cannot com‐ plete the instrument approach. Table 1J summarizes FAA approved and published instrument approach procedures, including associated weather minimums for the Airport. Instrument approaches based on the GPS have become very common across the country. GPS is inex‐ pensive, as it does not require a significant investment in ground‐based systems by the airport or FAA. Runways 4L and 4R are served by RNAV GPS approaches with associated minima, as presented on Table 1J. The other published approach provides circling minimums which allow pilots the flexibility to land on the runway most closely aligned with the prevailing wind at that time. This flexibility generally requires circling approaches to have higher visibility and cloud ceiling minimums than the straight‐in approaches. This is done to provide pilots with sufficient visibility and ground clearance to navigate visually from the approach to the desired runway end for landing. The circling instrument approach procedure is non‐ precision in nature, meaning they only provide horizontal guidance to the pilot. Inventory

1-43

TABLE 1J Instrument Approach Procedures

Category A CH VIS RNAV (GPS) Runway 4L LP MDA 397 1 LNAV MDA 417 1 Circling 506 1 RNAV (GPS) Runway 4R LP MDA 297 1 LNAV MDA 417 1 Circling 506 1 RNAV (GPS) ‐ B Circling 506 1

WEATHER MINIMUMS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE Category B Category C CH VIS CH VIS

Category D CH VIS

397 417 506

1 1 1

397 417 506

1.125 1.25 1.5

N/A N/A N/A

297 417 506

1 1 1

297 417 506

1 1.25 1.5

N/A N/A N/A

506

1.5

N/A

Aircraft categories are based on the approach speed of aircraft, which is determined as 1.3 times the stall speed in landing configuration. The approach categories are as follows: Category A: 0‐90 knots (i.e., Cessna 172 Category B: 91‐120 knots (i.e., Beechcraft King Air) Category C: 121‐140 knots (i.e., Citation X, Challenger 604) Category D: 141‐165 knots (i.e., Gulfstream IV) Abbreviations: CH ‐ Cloud Height (feet above ground level) VIS ‐ Visibility (statute miles) RNAV ‐ Area Navigation GPS ‐ Global Positioning System LP ‐ Localizer Performance MDA ‐ Minimum Descent Altitude (used for non‐precision approaches) LNAV ‐ Laterial Navigation N/A ‐ Not Authorized

It should be noted that the instrument approach procedures allow for aircraft with approach speeds up to and including 140 knots. Aircraft with approach speeds between 141‐166 knots (Category D) are not authorized to conduct a straight‐in instrument approach procedure. Arrival and Departure Procedures Because of the heavily used airspace over the Phoenix metropolitan area, the FAA has established a series of standard terminal arrival (STAR) and departure procedures. A STAR is a preplanned air traffic control arrival procedure designed to provide for the transition from the enroute phase of the flight to an outer fix or an instrument approach fix in the terminal area. The six published STARs are Arlin Four, Blythe Five, Dsert Two (RNAV), Huuty One (RNAV), Jcobs Two and Sunss Eight. Departure procedures are preplanned instrument procedures which provide obstruction clearance from the terminal area to the appropriate enroute structure. These procedures can either provide obstacle clearance protection information to pilots through obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) or increase airspace efficiency and reduce communications and departure delays through standard instrument de‐ partures (SIDs). There are two departure procedures specific to Falcon Field Airport. The Mesa One is an ODP, and Sacat Three (RNAV) serves as a SID. Inventory

1-44

LOCAL OPERATING PROCEDURES The traffic pattern at the Airport is maintained to provide the safest and most efficient use of the air‐ space. A standard left‐hand traffic pattern is utilized for Runways 4L and 22L, and a right‐hand traffic pattern is utilized for Runways 4R and 22R. These traffic patterns are intended to keep proper separation of aircraft while being able to conduct operations on both parallel runways. Runways 4L and 4R are the preferred runways during calm wind conditions. The published traffic pattern altitude for large turbine‐powered aircraft is 2,900 feet MSL (1,506 feet AGL), and for smaller aircraft the traffic pattern altitude is 2,400 feet MSL (1,006 feet AGL). For helicopter activity, the published traffic pattern altitude is 1,900 feet MSL (506 feet AGL). Helicopter Operating Procedures Given the high volume of helicopter activity at the Airport, specific helicopter procedures have been implemented through a Letter of Agreement (LOA) with the Falcon Field ATCT. The purpose of the LOA is to specify responsibilities and establish procedures to be used between the ATCT personnel and heli‐ copter operators for control of operations under VFR and special VFR within the Class D airspace sur‐ rounding Falcon Field Airport. The Yankee One Pattern has been established as a result of the LOA, which addresses helicopter opera‐ tions utilizing the traffic pattern at Falcon Field Airport. The Yankee One Pattern is further defined as follows: 1) Authorizes a multiple “race‐track‐type” pattern on the north side of the Airport utilizing the Echo Ramp adjacent to the north side of Runway 4L‐22R. 2) Pattern altitude must be 1,900 feet MSL (506 feet AGL) unless otherwise requested by the pilot. 3) No more than two helicopters shall operate in the pattern at the same time. Pilots must provide their own visual separation. 4) Two‐way radio communication with the Airport’s ATCT is mandatory while operating in the pat‐ tern. 5) The Airport’s ATCT must provide preventative control to helicopters in the pattern. Preventative control means repetitious, routine approval of pilot action is eliminated and controllers intervene only when they observe a traffic conflict developing. 6) Pilots operating in the pattern must remain clear of parked or taxiing aircraft, vehicular traffic, and pedestrians. The LOA also addresses other arrival and departure procedures for helicopters utilizing the airspace as‐ sociated with the Airport. These include the Gecko One, Cactus One, and Snake One arrivals/departures. For all arrivals and departures, helicopters must maintain 1,900 feet MSL (506 feet AGL) when operating within two miles of the Airport boundary and when overflying runways. Inventory

1-45

BOEING TEST FLIGHT AREA The Boeing Company is located adjacent to the north side of Falcon Field Airport, north of East McDowell Road. The Boeing Company manufactures helicopters and conducts flight tests from its facility. A large area northeast of the Airport has been set aside for flight testing of these aircraft. Between ground level and 14,500 feet MSL, it can be expected that these aircraft will be conducting routine flight testing op‐ erations from sunrise to sunset Monday through Saturday. NOISE ABATEMENT RULES AND PROCEDURES Falcon Field Airport does not have aircraft restrictions, curfews, or a mandatory noise abatement pro‐ gram, as these programs would violate the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) of 1990. Fed‐ eral law requires the Airport to remain open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and to accept all civilian and military aircraft that can be safely accommodated. The Airport and the City of Mesa have been proactive in their approach to minimize the effects of flight operations at Falcon Field Airport by implementing the Falcon Field Airport “Fly Friendly” Program. Up‐ dated in November 2014, this program was created to establish and maintain a partnership between Airport and community stakeholders to ensure the long‐term success of the Airport, its customers, and businesses. There are many noise‐sensitive areas in the vicinity of the Airport. As a result, in 2009, the Falcon Field Task Force, consisting of Airport tenants and community members, provided a list of voluntary recommended practices for fixed‐wing aircraft and helicopters to reduce the noise impacts on surrounding neighbors of the Airport. Table 1K outlines these voluntary procedures. The recommended noise abatement proce‐ dures and other local operating procedures for pilots are further depicted in Exhibits 1H and 1J.

VICINITY AIRPORTS There are several other airports of various sizes, capacities, and functions within the vicinity of Falcon Field Airport. It is important to consider the capabilities and limitations of these airports when planning for future changes and improvements at Falcon Field Airport. In an urban setting, airports within 30 nm of each other can have some influence on the activity of the other airport. The following public use airports are within 30 nm of Falcon Field Airport with at least one paved runway.  Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport  Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport  Chandler Municipal Airport  Phoenix Deer Valley Airport  Scottsdale Airport  Glendale Municipal Airport  Stellar Airpark Airport  Ak‐Chin Regional Airport Inventory

1-46

-ESA &ALCON &IELD !IRPORT &&: CONTACT TOWER PRIOR TO ENTERING CLASS “D” AIRSPACE TWR (S & E) 124.60 TWR (N & W) 119.70 GRD 121.30 CTAF 124.60 UNICOM 122.95 PHX APP/DEP 119.20 PRC AFSS 122.60 ATIS 118.25 ATIS # (480) 641-9378

ARRIVALS » Use Runway 4R/4L whenever possible. » Avoid low-level, high-power approaches. » Fly high and tight patterns. Follow the PAPI. » Use reduced power setting to fullest extent possible and with as few power changes as possible.

FREQUENCIES SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE. CHECK ATIS FOR CURRENT FREQUENCY ASSIGNMENTS. %LEVATION FT MSL . 7 Trafﬁc Pattern Altitudes: Light Aircraft: 2400 (MSL)/1006 (AGL) High-Performance Aircraft: 2900 (MSL)/1506 (AGL) Helicopters: 1,900 (MSL); 506 (AGL)

Inventory

DEPARTURES » Use Runway 4R/4L whenever possible. » #LIMB AT 6Y SPEED UNTIL REACHING TRAFÚC PATTERN ALTITUDE » Avoid early turnouts when departing on Runway 4R. » Avoid low-level, high-power departures. 1-47

Exhibit 1H RECOMMENDED NOISE ABATEMENT PRACTICES FOR FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT

Mesa-Falcon Field Airport (FFZ) CONTACT TOWER PRIOR TO ENTERING CLASS “D” AIRSPACE

HELICOPTER TRAINING OPERATIONS 1: #ONTACT &ALCON 4OWER &!! TO DISCUSS ,/! for coded operations and training procedures. 2: Remain east of Roosevelt Canal when training.

472 3 % 472 . 7 '2$ #4!& 5.)#/- 0(8 !00 $%0 02# !&33 !4)3 !4)3

FREQUENCIES SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE. CHECK ATIS FOR CURRENT FREQUENCY ASSIGNMENTS. Elevation 1,394 ft MSL N 33°27.65’ W111°43.70’ Trafﬁc Pattern Altitudes: ,IGHT !IRCRAFT -3, (AGL) (IGH 0ERFORMANCE !IRCRAFT -3, (AGL) (ELICOPTERS -3, (AGL) within 2 miles OF THE ÚELD

TRANSITIONING THE AREA (ELICOPTERS TRANSITIONING WITHIN MILES OF THE ÚELD SHOULD EXPECT A MID ÚELD CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO RUNWAYS FOLLOWING MID ÚELD 4AXIWAY " -3,

All information provided is subject to change. Verify before use.

Inventory

1-48

Exhibit 1J RECOMMENDED NOISE ABATEMENT PRACTICES FOR HELICOPTERS

TABLE 1K Recommended Noise Abatement Practices Falcon Field Airport Fixed‐Wing Aircraft  Use Runway 4R/4L whenever possible (calm wind runway).  Avoid low‐level, high‐power approaches/departures. Used reduced power setting whenever possible.  Fly high, tight patterns (3/4 – 1 mile down wind) whenever possible consistent with safety. Follow the PAPI.  Climb at Vy speed until reaching traffic pattern altitude.  Avoid early turnouts when departing Runway 4R.  Maintain at or above 2,400 feet MSL overpopulated areas.  Training operations use Runway 4L‐22R whenever possible.  Avoid training operations between 10:00 p.m. and 5:30 a.m. local time.  Simulated engine failure training should only occur when a safe runway landing is assured.  When Class G airspace is in effect, use right traffic for Runway 22 and left traffic for Runway 4.  Avoid creating a sudden noise event – make smooth, slow power adjustments. Helicopters  Reduce airspeed below maximum cruising speed to minimize blade slap.  Climb at best rate to reach altitude as quickly as possible. Avoid maximum power climbs.  Arrivals/departures per Letter of Agreement (LOA) or as directed by the tower.  Minimize time spent hovering.  Avoid sharp maneuvers such as rapid high “G” turns.  Avoid low level, high power approaches/departures.  Remain east of Roosevelt Canal when training.  Operations within two miles of the Airport, maintain 1,900 feet MSL.  Simulated engine failure training should only occur when a safe landing at the Airport is assured.  Avoid creating a sudden noise event – make smooth, slow power adjustments.  Avoid training flights before 8:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. local time. These practices are recommended; some may not be advisable for every aircraft in every situation. Flight safety is the #1 priority. Noise abatement practices should never compromise safety. Source: Airport Records

Exhibit 1K provides information on the roles, facilities, services, and operational levels these airports experience. Information pertaining to each airport was obtained from FAA Form 5010‐1, Airport Master Record. From this analysis of public use airports in the region, it is evident that there are several facilities serving the needs of all types of aviation activity. Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport primarily cater to scheduled commercial airline activity and large corporate jets. Phoe‐ nix‐Mesa Gateway Airport also provides facilities and services that accommodate smaller general avia‐ tion aircraft. Except for Stellar Airpark and Ak‐Chin Regional Airport, the other airports provide an array of services that cater to general aviation needs, including some business jets. The primary runway lengths at certain airports, such as Chandler Municipal, Stellar Airpark, and Ak‐Chin Regional, can some‐ what limit the use of larger aircraft from being able to fully operate at these facilities. Even with the existence of several aviation facilities nearby, Falcon Field Airport is positioned well due to the full range of services it has to offer. The vicinity airports each have unique qualities that may serve a specific segment of aviation. These factors must be considered carefully in determining the service area for Falcon Field Airport, which will be discussed in the next chapter. Inventory

1-49

LAND USE Not unlike many airports in the United States, area land use surrounding the Airport can have a signifi‐ cant impact on airport operations and growth. Understanding the land use issues surrounding Falcon Field Airport will assist in making appropriate recommendations for the future sustainability of the Air‐ port in the way of both environmental compatibility and economic development. EXISTING LAND USE The Airport is in the northern part of the City of Mesa, Arizona, approximately 1.5 miles south of the Loop 202. The Airport is surrounded by a variety of land uses, including industrial, open space, agricul‐ ture, commercial, and residential developments. To the north, northeast, and south there are primarily industrial uses with pockets of vacant land areas. The property west of North Greenfield Road to the Roosevelt Canal is mostly Airport‐owned and used for agriculture, some of which is planted with orange trees. Much of the area to the east consists of golf courses, including the Apache Wells Golf Course to the east, the Longbow Golf Club to the northeast, and the Alta Mesa Golf Club to the southeast. There are also single and multi‐family residential developments west of the Roosevelt Canal and south of East McKellips Road and in the areas surrounding Apache Wells and Alta Mesa golf courses. Lastly, Falcon Field Park is considered an active open space land use and is located on Airport property.1 Existing land uses are illustrated on Exhibit 1L. ZONING The intent of the zoning map and ordinance in the City of Mesa are to implement the General Plan, as well as promote public health, safety and welfare. Proper zoning encourages development patterns that improve air quality, promote energy conservation and renewable energy production, integrate land use mobility, create housing diversity, improve community health and safety, maximize water conservation strategies, and reduce storm water pollution.2 The zoning ordinance also regulates the use, size, and height of structures to ensure compatible development. The City of Mesa’s zoning strategy is known as a Euclidean Code, which concentrates similar uses and separates land uses that may be considered in‐ compatible. Zoning on and around the Airport is shown on Exhibit 1M. Most of the Airport is zoned as Light Industrial (LI), but Airport‐owned land between North Greenfield Road and the Roosevelt Canal is zoned for Public and Semi‐Public (PS) and Planned Employment Park (PEP). Farther west, beyond the Roosevelt Canal, are areas zoned for Residential (RS) (refer to Exhibit 1M for residential density allotments). Two areas adjacent to the southern Airport property boundary are zoned for Limited Commercial (LC) and RS. South of East McKellips Road, the land is zoned for industrial and commercial uses. The entire area north of the Airport from East McDowell Road to Loop 202 is zoned for commercial and industrial uses. East and 1

Land use analysis is based on the Maricopa Association of Governments Land Use Explorer mapping tool, http://geo.az‐

mag.gov/maps/landuse/ (accessed February 22, 2018). This is My Mesa: Mesa 2040 General Plan Chapter 9: Environmental Planning, Preservation and Conservation, June 2014.

Inventory

1-50

PHOENIX-MESA GATEWAY AIRPORT (IWA) Airport NPIAS Classification: . . Primary Commercial Service FAA Asset Study Classification:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None Location from FFZ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 nm SE Elevation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,383.9' Weather Reporting: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AWOS ATCT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Annual Operations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253,006 Based Aircraft: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Enplaned Passengers: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608,894

PRIMARY RUNWAY Length: Width: Pavement Strength (lbs): SWL DWL 2D Lighting: Marking: Approach Aids: Instrument Approach Procedures:

Airport NPIAS Classification: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliever FAA Asset Study Classification:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regional Location from FFZ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 nm SW Elevation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,243.1' Weather Reporting: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AWOS ATCT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Annual Operations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215,183 Based Aircraft: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Enplaned Passengers: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

12R-30L 10,401' 150' 55,000 95,000 185,000 HIRL Precision PAPI-4, REILs

ILS/LOC; RNAV (GPS);RNAV (RNP); VOR/TACAN Services Provided. . . . . . Scheduled Airlines, Fuel (100LL & Jet A); Hangars; Maintenance; Tiedowns; Air Ambulance; Avionics; Cargo; Charter; Instruction; Sales

SCOTTSDALE AIRPORT (SDL)

4R-22L 4,870' 75 30,000 N/A N/A MIRL Non-Precision PAPI-4; REILs RNAV (GPS); VOR; NDB

Services Provided. . . . . . Fuel (100LL & Jet A); Hangars; Maintenance; Tiedowns; Agriculture; Avionics; Charter; Instruction; Rental; Sales

Airport NPIAS Classification: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None FAA Asset Study Classification:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None Location from FFZ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 nm SW Elevation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,176.5' Weather Reporting: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None ATCT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None Annual Operations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,000 Based Aircraft: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Enplaned Passengers: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

3-21 8,249' 100' 45,000 75,000 N/A MIRL Non-Precision PAPI-2; REILs RNAV (GPS); RNAV (RNP); VOR/DME

Services Provided. . . . . . Fuel (100LL & Jet A); Hangars; Maintenance; Tiedowns; Air Ambulance; Avionics; Charter; Instruction; Rental; Sales

Inventory

PRIMARY RUNWAY Length: Width: Pavement Strength (lbs): SWL DWL 2D Lighting: Marking: Approach Aids: Instrument Approach Procedures:

STELLAR AIRPARK AIRPORT (P19)

Airport NPIAS Classification: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliever FAA Asset Study Classification:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Location from FFZ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 nm NW Elevation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,510.1' Weather Reporting: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASOS ATCT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Annual Operations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152,586 Based Aircraft: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 Enplaned Passengers: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

PRIMARY RUNWAY Length: Width: Pavement Strength (lbs): SWL DWL 2D Lighting: Marking: Approach Aids: Instrument Approach Procedures:

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (CHD)

PRIMARY RUNWAY Length: Width: Pavement Strength (lbs): SWL DWL 2D Lighting: Marking: Approach Aids: Instrument Approach Procedures:

KEY

AWOS - Automated Weather Observation System ASOS - Automated Surface Observation System NPIAS - National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ATCT - Airport Traffic Control Tower SWL - Single Wheel Loading DWL - Dual Wheel Loading 2D - Dual Tandem Wheel Loading HIRL - High Intensity Runway Lighting MIRL - Medium Intensity Runway Lighting PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator REIL - Runway End Identification Light MALSR - Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights MALSF - Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights ILS - Instrument Landing System LOC - Localizer RNAV - Area Navigation GPS - Global Positioning System RNP - Required Navigation Performance VOR - Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range DME - Distance Measuring Equipment TACAN - Tactical Air Navigation NDB - Non-Directional Beacon nm - Nautical Miles N/A - Not Applicable

17-35 3,914' 60' N/A N/A N/A MIRL Basic PAPI-2; REILs None

Services Provided. . . . . . Fuel (100LL); Maintenance; Tiedowns

1-51

Exhibit 1K VICINITY AIRPORTS

PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (PHX) Airport NPIAS Classification: . . Primary Commercial Service FAA Asset Study Classification:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None Location from FFZ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 nm W Elevation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,134.6' Weather Reporting: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASOS ATCT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Annual Operations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437,847 Based Aircraft: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Enplaned Passengers: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,462,068

PRIMARY RUNWAY Length: Width: Pavement Strength (lbs): SWL DWL 2D Lighting: Marking: Approach Aids: Instrument Approach Procedures:

Airport NPIAS Classification: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliever FAA Asset Study Classification:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Location from FFZ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 nm NW Elevation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,478.1' Weather Reporting: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASOS ATCT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Annual Operations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349,046 Based Aircraft: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954 Enplaned Passengers: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

8-26 11,489' 150' 30,000 200,000 455,000 HIRL Precision PAPI-4; REILs; MALSR; MALSF ILS/LOC; RNAV (GPS); RNAV (RNP)

Services Provided. . . . . . Scheduled Airlines; Fuel (100LL & Jet A); Hangars; Maintenance; Tiedowns; Military; Air Ambulance; Avionics; Cargo; Charter; Sales

GLENDALE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (GEU) Airport NPIAS Classification: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliever FAA Asset Study Classification:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regional Location from FFZ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.6 nm W Elevation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,071.3' Weather Reporting: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AWOS ATCT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Annual Operations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,086 Based Aircraft: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Enplaned Passengers: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

PRIMARY RUNWAY Length: Width: Pavement Strength (lbs): SWL DWL 2D Lighting: Marking: Approach Aids: Instrument Approach Procedures:

7R-25L 8,196' 100' 20,000 91,000 255,000 MIRL Non-Precision PAPI-2; REILs RNAV (GPS)

Services Provided. . . . . . Fuel (100LL & Jet A); Hangars; Maintenance; Tiedowns; Air Ambulance; Avionics; Charter; Instruction; Rental; Sales

AK-CHIN REGIONAL AIRPORT (A39) Airport NPIAS Classification: . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Aviation FAA Asset Study Classification:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Location from FFZ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 nm SW Elevation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,307.0' Weather Reporting: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AWOS ATCT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None Annual Operations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,682 Based Aircraft: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Enplaned Passengers: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

1-19 7,150' 100' 40,000 60,000 N/A MIRL Non-Precision PAPI-2; REILs RNAV (GPS)

Services Provided. . . . . . Fuel (100LL & Jet A); Hangars; Maintenance; Tiedowns; Air Ambulance; Avionics; Charter; Instruction; Rental; Sales

Inventory

PHOENIX DEER VALLEY AIRPORT (DVT)

PRIMARY RUNWAY Length: Width: Pavement Strength (lbs): SWL DWL 2D Lighting: Marking: Approach Aids: Instrument Approach Procedures:

KEY

4-22 4,751' 50' N/A N/A N/A MIRL Non-Precision None None

Services Provided. . . . . . Fuel (100LL); Maintenance; Tiedowns

1-52

Exhibit 1K (continued) VICINITY AIRPORTS

LEGEND Single Family Low Density

Educational

Single Family Medium Density

Institutional/Religious

Single Family High Density

Public/Special Event/Military

Multi Family

Open Space

Commercial Low

Water

Commercial High

Agriculture

Industrial

Developing Residential

Office

Developing Employment

Vacant

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT

NOT NO NOT N O OT T TO TO SCALE TO SCAL SC ALE A LE LE

Inventory Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2016

1-53

Exhibit 1L EXISTING LAND USE MAP

LI AG

RS-35

LEGEND AG RS-# RSL-# RM-# LC GC OC LI GI HI PEP PS

Agricultural PEP Residential- Single Dwelling PEP Residential - Small Lot Single Dwelling ResidentialRS-90 - Multiple Dwelling LI Limited Commercial General Commercial LC Office Commercial Light Industrial General Industrial Heavy Industrial LI Planned Employment Park Public and Semi-Public

RM-4 RM-2

LI PEP FALCON FIELD AIRPORT

RS-35

RS-7

LC RM-3 RS-43

LC PS

RM-4

RM-3

RS-6

RS-7

RS-35

RM-2

RS-6

RS-7

E MCLELLAN RD

RS-15

RS-9

RS-35

RS-7

Source: City of Mesa, GIS, 2016

OC RS-7

NOT NOT N OT OT TO TO SCALE TO SCA SC ALE AL LE L E

Inventory

RSL-4.5

RS-6 RS-9

1-54

RS-6 LC

RS-6 RS-7

OC LC AG

RS-9

RS-7

RS-43

RS-15

RS-7

OC RM-3

RM-2

LC RM-2

RS-7

RS-7 RM-2

Exhibit 1M ZONING MAP

southeast of the Airport along North Higley Road are primarily residential zones, as well as some LC designated areas. As an additional land use aid, the City of Mesa Zoning Ordinance establishes an Airfield (AF) Overlay District, as shown on Exhibit 1N.3 The purpose of the AF Overlay District is to recognize the effects and hazards associated with the operation of aircraft in designated areas. This district is intended to promote the public health and safety near aircraft operation areas by establishing runway protection zones (RPZs) and Overflight Areas, as well as designating permitted land uses, public notification and noise attenua‐ tion requirements, and to encourage future development with compatible and supportive uses. Nearby land uses that are considered noise‐sensitive are discussed in the Environmental Inventory, Noise and Compatible Land Use section.

SOCIOECONOMICS Socioeconomic characteristics are collected and examined to derive an understanding of the dynamics of growth near an airport. This information is crucial in determining aviation demand level requirements, as most general aviation demand is directly related to the socioeconomic condition of the surrounding region. Statistical analysis of population, employment, and income trends provide a picture of the eco‐ nomic strength of the region, as well as the ability of the area to sustain a strong economic base into the future. Additional socioeconomic data will be provided in the Forecast chapter (Chapter Two); however, the information provided in this chapter will introduce the socioeconomic trends in the study area. POPULATION Population is a key socioeconomic factor to consider when planning for future airport needs. Historical and forecast trends in population provide an indication of the potential of the region to sustain growth in aviation activity. Population data for the City of Mesa, as well as surrounding jurisdictions, Maricopa County, the Phoenix‐Mesa‐Scottsdale Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA),4 and the State of Arizona are discussed to provide the past and present population metrics of the region within which the Airport operates. The Phoenix‐Mesa‐Scottsdale MSA includes Maricopa and Pinal Counties, which combined contain over 30 towns, cities, and recognized tribal land areas. Table 1L presents population data for the jurisdictions that are adjacent to the City of Mesa and thus have economic influences on one another. Overall popu‐ lation trends indicate growth, except for the Salt River Reservation, whose population has declined since 2000. The Airport is in the City of Mesa, which has experienced growth since 2000. The Falcon Field Economic Area Strategic Plan (August 2014) further breaks down the area that encompasses the Airport, which it defines as the Falcon Field Economic Activity Area (FFEAA), which had a population of 61,916 in 2014. 3

City of Mesa Zoning Ordinance, Article 3: Overlay Zones, Chapter 19, http://www.mesaaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=12464

(accessed January 9, 2018). 4 Also known as the Phoenix‐Mesa‐Glendale MSA.

Inventory

1-55

line Bee

. Hw y

U/Red Mountain Fwy. V R 22 L 22

202

N. Bush Hwy.

N. Gilbert Rd.

R 4L 4

E. University Dr.

LEGEND Runway Centerlines Airport Property Airport Overlay

Inventory

£ ¤ /Superstition Fwy. 60

1-56

Source: ESRI Basemap Imagery (2016); City of Mesa Zoning Ordinance (August 2017)

1" = 1 Mile

Exhibit 1N AIRFIELD OVERLAY ZONE

TABLE 1L Population Statistics Location

2000

2010

AAGR (2000‐ 2010) 1.03% 0.70% 0.19% 2.95%

2013

2014

2015

2016

AAGR (2013‐2016) 0.94% 1.73% 1.69% 0.44%

City of Mesa 396,375 439,041 450,310 455,567 460,950 467,532 City of Scottsdale 202,705 217,385 222,213 225,698 231,204 237,969 City of Tempe 158,625 161,719 165,158 169,529 172,021 176,584 City of Chandler 176,581 236,123 246,197 249,423 255,073 250,547 City of Apache 31,814 35,840 1.20% 37,623 37,639 38,437 39,118 0.98% Junction Town of Gilbert 109,697 208,453 6.63% 227,603 235,493 242,857 239,931 1.33% Town of 4,316 26,361 19.84% 29,510 31,767 33,967 36,096 5.17% Queen Creek Town of 20,235 22,489 1.06% 22,893 23,090 23,346 23,638 0.80% Fountain Hills Salt River 6,405 6,289 ‐0.18% 6,475 6,132 6,197 6,153 ‐1.27% Reservation1 Maricopa County 3,072,149 3,817,117 2.19% 3,944,859 4,008,651 4,076,438 4,137,076 1.20% Pinal County 179,727 375,770 7.65% 393,813 396,237 406,468 413,312 1.22% Phoenix‐Mesa‐ 4,273,897 4,338,672 0.15% 4,338,672 4,404,888 4,482,906 4,550,388 1.20% Scottsdale MSA2 State of Arizona 6,498,569 6,581,054 0.13% 6,581,054 6,667,241 6,758,251 6,835,518 0.95% 1Salt River Reservation 2013 ‐ 2016 figures were only available from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5‐Year Esti‐ mates. 2Also known as Phoenix‐Mesa‐Glendale MSA AAGR: Annual Average Growth Rate MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Census; Office of Employment and Population Statistics, Arizona Department of Administra‐ tion (2013 ‐ 2016 figures) (https://ebr.eller.arizona.edu/current‐indicators/phoenix‐mesa‐scottsdale‐msa).

EMPLOYMENT The FFEAA, the boundary of which is shown on Exhibit 1P, is an approximate 35‐square mile area bor‐ dered by the Salt River Reservation to the north, Brown Road in the south, Gilbert Road to the west and Ellsworth Road on the east. Based on the Falcon Field Economic Activity Area Strategic Plan (2014), there are almost 19,000 people employed in this area by over 650 companies in varying industries, as broken down in Table 1M. Table 1M illustrates a diverse employment market in the FFEAA, much of which relies on the Airport for success. The Mesa 2040 General Plan (2014) states that aerospace and aviation are one of four “indus‐ tries of opportunity” for the City of Mesa. Because the area around Falcon Field Airport is imperative for future economic growth, the General Plan emphasizes the importance of responsible land use decisions to ensure aviation resources, like the Airport, are protected. The City of Mesa projects 10,000 additional jobs in the Falcon Field area by 2040. Much of the infrastructure necessary to support this job growth is already in place due to the planning efforts of the City of Mesa.5 5

This is My Mesa: Mesa 2040 General Plan, Chapter 5: Growing and Maintaining Diverse and Stable Jobs, June 2014.

Inventory

1-57

TABLE 1M Falcon Field Economic Activity Area Employers by Industry Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Employees Total Companies Total Business Services 1,229 6.49% 88 13.11% Construction 2,457 12.97% 129 19.23% Consumer Goods Manufacturing 159 0.84% 10 1.49% Consumer Services 1.517 8.01% 81 12.07% Education 1,265 6.68% 21 3.13% Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 551 2.91% 42 6.26% Government, Social and Advocacy Services 668 3.53% 50 7.45% Health Care 767 4.05% 63 9.39% High‐Tech Manufacturing and Development 5,704 30.11% 19 2.83% Hospitality, Tourism and Recreation 405 2.14% 18 2.68% Media, Publishing and Entertainment 35 0.18% 4 0.60% Metal Inputs and Transportation Related Manufacturing 339 1.79% 9 1.34% Non‐Metallic Manufacturing 542 2.86% 10 1.49% Resource‐dependent Activities 253 1.34% 12 1.79% Retail 1,687 8.90% 65 9.69% Telecommunications 17 0.09% 2 0.30% Transportation and Distribution 1,352 7.14% 48 7.15% Total 18,947 100.00% 671 100.00% Source: Falcon Field Economic Activity Area Strategic Plan, Chart A: 2013 Falcon Field Area Employers by Industry, August 2014. Industry Sector

Specifically, the Airport supports both small and large international aviation‐related businesses, includ‐ ing Boeing, MD Helicopters, Nammo Talley, and The Timkey Company. These companies employ over 5,000 people. These businesses are represented in Table 1M by the High‐Tech Manufacturing and De‐ velopment sector, which employs the greatest number of people of any sector in the FFEAA (30.11%). Due to the number of people employed by businesses in the FFEAA, the City of Mesa deliberately makes the development process in the FFEAA streamlined to ensure that it remains dense with employment opportunities. Exhibit 1Q provides a snapshot of employment trends within the broader area of the City of Mesa, as well as the demographics of employers, including age of worker and commuter patterns. INCOME Income trends within the Phoenix‐Mesa‐Scottsdale MSA and City of Mesa are shown in Table 1N. The Phoenix‐Mesa‐Scottsdale MSA has experienced annual growth from 2011 to 2016, whereas the City of Mesa declined from 2011 through 2013. However, the City of Mesa showed greater per capita income growth than the MSA from 2015 to 2016, also outpacing the national average, which declined in this same timeframe. Demographics at the block group level that contains the Airport are included in the Socioeconomics sec‐ tion of the Environmental Inventory.

Inventory

1-58

LEGEND Airport Property Line Economic Activity Area

Nor

H eline e B h t

Red Mountain Fwy

Roos

East McDowell Rd

Cana

North Hawes Rd

evelt

202

Inventory

1-59

North Power Rd

North Recker Rd

North Higley Rd.

North Greenfield Rd.

North Val Vista Dr

North Lindsay Rd North Gilbert Rd

North Stapley Dr

East McKellips Rd.

Exhibit 1P FALCON FIELD ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AREA

This page intentionally left blank

Inventory

1-60

POPULATION GROWTH

Mesa Resident and Worker Occupation Mix 15

Number of respondents (thousands)

Population (in thousands)

500

450 0

400 0

350

300 2000

‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04

2005

‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09

2010

‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14

2015

Work In, Live Out Live & Work In Live In, Work Out

Admin, Business, Production, Community Sales & Personal Engineering, Technical Clerical, Financial, Construction, Support, Marketing Care & Research, Support Retail Professional Transport Teaching Services Design

‘16

Jobs by Size Jo 19%

mesa az

The Mesa Area has 5,690 businesses with 5 or more employees constituting 137,190 jobs. This represents 8.3% of jobs throughout the Metropolitan Planning Organization region.

Top 10 Employers

Jobs 8,740

mesa az

Mesa Unified School District 4

8,440

City Of Mesa

3,720

27%

5 to 19 jobs 20 to 99 jobs

17%

100 to 249 jobs

38%

250+ jobs

Employer Size

Number of Businesses

Total Jobs

5 to 19 jobs

4,140

36,400

20 to 99 jobs

1,340

52,110

100 to 249 jobs

160

23,130

250+ jobs

25,550

3,470 2,600 1,280 1,260 Home Depot

1,000

County Of Maricopa

990

Gilbert Unified School District 41

980

Inventory

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT

1-61

Exhibit 1Q CITY OF MESA SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE

Source: Maricopa County Association of Governments, Mesa 2016 Employment Report

TABLE 1N Per Capita Income 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Phoenix‐Mesa‐Scottsdale MSA Per Capita Income1 $36,568.45 $38,233.78 $38,666.36 $40,435.63 $42,228.55 $43,249.38 Percent Annual 4.77% 4.55% 1.13% 4.58% 4.43% 2.42% Change City of Mesa Per Capita Personal $24,872 $24,570 $24,155 $24,427 $24,724 $25,669 Income1 Percent Annual 0.91% ‐1.21% ‐1.69% 1.13% 1.22% 3.82% Change 1 Per Capita Personal Income refers to the average income earned per person annually in a given area. Source: University of Arizona Economic and Business Research Center (https://ebr.eller.arizona.edu/current‐indica‐ tors/phoenix‐mesa‐scottsdale‐msa) (accessed February 20, 2018); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5‐ Year Estimates, Table B19301.

ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY

The Environmental Inventory addresses existing conditions at the Airport and its environs. This inventory is intended to help identify relevant environmental issues that should be considered during preparation of the Master Plan. The inventory is organized using the resource categories contained in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (2015). Available information regarding the environmental conditions at the Airport and within the surrounding area has been derived from internet resources, agency maps, and existing literature.

AIR QUALITY

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) based on health risks for six pollutants:

    



Carbon monoxide (CO) Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Lead (Pb) Ozone (O3)

Two sizes of particulate matter (PM): PM10 is PM measuring less than or equal to 10 micrometers. PM2.5 is PM measuring less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers.

An area with ambient air concentrations exceeding the NAAQS for a criteria pollutant is said to be a nonattainment area for the pollutant’s NAAQS, while an area where ambient concentrations are below the NAAQS is considered an attainment area. The EPA requires that areas designated as nonattainment demonstrate how they will attain the NAAQS by an established deadline. To accomplish this, states are required to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which are typically a comprehensive set of re‐ duction strategies and emissions budgets designed to bring the area into attainment.

Inventory

1-62

The Airport is in Maricopa County, Arizona. According to the U.S. EPA’s Green Book – National Area and County‐Level Multi‐Pollutant Information, the Phoenix‐Mesa part of Maricopa County is in moderate nonattainment for 8‐Hour Ozone (2008 standard) since 2012 and in serious nonattainment for PM10 since 1992.6 Exhibit 1R explains the criteria for each regulated pollutant.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is charged with overseeing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), specifically Section 7, which sets forth requirements for consultation to determine if a proposed action “may affect” a federally endangered or threatened species. If an agency determines that an action “may affect” a federally protected species, then Section 7(a)(2) requires the agency to consult with USFWS to ensure that any action the agency authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. If a species has been listed as a candidate species, Section 7(a)(4) states that each agency must confer with USFWS. Additional federal laws protecting biological resources include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which prohibits activities that would harm migratory birds, their eggs, or nests, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which prohibits the take (defined as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb”) of bald and golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs, without a permit. Executive Order (E.O.) 13312, Invasive Species aims to prevent the introduction of invasive species because of a proposed action. (E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands is discussed under the Water Resources section of this report.) The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) report indicates that there is potential for activities at the Airport to impact four protected species. A biological survey will be conducted at the Airport as part of the Master Plan process, which will include findings on the potential for protected species. These findings are discussed in the Environmental Overview later in the Master Plan. Per USFWS, the protected species with potential to occur include:  Lesser long‐nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) – Endangered, Mammal  California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) – Endangered, Bird  Yellow‐billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) – Threatened, Bird  Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) – Endangered, Bird

There are no critical habitats7 on or near Airport property.

Table 1P lists bird species protected under the MBTA and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act that may be affected by activities at the Airport; it is not an exhaustive list of every bird species potentially found at this location. 6

EPA Green Book, Arizona Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for all Criteria Pollutants, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_az.html (accessed January 8, 2018). 7 Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the Endangered Species Act. It is a specific geographic area that contains features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species, which may require special management and protection (USFWS).

Inventory

1-63

POLLUTANT Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Lead (Pb)

PRIMARY/ SECONDARY

AVERAGING TIME

LEVEL

primary

8 hours

9 ppm

1 hour

35 ppm

primary and secondary

Rolling 3 month average

0.15 μg/m3 (1)

primary

1 hour

100 ppb

98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years

primary and secondary

1 year

53 ppb (2)

Annual Mean

primary and secondary

8 hours

0.070 ppm (3)

primary

1 year

12.0 μg/m3

annual mean, averaged over 3 years

secondary

1 year

15.0 μg/m3

annual mean, averaged over 3 years

primary and secondary

24 hours

35 μg/m3

primary and secondary

24 hours

150 μg/m3

Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years

primary

1 hour

75 ppb (4)

99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years

secondary

3 hours

0.5 ppm

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Ozone (O3)

PM2.5 Particle Pollution (PM)

PM10

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

UNITS OF MEASURE: ppm - parts per million by volume

ppb - parts per billion by volume

FORM Not to be exceeded more than once per year Not to be exceeded

Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years

98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

Not to be exceeded more than once per year

µg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter of air

1) In areas designated nonattainment for the Pb standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for which implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 μg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect. (2) The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of ppb for the purposes of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard level. (3) Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) O3 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards. (4) The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2) any area for which an implementation plan providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard has not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a SIP call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)). A SIP call is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment of the required National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Inventory Source: EPA Green Book (date current as of February 28, 2018)

1-64

Exhibit 1R: NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

TABLE 1P Birds Protected Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Falcon Field Airport Protected Species (Scientific Name) Breeding Season Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Oct 15 – Aug 31 Bendire’s thrahser (Toxostoma bendirei) Mar 15 – Jul 31 Black‐chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis) Apr 15 – Jul 31 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Mar 15 – Aug 31 Clark’s Grebe (Aechmophorus clarkia) Jan 1 – Dec 31 Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae) Jan 15 – Jun 10 Elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi) May 1‐ Jul 15 Gila woodpecker (Melanerpes uropygialis) Apr 1 – Aug 31 Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Dec 1 – Aug 31 Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinior) May 10 – Aug 20 Lawrence’s goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei) Mar 20 – Sep 20 Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) Feb 15 – Jun 20 Long‐billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Breeds elsewhere Marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa) Breeds elsewhere Rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) Breeds elsewhere Rufous‐winged sparrow (Aimophila carpalis) Jun 15 – Sep 30 Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) Breeds elsewhere Willet (Tringa semipalmata) Breeds elsewhere Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Conservation (accessed January 8, 2018).

CLIMATE The EPA’s Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emis‐ Carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2e, is sions and Sinks 1990‐2015, found that the transportation sec‐ used to describe different green‐ tor, which includes aviation, accounted for 27 percent of house gases (GHG) in a common unit. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States in 2015. For any quantity and type of GHG, Of this, aviation contributed 160.7 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), or nearly nine percent of CO2e represents the amount of CO2 all transportation emissions.8, 9 Transportation sources in‐ that would have the equivalent clude cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Most of the GHG global warming potential. emissions from transportation are carbon dioxide (CO2) emis‐ sions resulting from the combustion of petroleum‐based products in internal combustion engines. Rela‐ tively insignificant amounts of methane (CH4), hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are emit‐ ted during fuel combustion.

From 1990 to 2015, total transportation emissions increased. The upward trend is largely due to in‐ creased demand for travel; however, much of this travel was done in passenger cars and light‐duty trucks. In addition to transportation‐related emissions, Figure 1A shows all GHG emissions sources in the United States in 2015.

Aviation activity consists of emissions from jet fuel and aviation gasoline consumed by commercial aircraft, general aviation, and military aircraft. 9 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2015, Table 2‐13, 2017 (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inven‐ tory‐us‐greenhouse‐gas‐emissions‐and‐sinks‐1990‐2015).

Inventory

1-65

Increasing concentrations of GHGs can affect global climate by trapping heat in Agriculture the Earth's atmosphere. Scientific meas‐ 9% Industry urements have shown that Earth’s cli‐ 21% mate is warming, with concurrent im‐ pacts, including warmer air tempera‐ Electricity tures, rising sea levels, increased storm Production Commercial activity, and greater intensity in precipi‐ 29% & Residential tation events. This climate change is a 12% global phenomenon that can also have local impacts (IPCC 2014). GHGs, such as water vapor (H2O), CO2, CH4, N2O, and ozone (O3), are both naturally occurring Transportation 27% and anthropogenic (man‐made). Research has also shown a direct correla‐ FIGURE 1A TOTAL U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY ECONOMIC SECTOR IN 2015 tion between fuel combustion and GHG SOURCE: U.S. EPA, 2017 (HTTPS://WWW.EPA.GOV/GHGEMISSIONS/SOURCES‐ emissions. GHGs from anthropogenic GREENHOUSE‐GAS‐EMISSIONS) NOTE: MAY NOT ADD TO 100% DUE TO ROUNDING. sources include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, per‐ fluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexaflu‐ oride (SF6). CO2 is the most important anthropogenic GHG because it is a long‐lived gas that remains in the atmosphere for up to 100 years. COASTAL RESOURCES Federal activities involving or affecting coastal resources are governed by the Coastal Barriers Resource Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and E.O. 13089, Coral Reef Protection. There are no coastal resources near the Airport, nor is the Airport in a coastal area. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) ACT: SECTION 4(f) Section 4(f) of the DOT Act, which was recodified and renumbered as Section 303(c) of Title 49 United States Code (USC), states that the Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land from a historic site, public park, recreation area, or waterfowl or wildlife refuge of national, state, regional, or local importance unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. The term “use” includes not only the physical taking of such lands, but “constructive use” of such lands. “Constructive use” of lands occurs when “a project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired” (Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 771.135). Inventory

1-66

Table 1Q lists all nationally registered his‐ toric places and public parks near the Air‐ port (see Exhibit 1S for park locations). There are no recreation areas, wildlife ref‐ uges or wilderness areas within five miles of the Airport. In addition to sites listed in Ta‐ ble 1Q, The Roosevelt Canal, one‐quarter mile west of the Airport, was built in the late 1920s as an earthen canal, later lined with concrete. The canal was important upon its initial implementation, and to this day con‐ veys water through the Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD) service area. The Roosevelt Canal has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A for its asso‐ ciation with important events in history.10 FARMLANDS

TABLE 1Q Section 4(f) Protected Resources Distance from Direction from Name Airport Airport National Register of Historic Location Buckthorn Baths Motel 2.7 miles Southeast Falcon Field World War 0.0 miles On‐Airport II Aviation Hangars Public Parks Longbow Golf Club 0.05 miles Northeast Alta Mesa Park 0.6 miles Southeast Gene Autry Park 0.25 miles Southwest Quail Run Park 0.60 miles Northwest Falcon Field Park1 0.0 miles On‐Airport 1 This park contains a World War II Royal Air Force Memorial. Source: Google Earth (accessed January 8, 2018); U.S. Geological Survey (accessed January 2018); SWCA Environmental Consult‐ ants, 2016.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. For FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, prime farmland if drained, and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can also be forest land, pastureland, or other land, but not water or urban built‐up land. According to the tool, 100 percent of Airport property is considered prime farmland11 if irrigated, as shown on Exhibit 1S. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SOLID WASTE, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION Federal, state, and local laws, including the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Compre‐ hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended (also known as the Superfund),12 regulate hazardous materials use, storage, transport, and disposal. These laws may extend to past and future landowners of properties containing these materials. Disturbing areas that contain hazardous materials or contaminants can cause significant impacts to soil, surface water, groundwater, air quality, and the organisms using these resources. 10

Biological Field Evaluation, SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2016. 11 Prime farmland is land having the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, for‐ age, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimal use of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, or products (7 CFR § 657.5). A Superfund site is any land in the U.S. that has been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup as it poses a human health risk and/or the environment (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).

Inventory

1-67

U V

M 202 /Red

` _

Fw ountain

[ Quail Run Park j ` _ ` _

seve Roo

Longbow Golf Club (Public)

lt Ca

` _

n al

` ` _ _ L

` _

E. McDowell Rd.

Apache Wells Golf Course (Private)

` _

4L 4R

Apache Wells Community Church

Falcon Field Park

[ j

` _

Living Faith Anglican Church

LEGEND Airport Property Park

Golf Course

` Permitted Toxic Release _ Roosevelt Canal*

Bush Elementary School

The Self Development Academy

Prime Farmland if Irrigated Noise Sensitive Land Uses

æ å

Place of Worship School Residential Land Use

N. Greenfield Rd.

100-Year Floodplain

Source: ESRI Basemap Imagery (2016), FEMA, EPA.

Alta Mesa Golf Club (Private)

[ j Alta Mesa Park

E. Brown Rd.

*Determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places

Inventory

N. Higley Rd.

Runway Centerlines

[ j s

` _

E. McKellips Rd.

` _

Gene Autry Park

1-68

2,000

4,000

1" = 2,000'

Exhibit 1S ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES

Hazardous Materials & Waste According to the EPA’s Environmental Justice Screening (EJSCREEN) and Mapping Tool, there are no brown‐ fields13 or Superfund sites on or near the Airport. There are, however, several facilities surrounding the Airport that are permitted by the EPA to release toxic chemicals. These facilities must annually report to the EPA how much of certain chemicals are released to the environment or managed through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. 14 These facilities are outlined in Table 1R and shown on Exhibit 1S. Per the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s (ADEQ) Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database, four LUSTs have been reported for the Airport. These cases were closed in 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2008.15 TABLE 1R Permitted Toxic Releases Near the Airport Name Address Distance from Airport MD Helicopters, Inc. 4555 E McDowell Rd 0.0 miles Boeing Co 5000 East McDowell Rd 0.1 miles Marsh Aviation, Inc. 5060 E Falcon Dr N/A Talley Defense Systems, Inc. 4551 E McKellips Rd 0.05 miles McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co 4811 E Julep St 0.10 miles Trans‐Matic Manufacturing Co 4250 E Oasis St 0.15 miles The Timken Company 3110 N Oakland 0.4 miles Able Steel Fabricators Inc. 4150 Quartz Cr 0.8 miles Trompeter Semflex, Inc. 5550 E McDowell Rd 0.5 miles Rogers Corp 5750 E McKellips Rd 0.7 miles Source: EPA EJSCREEN and Mapping Tool (accessed January 9, 2018).

Direction from Airport North North On Airport Property South South Northwest Northwest Northwest Northeast East

Solid Waste There are three locations in Mesa where solid waste can be taken: 1. Salt River Landfill (north of the intersection of Beeline Highway and Gilbert Road) – 3.5 miles northwest of the Airport 2. Waste Management’s San Tan Transfer Station (4040 S. 80th Street) – 8.5 miles south of the Air‐ port 3. Republic Service’s Mesa Transfer Station (6711 S Mountain Road) – 13 miles southeast of the Airport 13

A brownfield is a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutants, or contaminant (EPA). 14 A “release” of a chemical means it is emitted to the air or water or placed in some type of land disposal (EPA Toxics Release Inventory [TRI] Program). 15 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Database Search, http://leg‐ acy.azdeq.gov/databases/lustsearch.html (accessed February 15, 2018).

Inventory

1-69

Pollution Prevention ADEQ’s Pollution Prevention Planning Program (P2) aims to eliminate or reduce the generation of haz‐ ardous waste and the use of toxic substances and prevent the release of pollutants into the environment. The P2 program requires all industrial facilities that exceed certain thresholds of hazardous waste gen‐ eration and toxic substance use to analyze potential P2 opportunities and to file an annual P2 plan.16 The Airport also maintains a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) pursuant to ADEQ’s Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) permitting program for a Multi‐Sector General Permit for Industrial Operations under the Clean Water Act. The SWPPP was last updated May 2011. HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Determination of a project’s environmental impact to historic and cultural resources is made under guid‐ ance in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, among others. Impacts can occur when a proposed project causes an adverse effect on a property which has been identified (or is unearthed during construction) as having historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance. As mentioned in Table 1Q, there are two sites listed on the NRHP within five miles of the Airport: The Buckthorn Baths Motel, 2.7 miles southeast of the Airport and Falcon Field World War II Aviation Hang‐ ars, on Airport property, as well as the Roosevelt Canal (determined eligible for the NRHP). Locally, the City of Mesa has designated 22 historic properties within its City limits, as well as seven historic districts. These buildings and districts are primarily concentrated on the west side of the City.17 The nearest Indian/Native American feature is the Salt River Reservation, approximately 1.5 miles north of the Airport. LAND USE Existing land uses around the Airport are discussed earlier in this chapter. Exhibit 1M illustrates existing land uses near the Airport, and Exhibit 1N shows the zoning in the City of Mesa. NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY Utility providers and fuel consumption at the Airport are discussed in greater detail earlier in the chapter.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Pollution Prevention (P2) Planning Program, http://www.azdeq.gov/P2 (accessed

February 15, 2018). City of Mesa Maps, Historic Properties Register, https://gis.mesaaz.gov/HistoricProperties/ (accessed February 15, 2018).

Inventory

1-70

NOISE AND COMPATIBLE LAND USE Federal land use compatibility guidelines are TABLE 1S established under 14 CFR Part 150, Airport Noise‐Sensitive Land Uses Distance from Direction Noise Compatibility Planning. Per 14 CFR Part Name Airport From Airport 150, residential land uses and schools are Places of Worship noise‐sensitive land uses that are not consid‐ Apache Wells 0.5 miles East ered compatible with a 65 decibel (dB) Day‐ Community Church 18 Night Average Sound Level (DNL). Other Living Faith 0.5 miles Southeast Anglican Church noise‐sensitive land uses (such as religious fa‐ cilities, hospitals, or nursing homes), if located Residential Uses Single‐ and multi‐ Surrounding (ex‐ within a 65 dB DNL contour, are generally com‐ 0.0 miles family residential cept to north) patible when an interior noise level reduction Educational Facilities of 25 dB is incorporated into the design and Bush Elementary School 0.4 miles South construction of the structure. Special consider‐ Self‐Development 0.5 miles South ation also needs to be given to noise‐sensitive Academy areas within Section 4(f) properties where the Source: Google Earth (accessed January 9, 2018). land use compatibility guidelines in 14 CFR Part 150 do not account for the value, significance, and enjoyment of the area in question (FAA 2015). There are single‐ and multi‐family residential uses to the east, southeast, south, southwest, west, and northwest of the Airport as listed in Table 1S. Homes to the east are separated from the Airport by North Higley Road, with homes to the south separated by East McKellips Road. Residences to the west are separated from the Airport by agricultural crops, which are on Airport property, and North Greenfield Road. In addition to the residences, there are two places of worship near the Airport, as well as two schools to the south. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS Socioeconomics is an umbrella term used to describe aspects of a project that are either social or eco‐ nomic in nature. A socioeconomic analysis evaluates how elements of the human environment such as population, employment, housing, and public services might be affected by the proposed action and alternative(s). Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear 18 Noise‐sensitive land uses are generally residences, places of worship, hospitals and health care facilities, and educational facilities.

Places of worship are defined as permanently established facilities intended solely for use as places of worship and not meant to be converted to other potential uses. For a hospital and/or health care facility to be considered a noise‐sensitive medical facility, it must provide for overnight stays or provide for longer recovery periods, where rest and relaxation are key considerations for use of the facility. Schools are facilities that provide full time use for instruction and training to students.

Inventory

1-71

a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, govern‐ mental, and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful Involvement19 ensures that:  People have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their envi‐ ronment and/or health;  The public’s contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s decision;  Their concerns will be considered in the decision‐making process; and  The decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. Pursuant to E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 62 Fed‐ eral Register 19885, (April 21, 1997), Federal agencies are directed, as appropriate and consistent with the agency’s mission, to make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. The FAA is encouraged to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that the agency has reason to believe could disproportion‐ ately affect children. Environmental health risks and safety risks include risks to health or to safety that are attributable to products or substances that a child is likely to encounter or ingest, such as air, food, drinking water, recreational waters, soil, or products they might use or be exposed to. The Airport is in block group20 1, census TABLE 1T tract21 4202.06, in which the U.S. Cen‐ Race Makeup in Block Group 1, Census Tract 4202.06 in Mesa, AZ Population sus Bureau estimates there were 976 Race Estimate people living below the poverty level in White alone 1,755 the last 12 months.22, 23 Table 1T de‐ Black or African American alone 1 scribes the race makeup of this block American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0 group. There are no public housing Asian alone 9 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 12 complexes or subsidized housing devel‐ Some other race alone 5 opments near the Airport. Two or more races 1 Total 1,783 The closest schools are Bush Elemen‐ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012‐2016 American Community Survey 5‐ Year Estimates, Table B02001: Race (accessed January 9, 2018). tary School and Self Development Academy. Bush Elementary School of‐ fers classes for preschool and kindergarten through sixth grade. Self Development Academy is a charter school for preschool through eighth grade. 19

Requirements for meaningful public involvement by minority and low‐income populations are addressed in Paragraph 2‐5.2.b of

FAA Order 1050.1F. Block groups are statistical divisions of census tracts that generally contain between 600 and 3,000 people and are used to present data and control block numbering (U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_bg.html). 21 Census Tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county that contain between 1,200 and 8,000 persons, averaging around 4,000 inhabitants (U.S. Census Bureau). 22 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012‐2016 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates, Table B17017: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder (accessed January 9, 2018). 23 The American Community Survey (ACS) 5‐Year Estimates represent data collected over a 60‐month period. For the 2012‐2016 ACS 5‐Year Estimates, data is collected between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. 20

Inventory

1-72

VISUAL EFFECTS Visual effects deal broadly with the extent to which the proposed action or alternative(s) would either: 1) produce light emissions that create annoyance or interfere with activities; or 2) contrast with, or de‐ tract from, the visual resources and/or the visual character of the existing environment. Light Emissions Light emissions include any light that emanates from a light source into the surrounding environment. Examples include airfield and apron flood lighting, navigational aids, terminal lighting, parking facility lighting, roadway lighting, safety lighting on launch pads, additional lighting to support nighttime com‐ mercial space launches, and light generated from such launches. Glare is a type of light emission that occurs when light is reflected off a surface, including window glass, solar panels, or reflective building surfaces. The Mesa City Code contains a Lighting and Electrical Code, which the Airport is not listed as exempt from. The purpose of this section is to restrict the permitted use of outdoor artificial illuminating devices emitting undesirable rays into the night sky which have a detrimental effect on astronomical observations.24 Visual Resources and Visual Character Visual resources include buildings, sites, traditional cultural properties, and other natural or manmade landscape features that are visually important or have unique characteristics. Visual resources may in‐ clude structures or objects that obscure or block other landscape features. In addition, visual resources can include the cohesive collection of various individual visual resources that can be viewed at once or in concert from the area surrounding the site of the proposed action or alternative(s). Visual character refers to the overall visual makeup of the existing environment where the proposed action and alterna‐ tive(s) would be located. For example, areas near densely populated areas generally have a visual char‐ acter that could be defined as urban, whereas less developed areas could have a visual character defined by the surrounding landscape features, such as open grass fields, forests, mountains, or deserts, etc. The Mesa City Code creates a Form‐Based Code that implements the vision, goals, and policies of the community for Traditional Neighborhood Development and urban centers. The standards are intended to ensure that future development and redevelopment will reinforce an urban environment and active streetscape. The Airport is not listed as exempt from any of the Form‐Based Code regulations.25 24 Mesa City Code, Chapter 4: Mesa Lighting and Electrical Code, http://www.mesaaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=388 (accessed

January 9, 2018). Mesa City Code, Chapter 56: Form‐Based Code Overview, http://www.mesaaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=12492 (accessed January 9, 2018). 25

Inventory

1-73

WATER RESOURCES Wetlands Certain drainages (both natural and human‐made) that are considered “waters of the U.S.” come under the purview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act; wetlands are also protected. In addition, E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands provides definitions and calls for safeguarding wetlands. Wetlands typically exhibit three characteristics: hydrology, hydro‐ phytes (plants able to tolerate various degrees of flooding or frequent saturation), and poorly drained or “hydric” soils. There are no jurisdictional wetlands or waters located on or near the Airport. On‐Airport drainages have no connectivity to natural drainages (like the Salt River two miles north of the Airport) and wetland indi‐ cators (i.e., the presence of hydrophytic vegetation or hydric soils) are not present.26 Floodplains E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management directs federal agencies to act to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by the floodplains. The limits of base floodplains are determined by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) prepared by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). There is a 100‐year floodplain (a one percent annual chance flood) along the Roosevelt Canal that is on Airport property (see Exhibit 1S). Flood depths of one to three feet are typical, usually with areas of ponding, during flood events. The RWCD is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Arizona whose primary purpose is to provide irrigation water to its landowners and to protect the private property water rights of its landowners.27 Floodplain management within the City of Mesa is primarily overseen by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC). Any development within areas designated as Flood Hazard Zones are thus subject to the rules and regulations that are established by the State of Arizona and the FCDMC. The City Engineer is designated as the City’s Floodplain Administrator and is responsible for coordinating with FCDMC to ensure all requests for floodplain development permits are promptly forwarded. Mesa City Code28 states that “no permits will be issued by any agent of the City until a valid Floodplain Use Permit is obtained by the applicant.” 26

Biological Field Evaluation, SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2016. 27 Roosevelt Water Conservation District, https://www.rwcd.net/ (accessed January 9, 2018). 28 Mesa City Code, Chapter 11: Floodplain Regulations, Section 9‐11‐2: Floodplain Administrator, December 31, 2017, http://www.mesaaz.gov/city‐hall/city‐clerk/city‐codes‐laws‐ordinances (accessed February 15, 2018).

Inventory

1-74

Surface Waters Surface waters include rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, and reservoirs. The primary uses of surface water are for drinking water and other public uses, irrigation, and for industrial purposes (i.e., cooling electric‐ ity‐generating equipment at a power plant). The only surface water near the airport is the RWCD canal, approximately one‐quarter mile west of the Airport. The Airport is in the Salt River‐Tempe Town Lake subwatershed, an approximate 45,000‐acre area. There are no impaired waters within this subwatershed under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.29 Groundwater Groundwater is subsurface water that occupies the space between sand, clay, and rock formations. The term aquifer is used to describe the geologic layers that store or transmit groundwater, such as to wells, springs, and other water sources. Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act (GMA) requires cities and other water users within Active Man‐ agement Areas (AMA) to transition from the use of mined groundwater to the use of renewable supplies by the year 2025. The City of Mesa is in the Phoenix AMA. As part of the GMA, cities in an AMA that want to increase population and development must demonstrate a one‐hundred‐year assured water supply. Mesa currently demonstrates a one‐hundred‐year supply through a designation of assured water sup‐ plies. Presently, groundwater is only one of numerous resources from which Mesa receives its water supply.30 Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and scenic rivers refer to designations within the National Park Services’ Nationwide Rivers Inven‐ tory. Public Law 90‐542 states that such rivers are free‐flowing and possess “outstanding remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values”. The closest des‐ ignated river feature is the Verde River, approximately 48 miles north of the Airport.

U.S. EPA My WATERS Mapper, https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/my‐waters‐mapper (accessed February 15, 2018). 30 Mesa 2040 General Plan, June 2014, http://www.mesaaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=12298 (January 9, 2018).

Inventory

1-75

FORECASTS

CHAPTER 2

The definition of demand that may reasonably be expected to occur during the useful life of an airport’s key components (e.g., runways, taxiways, terminal buildings, storage hangars, etc.) is an important fac‐ tor in facility planning. In airport master planning, this involves projecting potential aviation activity for at least a 20‐year timeframe. Aviation demand forecasting for Falcon Field Airport (Airport) will focus on demand indicators, such as based aircraft, based aircraft fleet mix, annual aircraft operations, opera‐ tional peaking periods, and the critical design aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has oversight responsibility to review and approve aviation forecasts developed in conjunction with airport planning studies. In addition, aviation activity forecasts may be an important input to future benefit‐cost analyses associated with airport development, and the FAA reviews these analyses when federal funding requests are submitted. The FAA will review individual airport forecasts with the objective of comparing them to its Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Even though the TAF is updated annually, in the past there has almost always been a disparity between the TAF and master planning forecasts. This was primarily because the TAF forecasts did not consider local conditions or recent trends. In recent years, however, the FAA has improved its forecast model to be a demand‐driven forecast for aviation services based upon local and national economic conditions, as well as conditions within the aviation industry.

Forecasts

2-1

As stated in FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, forecasts should be:  Realistic;  Based on the latest available data;  Reflective of current conditions at the airport (as a baseline);  Supported by information in the study; and  Able to provide adequate justification for airport planning and development. The forecast process for an Airport Master Plan consists of a series of basic steps that vary in complexity depending upon the issues to be addressed and the level of effort required. The steps include a review of previous forecasts, determination of data needs, identification of data sources, collection of data, selection of forecast methods, preparation of the forecasts, and evaluation and documentation of the results. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070‐6B, Airport Master Plans, outlines seven standard steps involved in the forecast process, including: 1) Identify Aviation Activity Measures: The level and type of aviation activities likely to impact facility needs. For general aviation, this typically includes based aircraft and operations. 2) Review Previous Airport Forecasts: May include the FAA Terminal Area Forecast, state or re‐ gional system plans, and previous master plans. 3) Gather Data: Determine what data are required to prepare the forecasts, identify data sources, and collect historical and forecast data. 4) Select Forecast Methods: There are several appropriate methodologies and techniques availa‐ ble, including regression analysis, trend analysis, market share or ratio analysis, exponential smoothing, econometric modeling, comparison with other airports, survey techniques, cohort analysis, choice and distribution models, range projections, and professional judgment. 5) Apply Forecast Methods and Evaluate Results: Prepare the actual forecasts and evaluate for reasonableness. 6) Summarize and Document Results: Provide supporting text and tables as necessary. 7) Compare Forecast Results with FAA’s TAF: Follow guidance in FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formu‐ lation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. In part, the Order indicates that fore‐ casts should not vary significantly (more than 10 percent) from the TAF. When there is a greater than 10 percent variance, supporting documentation should be supplied to the FAA. (The FAA has provided additional guidance indicating forecasts are consistent with the TAF when they dif‐ fer by less than 10 percent in the first five years, and less than 15 percent in the 10‐year period.) Aviation activity can be affected by many influences on the local, regional, and national levels, making it virtually impossible to predict year‐to‐year fluctuations of activity over 20 years with any certainty. Therefore, it is important to remember that forecasts are to serve only as guidelines, and planning must remain flexible enough to respond to a range of unforeseen developments. The following forecast analysis for Falcon Field Airport was produced following these basic guidelines. Ex‐ isting forecasts are examined and compared against current and historic activity. The historical aviation activity is then examined, along with other factors and trends that can affect demand. The intent is to provide an updated set of aviation demand projections for the Airport that will permit airport management to make planning adjustments as necessary to maintain a viable, efficient, and cost‐effective facility. Forecasts

2-2

NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS AND FORECASTS

The forecasts developed for the Airport must consider national, regional, and local aviation trends. The following section describes trends in aviation. This information is utilized both in statistical analysis and to aid the forecast preparer in making any manual adjustments to the forecasts as necessary. NATIONAL TRENDS Each year, the FAA updates and publishes a national aviation forecast. Included in this publication are forecasts for the large air carriers, regional/commuter air carriers, general aviation, and FAA workload measures. The forecasts are prepared to meet budget and planning needs of the FAA and to provide information that can be used by state and local authorities, the aviation industry, and the general public. The current edition when this chapter was prepared was FAA Aerospace Forecast – Fiscal Years 2017‐ 2037, published in March 2017. The FAA primarily uses the economic performance of the United States as an indicator of future aviation industry growth. Similar economic analyses are applied to the outlook for aviation growth in international markets. The following discussion is summarized from the FAA Aer‐ ospace Forecasts. Since its deregulation in 1978, the U.S. commercial air carrier industry has been characterized by boom‐ to‐bust cycles. The volatility that was associated with these cycles was thought by many to be a structural feature of an industry that was capital‐intensive but cash poor. However, the great recession of 2007‐09 marked a fundamental change in the operations and finances of U.S. airlines. Air carriers fine‐tuned their business models to minimize losses by lowering operating costs, eliminating unprofitable routes, and grounding older, less fuel‐efficient aircraft. To increase operating revenues, carriers initiated new ser‐ vices that customers were willing to purchase and started charging separately for services that were historically bundled in the price of a ticket. The industry experienced an unprecedented period of con‐ solidation with four major mergers in five years. These changes, along with capacity discipline exhibited by carriers, have resulted in a seventh consecutive year of profitability for the industry in 2016. Looking ahead, there is optimism that the industry has been transformed from that of a boom‐to‐bust cycle to one of sustainable profits. Fundamentally, over the medium and long terms, demand for aviation is driven by economic activity, and a growing U.S. and world economy provides the basis for aviation to grow over the long term. The 2017 FAA forecast calls for U.S. carrier passenger growth over the next 20 years to average 1.9 percent per year, slightly slower than last year’s forecast. The sharp decline in the price of oil in 2015‐16 was a catalyst for an uptick in passenger growth in 2016 that continued into 2017. The price of oil was projected to rise from around $39 per barrel in 2016 to $47 in 2017, and the FAA’s forecast assumes that it will rise to exceed $100 by 2026 and approach $132 by the end of the forecast period. FAA GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS The FAA forecasts the fleet mix and hours flown for single engine piston aircraft, multi‐engine piston aircraft, turboprops, business jets, piston and turbine helicopters, light sport, experimental, and others Forecasts

2-3

(gliders and balloons). The FAA forecasts “active aircraft,” not total aircraft. An active aircraft is one that is flown at least one hour during the year. It is important to note that from 2010 through 2013, the FAA undertook an effort to have all aircraft owners re‐register their aircraft. This effort resulted in a 10.5 percent decrease in the number of active general aviation aircraft, mostly in the piston category. The long‐term outlook for general aviation is favorable, led by gains in turbine aircraft activity. The active general aviation fleet is forecast to increase 0.1 percent a year between 2016 and 2037, equating to an absolute increase in the fleet of about 3,500 units. While steady growth in both GDP and corporate profits results in continued growth of the turbine and rotorcraft fleets, the largest segment of the fleet – fixed‐wing piston aircraft – continues to shrink over the FAA’s forecast. In 2016, the general aviation industry experienced a consecutive decline in aircraft deliveries since 2015. While the single engine piston aircraft deliveries by U.S. manufacturers continued to grow and business jet deliveries recorded a very modest increase compared to the previous year, turboprop deliveries de‐ clined by two percent, and the much smaller category of multi‐engine piston deliveries declined 23 per‐ cent. In 2016, the FAA estimated there were 140,020 piston‐powered aircraft in the national fleet. The total number of piston‐powered aircraft in the fleet is forecast to decline by 0.8 percent from 2016‐2037, resulting in 117,520 by 2037. This includes ‐0.9 percent annually for single engine pistons and ‐0.5 per‐ cent for multi‐engine pistons. Total turbine aircraft are forecast to grow at an annual growth rate of 1.9 percent through 2037. The FAA estimates there were 30,595 turbine‐powered aircraft in the national fleet in 2016, and there will be 45,305 by 2037. This includes annual growth rates of 1.4 percent for turboprops, 2.3 percent for business jets, and 1.8 percent for turbine helicopters. While comprising a much smaller portion of the general aviation fleet, experimental aircraft, typically identified as home‐built aircraft, are projected to grow annually by 2.3 percent through 2037. The FAA estimates there were 28,475 experimental aircraft in 2016, and these are projected to grow to 35,310 by 2037. Sport aircraft are forecast to grow 4.1 percent annually through the long term, growing from 2,530 in 2016 to 5,885 by 2037. Exhibit 2A presents the historical and forecast U.S. active general avia‐ tion aircraft. The FAA also forecasts total operations based upon activity at airport traffic control towers (ATCTs) across the United States. Operations are categorized as air carrier, air taxi/commuter, general aviation, and military. General aviation operations, both local and itinerant, declined significantly because of the 2008‐2009 recession and subsequent slow recovery. Through 2037, total general aviation operations are forecast to grow 0.3 percent annually. Air taxi/commuter operations are forecast to decline by 3.0 percent through 2026, and then increase slightly through the remainder of the forecast period. Overall, air taxi/commuter operations are forecast to decline by 0.9 percent annually from 2016 through 2037. Forecasts

2-4

U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT 2016E

U.S. GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS 2022

2027

2037

CAGR 2016-2037

Fixed Wing

CAGR 2016-2037

2016E

2022

2027

2037

13,904,397

14,121,057

14,312,108

14,713,479

0.3%

11,632,078

11,873,443

12,090,250

12,548,870

0.4%

25,536,475

25,994,500

26,402,358

27,262,349

0.3%

Itinerant

Piston Single Engine

126,820

120,600

115,245

105,550

-0.9%

Multi-Engine

13,200

12,965

12,705

11,970

-0.5%

Local

Turbine

Total GA Operations

Turbojet

9,460

9,115

9,755

12,585

1.4%

13,770

15,845

17,745

22,040

2.3%

Operations (in millions)

Turboprop Rotorcraft Piston

3,335

3,605

3,835

4,385

1.3%

Turbine

7,365

8,195

8,925

10,680

1.8%

Experimental

Forecast LEGEND Total Operations Itinerant Operations Local Operations

20 15

28,475

30,895

32,345

35,310

1.0%

2,530

3,480

4,285

5,885

4.1%

4,950

4,955

4,965

5,015

0.1%

10 2010

143,355

137,170

131,785

121,905

-0.8%

30,595

33,155

36,425

45,305

1.9%

209,905

209,655

209,805

213,420

0.1%

Sport Aircraft

Historical

Other Total Pistons Total Turbines Total Fleet

2016

Historical

2027

2032

2037

CAGR 2016-2037

U.S. GENERAL AVIATION AIR TAXI 2016E

250

2022

2027

Air Taxi/Commuter Operations

Forecast

Itinerant 200

7,579,584

5,450,873

Historical

5,649,185

6,256,918

-0.9%

Forecast

150

Air Taxi (in millions)

Aircraft (in thousands)

2022

100

2010

2016

2022

2027

2032

2037 2010

Notes: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown at least one hour during the calendar year. Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast - Fiscal Years 2017-2037

Forecasts

2-5

2016

2022

2027

2032

2037

EXHIBIT 2A NATIONAL GENERAL AVIATION/AIR TAXI FORECASTS

This page intentionally left blank

Forecasts

2-6

GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT SHIPMENTS AND REVENUE The 2008‐2009 economic recession has had a negative impact on general aviation aircraft production, and the industry has been slow to recover. Aircraft manufacturing declined for three straight years from 2008 through 2010. According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), there is op‐ timism that aircraft manufacturing will stabilize and return to growth, which has been evidenced since 2011. Table 2A presents currently available historical data related to general aviation aircraft shipments. TABLE 2A Annual General Aviation Airplane Shipments Manufactured Worldwide and Factory Net Billings Year

Total

SEP

MEP

1994 1,132 544 77 233 278 1995 1,251 605 61 285 300 1996 1,437 731 70 320 316 1997 1,840 1,043 80 279 438 1998 2,457 1,508 98 336 515 1999 2,808 1,689 112 340 667 2000 3,147 1,877 103 415 752 2001 2,998 1,645 147 422 784 2002 2,677 1,591 130 280 676 2003 2,686 1,825 71 272 518 2004 2,962 1,999 52 319 592 2005 3,590 2,326 139 375 750 2006 4,054 2,513 242 412 887 2007 4,277 2,417 258 465 1,137 2008 3,974 1,943 176 538 1,317 2009 2,283 893 70 446 874 2010 2,024 781 108 368 767 2011 2,120 761 137 526 696 2012 2,164 817 91 584 672 2013 2,353 908 122 645 678 2014 2,454 986 143 603 722 2015 2,331 946 110 557 718 2016 2,268 890 129 582 667 2017 2,324 936 149 563 676 SEP ‐ Single Engine Piston; MEP ‐ Multi‐Engine Piston; TP ‐ Turboprop; J ‐ Turbofan/Turbojet Source: General Aviation Manufacturers Association, 2017 Annual Report

Net Billings ($millions) 3,749 4,294 4,936 7,170 8,604 11,560 13,496 13,868 11,778 9,998 12,093 15,156 18,815 21,837 24,846 19,474 19,715 19,042 18,895 23,450 24,499 24,129 21,092 20,197

Worldwide shipments of general aviation airplanes increased in 2017 with a total of 2,324 units delivered around the globe, compared to 2,268 units in 2016. However, worldwide general aviation billings were lower than the previous year. In 2017, $20.2 billion in new general aviation aircraft were shipped, but year‐end results were mixed across the market segments. North America is the largest market for gen‐ eral aviation aircraft. The Asian‐Pacific region is the second largest market for piston‐powered aircraft, Forecasts

2-7

Latin America is the second largest market for turboprops, and Europe is the second largest market for business jets. Business Jets: General aviation manufacturers business jet deliveries grew from 667 units in 2016 to 676 units in 2017. The North American market accounted for 63.8 percent of business jet deliveries, which is a 1.8 percent increase in market share compared to 2016. Turboprops: Turboprop shipments were down from 582 in 2016 to 563 in 2017. North America’s market share of turboprop aircraft dropped by 3.6 percent in the last year, while the European, Asian‐Pacific, and Latin American markets increased their market share. Pistons: In 2017, piston airplane shipments grew to 1,085 units over last year’s shipment of 1,019 units for a 6.5 percent increase. However, North America’s market share of piston aircraft deliveries dropped from 69.6 percent in 2016 to 65.6 percent in 2017. The Asian‐Pacific market saw the largest increase in market share at 3.2 percent growth.

RISKS TO THE FORECASTS While the FAA is confident that its forecasts for aviation demand and activity can be achieved, this hinges on several factors, including the strength of the global economy, security (including the threat of inter‐ national terrorism), and the level of oil prices. Higher oil prices could lead to further shifts in consumer spending away from aviation, dampening a recovery in air transport demand. In the long term, the FAA foresees a competitive and profitable industry characterized by increasing demand for air travel and airfares growing more slowly than inflation.

AIRPORT SERVICE AREA The initial step in determining the aviation demand for an airport is to define its generalized service area for various segments of aviation. The service area is determined primarily by evaluating the location of competing airports, their capabilities, their services, and their relative attraction and convenience. In determining the aviation demand for an airport, it is necessary to identify the role of the airport, as well as the specific areas of aviation demand the airport is intended to serve. For Falcon Field Airport, the primary role is to accommodate general aviation demand in the region. The Airport is classified as a reliever facility within the NPIAS, meaning that one of its main purposes is to relieve general and corpo‐ rate aviation activity at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport. The service area for an airport is a geographic region from which an airport can be expected to attract the largest share of its activity. The definition of the service area can then be used to identify other factors, such as socioeconomic and demographic trends, which influence aviation demand at an airport. Aviation demand will be impacted by the proximity of competing airports, the surface transportation network, and the strength of commercial airline and/or general aviation services provided by an airport and competing airports. Forecasts

2-8

As in any business enterprise, the more attractive the facility is in terms of services and capabilities, the more competitive it will be in the market. If an airport’s attractiveness increases in relation to nearby airports, so will the size of its service area. If facilities and services are adequate and/or competitive, some level of aviation activity might be attracted to an airport from more distant locales. As a rule, an airport’s service area extends for approximately 30 miles. There are eight public‐use air‐ ports within 30 nautical miles of Falcon Field Airport as detailed in Chapter One. All but one (Stellar Airpark) are included in the NPIAS. Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport focus heavily on scheduled commercial passenger service, although both airports also cater to corporate general aviation activity. The five other NPIAS airports provide various levels of general avia‐ tion services. Of these five, Chandler Municipal, Scottsdale, Phoenix Deer Valley, and Glendale Municipal are also classified as general aviation reliever airports. Table 2B presents information related to Falcon Field Airport and the eight airports in proximity. These airports’ available level of services and facilities will play a role in limiting Falcon Field Airport’s service area. TABLE 2B Regional Airports Distance NPIAS Longest Lowest Based Annual from FFZ Service Runway Visibility Aircraft Operations (nm) Level (feet) Minimums Falcon Field (FFZ) 0 GA‐R 719 291,457 5,101 1‐mile Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway (IWA) 9.9 SE PCS 111 253,006 10,401 ¾‐mile Chandler Municipal (CHD) 12.2 SW GA‐R 297 215,183 4,870 1‐mile Scottsdale (SDL) 13.3 NW GA‐R 387 152,586 8,249 1‐mile Stellar Airpark (P19) 13.5 SW N/A 176 40,000 3,914 1‐mile Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l (PHX) 14.3 W PCS 74 437,847 11,489 ½‐mile Phoenix Deer Valley (DVT) 22.4 NW GA‐R 954 349,046 8,196 1⅛‐mile Glendale Municipal (GEU) 28.6 W GA‐R 286 65,086 7,150 1‐mile Ak‐Chin Regional (A39) 29.8 SW GA 22 31,682 4,751 N/A GA‐R: General Aviation Reliever; GA: General Aviation; PCS: Primary Commercial Service; nm: nautical mile Source: FAA Form 5010‐1, Airport Master Record; www.airnav.com Airport

The service area for Falcon Field Airport is primarily bounded by Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport and Chandler Municipal Airport to the south. Each facility offers an array of general aviation services, includ‐ ing aircraft fuel, aircraft maintenance, hangar storage, etc. As previously mentioned, Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport also caters to commercial airline service and has focused heavily on this aviation de‐ mand segment in recent years. Furthermore, Stellar Airpark is located approximately 13.5 nautical miles (nm) southwest of the Airport. Although this airport is not included in the NPIAS, it is home to approxi‐ mately 175 based aircraft and provides minimal general aviation services. All total, it is estimated that 600 aircraft are based at these three airports. Chandler Municipal Airport and Stellar Airpark are some‐ what limited in the types of larger business aircraft they can accommodate given their primary runway lengths of 4,870 feet and 3,914 feet, respectively.

Forecasts

2-9

To the northwest, Scottsdale Airport and Phoenix Deer Valley Airport cater to general aviation demands serving the northern Phoenix metropolitan area. These two airports provide multiple aviation services that attract general aviation activities. Scottsdale Airport has historically served as a hub for busi‐ ness/corporate activity, while Phoenix Deer Valley Airport experiences larger number of flight training activities. Both facilities offer runway lengths over 8,000 feet, which can accommodate a large majority of general aviation aircraft. These facilities will continue to play a role in limiting Falcon Field Airport’s service area to the northwest. Situated just over 14 nm west of the Airport is Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. It primarily caters to scheduled commercial airline service; however, it also accommodates a mix of business jet activity. Farther west is Glendale Municipal Airport, which is utilized by an array of general aviation activities. Falcon Field Airport has remained a very important facility, meeting the needs of general aviation oper‐ ators in the region. The Airport is a hub for business and recreational aircraft activity. In addition, the Airport is a designated reliever airport. In this capacity, it should continue to fare well in its ability to compete for general aviation activity, considering the services and amenities it has to offer. As a general aviation reliever airport, Falcon Field Airport’s service area is also driven by aircraft own‐ ers/operators and where they choose to base their aircraft. The primary consideration of aircraft own‐ ers/operators when choosing where to base their aircraft is convenience (i.e., easy access and proximity to the airport). However, some aircraft owners have other priorities, such as runway length, specific services, hangar availability, airport congestion, etc. The most effective method of defining an airport’s service area is by examining the based aircraft by their registered address. Exhibit 2B presents the num‐ ber of Falcon Field Airport based aircraft located within the region according to Airport records. As de‐ picted, approximately 83 percent of based aircraft owners reside or work within 20 miles of the Airport. It should be noted that 107 based aircraft are registered to addresses outside the regional area, many of which are registered out‐of‐state. It is not uncommon for an aircraft based in one location to be regis‐ tered in another, especially for corporate aircraft which typically are registered by the controlling own‐ ership entity, such as a bank. By far the most concentrated areas of based aircraft ownership are located within the City of Mesa; however, based aircraft are also spread throughout several communities in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. This data shows that a high percentage of based aircraft owners reside or do business in close proximity to the Airport. The remainder of the based aircraft owners are spread around the metropolitan area. Considering all previous factors associated with competing airports, available aviation services, and based aircraft ownership, the Airport’s primary service area is generally comprised of the City of Mesa and portions of neighboring communities to the south, west, and northwest, in addition to unincorpo‐ rated areas to the north. These communities include Apache Junction, Queen Creek, Gilbert, Chandler, Tempe, Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Phoenix, Fountain Hills, and the Salt River Indian Reservation.

Forecasts

2-10

LEGEND

1" = 10nm

FFZ Based Aircraft Address*

p o

§ ¦ ¨ 17

Maricopa County

Falcon Field Airport Surrounding Airports County Boundary Incorporated Cities Nautical Mile Radius

DVT

* Based Aircraft Locations 0 - 10 NM: 485 10 - 20 NM: 114 20 - 30 NM: 13

SCOTTSDALE

SDL

GEU

V U 101

PHOENIX

V U

PARADISE VALLEY

§ ¦ ¨ 10

FOUNTAIN HILLS

Salt River Indian Reservation

PHX

V U 202

MESA

IWA

GILBERT

CHD

CHANDLER

V U

30nm

APACHE JUNCTION

TEMPE

P19

20nm

10nm

£ ¤ 60

QUEEN CREEK

Pinal County

347

§ ¦ ¨ 10

A39 Locations of Based Aircraft Beyond 30nm Radius State # of Aircraft AK 11 AZ 15 CO 12 DE 8 TX 8 WA 10 MO 4 21 states with less than 4 aircraft

CGZ

P08

§ ¦ ¨

E60

§ ¦o ¨ 10

Source: ESRI Basemap Imagery (2016).

Forecasts

2-11

EXHIBIT 2B AIRPORT SERVICE AREA

SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS FOR THE SERVICE AREA Socioeconomic conditions also provide an important baseline for preparing aviation demand forecasts. Local socioeconomic variables, such as population and employment are indicators for understanding the dynamics of the community and can relate to local trends in aviation activity. Analysis of the de‐ mographics of the airport service area will give a more comprehensive understanding of the socioeco‐ nomic situations affecting the region which support Falcon Field Airport. A variety of historical and forecast socioeconomic data has been collected for use in various elements of this Master Plan. Aviation forecasts are related to the population base and the economic strength of the region; therefore, it is necessary to understand the socioeconomic outlook for the service area. For this study, socioeconomic variables for the City of Mesa and surrounding cities and areas have been consid‐ ered. Furthermore, socioeconomic data for Maricopa County has also been considered. A summary of population and employment data within the Falcon Field Airport service area and adjacent areas is presented in the following sections and includes projections for the 20‐year planning timeframe of this study. This information will be analyzed to develop forecasts of future aviation demand. Infor‐ mation was obtained from the Maricopa Association of Government’s (MAG) Socioeconomic Projections: Population and Employment by Municipal Planning Area, Jurisdiction, and Regional Analysis Zone (June 2016). POPULATION Population is one of the most important elements to consider when planning for the future needs of an airport. Table 2C summarizes population estimates for those communities that constitute the primary service area for Falcon Field Airport. Also included is the projected Maricopa County population through the planning period of this study. According to the table, the estimated population of the service area totaled 1,358,500 in 2017, which represented 32.1 percent of the population of Maricopa County. According to the updated MAG fore‐ casts, service area population is projected to increase through 2022 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.69 percent. Between 2022 and 2027, the CAGR decreases slightly to 1.42 percent. During the 20‐year planning horizon, the CAGR decreases even further to 1.12 percent. This represents an over‐ all population increase within the service area of nearly 337,700 residents over the next 20 years.

Forecasts

2-12

TABLE 2C Service Area Population Projections Falcon Field Airport Projections 2017* 2022 2027 2037 Mesa 477,400 521,700 549,800 589,800 Apache Junction 39,300 42,100 45,400 53,700 North Queen Creek 36,800 50,500 57,300 63,400 North Gilbert 216,900 227,600 237,700 251,200 North Chandler 123,800 130,800 136,300 144,200 Tempe 178,600 195,700 212,900 245,200 East Phoenix 138,100 149,200 158,700 172,200 Paradise Valley 14,000 14,300 14,500 15,100 South Scottsdale 102,700 111,100 116,400 124,500 Fountain Hills 24,200 27,100 28,000 29,400 Salt River Indian Reservation 6,700 6,800 7,000 7,500 Service Area Total Population 1,358,500 1,476,900 1,564,000 1,696,200 Compound Annual Growth Rate N/A 1.69% 1.42% 1.12% Maricopa County Total 4,233,600 4,630,400 5,026,400 5,795,200 Service Area Percentage of County 32.09% 31.90% 31.12% 29.27% * Estimated Population Totals Source: U.S. Census Bureau; MAG Socioeconomic Projections: Population and Employment by Municipal Plan‐ ning Area, Jurisdiction, and Regional Analysis Zone (June 2016)

The percentage of the county population in the Airport’s service area is projected to decline, even though growth rates are relatively strong, over the 20‐year forecast period. This is not an uncommon trend for cities and areas that have experienced strong historical growth, as the amount of developable space decreases and areas must be redeveloped to accommodate additional demand. It is projected that areas contained within the Airport’s service area, and more particularly, the south and southeast portions of Maricopa County, will continue to experience strong population growth in the future. An alternate set of population forecasts, which were completed in 2017 by Woods & Poole Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS), is presented in Table 2D. Woods & Poole is an inde‐ pendent firm that specializes in long term socioeconomic and demographic projections for metropolitan areas, counties, and states. The county’s population was estimated at 4,310,300 by the CEDDS in 2017. Woods & Poole forecasts the county’s population to grow at a CAGR of 1.66 percent over the planning period, resulting in 5,991,200 county residents in 2037. This results in approximately 196,000 more res‐ idents than the MAG is forecasting.

Forecasts

2-13

TABLE 2D Alternative Population Forecasts Maricopa County Compound Annual 2017 2022 2027 2037 Growth Rate Woods & Poole CEDDS 4,310,300 4,694,800 5,108,600 5,991,200 1.66% Maricopa Association of Governments 4,233,600 4,630,400 5,026,400 5,795,200 1.58% Source: Woods & Poole Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (2017); MAG Socioeconomic Projections: Popu‐ lation and Employment by Municipal Planning Area, Jurisdiction, and Regional Analysis Zone (June 2016)

EMPLOYMENT Forecast employment data for the Falcon Field Airport primary service area and Maricopa County as a whole are presented in Table 2E. It is estimated that people employed in the airport’s service area to‐ taled 781,000 in 2017, which represented 38.7 percent of the total employment in Maricopa County. The MAG projects the county’s employment to increase through 2022 at a CAGR of 1.76 percent. After that, the growth rate gradually decreases, similar to population, to a CAGR of 1.36 percent by 2037. This represents an overall employment increase within the service area of 242,600 jobs over the next 20 years. Similar to population growth rates, the average employment growth rate percentage within the Airport’s service area is projected to decline slightly within Maricopa County through the next 20 years. TABLE 2E Service Area Employment Projections Falcon Field Airport Projections 2017* 2022 2027 2037 Mesa 185,800 207,200 219,100 268,800 Apache Junction 10,500 12,300 15,000 23,200 North Queen Creek 10,500 12,800 14,900 19,000 North Gilbert 90,500 100,400 112,000 131,100 North Chandler 52,700 57,900 60,400 65,200 Tempe 190,000 203,700 215,100 228,800 East Phoenix 131,500 140,500 143,900 150,200 Paradise Valley 5,300 5,600 5,900 6,500 South Scottsdale 77,300 81,700 85,400 89,600 Fountain Hills 8,100 8,700 9,200 10,300 Salt River Indian Reservation 18,800 21,400 24,600 30,900 Service Area Total Employment 781,000 852,200 905,500 1,023,600 Average Annual Growth Rate N/A 1.76% 1.49% 1.36% Maricopa County Total 2,016,400 2,227,000 2,389,400 2,747,100 Service Area Percentage of County 38.73% 38.27% 37.90% 37.26% * Estimated Employment Totals Source: MAG Socioeconomic Projections: Population and Employment by Municipal Planning Area, Jurisdic‐ tion, and Regional Analysis Zone (June 2016)

Forecasts

2-14

An alternate set of employment statistics were analyzed from the Woods & Poole CEDDS and are in‐ cluded in Table 2F. Woods & Poole projects the county’s employment to grow at 1.95 percent annually through 2037, as opposed to a 1.56 percent annual growth projection by the MAG. The CEDDS is pro‐ jecting significantly higher employment in the county through the 20‐year planning period, mainly be‐ cause it is estimating much higher employment in 2017 than what the MAG is estimating. TABLE 2F Alternative Employment Forecasts Maricopa County Compound Annual 2017 2022 2027 2037 Growth Rate Woods & Poole CEDDS 2,532,100 2,803,700 3,094,800 3,679,100 1.89% Maricopa Association of Governments 2,016,400 2,227,000 2,389,400 2,747,100 1.56% Source: Woods & Poole Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (2017); MAG's Socioeconomic Projections: Pop‐ ulation and Employment by Municipal Planning Area, Jurisdiction, and Regional Analysis Zone (June 2016)

AVIATION FORECAST METHODOLOGY The development of aviation forecasts proceeds through both analytical and judgmental processes. A series of mathematical relationships is tested to establish statistical logic and rationale for projected growth. However, the judgment of the forecast analyst, based upon professional experience, knowledge of the aviation industry, and assessment of the local situation is important in the final determination of the preferred forecast. By developing several projections for each aviation demand indicator, a reasonable planning envelope, or range of forecasts, will emerge. The selected forecast may be one of the individual projections, or a combination of several projections, based on local conditions. The selected forecast will almost always fall within the planning envelope. Some combination of the following forecasting techniques is utilized to develop the planning envelope for each demand indicator. Trend line projections are probably the simplest and most familiar of the forecasting techniques. By fitting growth curves to historical demand data and then extending them into the future, a basic trend line projection is produced. A basic assumption of this technique is that outside factors will continue to affect aviation demand in much the same manner as in the past. As broad as this assumption may be, the trend line projection does serve as a reliable benchmark for comparing other projections. Market share analysis involves a historical review of aviation activity as a percentage, or share, of a larger regional, state, or national aviation market. A historical market share trend is determined, provid‐ ing an expected market share for the future. These shares are then multiplied by the forecasts of the larger geographical area to produce a market share projection. This method has the same limitations as trend line projections but can provide a useful check on the validity of other forecasting techniques.

Forecasts

2-15

Historical growth analysis is a simple forecasting method in which the historical annual growth rate is identified and then extended out to forecast years. This analysis method assumes factors that impacted growth in the past will continue into the future.

Correlation analysis provides a measure of the direct relationship between two separate sets of historic data. If there is a reasonable correlation between the data, further evaluation using regression analysis may be employed. Regression analysis is a statistical technique used to measure the relationship between variables. This technique yields an r‐squared (r2) value which shows the level of correlation between the variables. If the r2 value is greater than 0.95, it indicates a strong predictive reliability. Beyond five years, the predictive reliability of the forecasts can diminish. Therefore, it is prudent for the airport to update the forecasts, reassess the assumptions originally made, and revise the forecasts based on the current airport and industry conditions. Facility and financial planning usually require at least a 10‐year outlook since it often takes several years to complete a major facility development program. Another consideration is that technological advances in aviation have historically altered, and will con‐ tinue to change, the growth rates in aviation demand over time. The most obvious example is the impact of jet aircraft on the aviation industry, which resulted in a growth rate that far exceeded expectations. Such changes are difficult, if not impossible, to predict and there is no mathematical way to estimate their impacts. It is important to use forecasts which do not overestimate revenue‐generating capabilities or understate demand for facilities needed to meet public (user) needs. Forecasts of aviation demand for Falcon Field Airport have been developed utilizing statistical methods, available existing forecasts, and analyst expertise. The following section presents the aviation demand forecasts and includes activity in two broad categories: based aircraft and annual operations.

AVIATION FORECASTS The following forecast analysis examines each of the aviation demand categories expected at Falcon Field Airport over the next 20 years. Each segment will be examined individually, and then collectively, to provide an understanding of the overall aviation activity at the Airport through 2037. The need for airport facilities at the Airport can best be determined by accounting for forecasts of future aviation demand. Forecasts for airport activities include the following:  Registered Aircraft  Annual Aircraft Operations  Based Aircraft  Peaking Characteristics  Based Aircraft Fleet Mix  Annual Instrument Approaches For a reliever facility, such as Falcon Field Airport, based aircraft, annual aircraft operations, and peak activity levels are the most important indicators of aviation demand that need to be forecast. The Forecasts

2-16

remainder of this chapter will examine historical trends regarding these areas of general aviation and project future demand for these segments of general aviation activity at the Airport. These forecasts, once approved by the FAA, will become the basis for planning future facilities, both airside and landside, at the Airport. FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST As previously discussed, on an annual basis the FAA publishes the TAF for each airport included in the NPIAS. The TAF is a generalized forecast of airport activity used by FAA for internal planning purposes. It is available to airports and consultants to use as a point of comparison for development of local fore‐ casts. Table 2G presents the Terminal Area Forecast for the Airport. TABLE 2G 2018 FAA Terminal Area Forecast Falcon Field Airport 2017 2022 ENPLANEMENTS Air Carrier 0 0 Commuter 0 0 Total 0 0 ANNUAL OPERATIONS Itinerant Air Carrier 8 8 Air Taxi 64,135 67,403 General Aviation 51,004 53,014 Military 4,305 4,305 Total Itinerant 119,452 124,730 Local General Aviation 159,143 170,150 Military 532 532 Total Local 159,675 170,682 Total Operations 279,127 295,412 Based Aircraft 660 730 Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast (January 2018)

2027

2037

0 0 0

8 70,838 53,014 4,305 128,165

0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

8 78,244 53,014 4,305 135,571

172,716 532 173,248 301,413 805

CAGR (2017 ‐ 2037)

0.00% 1.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.63%

177,967 532 178,499 314,070 960

0.56% 0.00% 0.56% 0.59% 1.88%

As presented in the table, the TAF projects moderate growth in activity at the Airport over the next 20 years. Given that there is currently no commercial service activity at Falcon Field Airport, the TAF does not reflect any existing and/or forecast commercial airline passenger enplanements or aircraft opera‐ tions. Operations are forecast to continue to be dominated by general aviation operations; however, a significant number of air taxi operations are projected as well. As detailed in the previous chapter, the Airport’s ATCT personnel recently changed the procedures by which aircraft operations are counted at the Airport. All itinerant flight training activity associated with the CAE Oxford Aviation Academy, which was previously counted as general aviation itinerant activity, is now recognized as air taxi operations. The TAF also accounts for military activity; however, it provides a flat‐line forecast for this aviation seg‐ ment. Because of the potential for a rapidly changing military mission, it is common to implement a flat‐ Forecasts

2-17

line forecast for military activity. Based aircraft are forecast to increase by 300 additional aircraft over the next 20 years. As noted previously, the FAA will examine the new forecasts developed for this Master Plan in light of the TAF. A comparison between the Master Plan forecasts and TAF is detailed later in this chapter. In 2017, 291,457 Airport operations were experienced, as counted by the ATCT, which is above the base year TAF operations estimate of 279,127. The TAF also presents a total of 660 based aircraft for 2017; however, Airport records show that there are 719 based aircraft as of 2017. Obviously, the TAF is out‐ dated and should be updated. Once the forecasts presented here are approved by the FAA, the FAA should update the TAF to reflect the selected forecasts. REGISTERED AIRCRAFT The number of based aircraft is the most basic indicator of general aviation demand. By first developing a forecast of based aircraft for the Airport, other general aviation activity and demand can be projected. The process of developing forecasts of based aircraft begins with an analysis of aircraft ownership in the primary general aviation service area through a review of historical aircraft registrations. Table 2H presents historical data regarding aircraft registered in Maricopa County since 1998. These figures are derived from the FAA aircraft registration database that categorized registered aircraft by county based on the zip code of the registered aircraft. Although this information generally provides a correlation to based aircraft, it is not uncommon for some aircraft to be registered in the county but based at an airport outside the county or vice versa. Between 2008 and 2014, two factors contributed to the decline in registered aircraft nationally: 1) the 2008‐2009 national recession and subsequent slow recovery; and 2) FAA required all aircraft to be re‐ registered from 2010‐2013, which removed nearly 30 percent of previously registered active general aviation aircraft. As presented in the table, Maricopa County experienced a decline in registered aircraft during this timeframe and that was likely attributed to a combination of the factors mentioned. With these two major factors now in the past, it is reasonable to anticipate a return to more normal growth trends. As presented in the table, Maricopa County registered aircraft between 1998 and 2017 ranged between a low of 4,172 in 2014 to a high of 5,504 in 2008. The table also includes the type of aircraft registered in Maricopa County. As is typical for nearly all areas in the United States, single engine piston aircraft dominate the total aircraft numbers. In 2017, for example, there were 4,355 aircraft registered in the county, of which 3,005 were single engine piston aircraft. Aircraft registrations in 2017 also included 302 multi‐engine piston aircraft, 139 turboprop aircraft, 261 jets, and 250 helicopters. There were also 398 aircraft included in the “other” category, which can include gliders, ultralights, and electric‐powered aircraft.

Forecasts

2-18

TABLE 2H Historical Aircraft Registration by Type Maricopa County Year SEP MEP Turboprop Jet Helicopter Other1 1998 2,932 400 112 148 280 317 1999 2,973 419 167 164 277 346 2000 3,196 447 170 184 316 355 2001 3,251 405 260 222 340 372 2002 3,267 403 261 228 344 372 2003 3,353 356 411 284 348 377 2004 3,398 346 409 276 345 374 2005 3,456 356 417 249 347 380 2006 3,778 503 128 160 340 390 2007 3,849 512 133 193 358 431 2008 3,796 458 181 274 362 433 2009 3,723 438 160 296 370 426 2010 3,680 439 141 288 351 434 2011 3,608 419 130 293 353 415 2012 3,215 360 137 314 302 386 2013 2,937 337 142 337 265 349 2014 2,927 332 134 204 257 318 2015 2,949 314 130 220 242 331 2016 3,006 316 157 249 246 400 2017 3,005 302 139 261 250 398 1 "Other" category consists of gliders, ultralights, electric‐powered aircraft, etc. SEP ‐ Single Engine Piston MEP ‐ Multi‐Engine Piston Source: FAA Aircraft Registration Database

Total 4,189 4,346 4,668 4,850 4,875 5,129 5,148 5,205 5,299 5,476 5,504 5,413 5,333 5,218 4,714 4,367 4,172 4,186 4,374 4,355

Table 2J presents six different projections of registered aircraft for Maricopa County, three market share forecasts, and three ratio projections. The first market share forecast considers the relationship be‐ tween registered aircraft located within Maricopa County and active aircraft within the United States. In 2017, Maricopa County held 2.08 percent of the U.S. active aircraft. By keeping this market share constant, a forecast emerges that shows minimal growth in registered aircraft. This forecast method results in only 4,439 registered aircraft over the next 20 years and produces a CAGR of 0.10 percent. The second forecast considers an increasing market share percentage of local registered aircraft to the number of national active aircraft. As evidenced in the table, since 1998 the county’s market share has fluctuated from a high of 2.45 percent to a low of 1.98 percent. The county has generally gained market share of the U.S. active fleet over the past few years. A continued increasing forecast model having the county market share of U.S. active aircraft rising to 2.30 percent in 2037, generates 5,122 registered aircraft at a CAGR of 0.81 percent. A third market share forecast applies the historical average market share of 2.24 percent since 1998. This forecast projects 4,781 registered aircraft in Maricopa County by 2037, yielding a 0.47 percent CAGR.

Forecasts

2-19

TABLE 2J Registered Aircraft Projections Maricopa County County U.S. Active Market Share of Maricopa County Aircraft per 1,000 Year Registrations1 Aircraft2 U.S. Aircraft Population3 Residents 1998 4,189 204,710 2.05% 3,072,100 1.36 1999 4,346 219,464 1.98% 3,165,600 1.37 2000 4,668 217,533 2.15% 3,072,100 1.52 2001 4,850 211,446 2.29% 3,165,600 1.53 2002 4,875 211,244 2.31% 3,261,900 1.49 2003 5,129 209,606 2.45% 3,361,100 1.53 2004 5,148 219,319 2.35% 3,463,400 1.49 2005 5,205 224,257 2.32% 3,568,800 1.46 2006 5,299 221,942 2.39% 3,677,300 1.44 2007 5,476 231,606 2.36% 3,789,200 1.45 2008 5,504 228,664 2.41% 3,904,500 1.41 2009 5,413 223,876 2.42% 4,023,300 1.35 2010 5,333 223,370 2.39% 3,817,100 1.40 2011 5,218 220,453 2.37% 3,880,200 1.34 2012 4,714 209,034 2.26% 3,884,700 1.21 2013 4,367 199,927 2.18% 3,944,900 1.11 2014 4,172 204,408 2.04% 4,008,700 1.04 2015 4,186 210,031 1.99% 4,076,400 1.03 2016 4,374 209,905 2.08% 4,137,100 1.06 2017 4,355 209,800 2.08% 4,233,600 1.03 Constant Market Share of U.S. Active Aircraft (CAGR = 0.10%) 2022 4,361 209,655 2.08% 4,630,400 0.94 2027 4,364 209,805 2.08% 5,026,400 0.87 2037 4,439 213,420 2.08% 5,795,200 0.77 Increasing Market Share of U.S. Active Aircraft (CAGR = 0.81%) 2022 4,508 209,655 2.12% 4,630,400 0.97 2027 4,721 209,805 2.18% 5,026,400 0.94 2037 5,122 213,420 2.30% 5,795,200 0.88 Historical Average Market Share Projection of U.S. Active Aircraft (CAGR = 0.47%) 2022 4,696 209,655 2.24% 4,630,400 1.01 2027 4,700 209,805 2.24% 5,026,400 0.93 2037 4,781 213,420 2.24% 5,795,200 0.82 Constant Ratio Projection per 1,000 County Residents (CAGR = 1.59%) 2022 4,769 209,655 2.27% 4,630,400 1.03 2027 5,177 209,805 2.47% 5,026,400 1.03 2037 5,969 213,420 2.80% 5,795,200 1.03 Decreasing Ratio Projection per 1,000 County Residents (CAGR = 0.91%) ‐ Selected Forecast 2022 4,630 209,655 2.21% 4,630,400 1.00 2027 4,830 209,805 2.30% 5,026,400 0.96 2037 5,220 213,420 2.45% 5,795,200 0.90 Historical Average Ratio Projection per 1,000 County Residents (CAGR = 2.90%) 2022 6,158 209,655 2.94% 4,630,400 1.33 2027 6,685 209,805 3.19% 5,026,400 1.33 2037 7,708 213,420 3.61% 5,795,200 1.33 Source: 1 FAA Aircraft Registration Database 2 FAA Aerospace Forecast ‐ Fiscal Years 2017‐2037 3 U.S. Census Bureau; MAG Socioeconomic Projections: Population and Employment by Municipal Planning Area, Jurisdic‐ tion, and Regional Analysis Zone (June 2016)

Forecasts

2-20

In addition to the market share forecasts, two ratio projection forecasts were generated. In 2016, the county had 1.03 registered aircraft per 1,000 Maricopa County residents. The first ratio projection holds this ratio constant while it is applied to the population forecast of Maricopa County. This forecast results in 5,969 registered aircraft and a CAGR of 1.59 percent. A second ratio projection considers a decrease in the number of aircraft per 1,000 residents in Maricopa County. This has been the general trend over the past several years, primarily due to population growth outpacing growth in registered aircraft. When the decreasing ratio projection of registered aircraft per 1,000 residents is applied to the forecast popu‐ lation of the county, 5,220 registered aircraft are projected at a CAGR of 1.63 percent. Finally, the historical average ratio projection of registered aircraft per county population was examined. The historical ratio has averaged 1.33 since 1998. This forecast yields very strong growth in registered aircraft through the planning period, primarily driven by strong population growth being projected throughout Maricopa County. In this case, a forecast of 7,708 registered aircraft emerges, equating to a strong 2.90 percent CAGR. It should be noted that regression and time‐series analyses were considered. Because of the overall declining trend in certain variables, such as registered aircraft and U.S. active aircraft not being con‐ sistent with increasing trends in population growth, regression and time‐series analyses did not result in reliable forecasts. As a result, these analytical methods were not considered further. Exhibit 2C summarizes the registered aircraft forecasts for Maricopa County. The registered aircraft forecasts produced a high range of 7,708 registered aircraft and a low range of 4,439 registered aircraft. Recent declines in registered aircraft and U.S. active aircraft following the 2008‐2009 recession have slowly leveled off and are projected to return to growth over time, although at a lower rate than what has been projected in the past. Ultimately, the decreasing ratio projection of aircraft per 1,000 county residents is considered the most reasonable forecast as it follows trends that have occurred over the past 20 years, while accounting for growth in population projected in Maricopa County during the fore‐ cast period. In 2022, registered aircraft are forecast to increase to 4,630. By 2037, registered aircraft for the county are forecast to reach 5,220. Over the next 20 years, registered aircraft within the county are forecast to grow at a CAGR of 0.91 percent annually. The registered aircraft projection is one data point to be used in the development of a based aircraft forecast. The following section will present several potential based aircraft forecasts, as well as the se‐ lected based aircraft forecast, to be utilized in this study. BASED AIRCRAFT Determining the number of based aircraft at an airport can be a challenging task. Aircraft storage can be somewhat transient in nature, meaning aircraft owners can and do move their aircraft. Some aircraft owners may store their aircraft at an airport for only part of the year. For many years, the FAA did not require based aircraft records; therefore, historical records are often incomplete or non‐existent.

Forecasts

2-21

8,000

HISTORICAL

FORECAST

7,000

6,000

REGISTERED AIRCRAFT

5,220 4,830

4,630

5,000

4,355

4,000

3,000

2,000

79,450

1,000

‘98 2000

2005

2010

2015 ‘17

2020 ‘22

2025 ‘27

2030

2035 ‘37

LEGEND Constant Market Share of U.S. Active Aircraft (CAGR = 0.10%) Increasing Market Share of U.S. Active Aircraft (CAGR = 0.81%) Historical Average Market Share Projection of U.S. Active Aircraft (CAGR = 0.47%) Constant Ratio Projection per 1,000 County Residents (CAGR = 1.59%) Decreasing Ratio Projection per 1,000 County Residents (CAGR = 0.91%) - Selected Forecast Historical Average Ratio Projection per 1,000 County Residents (CAGR = 2.90%) Source: FAA Aircraft Registration Database

Forecasts

2-22

EXHIBIT 2C REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS

The current based aircraft count at Falcon Field Airport was compiled using records as reported by Air‐ port management. Based on these records, including specified aircraft registration numbers in 2017, there were 719 based aircraft at the Airport. Historic based aircraft figures were also provided by Airport management, who is now required to monitor based aircraft activity at the Airport and provide periodic updates to the FAA and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) – Aeronautics Group. Table 2K presents several based aircraft forecasts for Falcon Field Airport. The first method used to project based aircraft examined the Airport’s share of registered aircraft in Maricopa County. As shown, the Airport captured 16.51 percent of aircraft registered in the county in 2017. The first forecast assumes a constant market share of 16.51 percent. This yields 862 aircraft by 2037, equating to a 0.91 percent CAGR. The second projection assumes the Airport’s market share will increase throughout the planning period, similar to what has occurred during certain timeframes over the previous several years, including most recently. This projection would yield 1,018 based aircraft by the year 2037, resulting in a growth rate of 1.75 percent annually. Trends comparing the number of based aircraft with the Airport’s service area population were also analyzed. A constant ratio of based aircraft per 1,000 people results in based aircraft growing at the same rate as the service area population. This yields 899 based aircraft by 2037, which is an annual growth rate of 1.12 percent. A second ratio projection was analyzed which considers the historical av‐ erage ratio of 0.60 based aircraft per 1,000 residents. When this forecast is applied, 1,018 based aircraft are projected at a CAGR of 1.75 percent. Another forecast involves the Airport Forecast Update that was prepared for Falcon Field Airport in 2012. The forecasts done for this study were approved by the FAA in July 2012. The base year of the study was 2011, when a total of 791 based aircraft were identified. This study projected 1,000 based aircraft by 2032, which was the 20‐year planning period at that time. Extrapolating the forecasts to 2037 would yield a 20‐year projection of 1,050 based aircraft. This equates to a 1.91 percent CAGR. The FAA TAF is a generalized annual forecast of activity produced by the FAA for airports across the country. As detailed earlier in this chapter, the TAF estimates that in 2017 there were 660 based aircraft at Falcon Field Airport. It projects a CAGR of 1.88 percent, which results in a long term forecast of 960 based aircraft. As previously discussed, in 2017 the Airport was reporting 719 based aircraft, which are 59 more than the TAF base year estimate. When adapting the TAF’s growth rate to the based aircraft count reported by the Airport, a projection of 1,040 aircraft emerges by 2037. This yields a 1.88 percent CAGR. As a point of comparison, the “draft” Arizona State Aviation System Plan Update (SASP) currently being prepared in conjunction with the ADOT – Aeronautics Group, which was detailed in Chapter One, pro‐ jects a total of 981 based aircraft by 2036. When extrapolating this number to year 2037, a total of 997 based aircraft are projected for the Airport. It should be noted that the “draft” SASP’s base year for based aircraft is approximately 25 aircraft fewer than what the Airport is currently realizing.

Forecasts

2-23

TABLE 2K Based Aircraft Forecasts Falcon Field Airport Falcon Field Maricopa County Market Share of Service Area Based Aircraft Year Airport Based Registered Aircraft2 Registered Aircraft Population3 per 1,000 Residents 1 Aircraft 2010 800 5,333 15.00% 1,175,881 0.68 2011 791 5,218 15.16% 1,202,300 0.66 2012 748 4,714 15.87% 1,229,400 0.61 2013 742 4,367 16.99% 1,257,000 0.59 2014 735 4,172 17.62% 1,285,300 0.57 2015 702 4,186 16.77% 1,314,200 0.53 2016 687 4,374 15.71% 1,336,200 0.51 2017 719 4,355 16.51% 1,358,500 0.53 Constant Market Share Projection of Registered Aircraft (CAGR = 0.91%) 2022 764 4,630 16.51% 1,476,900 0.52 2027 797 4,830 16.51% 1,564,000 0.51 2037 862 5,220 16.51% 1,696,200 0.51 Increasing Market Share Projection of Registered Aircraft (CAGR = 1.89%) 2022 801 4,630 17.30% 1,476,900 0.54 2027 894 4,830 18.50% 1,564,000 0.57 2037 1,044 5,220 20.00% 1,696,200 0.62 Constant Ratio Projection per 1,000 Service Area Residents (CAGR = 1.12%) 2022 783 4,630 16.91% 1,476,900 0.53 2027 829 4,830 17.16% 1,564,000 0.53 2037 899 5,220 17.22% 1,696,200 0.53 Historical Average Ratio Projection per 1,000 Service Residents (CAGR = 1.75%) 2022 886 4,630 19.14% 1,476,900 0.60 2027 938 4,830 19.43% 1,564,000 0.60 2037 1,018 5,220 19.50% 1,696,200 0.60 2012 Airport Forecast Update (CAGR – 1.91%) 2022 900 4,630 19.44% 1,476,900 0.61 2027 950 4,830 19.67% 1,564,000 0.61 2037 1,050 5,220 20.11% 1,696,200 0.62 FAA Terminal Area Forecast Growth Rate (CAGR = 1.88%) ‐ Selected Forecast 2022 790 4,630 17.06% 1,476,900 0.53 2027 865 4,830 17.91% 1,564,000 0.55 2037 1,040 5,220 19.90% 1,696,200 0.61 "Draft" Arizona State Aviation System Plan Update ‐ February 2018 (CAGR = 1.65%) 2022 775 4,630 16.74% 1,476,900 0.52 2027 844 4,830 17.47% 1,564,000 0.54 2037 997 5,220 19.10% 1,696,200 0.59 Source: 1 Airport Records; 2012 Airport Forecast Update 2 FAA Aircraft Registration Database 3 MAG Socioeconomic Projections: Population and Employment by Municipal Planning Area, Jurisdiction, and Regional Analysis Zone (June 2016); MAG Socioeconomic Projections (June 2013)

Forecasts

2-24

Similar to the registered aircraft projections, based aircraft forecasts considered regression and time‐ series analyses techniques. Due to contradicting trends in based aircraft and other variables, these tech‐ niques did not result in reliable forecasts. The forecasts previously discussed in Table 2K and further depicted on Exhibit 2D represent a reasonable planning envelope. The selected forecast considers applying the FAA TAF’s growth rate to the existing based aircraft count as reported by Airport management. As such, it projects the Airport experiencing an increase in market share through the planning period, as well as an increase in the ratio of based aircraft to service area population. These trends have been realized at the Airport in the recent past. In the next five years, 790 aircraft are projected. In 10 years, 865 aircraft are projected and by 2037, 1,040 based aircraft are projected. This forecast results in a 1.88 percent CAGR through the 20‐year planning period. Future aircraft basing at the Airport will depend on several factors, including the state of the economy, fuel costs, available facilities, competing airports, and adjacent development potential. Forecasts as‐ sume a reasonably stable and growing economy, as well as reasonable development of Airport facilities necessary to accommodate aviation demand. Competing airports will play a role in deciding demand; however, Falcon Field Airport should fare well in this competition as it is served by a runway system capable of handling a majority of general aviation aircraft and the Airport’s capability of being able to meet future demand. Consideration must also be given to the current and future aviation conditions at the Airport. Falcon Field Airport provides an array of aviation services and will continue to be favored by aviation operators due to its location and available facilities. It is important to note that the Airport also maintains a hangar waiting list comprised of a significant number of aircraft, further pointing to existing demand potential. Furthermore, the City of Mesa has given every indication that it plans to continue support of the Airport. Significant investments are currently being made to the facility and the Airport should continue to meet the needs of aircraft in the regional aviation system. BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX The fleet mix of based aircraft is oftentimes more important to airport planning and design than the total number of aircraft. For example, the presence of one or a few business jets can impact the design stand‐ ards more than a large number of smaller, single engine piston‐powered aircraft. Knowing the aircraft fleet mix expected to utilize Falcon Field Airport is necessary to properly plan for facilities that will best serve the level of activity and the type of activities occurring at the Airport. The existing fleet mix of aircraft based at the Airport is comprised of 582 single engine piston aircraft, 76 multi‐engine piston aircraft, 14 turboprops, 7 jets, and 39 helicopters. There is also one aircraft regis‐ tration included in the based aircraft fleet mix that was unidentified in the FAA aircraft registration da‐ tabase. It could consist of an ultralight, electric‐powered aircraft, etc. It is classified as “other” for pur‐ poses of this forecast analysis. Forecasts

2-25

1,200

HISTORICAL

FORECAST 1,040

1,000

865 790 90 800

BASED AIRCRAFT

719

600

400

200

2010

2015

‘17

2020

‘22

2025

‘27

2030

2035

‘37

LEGEND Constant Market Share Projection of Registered Aircraft (CAGR = 0.91%) Increasing Market Share Projection of Registered Aircraft (CAGR = 1.89%) Constant Ratio Projection per 1,000 Service Area Residents (CAGR = 1.12%) Historical Average Ratio Projection per 1,000 Service Residents (CAGR = 1.75%) 2012 Airport Forecast Update (CAGR ‐ 1.91%) FAA Terminal Area Forecast Growth Rate (CAGR = 1.88%) - Selected Forecast "Draft" Arizona State Aviation System Plan Update ‐ February 2018 (CAGR = 1.65%) Source: Airport Records; 2012 Airport Forecast Update

Forecasts

2-26

EXHIBIT 2D BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS

The based aircraft fleet mix, as presented on Table 2L, was compared to the existing and forecast U.S. general aviation fleet mix trends as presented in FAA Aerospace Forecast – Fiscal Years 2017‐2037, as well as to trends occurring at the Airport. The national trend in general aviation continues to be toward a greater percentage of larger, more sophisticated aircraft as part of the national fleet. While single engine piston‐powered aircraft will continue to account for the largest share of based aircraft at the Airport, these aircraft are forecast to drop as a percentage of the fleet mix. Multi‐engine piston‐powered aircraft are expected to decrease in number and decrease as a percentage of the fleet mix during the planning period of the Master Plan. TABLE 2L Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Falcon Field Airport Existing Forecast Aircraft Type 2017 Percent 2022 Percent 2027 Percent 2037 Percent Single Engine Piston 582 80.95% 636 80.51% 683 78.96% 818 78.65% Multi‐Engine Piston 76 10.57% 74 9.37% 72 8.32% 68 6.54% Turboprop 14 1.95% 22 2.78% 32 3.70% 48 4.62% Jet 7 0.97% 10 1.27% 17 1.97% 30 2.88% Helicopter 39 5.42% 47 5.95% 60 6.94% 75 7.21% Other 1 0.14% 1 0.13% 1 0.12% 1 0.10% Totals 719 100% 790 100% 865 100% 1,040 100% Source: Airport Records: Coffman Associates analysis

Consistent with national aviation trends, real growth is anticipated to occur within the more sophisti‐ cated categories, including turboprop and jet categories. The turboprop category is projected to in‐ crease by 34 based aircraft over the next 20 years, while the jet category is projected to grow by 23 based aircraft. Helicopters are also considered a significant growth category, growing by 36 through 2037. ANNUAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Aircraft operations can be separated into distinct groups. For facilities such as Falcon Field Airport, op‐ erations typically include general aviation, air taxi, and military. General aviation operations are those conducted by private individuals or companies that are not associated with scheduled passenger services or non‐scheduled transport services for hire. Air taxi refers to those operators who are certified in ac‐ cordance with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 and are authorized to provide on‐ demand public transportation of persons and property by aircraft. Military operations are those con‐ ducted by military personnel and aircraft. Air carrier operations are those conducted by commercial aircraft having a seating capacity of 60 or more and/or a maximum payload capacity of 18,000 pounds. Although the ATCT records have logged a minimal number of air carrier operations over the years, this activity does not occur at the Airport. It is likely these air carrier operations are overflights associated with aircraft utilizing Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport or Phoenix‐Mesa Gateway Airport. This analysis will not forecast future air carrier operations as this activity is not expected to occur at the Air‐ port in the future. Forecasts

2-27

Aircraft operations are further classified by the ATCT as either local or itinerant. A local operation is a takeoff or landing performed by an aircraft that operates within sight of the airport or which executes simulated approaches or touch‐and‐go operations at the airport. Itinerant operations are those per‐ formed by aircraft with a specific origin or destination away from the airport. Generally, local operations are characterized by training operations. Typically, itinerant operations increase with business use. Table 2M depicts the history of all aircraft operations at the Airport since 2005. Itinerant operations peaked in the 2007‐2008 timeframe, reaching a high of 143,431 operations. Starting in 2009, the Airport experienced a significant decrease in itinerant operations, which was a common occurrence at airports across the country given the economic recession that the United States was experiencing. In 2012, the Airport experienced 97,573 itinerant operations, which represents the lowest count for a calendar year since 2005. Since this time, the Airport has experienced a general increase in itinerant operations. In 2017, over 121,100 itinerant operations were realized. TABLE 2M Historical Aircraft Operations Falcon Field Airport Itinerant Operations Air General Year Air Taxi Military Carrier Aviation 2005 47 8,196 124,582 3,654 2006 9 6,320 115,610 3,129 2007 20 6,892 134,773 1,746 2008 6 3,813 135,382 2,006 2009 1 2,652 114,050 2,425 2010 9 2,818 102,548 2,203 2011 5 2,717 98,229 2,579 2012 6 2,891 90,900 3,776 2013 5 3,264 106,292 3,825 2014 18 38,805 64,718 2,859 2015 10 49,728 49,457 1,985 2016 27 58,671 48,297 3,180 2017 9 65,668 51,754 3,693 Source: FAA Air Traffic Activity Data System

Total Itinerant 136,479 125,068 143,431 141,207 119,128 107,578 103,530 97,573 113,386 106,400 101,180 110,175 121,124

General Aviation 133,087 123,728 170,026 178,066 136,024 106,950 116,257 92,687 149,925 129,839 149,464 152,579 169,952

Local Operations Total Military Local 617 133,704 285 124,013 672 170,698 146 178,212 81 136,105 93 107,043 293 116,550 345 93,032 385 150,310 184 130,023 81 149,545 364 152,943 381 170,333

Total Operations 270,183 249,081 314,129 319,419 255,233 214,621 220,080 190,605 263,696 236,423 250,725 263,118 291,457

Within the overall itinerant operations category, it should be noted that a significant increase in air taxi activity has been realized at the Airport in recent years, starting in 2014. During this same time, the Airport has experienced a decrease in itinerant general aviation operations. As detailed in Chapter One, this is due to ATCT personnel changing the procedures by which aircraft operations are counted at the Airport. All itinerant flight training activity associated with the CAE Oxford Aviation Academy, which was previously counted as general aviation itinerant activity, is now recognized as air taxi operations. As a result, the air taxi operations have noticeably increased in recent years. It should be pointed out that these operations are not typical of air taxi activity as defined by the FAA. According to ATCT personnel, approximately five percent of the logged air taxi activity is actual air taxi per FAA standards, constituting “on‐demand” commercial transport of persons or property in accordance with Title 14 CFR Part 135 and Subchapter K of Title 14 CFR Part 91. For purposes of this forecast analysis, air taxi operations will be Forecasts

2-28

classified according to the ATCT’s current counting structure, but further discussion regarding the break‐ down of air taxi operations will be made later in this chapter. Local operations have experienced significant fluctuations at the Airport since 2005. The highest number of local operations was experienced in 2008, when the Airport logged 178,212 operations. Local opera‐ tions saw their lowest total in 2012, when the Airport experienced 93,032 operations. Since this time, the Airport has trended toward positive growth in local operations, realizing 170,333 local operations most recently in 2017. Overall, 2008 marked the highest number of total aircraft operations when the Airport experienced 319,419 operations. Conversely, the Airport experienced its lowest operational activity in 2012, when 190,605 total aircraft operations were logged. From 2005 through 2016, the Airport averaged approxi‐ mately 256,800 annual operations. General aviation operations (both itinerant and local) accounted for a vast majority of overall operations at over 91 percent during the timeframe. These operational statistics are based on actual ATCT counts conducted when the tower is open and do not reflect operations that occur while the tower is closed. An adjustment will be added to the final operations forecast later in this chapter to account for operations that occur when the tower is closed. The operational mix at the Airport has been approximately 54 percent local and 46 percent itinerant since 2005. Higher local operations at a general aviation airport typically indicates that the Airport is an important facility for flight training activity; however, significant itinerant operations at Falcon Field Air‐ port also make the Airport a destination for businesses, as well as for personal and recreational activities. Itinerant General Aviation Operations Six forecasts of itinerant general aviation operations have been developed and are presented in Table 2N. The forecasts presented examine and/or manipulate variables, such as the Airport’s market share of itinerant operations, operations per based aircraft, and the FAA TAF. The first projection considers the Airport maintaining its market share of total U.S. itinerant general aviation operations at a constant level. In 2017, Falcon Field Airport accounted for 0.37 percent of U.S. itinerant operations. By carrying this percentage forward to the plan years of this study, a forecast emerges generating a CAGR of 0.25 percent and 54,400 itinerant general aviation operations by year 2037. The second forecast considers an increas‐ ing Airport market share of national itinerant general aviation operations and produces a CAGR of 2.17 percent and 79,500 operations by 2037. A third market share projection forecast was prepared, utilizing the historical average market share of 0.60 percent since 2005. This forecast yields 88,300 itinerant general aviation operations by 2037, leading to a CAGR of 2.71 percent. This is the most aggressive of the market share projections.

Forecasts

2-29

TABLE 2N Itinerant General Aviation Operations Forecasts Falcon Field Airport Falcon Field U.S. ATCT Market Share Falcon Field Year Itinerant Itinerant of Itinerant Airport Based GA Operations1 GA Operations2 Operations Aircraft3 2005 124,582 19,315,000 0.65% 926 2006 115,610 18,707,000 0.62% 919 2007 134,773 18,575,000 0.73% 924 2008 135,382 17,493,000 0.77% 873 2009 114,050 15,571,000 0.73% 850 2010 102,548 14,864,000 0.69% 800 2011 98,229 14,528,000 0.68% 791 2012 90,900 14,522,000 0.63% 748 2013 106,292 14,117,000 0.75% 742 2014 64,718 13,979,000 0.46% 735 2015 49,457 13,887,000 0.36% 702 2016 48,297 13,904,000 0.35% 687 2017 51,754 13,936,000 0.37% 719 Constant Market Share Projection (CAGR = 0.25%) 2022 52,200 14,121,000 0.37% 790 2027 53,000 14,312,000 0.37% 865 2037 54,400 14,713,000 0.37% 1,040 Increasing Market Share Projection (CAGR = 2.17%) ‐ Selected Forecast 2022 56,500 14,121,000 0.40% 790 2027 63,000 14,312,000 0.44% 865 2037 79,500 14,713,000 0.54% 1,040 Historical Average Market Share Projection (CAGR = 2.71%) 2022 84,700 14,121,000 0.60% 790 2027 85,900 14,312,000 0.60% 865 2037 88,300 14,713,000 0.60% 1,040 Increasing Operations per Based Aircraft (CAGR = 2.71%) 2022 59,300 14,121,000 0.42% 790 2027 67,500 14,312,000 0.47% 865 2037 88,400 14,713,000 0.60% 1,040 Historical Average Operations per Based Aircraft (CAGR = 4.28%) 2022 90,900 14,121,000 0.64% 790 2027 99,500 14,312,000 0.70% 865 2037 119,600 14,713,000 0.81% 1,040 FAA Terminal Area Forecast (CAGR = 0.12%) 2022 53,014 14,121,000 0.38% 790 2027 53,014 14,312,000 0.37% 865 2037 53,014 14,713,000 0.36% 1,040 Source: 1 Historical data from ATCT as reported to the FAA 2 FAA Aerospace Forecast ‐ Fiscal Years 2017‐2037 3 Airport Records; 2012 Airport Forecast Update

Forecasts

2-30

Itinerant Operations per Based Aircraft 135 126 146 155 134 128 124 122 143 88 70 70 72 66 61 52 72 73 76 107 99 85 75 78 85 115 115 115 67 61 51

Additional forecasts were prepared by examining the Airport’s operations per based aircraft. By increas‐ ing the current ratio of operations per based aircraft constant to 85 through the planning period, a fore‐ cast of 88,400 itinerant general aviation operations by 2037 results. Alternatively, the historical average of operations per based aircraft from 2010 through 2017 (115) was considered and forecasts a CAGR of 4.28 percent and 119,600 itinerant general aviation operations by the year 2037. For comparison, the FAA TAF projections are presented in the table. With this forecast, the market share slightly decreases and operations per based aircraft reach very low numbers when compared to what the Airport has experienced in the past. This is due to the TAF projecting a flat‐line forecast for itinerant general aviation operations. General aviation itinerant operations at Falcon Field Airport decreased significantly starting in 2014 when the ATCT changed its procedure for counting itinerant operations as previously detailed. As such, the forecasts related to historical average market share and based aircraft are somewhat skewed as they represent operations accounted for under previous ATCT counting procedures. Even so, the Airport is well‐positioned to continue to accommodate itinerant general aviation activities, and as the economy continues to improve as forecast, the selected itinerant aircraft operation projection continues a positive growth trend. The region’s strong socioeconomic base and continued development potential will attrib‐ ute to this projected growth. The selected forecast for itinerant operations at Falcon Field Airport would account for an increased market share as a percentage of total U.S. itinerant operations. The selected forecast equates to a CAGR of 2.17 percent and 79,500 operations through the planning period. Exhibit 2E further presents the general aviation itinerant operations forecasts. Local General Aviation Operations A similar methodology was utilized to generate a planning forecast for local general aviation operations at Falcon Field Airport. Five forecasts have been developed and are presented in Table 2P. The Airport market share, as a percentage of total general aviation local operations at towered airports, has been on the rise since 2014. Also depicted in the table are the local operations per based aircraft ratios. These numbers have fluctuated since 2005, experiencing a high of 236 most recently in 2017. The first forecast considers maintaining a constant 1.46 percent market share of national local opera‐ tions, yielding a local annual operations projection of approximately 183,200 by 2037. The second fore‐ cast applies an increasing market share of local operations throughout the planning horizon and yields 232,300 operations by 2037. Similar to the itinerant general aviation operations forecast, a historical average market share projection was also prepared. Since 2005, the market share has averaged 1.11 percent. Applying this to the planning five‐, 10‐, and 20‐year periods yields a significant decrease in local operations when compared to what the Airport has been experiencing. As a result, this forecast was not considered.

Forecasts

2-31

TABLE 2P Local General Aviation Operations Forecasts Falcon Field Airport Falcon Field Falcon Field U.S. ATCT Local Market Share of Year Local GA Airport Based GA Operations2 Local Operations Operations1 Aircraft3 2005 133,087 14,846,000 0.90% 926 2006 123,728 14,365,000 0.86% 919 2007 170,026 14,557,000 1.17% 924 2008 178,066 14,081,000 1.26% 873 2009 136,024 12,448,000 1.09% 850 2010 106,950 11,716,000 0.91% 800 2011 116,257 11,437,000 1.02% 791 2012 92,687 11,608,000 0.80% 748 2013 149,925 11,688,000 1.28% 742 2014 129,839 11,675,000 1.11% 735 2015 149,464 11,691,000 1.28% 702 2016 152,579 11,632,000 1.31% 687 2017 169,952 11,664,000 1.46% 719 Constant Market Share Projection (CAGR = 0.38%) 2022 173,300 11,873,000 1.46% 790 2027 176,500 12,090,000 1.46% 865 2037 183,200 12,549,000 1.46% 1,040 Increasing Market Share Projection (CAGR = 1.57%) ‐ Selected Forecast 2022 184,000 11,873,000 1.55% 790 2027 205,500 12,090,000 1.70% 865 2037 232,200 12,549,000 1.85% 1,040 Constant Operations per Based Aircraft (CAGR = 1.85%) 2022 186,400 11,873,000 1.57% 790 2027 204,100 12,090,000 1.69% 865 2037 245,400 12,549,000 1.96% 1,040 Increasing Operations per Based Aircraft (CAGR = 2.73%) 2022 193,600 11,873,000 1.63% 790 2027 224,900 12,090,000 1.86% 865 2037 291,200 12,549,000 2.32% 1,040 FAA Terminal Area Forecast (CAGR = 0.23%) 2022 170,150 11,873,000 1.43% 790 2027 172,716 12,090,000 1.43% 865 2037 177,967 12,549,000 1.42% 1,040 Source: 1 Historical data from ATCT as reported to the FAA 2 FAA Aerospace Forecast ‐ Fiscal Years 2017‐2037 3 Airport Records; 2012 Airport Forecast Update

Local Operations per Based Aircraft 144 135 184 204 160 134 147 124 202 177 213 222 236 219 204 176 233 238 223 236 236 236 245 260 280 215 200 171

Forecasts

2-32

ITINERANT GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS

350,000

HISTORICAL

LOCAL GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS

350,000

FORECAST

HISTORICAL

FORECAST

LEGEND 300,000

Constant Market Share Projection (CAGR = 0.38%)

300,000

Increasing Market Share Projection (CAGR = 1.57%) - Selected Forecast Constant Operations per Based Aircraft (CAGR = 1.85%) Increasing Operations per Based Aircraft (CAGR = 2.73%)

LEGEND

FAA Terminal Area Forecast (CAGR = 0.23%)

Constant Market Share Projection (CAGR = 0.25%) Increasing Market Share Projection (CAGR = 2.17%) - Selected Forecast

250,000

Historical Average Market Share Projection (CAGR = 0.2.71%) Increasing Operations per Based Aircraft (CAGR = 2.71%) Historical Average Operations per Based Aircraft (CAGR = 4.28%) FAA Terminal Area Forecast (CAGR = 0.12%)

LOCAL OPERATIONS

ITINERANT OPERATIONS

232,200 200,000

150,000

100,000

205,500

169,952 184,000 150,000

100,000

51,754

56,500

63,000 79,500

50,000

2005

Forecasts

200,000

2010

2015

‘17

2020

‘22

2025

‘27

2030

2035

2005

‘37

2-33

2010

2015

‘17

2020

‘22

2025

‘27

2030

2035

‘37

EXHIBIT 2E GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS FORECASTS

This page intentionally left blank

Forecasts

2-34

Constant and increasing operations per based aircraft forecasts were also prepared. These forecasts generated fairly aggressive CAGRs of 1.85 percent and 2.73 percent, respectively. A historical average of operations per based aircraft forecast was also prepared for local general aviation operations; how‐ ever, the five‐ and 10‐year forecasts correlates to fewer operations than what the Airport has experi‐ enced over the past several years. As such, this forecast was not considered valid. The FAA TAF projections are also presented in the table. Like itinerant operations, the TAF shows a significant decline in operations per based aircraft through the planning period, as well as a slight decline in the market share of national local operations. These are contrary to the trends being experienced at the Airport over the past several years. As such, the TAF will serve as the low end of the planning enve‐ lope. The selected forecast for local general aviation operations at Falcon Field Airport is depicted on Exhibit 2E and in Table 2P. The increasing market share projection was selected for the local general aviation operations forecast, resulting in 232,200 operations by 2037. This equates to a 1.57 percent CAGR. The level of local activity will continue to be dependent upon the operations of flight training, as well as aircraft basing at the Airport. Air Taxi Operations Air taxi operations are those with authority to provide “on‐demand” transportation of persons or prop‐ erty via aircraft with fewer than 60 passenger seats. Air taxi includes a broad range of operations, in‐ cluding some smaller commercial service aircraft, some charter aircraft, air cargo aircraft, many frac‐ tional ownership aircraft, and air ambulance services. In the case at Falcon Field Airport, air taxi opera‐ tions also include itinerant flight training activity associated with the CAE Oxford Aviation Academy. The history of air taxi operations is included in Table 2Q. As presented, air taxi operations at the Airport have significantly increased since 2014, which coincides with the change in counting procedures by the ATCT. The FAA national air taxi forecast projects an approximate four percent decrease in air taxi operations through 2027, followed by modest increases thereafter. The primary reason for this decrease is the transition by commuter airlines to larger aircraft with more than 60 passenger seats, which are then counted as air carrier operations. While air taxi operations that are represented by commuter airlines using aircraft with fewer than 60 seats are decreasing, the business jet segment of the air taxi category is expected to continue to grow nationally. The facilities and services available at the Airport are espe‐ cially accommodating to operators of business jets and turboprops that often operate under the busi‐ ness segment of air taxi activity. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect this component of air taxi activity to increase moderately over time at Falcon Field Airport.

Forecasts

2-35

TABLE 2Q Air Taxi Operations Forecasts Falcon Field Airport Falcon Field Year U.S. Air Taxi Operations2 Air Taxi Operations1 2010 2,818 9,410,000 2011 2,717 9,279,000 2012 2,891 8,994,000 2013 3,264 8,803,000 2014 3,805 8,440,000 2015 49,728 7,895,000 2016 58,671 7,499,000 2017 65,668 7,381,000 Constant Market Share Projection (CAGR = ‐0.82%) 2022 48,500 5,451,000 2027 50,300 5,649,000 2037 55,700 6,257,000 Increasing Market Share Projection (CAGR = 0.67%) 2022 51,800 5,451,000 2027 59,300 5,649,000 2037 75,100 6,257,000 FAA Terminal Area Forecast (CAGR = 0.88%) ‐ Selected Forecast 2022 67,400 5,451,000 2027 70,800 5,649,000 2037 78,200 6,257,000 Source: 1 Historical data from ATCT as reported to the FAA 2 FAA Aerospace Forecast ‐ Fiscal Years 2017‐2037

Market Share of Air Taxi Operations 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.04% 0.05% 0.63% 0.78% 0.89% 0.89% 0.89% 0.89% 0.95% 1.05% 1.20% 1.24% 1.25% 1.25%

Table 2Q presents three forecasts for air taxi operations at the Airport. The first simply considers the Airport capturing a constant market share of national air taxi operations, which results in a decreasing number of air taxi operations. This forecast is not thought to reflect the local condition at Falcon Field Airport, considering the air taxi operators currently operating at the Airport, in addition to the itinerant flight training activity counted as such. This projection is less than what the ATCT has counted in the recent past, thus representing a negative CAGR. The second forecast considers an increasing market share of air taxi operations, which produces a CAGR of 0.67 percent and 75,100 air taxi operations by 2037. The remaining forecast analyzes air taxi operations presented in the FAA TAF. The TAF projects air taxi operations to grow at an annual rate of 0.88 percent through the 20‐year planning period and also ac‐ counts for the activity associated with CAE Oxford Aviation Academy’s flight training. As a result, the forecast generated by the TAF is the selected forecast for air taxi operations. This projected increase is conducive of a reliever airport supported by a variety of industrial and commercial business activities as currently exists and is forecast to continue for areas adjacent to the facility. Forecasts

2-36

As discussed earlier in this chapter, ATCT personnel suggest that approximately five percent of the logged air taxi activity is actual air taxi operations as defined by the FAA. With that, it can be expected that air taxi operations associated with Title 14 CFR Part 135 and Subchapter K of Title 14 CFR Part 91 could range from 3,500 to 5,000 annual operations through the 20‐year planning period of the Master Plan. Military Operations Falcon Field Airport has experienced military activity in the past; however, these operations have ac‐ counted for the smallest portion of the operational traffic at the Airport. Since 2005, military activity has averaged approximately 3,200 annual operations. Of these operations, approximately 90 percent were itinerant, and 10 percent were local. Forecasting for military activity is particularly challenging when there are no based military aircraft. The FAA has taken the position that it is inherently difficult to forecast military operations because of the variable nature of the military mission. Due to this unpredictability, military activity is forecast as a con‐ stant of 3,200 total operations annually for each planning period. ATCT Count Adjustment and Total Operations As previously mentioned, the Airport’s ATCT is not a 24‐hour tower and, as such, its air traffic counts are not all‐inclusive of aircraft operations at the Airport. Some aspects of the Master Plan require that all airport activity be considered. For these evaluations, it is necessary to estimate and adjust for operations that occur when the tower is closed. The ATCT operates from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. From May 15 to August 15 of each year, the ATCT opens at 5:30 a.m. For planning purposes within this Master Plan, operations after the tower has closed are estimated at three percent of total operations. This estimate is consistent with previous forecast analyses conducted for the Airport and corresponds with other facilities similar to the Airport where after‐hours operational counts have been conducted. Table 2R presents a summary of the ATCT operations, as well as the adjusted operations, when consid‐ ering the three percent increase for after‐hours activity. When considering the three percent adjust‐ ment, total annual operations are approximately 300,200 for 2017. Through the 20‐year planning pe‐ riod, annual operations, including nighttime operations, are forecast to be 404,900. The operational projections equate to a 1.51 percent CAGR.

Forecasts

2-37

TABLE 2R Forecast Adjustment for ATCT After‐Hours Operations Falcon Field Airport 2017 2022 2027 2037 ATCT OPERATIONS General Aviation Itinerant 51,754 56,500 63,000 79,500 Local 169,952 184,000 205,500 232,200 Total General Aviation Operations 221,706 240,500 268,500 311,700 Air Taxi 65,668 67,400 70,800 78,200 Military 4,074 3,200 3,200 3,200 Total ATCT Operations 291,457 311,100 342,500 393,100 ADJUSTED OPERATIONS General Aviation Itinerant 53,307 58,195 64,890 81,885 Local 175,051 189,520 211,665 239,166 Total General Aviation Operations 228,357 247,715 276,555 321,051 Air Taxi 67,638 69,422 72,924 80,546 Military 4,196 3,296 3,296 3,296 Total Adjusted Operations 300,200 320,400 352,800 404,900 Adjustment accounts for the hours (9:00 p.m. ‐ 6:00 a.m.) when the ATCT is closed. Total Adjusted Operations are rounded to the nearest 100.

PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS Many airport facility needs are related to the levels of activity during peak periods (busy times). The periods used in developing facility requirements for this study are as follows:  Peak Month – The calendar month when peak aircraft operations occur.  Design Day – The average day in the peak month. This indicator is derived by dividing the peak month operations by the number of days in the month.  Busy Day – The busy day of a typical week in the peak month.  Design Hour – The peak hour within the design day. It is important to realize that only the peak month is an absolute peak within the year. Each of the other periods will be exceeded at various times during the year. However, each provides reasonable planning standards that can be applied without overbuilding or being too restrictive. A review of ATCT reports shows that the peak month for operations has averaged 10.74 percent of total annual operations. This factor is carried to the plan years. The design day is simply the peak month divided by the number of days in that month (30). Forecasts

2-38

Daily operational counts from the ATCT were utilized to determine a busy day peaking factor for general aviation activity. The peak day of each week has historically averaged 18 percent of weekly operations. Thus, to determine the typical busy day, the design day is multiplied by 1.26, which represents 22 percent of the days in a week (7 x 0.18). Design hour operations were determined to be approximately 13 per‐ cent of the design day operations. The peaking characteristics are summarized in Table 2S for each planning year period. TABLE 2S Peak Operations Forecast Falcon Field Airport 2017 Annual Operations 300,200 Peak Month 32,241 Design Day 1,075 Busy Day 1,354 Design Hour 140 Source: ATCT records; Coffman Associates analysis

2022 320,400 34,411 1,147 1,445 149

2027 352,800 37,891 1,263 1,591 164

2037 404,900 43,486 1,450 1,826 188

ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES An instrument approach, as defined by the FAA, is “an approach to an airport with the intent to land by an aircraft in accordance with an Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) flight plan, when visibility is less than three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude.” To qualify as an instrument approach, aircraft must land at the Airport after following one of the published instrument approach procedures in less than visual conditions. Forecasts of annual instrument approaches (AIAs) provide guidance in determining an airport’s requirements for navigational aid facilities, such as an in‐ strument landing system. It should be noted that practice or training approaches do not count as annual AIAs, nor do instrument approaches conducted in visual conditions. During poor weather conditions, pilots are less likely to fly and rarely would perform training operations. As a result, an estimate of the total number of AIAs can be made based on a percentage of itinerant operations regardless of the frequency of poor weather conditions. An estimate of one percent of total itinerant (general aviation, air taxi, and military) operations is utilized to forecast AIAs at Falcon Field Airport, as presented in Table 2T. TABLE 2T Annual Instrument Approaches Falcon Field Airport Year Annual Instrument Approaches 2017 1,247 2022 1,306 2027 1,408 2037 1,654 Source: Coffman Associates analysis

Forecasts

Itinerant Operations 124,720 130,580 140,780 165,400

Ratio 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

2-39

FORECAST COMPARISON TO THE FAA TAF The FAA will review the forecasts presented in this Master Plan for consistency with the Terminal Area Forecast. The local FAA Airports District Office (ADO) or Regional Airports Division (RO) are responsible for forecast approvals. When reviewing a sponsor’s forecast, the FAA must ensure that the forecast is based on reasonable planning assumptions, uses current data, and is developed using appropriate fore‐ cast methods. Forecasts of based aircraft and annual aircraft operations are considered consistent with the TAF if they differ by less than 10 percent in the five‐year period and 15 percent in the 10‐year forecast period. If the forecast is not consistent with the TAF, differences must be resolved if the forecast is to be used for FAA decision‐making. The reason the FAA allows this differential is because the TAF forecasts are not meant to replace forecasts developed locally (i.e., in this Master Plan). While the TAF can provide a point of reference or comparison, their purpose is much broader in defining FAA national workload measures. Table 2U presents the direct comparison of the master planning forecasts with the TAF published in January 2018. Regarding based aircraft, the Master Plan forecast for the five‐year timeframe is 8.2 per‐ cent higher than the TAF and the forecast for the 10‐year timeframe is 7.5 percent higher than the TAF. The primary reason for the difference is because the TAF has a 2017 base year of 660 based aircraft, when actual records from the Airport indicate 719 based aircraft in 2017. TABLE 2U Master Plan Forecast Comparison to the Terminal Area Forecast Falcon Field Airport Year Airport Activity FAA TAF BASED AIRCRAFT 2017 719 660 2022 790 730 2027 865 805 2037 1,040 960 CAGR 1.88% 1.88% ANNUAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 2017 300,200 279,127 2022 320,400 295,412 2027 352,800 301,413 2037 404,900 314,070 CAGR 1.51% 0.59% Source: FAA TAF (2018); Coffman Associates analysis

Percent Difference 8.9% 8.2% 7.5% 8.3% 7.5% 8.5% 17.0% 28.9%

The total annual operations forecast in the Master Plan is 8.5 percent higher than the TAF in the five‐ year timeframe. The 10‐year forecast is 17.0 percent higher than the TAF. The primary reason for this is that the TAF has a lower operations number than what was counted by the ATCT in 2017, in addition to the adjustment increase for after‐hours activity when the ATCT is closed. Furthermore, the TAF is calling for a slight increase in annual aircraft activity through the planning period, and the Master Plan

Forecasts

2-40

accounts for modest growth in aircraft operations through 2037. Overall, the Master Plan considers a 1.51 percent CAGR in annual aircraft operations through the 20‐year planning period. FORECAST SUMMARY This section has provided demand‐based forecasts of aviation activity at Falcon Field Airport over the next 20 years. An attempt has been made to define the projections in terms of short (1‐5 years), inter‐ mediate (6‐10 years), and long (11‐20 years) term planning horizons. Exhibit 2F presents a 20‐year fore‐ cast summary as previously detailed in this chapter. Elements, such as local socioeconomic indicators, anticipated regional development, historical aviation data, and national aviation trends, were all consid‐ ered when determining future conditions.

AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT/RUNWAY CLASSIFICATION

The FAA has established several aircraft classification systems that group aircraft types based on their performance (approach speed in landing configuration) and design characteristics (wingspan and landing gear configuration). These classification systems are used to determine the appropriate airport design standards for specific airport elements, such as runways, taxiways, taxilanes, and aprons. AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION The selection of appropriate FAA design standards for the development and location of airport facilities is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft which are currently using, or are expected to use, an airport. The critical design aircraft is used to define the design parameters for an airport. The design aircraft may be a single aircraft type or, more commonly, is a composite aircraft representing a collection of aircraft with similar characteristics. The critical design aircraft is defined by three parame‐ ters: Aircraft Approach Category (AAC), Airplane Design Group (ADG), and Taxiway Design Group (TDG). FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, describes the following airplane classification systems, the pa‐ rameters of which are presented on Exhibit 2G. Aircraft Approach Category (AAC): A grouping of aircraft based on a reference landing speed (VREF), if specified, or if VREF is not specified, 1.3 times stall speed (VSO) at the maximum certificated landing weight. VREF, VSO, and the maximum certificated landing weight are those values as established for the aircraft by the certification authority of the country of registry. The AAC generally refers to the approach speed of an aircraft in landing configuration. The higher the approach speed, the more restrictive the applicable design standards. The AAC, depicted by a letter A through E, is the aircraft approach category and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational charac‐ teristic). The AAC generally applies to runways and runway‐related facilities, such as runway width, run‐ way safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway protection zone (RPZ), and separation standards. Forecasts

2-41

BASE YEAR 2017

2022

51,754 169,952 221,706 65,668 4,074 291,457 9,950

FORECAST 2027

2037

56,500 184,000 240,500 67,400 3,200 311,100 11,300

63,000 205,500 268,500 70,800 3,200 342,500 12,200

79,500 232,200 311,700 78,200 3,200 393,100 14,900

53,307 175,051 228,357 67,638 4,196 300,200

58,195 189,520 247,715 69,422 3,296 320,400

64,890 211,665 276,555 72,924 3,296 352,800

81,885 239,166 321,051 80,546 3,296 404,900

300,200 32,241 1,075 1,354 140

320,400 34,411 1,147 1,445 149

352,800 37,891 1,263 1,591 164

404,900 43,486 1,450 1,826 188

ATCT OPERATIONS General Aviation Itinerant Local Total General Aviation Operations Air Taxi Military Total ATCT Operations TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATIONS (rounded) ADJUSTED OPERATIONS* General Aviation Itinerant Local Total General Aviation Operations Air Taxi Military Total Adjusted Operations

PEAK OPERATIONS Annual Operations Peak Month Design Day Busy Day Design Hour

* Adjustment accounts for the hours (9:00 p.m. ‐ 6:00 a.m.) when the ATCT is closed. Total Adjusted Operations are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: ATCT records; Coffman Associates analysis

2017

2022

2027

636 74 22 10 47 1 790

683 72 32 17 60 1 865

2037

BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX Single Engine Piston Multi-Engine Piston Turboprop Jet Helicopter Other Total Based Aircraft

582 76 14 7 39 1 719

TOTAL ADJUSTED OPERATIONS 500,000

Itinerant Local

818 68 48 30 75 1 1,040

BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX

Air Taxi Military

400,000

300,000

200,000

2017

100,000

2017

Forecasts

2022

2027

2037

2-42

2037

Single-engine piston

Jet

Multi-engine piston

Helicopter

Turboprop

Other

EXHIBIT 2F FORECAST SUMMARY

AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY (AAC) Category A B C D E

Approach Speed less than 91 knots 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots 166 knots or more

AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG) Group # I II III IV V VI

Tail Height (ft) <20 20-<30 30-<45 45-<60 60-<66 66-<80

Wingspan (ft) <49 49-<79 79-<118 118-<171 171-<214 214-<262

VISIBILITY MINIMUMS RVR (ft) VIS 5,000 4,000 2,400 1,600 1,200

Flight Visibility Category (statute miles) 3-mile or greater visibility minimums Not lower than 1-mile Lower than 1-mile but not lower than ¾-mile Lower than ¾-mile but not lower than ½-mile Lower than ½-mile but not lower than ¼-mile Lower than ¼-mile

TAXIWAY DESIGN GROUP (TDG) 140

COCKPIT TO MAIN GEAR (FEET)

120

TDG-6

100

TDG-7

TDG-4

TDG-5

TDG-2 40

TDG-3

TDG-1B 20

TDG-1A 0

MAIN GEAR WIDTH (FEET) KEY RVR: Runway Visual Range TDG: Taxiway Design Group

Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design

Forecasts

2-43

EXHIBIT 2G AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS

Airplane Design Group (ADG): The ADG, depicted by a Roman numeral I through VI, is a classification of aircraft which relates to aircraft wingspan or tail height (physical characteristic). When the aircraft wing‐ span and tail height fall in different groups, the higher group is used. The ADG influences design stand‐ ards for taxiway safety area (TSA), taxiway object free area (TOFA), apron wingtip clearance, and various separation distances. Taxiway Design Group (TDG): A classification of airplanes based on outer‐to‐outer Main Gear Width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance. The TDG relates to the undercarriage dimensions of the design aircraft. The taxiway design elements determined by the application of the TDG include the taxiway width, taxiway edge safety margin, taxiway shoulder width, taxiway fillet dimensions, and, in some cases, the separation distance between parallel taxiways/taxilanes. Other taxiway elements, such as the TSA, TOFA, taxiway/taxilane separation to parallel taxiway/taxilanes or fixed or movable objects, and taxiway/taxilane wingtip clearances, are determined solely based on the wingspan (ADG) of the de‐ sign aircraft utilizing those surfaces. It is appropriate for taxiways to be planned and built to different TDG standards based on expected use. Exhibit 2H presents the aircraft classification of the most common aircraft in operation today. AIRPORT AND RUNWAY CLASSIFICATION These classifications, along with the aircraft classifications defined previously, are used to determine the appropriate FAA design standards to which the airfield facilities are to be designed and built. Airport Reference Code (ARC): An airport designation that signifies the airport’s highest Runway Design Code (RDC), minus the third (visibility) component of the RDC. The ARC is used for planning and design only and does not limit the aircraft that may be able to operate safely on the airport. The current ALP for Falcon Field, which will be updated as part of this master planning effort, identifies an existing and future ARC of B‐II. Runway Design Code (RDC): A code signifying the design standards to which the runway is to be built. The RDC is based upon planned development and has no operational component. The AAC, ADG, and runway visual range (RVR) are combined to form the RDC of a particular runway. The RDC provides the information needed to determine certain design standards that apply. The first com‐ ponent, depicted by a letter, is the AAC and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteris‐ tics). The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the ADG and relates to either the aircraft wingspan or tail height (physical characteristics), whichever is most restrictive. The third component relates to the visibility minimums expressed by RVR values in feet of 1,200 (⅛‐mile), 1,600 (¼‐mile), 2,400 (½‐mile), 4,000 (¾‐mile), and 5,000 (1‐mile). The RVR values approximate standard visibility minimums for instrument approaches to the runways. The third component should read “VIS” for runways designed for visual approach use only.

Forecasts

2-44

A-I

B-I

than B-II less 100,000 lbs.

over er B-I, B-II ov 12,5 ,5500 lbs.

A-III, B-III

C-I, D-I

• Beech Baron 55 • Beech Bonanza • Cessna 150 • Cessna 172 • Cessna Citation Mustang • Eclipse 500/550 • Piper Archer • Piper Seneca

C-II, D-II

• Beech Baron 58 • Beech King Air 100 • Cessna 402 • Cessna 421 • Piper Navajo • Piper Cheyenne • Swearingen Metroliner • Cessna Citation I

C-III, D-III

• Super King Air 200 • Cessna 441 • DHC Twin Otter

• Super King Air 350 • Beech 1900 • Jetstream 31 • Falcon 10, 20, 50 • Falcon 200, 900 • Citation II, III, IV, V, VI, VII • Saab 340 • Embraer 120

C-IV, D-IV

C-V, D-V

• DHC Dash 7 • DHC Dash 8 • DC-3 • Convair 580 • Fairchild F-27 • ATR 72 • ATP

• Beech 400 • Lear 45, 55, 60 • Israeli Westwind • HS 125-400, 700

• Cessna Citation X • Gulfstream II, III, IV • Canadair 600 • ERJ-135, 140, 145 • CRJ-200/700 • Lear 75

• ERJ-170, 190 • CRJ 700, 900 • Boeing Business Jet • B-737-300 Series • MD-80, DC-9 • BAe 146-200 • A319, A320 • Gulfstream V • Global Express • B-757 • B-767 • C-130 • DC-8-70 • MD-11

• B-747-400 • B-777 • B-787 • A-330, A-340

Note: Aircraft pictured is identified in bold type.

Forecasts

2-45

EXHIBIT 2H AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES

Approach Reference Code (APRC): A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway and associated parallel taxiway with regard to landing operations. Like the RDC, the APRC is composed of the same three components: the AAC, ADG, and RVR. The APRC describes the current operational capabilities of a runway under particular meteorological conditions where no special operating proce‐ dures are necessary, as opposed to the RDC, which is based upon planned development with no opera‐ tional component. The APRC for a runway is established based upon the minimum runway to taxiway centerline separation. Departure Reference Code (DPRC): A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway and associated parallel taxiway with regard to takeoff operations. The DPRC represents those aircraft that can takeoff from a runway while any aircraft are present on adjacent taxiways, under particular meteorological conditions with no special operating conditions. The DPRC is similar to the APRC but is composed of two components: ACC and ADG. A runway may have more than one DPRC depending on the parallel taxiway separation distance.

CRITICAL DESIGN AIRCRAFT The selection of appropriate FAA design standards for the development and location of airport facilities is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft which are currently using, or are expected to use, an airport. The critical design aircraft is used to define the design parameters for an airport. The design aircraft may be a single aircraft or a composite aircraft representing a collection of aircraft classi‐ fied by the three parameters: AAC, ADG, and TDG. In the case of an airport with multiple runways, a design aircraft is selected for each runway. The first consideration is the safe operation of aircraft likely to use an airport. Any operation of an air‐ craft that exceeds design criteria of an airport may result in either an unsafe operation or a lesser safety margin; however, it is not the usual practice to base the airport design on an aircraft that uses the airport infrequently. The design aircraft is defined as the most demanding aircraft type, in grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics, that make regular use of the airport. Regular use is 500 annual operations, excluding touch‐and‐go operations. Planning for future aircraft use is of particular importance since the design standards are used to plan separation distances between facilities. These future standards must be con‐ sidered now to ensure that short term development does not preclude the reasonable long range po‐ tential needs of the airport. Thus, if the critical design aircraft is anticipated to change within the near future, that aircraft (or family of aircraft), should be used as the current critical design aircraft. According to FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, “airport designs based only on existing aircraft can severely limit the ability to expand the airport to meet future requirements for larger, more demanding aircraft. Airport designs that are based on large aircraft never likely to be served by the airport are not economical.” Selection of the current and future critical design aircraft must be realistic in nature and supported by current data and realistic projections. Forecasts

2-46

AIRPORT CRITICAL DESIGN AIRCRAFT The Airport is served by an ATCT; however, the ATCT only logs aircraft operations by operational type (air taxi, general aviation, and military), but not by specific aircraft make and model. The FAA maintains the Traffic Flow Management System Count (TFMSC) database, which documents certain aircraft oper‐ ations at airports. Information is added to the TFMSC database when pilots file flight plans and/or when flights are detected by the National Airspace System, usually via radar. It includes documentation of commercial traffic (air carrier and air taxi), general aviation, and military aircraft. Due to factors, such as incomplete flight plans and limited radar coverage, TFMSC data does not account for all aircraft activity at an airport by a given aircraft type. Therefore, it is likely that there are more operations at the Airport than are captured by this methodology. TFMSC data is available for activity at Falcon Field Airport and was utilized in this analysis. Exhibit 2J presents the TFMSC operational mix at the Airport for jet aircraft operations for the last 10 years. As can be seen, the Airport experiences activity by a full range of business jets, including some of the largest in the national fleet. Over the course of the sample period, the greatest number of operations in any single design family combined was 3,755 in B‐II. These accounted for approximately 40 percent of logged jet aircraft activity. Representative jet aircraft in the B‐II design category include several makes/models in the Cessna Cita‐ tion and Falcon families. Furthermore, jet aircraft in the B‐I design category constituted approximately 25 percent of logged jet activity during the timeframe. Overall, the most demanding aircraft to utilize the Airport in terms of AAC were the Learjet 35/36 and larger business jets to include the Gulfstream 450 and 500/600 series. These aircraft fall within AAC D. Also included in this AAC are military jets, such as the F/A‐18 Hornet and F‐15 Eagle. The most demand‐ ing aircraft, in terms of ADG to operate at the airport, was the Gulfstream 500/600 series, Bombardier Global Express and Global 5000, and Falcon 7X/8X series, which fall in ADG III. These aircraft have oper‐ ated at the Airport on a very limited basis in the past. Over the past 10 years, the Airport has averaged 290 annual operations by jet aircraft in AAC C and D combined. Exhibit 2J further details the more de‐ manding jet operations in AAC C and D and ADG III. The aviation demand forecasts indicate the potential for continued growth in jet aircraft activity at the Airport. This includes a forecast increase in based jets through the 20‐year planning horizon. The current and future critical aircraft are expected to remain in the B‐II family. This currently includes the full range of large turboprop aircraft and medium‐sized business jet aircraft. RUNWAY DESIGN CODE Once the critical aircraft has been identified, a resulting RDC is assigned to each runway at an airport. The RDC relates to specific FAA design standards that should be planned in relation to each runway, regardless of whether or not the airport currently meets the appropriate design standards (to be dis‐ cussed in Chapter Three). Forecasts

2-47

Runway 4R‐22L Runway 4R‐22L is the primary runway at Falcon Field Airport and measures 5,101 feet long by 100 feet wide and has an instrument approach procedure providing visibility minimums as low as one mile for Runway 4R. According to the TFMSC data, operations by aircraft in AAC B and ADG II have exceeded the 500 annual operations threshold. Therefore, this Master Plan will utilize an existing RDC of B‐II‐5000 for Runway 4R‐22L. Future planning should consider the increased use of medium‐sized turboprop and jet aircraft at the Airport. While the Airport will likely continue to experience operations by jet aircraft in AAC C and D, it is not expected that they will exceed the 500 annual operations threshold that could categorize the Airport with an AAC C designation. As a result, the future RDC for Runway 4R‐22L is to remain at B‐II‐5000. Runway 4L‐22R Runway 4L‐22R is the secondary parallel runway, which is 3,799 feet long and 75 feet wide. It is also provided with an instrument approach procedure that allows for visibility minimums as low as one mile. This runway is primarily utilized by small general aviation aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. As such, the existing RDC for Runway 11‐29 is B‐I (Small Aircraft) – 5000. Previous planning, including the 2010 Master Plan and currently approved ALP, call for an ultimate B‐II designation on Runway 4L‐22R. Given the significant number of operations at the Airport that fall within the B‐II category, this planning effort will analyze the future RDC for Runway 4L‐22R to meet B‐II‐5000. AIRPORT DESIGN SUMMARY Table 2V summarizes the design aircraft components to be applied at the Airport. Besides the RDC, the APRC and DPRC are also noted for each runway. TABLE 2V Design Aircraft Parameters Falcon Field Airport Runway Design Parameters

Runway Design Code (RDC)

Approach Reference Code (APRC)

EXISTING Runway 4R‐22L B‐II‐5000 B/II/5000 (250' runway/taxiway separation) Runway 4L‐22R B‐I (Small Aircraft) ‐ 5000 B/I(S)/5000 (200’ runway/taxiway separation) ULTIMATE Runway 4R‐22L B‐II‐5000 B/II/5000 (250' runway/taxiway separation) Runway 4L‐22R B‐II‐5000 B/II/5000* (potential 240’ runway/taxiway separation) * Based on potential runway/taxiway separation distance (240 feet) meeting RDC B‐II standards Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design

Departure Reference Code (DPRC) B/II B/I(S)

B/II B/II*

Forecasts

2-48

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

"$ 3//+4// % 3// % % ! 0+ 1 % % ! + % % ! 1 % % ! &$% ! 0/ ( # 0/// ! % ,28 %#!$$ ! 0// # # 0 ! ( # 3/+5/ % % ! 2+ 3 % % ! + + % %& % % ! + + !' # % % ! # # 4//+34/ * ! 1/+4/ ! 1/// ! 8// ! 2// ! # # ! 4/// ! # # ! )"# $$ ! 6 +7 ,7 ## # 014 # $ # % 1/ # $ # % 20 # % 3/ # $ # % 4/ # $ # % 5/ # $ ,34 !$ ( $%(

76 2/ 57 12

87 01 30 2/

30 8 5/ 10

2/ 8 4/ 10

04 04 30 22

7 05 50 34

02 22 68 35

08 06 107 26

36 86 10/ 7

21 53 07/ 3 1 43 1 1 5

3 5 2

43 3 0

76 00 1

11 3

000

17 0

3 20

7 03

3 08

0 7 2

8 8

3 00

6 3

6 02

0 00 02

64 61 02/ 0/4 3

73 64 022 71

47 36 012 32

7/ 31 043 34

013 12 078 37

0/7 04 080 37

014 11 05/ 47

027 34 010 57

63 63 015 58

53 76 73 6/

02 03 0/

1 3 1

0/ 0/

7 13

7 5

8 6 1

2 1

01 01 7 08

5 03 1 05

13 4 13

1 1 30

1 036 1 2

1 023

053 1 1

1 3 017

4 05/ 0 4

03 07 14 01 01 0 24

1 1 11 3

00 2 37 2 8

)&&",&&",&*

#')+"'*&"'*+ '&&"'+& (&&"(.& '&& # ! *&&& ! .&& -& " #'. #'+ #(( )+"), *+& +&&",&&

*(/ ( , ,/

)( ''

.& '.

* )/

( (-

(

(' (

'&* *(

', (+

', '/

'& ()

( '-

(( '&

') '+ (

+, ('

( ', , *

* , (

(& + )

(* , (

*( ', '

()

'( (

(

', '. (

, *

)& ', *

)/ '* *

'+ (*

( (, (

' )& (

'( *( (

. * (&

' (* '( (&

1 1 8 23 7 0/

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

#" #$" "$! $ $ $

! #

Source: Traffic Flow Management System Count (FAA database)

Forecasts

2-49

EXHIBIT 2J JET OPERATIONS BY REFERENCE CODE

This page intentionally left blank

Forecasts

2-50

SUMMARY This chapter has outlined the various activity levels that might reasonably be anticipated over the next 20 years at Falcon Field Airport. Exhibit 2F presents a summary of the aviation demand forecasts. The baseline year for forecast data is 2017. The forecasting effort extends 20 years to 2037. Forecasts of aviation activity, including based aircraft and annual aircraft operations, is key to determin‐ ing future facility requirements. There are currently 719 aircraft based at the Airport, and this is forecast to grow to 1,040 aircraft by 2037. When considering an adjustment to aircraft operations when the ATCT is closed, the Airport experienced approximately 300,200 operations in 2017. This is forecast to grow to approximately 404,900 operations annually by 2037. The fleet mix operations, or type and frequency of aircraft use, is important in determining facility re‐ quirements and environmental impacts. While single engine piston‐powered aircraft are expected to represent the majority of based aircraft, the long‐term forecast considers increasing the number of tur‐ boprop and jet aircraft, as well as helicopters, in the fleet mix. The next step in the Master Plan process is to use the forecasts to determine development needs for the Airport through 2037. Chapter Three will address airside elements, such as safety areas, runways, taxi‐ ways, lighting, and navigational aids, as well as landside requirements, including hangars, aircraft aprons, and support services. The remaining portions of the Master Plan will lay out how potential development can be accommodated in an orderly, efficient, and cost‐effective manner.

Forecasts

2-51

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

CHAPTER 3

To properly plan for the future of Falcon Field Airport (Airport), it is necessary to identify specific types and quantities of facilities required or desired to adequately serve the Airport over the next 20 years. Facilities are broadly classified as airside (i.e., runways, taxiways, navigational aids, marking and lighting) and landside (i.e., hangars, aircraft parking apron, and support facilities). There are four primary sources from which to examine and determine facility requirements:  



Aviation Demand Forecasts: The forecasts of aviation demand developed in the previous chapter serve as data inputs to various models, which have been constructed following Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidance, to generate facility needs. Design Standards Review: Various design standards that apply to the Airport are reviewed as they can change based on modifications to FAA guidance or activity changes at the Airport. De‐ sign standards primarily relate to the numerous imaginary safety related surfaces and separation distances. Facility Maintenance: Airports are required to maintain their pavement surfaces for the useful life of those pavements. The pavements require routine maintenance and occasionally must be rehabilitated or reconstructed. This category includes maintenance of airport structures and landside facilities. Support Facilities: This category includes all airport related facilities that do not naturally fall into the airside and landside categories, including elements such as fuel facilities, access and circula‐ tion, and general on‐airport land use.

Facility Requirements

3-1

The objective of this effort is to identify the adequacy of existing airport facilities and outline what new facilities may be needed, and when these may be needed, to accommodate forecast demands. Having established these facility requirements, alternatives for providing these facilities will be evaluated in the next chapter. The facility requirements at Falcon Field Airport were evaluated using guidance contained in several FAA publications, including the following:  Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design  AC 150/5060‐5, Airport Capacity and Delay  AC 150/5325‐4B (and Draft 4C), Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design  Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace  FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)

PLANNING HORIZONS An updated set of aviation demand forecasts for Falcon Field Airport has been established. These activity forecasts include annual operations, based aircraft, based aircraft and operational fleet mix, and opera‐ tional peaking characteristics. With this information, specific components of the airfield and landside system can be evaluated to determine their capacity to accommodate future demand. Cost‐effective, efficient, and orderly development of an airport should rely more upon actual demand at an airport than on a time‐based forecast figure. In order to develop a Master Plan that is demand‐based rather than time‐based, a series of planning horizon milestones has been established for the Airport that takes into consideration the reasonable range of aviation demand projections. The planning horizons for the Master Plan are the short term (years 1‐5), intermediate term (years 6‐10), and long term (years 11‐20). It is important to consider that the actual activity at the Airport will not follow a straight line as tends to be presented in forecast projections. More commonly, aviation activity will be higher or lower than what the annualized forecast portrays. By planning according to activity milestones, the resultant plan can accommodate unexpected shifts or changes in the area’s aviation demand by allowing airport manage‐ ment the flexibility to make decisions and develop facilities according to need generated by actual de‐ mand levels, not based solely on dates in time. The demand‐based schedule provides flexibility in de‐ velopment, as development schedules can be slowed or expedited according to demand at any given time over the planning period. The resultant plan provides Airport management with a financially re‐ sponsible and needs‐based program. Table 3A presents the short, intermediate, and long term planning horizon milestones for each aircraft activity level forecasted in Chapter Two. It is important to note that these forecasts have been approved by the FAA for planning purposes related to the Master Plan and associated Airport Layout Plan (ALP) development (see Appendix B). Facility Requirements

3-2

TABLE 3A Planning Horizon Activity Summary Falcon Field Airport

Base Year (2017)

Short Term (1‐5 years)

BASED AIRCRAFT Single Engine Piston 582 636 Multi‐Engine Piston 76 74 Turboprop 14 22 Jet 7 10 Helicopter 39 47 Other 1 1 Total Based Aircraft 719 790 ANNUAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS* Itinerant 124,700 130,600 Local 175,500 189,800 Total Operations 300,200 320,400 ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES Annual Estimate 1,247 1,306 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS Peak Month 32,241 34,411 Design Day 1,075 1,147 Busy Day 1,354 1,445 Design Hour 140 149 * Includes ATCT After‐Hours Adjustment; Rounded to the nearest 100. Source: ATCT records; Coffman Associates analysis

Intermediate Term (6‐10 years)

Long Term (11‐20 years)

683 72 32 17 60 1 865

818 68 48 30 75 1 1,040

140,800 212,000 352,800

165,400 239,500 404,900

1,408

1,654

37,891 1,263 1,591 164

43,486 1,450 1,826 188

AIRFIELD CAPACITY AND DELAY Airfield capacity is measured in a variety of different ways. The hourly capacity of a runway measures the maximum number of aircraft operations that can take place in an hour. The annual service volume (ASV) is an annual level of service that may be used to define airfield capacity needs and is a reasonable estimate of the maximum level of aircraft operations that can be accommodated in a year without in‐ curring significant delay factors. Aircraft delay is the total delay incurred by aircraft using the airfield during a given timeframe. The FAA AC 150/5060‐5, Airport Capacity and Delay, provides a methodology for examining the operational capacity of an airfield for planning purposes.

FACTORS AFFECTING ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME This analysis takes into account specific factors about the airfield, such as airfield layout, weather condi‐ tions, aircraft mix, and operations in order to calculate the Airport’s ASV. These factors are depicted in Exhibit 3A. The following describes the input factors as they relate to Falcon Field Airport.  Runway Configuration – The existing runway configuration consists of a parallel runway system supported by a full‐length parallel taxiway on each runway. The runways have a separation of 700 feet from centerline to centerline. Primary Runway 4R‐22L is 5,101 feet long and the sec‐ ondary parallel Runway 4L‐22R is 3,799 feet long. Facility Requirements

3-3

AIRFIELD LAYOUT Runway Configuration

Runway Use

Number of Exits

WEATHER CONDITIONS

VMC

IMC

PVC

Visual Meteorological g Conditions

Instrument Meteorological g Conditions

Poor Visibilityy Conditions

AIRCRAFT MIX Category A & B Aircraft

Small Turboprop

Category D Aircraft

Category C Aircraft

Single Engine

Business Jet

Commuter

Twin Piston

Regional Jet

Commercial Jet

Wide Body Jets

OPERATIONS Arrivals

Departures p

Total Annual Operations p - 2017 30,000

25,000

20,000

Touch-and-Go Touch and Go o Operations p

15,000

10,000

5000

Facility Requirements

3-4

Exhibit 3A AIRFIELD CAPACITY FACTORS



Runway Use – Runway use in capacity conditions will be controlled by wind and/or airspace con‐ ditions. The direction of takeoffs and landings are generally determined by the direction of the wind. It is generally safest for aircraft to take off and land into the wind, in order to avoid cross‐ wind (wind that is blowing perpendicular to the travel of the aircraft) or tailwind components. Based upon information from the Airport’s limited aviation weather reporting station (LAWRS), winds favor the use of Runways 22L and 22R most often.

The availability of instrument approaches is also considered. Runways 4L and 4R are the only runway ends served by a straight‐in instrument approach procedure. The Airport is also served by a circling approach. 

Exit Taxiways – Exit taxiways have a significant impact on airfield capacity since the number and location of exits directly determine the occupancy time of an aircraft on the runway. The greater the number of taxiway exits that are appropriately spaced, the lower the runway occupancy time for an aircraft, which contributes to a higher overall capacity for the airfield. The airfield capacity analysis gives credit to taxiway exits located within the prescribed range from a runway’s thresh‐ old. This range is based upon the mix index of the aircraft that use the runways. For Falcon Field Airport, exit taxiways located between 2,000 and 4,000 feet from the landing threshold count in the capacity determination. The exits must be at least 750 feet apart to count as separate exits. Under these criteria, Runway 4R‐22L is credited with two taxiway exits. Including the threshold taxiways, Runway 4L‐22R is also credited with two taxiway exits. Each runway also has angled taxiway exits, which provide aircraft an opportunity to exit the runway in a more expeditious manner, further enhancing airfield capacity.



Weather Conditions – Weather conditions can have a significant impact on airfield capacity. Air‐ port capacity is usually highest in clear weather, when flight visibility is at its best. Airfield capac‐ ity is diminished as weather conditions deteriorate and cloud ceilings and visibility are reduced. As weather conditions deteriorate, the spacing of aircraft must increase to provide allowable margins of safety and air traffic vectoring. The increased distance between aircraft reduces the number of aircraft which can operate at the airport during any given period, thus reducing overall airfield capacity.

According to meteorological data collected from the LAWRS, the Airport reported visual flight rule (VFR) conditions a large majority of the time, with 99.65 percent of total observations. VFR conditions exist whenever the cloud ceiling is greater than or equal to 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) and visibility is greater than three statute miles. Instrument flight rule (IFR) conditions are defined when cloud ceilings are between 500 and 1,000 feet AGL or visibility is between one and three miles. According to on‐site reporting, IFR conditions accounted for 0.21 percent of total weather observations. Poor visibility conditions (PVC) apply for cloud ceilings below 500 feet and visibility minimums below one mile. PVC constituted 0.14 percent of total observations over the 10‐year timeframe. Table 3B summarizes the weather conditions experienced at the Airport over a 10‐year period of time. Facility Requirements

3-5

TABLE 3B Weather Conditions Falcon Field Airport Condition Cloud Ceiling Visibility Observations Percent of Total VFR > 1,000' AGL > 3 statute miles 37,672 99.65% IFR > 500' AGL and < 1000' AGL 1‐3 statute miles 81 0.21% PVC < 500' AGL < 1 statute mile 53 0.14% VFR ‐ Visual Flight Rules IFR ‐ Instrument Flight Rules PVC ‐ Poor Visibility Conditions AGL ‐ Above Ground Level Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ‐ National Climatic Data Center. Airport observations from 2008‐2017.



Aircraft Mix – The aircraft mix for the capacity analysis is defined in terms of four aircraft classes. Classes A and B consist of small‐ and medium‐sized propeller‐driven aircraft and some smaller business jets, all weighing 12,500 pounds or less. These aircraft are associated primarily with general aviation activity, but do include some air taxi, air cargo, and commuter aircraft. Class C consists of aircraft weighing between 12,500 pounds and 300,000 pounds. These aircraft include most business jets and some turboprop aircraft. Class D consists of large aircraft weighing more than 300,000 pounds. These aircraft are associated with major airline and air cargo activities, and include the Boeing 747 and 777, among others. The Airport does not currently nor is it ex‐ pected to experience operations by Class D aircraft. A description of the classifications and the percentage mix for each planning horizon is presented in Table 3C.

TABLE 3C Aircraft Operational Mix ‐ Capacity Analysis Falcon Field Airport Base Year Short Term Intermediate Term Aircraft Classification (2017) (1‐5 Years) (6‐10 Years) Classes A & B 97.0% 96.3% 96.6% Class C 3.0% 3.7% 4.5% Class D 0% 0% 0% Class A ‐ Small single engine aircraft with gross weights of 12,500 pounds or less Class B ‐ Small multi‐engine aircraft with gross weights of 12,500 pounds or less Class C ‐ Large aircraft with gross weights over 12,500 pounds up to 300,000 pounds Class D ‐ Large aircraft with gross weights over 300,000 pounds Source: Coffman Associates analysis

Long Term (11‐20 Years) 94.0% 6.0% 0%



For the capacity analysis, the percentage of Class C aircraft operating at Falcon Field Airport is crit‐ ical in determining the ASV as this class includes the larger and faster aircraft in the operational mix. The percentage of Class C aircraft operations at the Airport is expected to increase through the planning period as business and corporate use of jets and turboprop aircraft increases. Percent Arrivals vs. Departures – The aircraft arrival/departure split is typically 50/50 in the design hour. At Falcon Field Airport, traffic information indicated no major deviation from this pattern.

Facility Requirements

3-6



Touch‐And‐Go Activity – A touch‐and‐go operation involves an aircraft making a landing and then an immediate takeoff without coming to a full stop or exiting the runway. As previously discussed in Chapter Two, these operations are normally associated with general aviation training activity and classified as a local operation. A high percentage of touch‐and‐go traffic normally results in a higher operational capacity because one landing and one takeoff occurs within a shorter time period than individual operations. Touch‐and‐go operations at Falcon Field Airport account for approximately 60 percent of total annual operations. A similar ratio is expected in the future. Peak Period Operations – Typical operations activity is important in the calculation of an airport’s ASV as “peak demand” levels occur sporadically. The peak periods used in the capacity analysis are representative of normal operational activity and can be exceeded at various times through‐ out the year. For the airfield capacity analysis, daily operations and peak hour operations during the peak month, as calculated in the previous chapter and detailed earlier in this chapter, are utilized.

CALCULATION OF ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME The preceding information was used in conjunction with the airfield capacity methodology developed by the FAA to determine airfield capacity for Falcon Field Airport. Hourly Runway Capacity The first step in determining ASV involves the computation of the hourly capacity of the runway config‐ uration. The percentage use of the runway, the amount of touch‐and‐go activity, and the number and locations of runway exits are the important factors in determining hourly capacity. Based upon these factors, the current and future hourly capacities for the Airport were determined. As the operational mix of aircraft at the Airport changes to include a higher percentage of aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds, the hourly capacity of the system declines slightly. This is a result of the additional spacing and time required by larger aircraft in the traffic pattern and on the runway. As indicated in Table 3C, the percentage of Class C aircraft is projected to increase in each planning horizon activity milestone. This upward progression is in line with business and corporate aircraft operations that will likely increase at a greater rate than other general aviation operations involving smaller aircraft. The current and future weighted hourly capacities are depicted in Table 3D. Weighted hourly capacity is the measure of the maximum number of aircraft operations that can be accommodated on the airfield in a typical hour. It is a composite of estimated hourly capacities for different airfield operating config‐ urations adjusted to reflect the percentage of time in an average year that the airfield operates under each specific configuration. The current weighted hourly capacity on the airfield is 230 operations; like‐ wise, the capacity is expected to decline slightly to 221 operations by the long‐term horizon. Facility Requirements

3-7

TABLE 3D Airfield Capacity Summary Falcon Field Airport

Base Year (2017)

Short Term (1‐5 Years)

Operational Demand Annual 300,200 Capacity Annual Service Volume 494,000 Percent Capacity 60.8% Weighted Hourly Capacity 230 Source: FAA AC 150/5060‐5, Airport Capacity and Delay

Intermediate Term (6‐10 Years)

Long Term (11‐20 Years)

320,400

352,800

404,900

490,000 65.4% 228

484,000 72.9% 225

477,000 84.9% 221

Annual Service Volume The current ASV for the airfield has been estimated at 494,000 operations. Current factors, such as the number of angled taxiway exits serving both runways, the higher percentage of touch‐and‐go aircraft operations, and relatively low percentage of Class C aircraft operations, factor into this current ASV value. The increasing percentage of larger Class C aircraft over the planning period will attribute to a decline in ASV, lowering it to a level of approximately 477,000 operations by the end of the planning period. In addition, most all aircraft activity, especially local operations associated with flight training, have been allocated to support recommended noise abatement practices as outlined in Chapter One. In doing so, the peak periods are more concentrated and not spread throughout the course of a 24‐hour period of time. These factors lead to a lower projected ASV when compared to the previous Master Plan. With operations in 2017 estimated at 300,200 (factoring a three percent adjustment for operations when the airport traffic control tower [ATCT] is closed), the Airport is currently at 60.8 percent of its ASV. Long range annual operations are forecast to reach 404,900, which would equate to 84.9 percent of the Airport’s ASV. Table 3D and Exhibit 3B summarize and compare the Airport’s ASV and projected annual operations over the short, intermediate, and long‐range planning horizons. AIRCRAFT DELAY The affect that the anticipated ratio of demand to capacity will have on users of Falcon Field Airport can be measured in terms of delay. As the number of annual aircraft operations approaches the airfield’s capacity, increasing operational delays begin to occur. Delays can occur to arriving and departing aircraft in all weather conditions. Arriving aircraft delays result in aircraft holding outside the airport traffic pattern area. Departing aircraft delays result in aircraft holding at the runway end until they can safely takeoff. Aircraft delay can vary depending on different operational activities at an airport. At airports where large air carrier aircraft dominate, delay can be greater given the amount of time these aircraft require in the traffic pattern and on approach to land. For airports that accommodate primarily small general aviation aircraft, experienced delay is typically less since these aircraft are more maneuverable and re‐ quire less time in the airport traffic pattern. Facility Requirements

3-8

600

550

500 0

494,000

490,000

484,000

477,000

450

(in thousands)

ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME 404,900

400

(84.9% % of of ASV A AS ASV) SV) V)

350

352,800

(72.9% (72. 2 9% of ASV)

320,400 300 0

3 , 300,200

(65.4% (65. 5 4% 4% of ASV)

(60.8% of ASV)

DEMAND MILESTONES

250

200

150

100

Existing

Facility Requirements

Short Term

Intermediate Term

3-9

Long Term

Exhibit 3B CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Table 3E summarizes the potential aircraft delay for the Airport. Estimates of delay provide insight into the impacts that steady increases in aircraft operations have on the airfield and also signify the Airport’s ability to accommodate projected annual aircraft operations. The delay per operation represents an average delay per aircraft. It should be noted that delays of five to ten times the average could be ex‐ perienced by individual aircraft during peak periods. As an airport’s percent capacity increases toward the ASV, delay increases exponentially. Furthermore, complexities in the airspace system that surrounds an airport can also factor into additional delay experienced at the facility. TABLE 3E Airfield Delay Summary Falcon Field Airport

Base Year (2017) 60.8%

Percent Capacity Delay Per Operation (Minutes) 0.35 Total Annual (Hours) 1,750 Source: FAA AC 150/5060‐5, Airport Capacity and Delay

Short Term (1‐5 years) 65.4%

Intermediate Term (6‐10 years) 72.9%

Long Term (11‐20 years) 84.9%

0.40 2,140

0.50 2,940

0.75 5,060

CAPACITY ANALYSIS CONCLUSION Exhibit 3B compares ASV to existing and forecast operational levels at Falcon Field Airport. The 2017 operations level equated to 60.8 percent of the airfield’s ASV. By the long‐term planning horizon, total annual operations are expected to represent 84.9 percent of ASV. FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, indicates that improvements for airfield capacity purposes should be considered when operations reach 60 to 75 per‐ cent of the ASV. This is an approximate level to begin the detailed planning of capacity improvements. It is projected that this range could be met during the intermediate term planning horizon. When 80 percent of the ASV is reached, capacity improvement projects should become higher priority capital im‐ provements. According to this analysis, it can be expected that the Airport will exceed this threshold during the long‐term planning horizon. Actual implementation of capacity improvements may be deferred until such time that the improvement is considered timely and cost‐beneficial. An example of a capacity improvement could include relatively minor improvements, such as additional taxiway exits. While additional taxiway exits can improve ca‐ pacity, they generally do not significantly reduce delay. Options to improve airfield efficiency and ca‐ pacity will be further evaluated in this Master Plan.

AIRSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS As indicated earlier, airport facilities include both airside and landside components. Airside facilities are those related to the arrival, departure, and ground movement of aircraft. The FAA has established vari‐ ous dimensional design standards related to the airfield to ensure the safe operations of aircraft. Facility Requirements

3-10

The FAA design standards impact the design of each of the airside components to be analyzed. The following airside components are analyzed for compliance to FAA design standards in detail:  Runway Design Standards  Navigational and Approach Aids  Runway Elements  Airfield Lighting and Signage  Taxiways RUNWAY DESIGN STANDARDS The FAA has established several imaginary surfaces to protect aircraft operational areas and keep them free from obstructions. These include the runway safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway obstacle free zone (ROFZ), and runway protection zone (RPZ). The entire RSA, ROFA, and ROFZ must be under the direct ownership of the airport sponsor to ensure these areas remain free of obstacles and can be readily accessed by maintenance and emergency per‐ sonnel. RPZs should also be under airport ownership. An alternative to outright ownership of the RPZ is the purchase of avigation easements (acquiring control of designated airspace within the RPZ) or hav‐ ing sufficient land use control measures in places which ensure the RPZ remains free of incompatible development. The various airport safety areas are presented on Exhibit 3C. Dimensional standards for the various safety areas associated with the runway are a function of the type of aircraft using or expected to use the runway as well as the instrument approach capability. Table 3F presents the FAA design standards as they apply to the runways at Falcon Field Airport both now and in the future per the detailed analysis conducted at the end of Chapter Two. For primary Runway 4R‐22L, the existing and ultimate design standards should meet Runway Design Code (RDC) B‐II‐5000. For secondary Runway 4L‐22R, existing design standards should adhere to B‐I (Small Aircraft) – 5000. Ultimate planning should consider RDC B‐II‐5000 design standards for this run‐ way as detailed in the previous chapter. It is important to note that the FAA also has an RDC B‐II (Small Aircraft) designation. The differences in design standards for RDCs B‐II and B‐II (Small Aircraft) relate to the hold line separation from the runway as well as the size of the RPZs. For RDC B‐II (Small Aircraft), the hold line separation and RPZ dimensions are the same as RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft). Previous planning (including the currently approved ALP) has considered ultimately meeting full B‐II standards on Runway 4L‐22R. In an effort to protect safety areas to the fullest extent possible on the runway, this planning effort will also evaluate ultimate B‐II design on Runway 4L‐22R.

Facility Requirements

3-11

TABLE 3F Runway Design Standards Falcon Field Airport Runway 4R‐22L Runway 4L‐22R Existing/Ultimate Existing Ultimate Runway Design Code B‐II‐5000 B‐I (Small Aircraft)‐5000 B‐II‐5000 Visibility Minimums >1 mile >1 mile >1 mile Runway Design Runway Safety Area Width 150 120 150 Length Beyond Departure End 300 240 300 Length Prior to Threshold 300 240 300 Runway Object Free Area Width 500 250 500 Length Beyond Departure End 300 240 300 Length Prior to Threshold 300 240 300 Runway Obstacle Free Zone Width 400 250 400 Length Beyond Runway End 200 200 200 Approach Runway Protection Zone Inner Width 500 250 500 Outer Width 700 450 700 Length 1,000 1,000 1,000 Departure Runway Protection Zone Inner Width 500 250 500 Outer Width 700 450 700 Length 1,000 1,000 1,000 Runway Separation Runway Centerline to: Parallel Runway 700 700 700 Parallel Taxiway 2501 200 240 Hold Line Markings 200 125 200 Aircraft Parking Apron 4002 2753 250 1 Current dimension. Separation standard for RDC B‐II‐5000 is 240 feet. 2 Current dimension. Separation standard for RDC B‐II‐5000 is 250 feet. 3 Current dimension. Separation standard for RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft) ‐ 5000 is 125 feet. Note: All dimensions in feet unless otherwise noted. Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design

Runway Safety Area The RSA is defined in FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, as a “surface surrounding the runway pre‐ pared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway.” The RSA is centered on the runway and dimensioned in accordance to the approach speed of the critical design aircraft using the runway. The FAA requires the RSA to be cleared and graded, drained by grading or storm sewers, capable of accommodating the design aircraft and fire and rescue vehicles, and free of obstacles not fixed by navigational purpose, such as runway edge lights or approach lights. Facility Requirements

3-12

EXISTING/ULTIMATE RUNWAY 4R-22L SAFETY AREAS EXISTING RUNWAY 4L-22R SAFETY AREAS

LEGEND Airport Property Line Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Avigation Easement High Energy Area Uncontrolled Property

Boeing Company East McDowell Rd

800

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

North Greenfield Rd.

r lo al M

le irc yC

9’

Wide Expanse Taxiway Pavement

’) 75

9 ,7

y wa

2 L-

w un

D10

’x 01 1 , (5 D6

) 0’ 10 D7

Direct Apron Access ive nD lco a F

North Higley Rd.

ay xiw a T

Th RUNWAY 4L-22R SAFETY AREAS ULTIMATE u nd er bi rd D

r iv e

r ad Ro

Direct Apron Access

un ne r

Dr ive

Taxiway E - ROFZ Incompatibility

ay xiw a T

r lo al M

200’

E2 E2

7 3,

(

-2

’ 01 ,1 (5

w un

2L D6

-2

ay nw u D5 R

) 0’ 10 D7

nD lco a F

e r iv

Th un de rb ird Dr ive

2 240’

Cana

Runway/Parallel Taxiway Separation - 240’ needed

’x

’) 75

Falcon Drive

evelt

Roos

Taxiway

D10

le irc yC

Hold Line Markings - 200’ of Separation needed on Taxiways E1, E2, E3, and E4

Fighter Aces Drive

North Higley Rd.

Eagle Drive D4

North Greenfield Rd.

R E1

Eagle Drive

East McKellips Rd.

r ad Ro

un ne r

ive

D2 D1

Facility Requirements

3-13

Exhibit 3C AIRFIELD SAFETY AREAS, SEPARATION, AND GEOMETRY STANDARDS

This page intentionally left blank

Facility Requirements

3-14

For RDC B‐II runways with not lower than ¾‐mile approach visibility minimums, the FAA calls for the RSA to be 150 feet wide and extend 300 feet beyond the runway ends. This standard currently applies to Runway 4R‐22L, and an examination of the RSA for this runway did not identify any current non‐standard conditions. The RSA should be maintained through the planning period. For RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft) with not lower than ¾‐mile approach visibility minimums, which is currently the case for Runway 4L‐22R, the RSA is 120 feet wide and extends 240 feet beyond the runway ends. This runway currently meets this RSA standard. Ultimate planning should consider meeting the RDC B‐ II standard for RSA. As depicted on Exhibit 3C, the RSA standard for ultimate RDC B‐II design is met. Runway Object Free Area The ROFA is “a two‐dimensional ground area, surrounding runways, taxiways, and taxilanes, which is clear of objects except for objects whose location is fixed by function (i.e., airfield lighting).” The ROFA does not have to be graded and level like the RSA; instead, the primary requirement for the ROFA is that no object in the ROFA penetrates the lateral elevation of the RSA. The ROFA is centered on the runway, extending out in accordance to the critical design aircraft utilizing the runway. For RDC B‐II design with not lower than ¾‐mile approach visibility minimums, the FAA calls for the ROFA to be 500 feet wide, extending 300 feet beyond each runway end. Runway 4R‐22L currently meets this standard, and it should be maintained in the future. For RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft), the ROFA is 250 feet wide and extends 240 feet beyond each runway end. Runway 4L‐22R currently meets this standard. The runway should be planned to meet RDC B‐II ROFA standards, which it currently does as well. Runway Obstacle Free Zone The ROFZ is an imaginary volume of airspace which precludes object penetrations, including taxiing and parked aircraft. The only allowance for ROFZ obstructions is navigational aids mounted on frangible bases which are fixed in their location by function, such as airfield signs. The ROFZ is established to ensure the safety of aircraft operations. If the ROFZ is obstructed, an airport’s approaches could be removed, or approach minimums could be increased. The FAA’s criterion for runways utilized by aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds requires a clear ROFZ to extend 200 feet beyond the runway ends and be 400 feet wide (200 feet on either side of the runway centerline). The ROFZ standards are met on Runway 4R‐22L. For runways serving small aircraft (those weighing less than 12,500 pounds) with approach speeds greater than 50 knots, which currently applies to Runway 4L‐22R, the ROFZ still extends 200 feet beyond the runway ends but is only 250 feet wide. As such, this ROFZ is currently met; however, the runway does not meet RDC B‐II standards for ROFZ due to the location of parallel Taxiway E adjacent to the north side of the runway. Facility Requirements

3-15

Runway Protection Zone The RPZ is a trapezoidal area centered on the runway, beginning 200 feet beyond the runway end. The RPZ has been established by the FAA to provide an area clear of obstructions and incompatible land uses, in order to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is comprised of the central portion of the RPZ and the controlled activity area. The central portion of the RPZ extends from the beginning to the end of the RPZ, is centered on the runway, and is the width of the ROFA. The controlled activity area is any remaining portions of the RPZ. The dimensions of the RPZ vary per the visibility minimums serving the runway and the type of aircraft (design aircraft) operating on the runway. While the RPZ is intended to be clear of incompatible objects or land uses, some uses are permitted with conditions and other land uses are prohibited. According to AC 150/5300‐13A, the following land uses are permissible within the RPZ:  Farming that meets the minimum buffer requirements,  Irrigation channels as long as they do not attract birds,  Airport service roads, as long as they are not public roads and are directly controlled by the air‐ port operator,  Underground facilities, as long as they meet other design criteria, such as RSA requirements, as applicable, and  Unstaffed navigational aids (NAVAIDs) and facilities, such as required for airport facilities that are fixed by function in regard to the RPZ. Any other land uses considered within RPZ land owned by the airport sponsor must be evaluated and approved by the FAA Office of Airports. The FAA has published Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone (September 2012), which identifies several potential land uses that must be evaluated and approved prior to implementation. The specific land uses requiring FAA evaluation and approval include:  Buildings and structures. Examples include, but are not limited to: residences, schools, churches, hospitals or other medical care facilities, commercial/industrial buildings, etc.)  Recreational land use. Examples include, but are not limited to: golf courses, sports fields, amusement parks, other places of public assembly, etc.)  Transportation facilities. Examples include, but are not limited to: - Rail facilities ‐ light or heavy, passenger or freight - Public roads/highways - Vehicular parking facilities  Fuel storage facilities (above and below ground)  Hazardous material storage (above and below ground)  Wastewater treatment facilities  Above‐ground utility infrastructure (i.e., electrical substations), including any type of solar panel installations. Facility Requirements

3-16

The Interim Guidance on Land within a Runway Protection Zone states, “RPZ land use compatibility also is often complicated by ownership considerations. Airport owner control over the RPZ land is empha‐ sized to achieve the desired protection of people and property on the ground. Although the FAA recog‐ nizes that in certain situations the airport sponsor may not fully control land within the RPZ, the FAA expects airport sponsors to take all possible measures to protect against and remove or mitigate incom‐ patible land uses.” Currently, the RPZ review standards are applicable to any new or modified RPZ. The following actions or events could alter the size of an RPZ, potentially introducing an incompatibility:  An airfield project (e.g., runway extension, runway shift),  A change in the critical design aircraft that increases the RPZ dimensions,  A new or revised instrument approach procedure that increases the size of the RPZ, and/or  A local development proposal in the RPZ (either new or reconfigured). Since the interim guidance only addresses a new or modified RPZ, existing incompatibilities are generally (but not always) grandfathered under certain circumstances. While it is still necessary for the airport sponsor to take all reasonable actions to meet the RPZ design standard, FAA funding priority for certain actions, such as relocating existing roads in the RPZ, will be determined on a case‐by‐case basis. RPZs have been further designated as approach and departure RPZs. The approach RPZ is a function of the Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) and approach visibility minimums associated with the approach runway end. The departure RPZ is a function of the AAC and departure procedures associated with the runway. For a particular runway end, the more stringent RPZ requirements (usually associated with the approach RPZ) will govern the property interests and clearing requirements that the airport sponsor should pursue. For Falcon Field Airport, the existing and ultimate approach and departure RPZs associated with RDC B‐ II design for not lower than one‐mile approach visibility minimums that serve Runway 4R‐22L contain the same dimensions (500‐foot inner width, 700‐foot outer width, and 1,000‐foot length) and are co‐ located on each end of the runway. The approach and departure RPZs corresponding to RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft) with not lower than one‐mile approach visibility minimums are also dimensioned similarly (250‐ foot inner width, 450‐foot outer width, and 1,000‐foot length) and co‐located beyond each end of Run‐ way 4L‐22R. As previously discussed, ultimate planning considers approach and departure RPZs associ‐ ated with RDC B‐II standards on Runway 4L‐22R. It is important to note that the currently approved ALP (dated December 2016) classifies Runway 4L‐22R as an existing RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft); however, the existing RPZ dimensions depicted on the ALP Drawing and specified on the ALP Title Sheet meet RDC B‐II design standards. After further coordination with the FAA and airport staff, this was likely an oversight during the previous ALP review/approval process. As a result, this study considers “right‐sizing” the existing approach and departure RPZs on Runway 4L‐22R to correspond with RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft) standards.

Facility Requirements

3-17

Table 3G presents detail regarding the existing RPZs at the airport. Because the approach RPZs to each runway end encompass the departure RPZs as well, the following discussion addresses the RPZs as a whole. TABLE 3G Runway Protection Zone Detail Falcon Field Airport Runway

RPZ Dimensions (ft.)

Inner Width: 500 Outer Width: 700 Length: 1,000

RPZ Size (ac.)

Owned in Fee (ac.)

13.77

12.09

Avigation Easement (ac.)

Notes/Incompatibilities

N/A

Uncontrolled area and incompatibil‐ ity includes North Greenfield Road.

22L

Inner Width: 500 Outer Width:700 Length:1,000

13.77

7.07

3.78

Uncontrolled areas associated with East McDowell Road and North Higley Road. Incompatibilities in‐ clude these roadways, portion of the Boeing Company’s vehicle parking lot, and golf course area. An aviga‐ tion easement is in place over por‐ tions of the RPZ that extend beyond airport property.

Inner Width: 250 Outer Width: 450 Length: 1,000

8.035

7.07

N/A

Uncontrolled area and incompatibil‐ ity includes North Greenfield Road.

2.32

Uncontrolled area associated with East McDowell Road. Incompatibili‐ ties include this roadway and portion of the Boeing Company’s vehicle parking lot. An avigation easement is in place over portions of the RPZ that extend beyond airport property.

22R

Inner Width: 250 Outer Width: 450 Length: 1,000

8.035

4.59

Currently, the approach and departure RPZs associated with Runways 4L and 4R on the southwest side of the airfield extend over North Greenfield Road and into an agricultural area owned by the Airport, as depicted on Exhibit 3C. On the northeast side of the airfield, the B‐I (Small Aircraft) approach and de‐ parture RPZs associated with Runway 22R extend across East McDowell Road and into a vehicle parking lot associated with the Boeing Company. The ultimate B‐II approach and departure RPZs associated with this runway end would extend farther north, encompassing 4.08 acres of property associated with the Boing Company’s vehicle parking lot. The approach and departure RPZs associated with Runway 22L extend across portions of East McDowell Road and North Higley Road and include a portion of the Boeing Company’s vehicle parking lot as well as a golf course area. Whenever possible, the Airport should main‐ tain positive control over the RPZs through fee simple acquisition; however, avigation easements can be pursued if fee simple acquisition is not feasible. Currently, avigation easements are in place over the existing RPZs adjacent to the northeast side of the Airport. Further examination of the RPZs associated with each runway end will be undertaken later in this study.

Facility Requirements

3-18

Parallel Runway Separation FAA criteria requires parallel runways be separated by at least 700 feet in order for aircraft to conduct simultaneous takeoffs and landings under VFR conditions. The parallel runways at Falcon Field Airport have a centerline separation of 700 feet, thus meeting the minimum separation standard. This separa‐ tion should be maintained through the long‐term planning period of this study. Runway/Taxiway Separation The design standard for the separation between runways and parallel taxiways is a function of the critical design aircraft and the instrument approach visibility minimum. The separation standard for RDC B‐II with lower than ¾‐mile visibility minimums is 240 feet from the runway centerline to the parallel taxiway centerline. Parallel Taxiway D serving Runway 4R‐22L is 250 feet from the runway; therefore, the current location of the taxiway exceeds both current and proposed separation standards. Parallel Taxiway E serving Runway 4L‐22R is currently 200 feet from the runway. This exceeds the FAA design standard of 150 feet from RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft); however, it falls short of the 240‐foot separa‐ tion standard for the ultimate RDC B‐II planning standard. Ultimate planning will consider Taxiway E meeting the RDC B‐II standard for runway/taxiway separation, which is 240 feet. Hold Line Separation Hold line markings are placed on taxiways leading to runways. When instructed, pilots are to stop short of the hold line markings. For Runway 4R‐22L, hold line markings are situated 200 feet from the runway centerline. The hold line markings associated with Runway 4L‐22R are located 125 feet from the runway centerline. These currently meet applicable RDC standards for each runway. Ultimately, the hold line markings associated with Runway 4L‐22R should be placed 200 feet from the runway centerline. In order to meet this hold line separation standard, the relocation of parallel Taxiway E would be required. Aircraft Parking Apron Separation Aircraft parking areas should be at least 250 feet from the Runway 4R‐22L centerline. Currently, all aircraft parking areas exceed this standard as approximately 400 feet of separation exists between the runway and designated aircraft parking aprons farther south. For Runway 4L‐22R, aircraft parking areas should be at least 125 feet from the runway centerline. Cur‐ rently, the parking areas begin at least 275 feet from the runway centerline. This should be maintained in the future, as ultimate RDC B‐II planning requires 250 feet of separation between the runway and an aircraft parking area. Facility Requirements

3-19

RUNWAY ELEMENTS The adequacy of the existing runway system at Falcon Field Airport has been analyzed from a number of perspectives related to adherence to safety area standards. From this information, requirements for runway improvements were determined for the Airport. Runway elements, such as orientation, length, width, and strength, are now presented. Runway Orientation For the operational safety and efficiency of an airport, it is desirable for the primary runway to be ori‐ ented as close as possible to the direction of the prevailing wind. This reduces the impact of wind com‐ ponents perpendicular to the direction of travel of an aircraft that is landing or taking off. For Falcon Field Airport, parallel Runways 4L‐22R and 4R‐22L are orientated in a northeast‐southwest manner. FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, recommends that a crosswind runway be made available when the primary runway orientation provides for less than 95 percent wind coverage for specific crosswind components. The 95 percent wind coverage is based on the crosswind component not exceeding 10.5 knots (12 mph) for Runway Design Code (RDC) A‐I and B‐I; 13 knots (15 mph) for RDC A‐II and B‐II; and 16 knots (18 mph) for RDC A‐III, B‐III, C‐I through C‐III, and D‐I through D‐III. Weather data specific to the Airport was obtained from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administra‐ tion (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center. This data was collected from the on‐field LAWRS over a continuous time period from 2008 to 2017. A total of 37,806 observations of wind direction and other data points were made. Exhibit 3D presents the all‐weather wind rose for the Airport. A wind rose is a graphic tool that gives a succinct view of how wind speed and direction are historically distributed at a particular location. The table at the top of the exhibit indicates the percent of wind coverage for the runway and specific wind intensity. In all‐weather conditions, the Runway 4‐22 alignment provides 95.47 percent wind coverage for 10.5 knot crosswinds, 98.15 percent coverage at 13 knots, 99.54 percent at 16 knots, and 99.86 per‐ cent at 20 knots. Therefore, the existing runway orientation at Falcon Field Airport should be maintained as it is properly orientated to meet predominant winds, and a crosswind runway is not needed. Runway Length AC 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, provides guidance for determining runway length needs. A draft revision of this AC is currently available (150/5325‐4C) and the FAA is utilizing the draft revision in most cases when evaluating runway length needs for airports. There is not a direct relationship between the classification of the design aircraft (e.g., B‐I, B‐II, C‐II, D‐II, etc.) and runway length as airplanes operate on a wide variety of available runway lengths. The suita‐ bility of the runway length is governed by many factors, including elevation, temperature, wind, aircraft weight, wing flap settings, runway condition (wet or dry), runway gradient, vicinity airspace obstructions, useful load, and any special operating procedures. Facility Requirements

3-20

ALL WEATHER WIND COVERAGE 10.5 Knots

13 Knots

16 Knots

20 Knots

95.47%

98.15%

99.54%

99.86%

0.0 1

22 E

0.01

100

0.01

0.0 1

0.0 2

0.08 0.0 3

.4 0.3 3 2

0.0 1

0.01

0.01 0.08

0.04

3.37 1.39 2. 33 0.91 2.0 1.2 7 0 .73 1. 2 02 0

180

170

160

110

ESE

12 0

13 0

280

0.01

0.01 0.01

0.06

0.3 0.2 2 1. 9 7 0.31 1.3 8 5 1 .3 0.38 1. 16 0.61 2.29 0.02

0.01

0.0 3 0.0 4

0.0 1

0.09

31 0

W WN

290

30 0

0.01

SSE

0 14

0 15

SOURCE: NOAA National Climatic Center Asheville, North Carolina Falcon Field Airport Mesa, AZ

Magnetic Declination 00° 10' 12" East (Feb 2018) Annual Rate of Change 00° 06' 00" West (Feb 2018)

Facility Requirements

0.01

3 .03 0.1 3 0 .1 0 9 5 0. 41 0.09 0. 5 0.01 0.3 0.07 0. 4 0.88 0.14 0.02 0. 91 0.15 1.0 0.01 0 4 0 .18 0. .91 88 0.02 0.2 1 0.2 0.0 1 0.0 3

S 190

1 0.0

200

4 0.0

E EN

0 23

TS NO S K T .5 O S 10 T KN NO 13 K TS O 16 KN 20

21 0

SSW

1 0.0 2 1 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.2 5 0.2 0.03 0.24 0.01 0.03 0.3

0 24

SW 22 0

0-6 KNOTS 41.75%

71 0. 05 1. 8 1.2 1. 37

W WS

250

1 0.0 1 0.0

260

1 0.0

1. 0.4 0.494 0.2 14 0.14 0. 5 0.0 3 0.0

1 0.0

0.0 1 0.01

0.0 0.0 3 9 0. 3 0.15 0.4 3 0.01 7 0.01 0.28 0.89 1. 35 0.05 0.65 2.87 1. 94 48 0. 2.174 0.02 0.02 2.1 68 0.72 1. 7 6 0.04 . 0 7 1 5 0.0 . 5 0 0 0. 5 1 0.0 0.0

0.01

270

0.03

1 0.0

0.0 1

0.01

W NN

0 32

TS O KN TS O 20 TS KN NO 16 TS K 13 NO K .5 10

0 33

360

350

340

0.01

Runway 4/22

0.01

Runways

OBSERVATIONS: 37,806 All Weather Observations Jan. 1, 2008 - Dec, 31 2017

3-21

Exhibit 3D WINDROSE

Aircraft performance declines as elevation, temperature, and runway gradient factors increase. For Fal‐ con Field Airport, the mean maximum daily temperature of the hottest month is 104.8 degrees Fahren‐ heit (F), which occurs in July. The Airport’s elevation is 1,394 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The gradient of primary Runway 4R‐22L is 0.6 percent, and the gradient for Runway 4L‐22R is 0.5 percent. Airport sponsors can pursue policies that can maximize the suitability of the runway length. Policies, such as area zoning and height and hazard restrictions, can protect an airport’s runway length. Airport ownership (fee simple or easement) of land leading to the runway ends can reduce the possibility of natural growth or man‐made obstructions. Planning of runways should include an evaluation of aircraft types expected to use the Airport now and in the future. Future plans should be realistic and supported by the FAA‐approved forecasts and should be based on the critical design aircraft (or family of aircraft). The first step in evaluating runway length is to determine general runway length requirements for the majority of aircraft operating at the airport. The majority of operations at Falcon Field Airport are con‐ ducted using smaller single engine piston‐powered aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Following guidance from AC 150/5325‐4B, the existing length of primary Runway 4R‐22L (5,101 feet) can accom‐ modate the fleet mix of small aircraft with less than 10 passenger seats, as well as small aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats. This includes the majority of single engine and smaller multi‐engine aircraft in the national fleet. The length of the secondary parallel Runway 4L‐22R (3,799 feet) is capable of accom‐ modating 95 percent of the small aircraft fleet. Table 3H outlines the runway length requirements for various classifications of aircraft that utilize Falcon Field Airport. TABLE 3H Runway Length Requirements Falcon Field Airport AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA Airport elevation..................................................................................................................................... 1,394 feet above MSL Mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month ................................................................................. 104.8° F (July) Maximum difference in runway elevation ........................................................................................ 29 feet (Runway 4R‐22L) RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats: 95 percent of small airplanes .............................................................................................................................. 3,700 feet 100 percent of small airplanes ............................................................................................................................ 4,400 feet Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats .................................................................................................... 4,800 feet Source: FAA AC 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design.

The Airport is also utilized by aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, including business jet and larger turboprop aircraft. The FAA runway length AC also includes methods to calculate recommended runway length for large aircraft. Runway length requirements for business jets weighing less than 60,000 pounds have also been calculated based on FAA AC 150/5325‐4B. These calculations take into consider‐ ation the runway gradient and landing length requirements for contaminated runways (wet). Business jets tend to need greater runway length when landing on a wet surface because of their increased ap‐ proach speeds.

Facility Requirements

3-22

AC 150/5325‐4B stipulates that runway length determinations for large aircraft consider a grouping of airplanes with similar operating characteristics. The AC provides two separate “family groupings of air‐ planes” each based upon their representative percentage of aircraft in the national fleet. The first group‐ ing is those business jets that make up 75 percent of the national fleet, and the second group is those making up 100 percent of the national fleet (75‐100 percent of the national fleet). Table 3J presents a representative list of aircraft for each aircraft grouping. A third group includes business jets weighing more than 60,000 pounds; however, runway length determination for these aircraft types must be based on the performance characteristics of the individual aircraft. TABLE 3J Business Jet Categories for Runway Length Determination 75 percent of MTOW 75‐100 percent MTOW the national fleet (lbs.) of the national fleet (lbs.) Lear 35 20,350 Lear 55 21,500 Lear 45 20,500 Lear 60 23,500 Cessna 550 14,100 Hawker 800XP 28,000 Cessna 560XL 20,000 Hawker 1000 31,000 Cessna 650 (VII) 22,000 Cessna 650 (III/IV) 22,000 IAI Westwind 23,500 Cessna 750 (X) 36,100 Beechjet 400 15,800 Challenger 604 47,600 Falcon 50 18,500 IAI Astra 23,500 MTOW: Maximum Take‐Off Weight Source: FAA AC 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design

Greater than 60,000 pounds Gulfstream II Gulfstream IV Gulfstream V Global Express

MTOW (lbs.) 65,500 73,200 90,500 98,000

Table 3K presents the results of the runway length analysis for business jets developed following the guidance provided in AC 150/5325‐4B. To accommodate 75 percent of the business jet fleet at 60 per‐ cent useful load, a runway length of 5,500 feet is recommended. This length is derived from a raw length of 5,460 feet that is adjusted, as recommended, for runway gradient, then rounded up to the nearest hundred feet (when the raw number is 30 feet or more). From the analysis of jet operations conducted at Falcon Field Airport presented in Chapter Two, the majority of jet operations are those in the 75 per‐ cent of the business jet fleet category. To accommodate 100 percent of the business jet fleet at 60 percent useful load, a runway length of 7,100 feet is recommended. While these recommended lengths exceed the current length of primary Runway 4R‐22L, aircraft within these categories are still capable of utilizing the airport; however, certain aircraft will be weight‐restricted especially during the summer months. Another method to determine runway length requirements for jet and turbine‐powered aircraft at Fal‐ con Field Airport is to examine each aircraft’s flight planning manual under conditions specific to the airport. Several aircraft were analyzed for takeoff length required with a design temperature of 104.8 degrees Fahrenheit at a field elevation of 1,394 feet MSL. Facility Requirements

3-23

TABLE 3K Runway Length Requirements Falcon Field Airport Airport Elevation Average High Monthly Temp. Runway Gradient

1,394 feet above MSL 104.8° F (July) 29 feet (Runway 4R‐22L) Raw Runway Runway Length Wet Surface Fleet Mix Category Length from With Gradient Landing Length FAA AC Adjustment (+271') for Jets (+15%)* 75% of fleet at 60% useful load 5,170’ 5,460’ 5,500’ 100% of fleet at 60% useful load 6,810’ 7,100’ 5,500’ * Max 5,500' for 60% useful load in wet conditions Source: FAA AC 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design.

Final Runway Length 5,500’ 7,100’

Exhibit 3E provides a detailed runway takeoff length analysis for the most common business jet and turboprop aircraft in the national fleet, many of which utilize Falcon Field Airport. This data was obtained from Ultranav software, which computes operational parameters for specific aircraft based on its flight manual data. The analysis includes the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) allowable and the percent useful load from 60 percent to 100 percent. Additionally, the designation “OL” refers to aircraft that are out of limits at a specific useful load for the runway. This analysis shows that Runway 4R‐22L can gener‐ ally accommodate several types of business jets and turboprops operating at Falcon Field Airport; how‐ ever, its current length will have difficulty accommodating larger business jet aircraft at higher useful load percentages. Exhibit 3E also presents the runway length required for landing under three operational categories: Title 14 CFR Part 25, CFR Part 91k, and CFR Part 135. CFR Part 25 operations are those conducted by individ‐ uals or companies which own their aircraft. CFR Part 91k includes operations in fractional ownership programs which utilize their own aircraft under direction of pilots specifically assigned to said aircraft. CFR Part 135 applies to all for‐hire charter operations, including most fractional ownership operations. Similar to takeoff length, the analysis for landing length shows that several business jets and turboprops that utilize the Airport can be accommodated under Part 25, Part 91 and Part 135 (dry conditions). When factoring in wet conditions, the landing lengths often increase and many exceed the current runway length; however, wet conditions are rare for runway pavement at the Airport. Runway Length Summary Runway 4R‐22L can accommodate a large majority of general aviation aircraft that utilize the Airport under moderate loading conditions, especially with shorter trip lengths and during cool to warm tem‐ peratures. Larger business jet aircraft will be weight‐restricted when combining operational factors, such as temperature and density altitude. While certain business jet aircraft could support a longer runway, justification would be dependent upon the specific make and model that the FAA agrees to consider as the critical design aircraft in the event that these aircraft would commence operations at the airport on a regular basis. These larger aircraft operations have not exceeded the FAA threshold of sig‐ nificance nor are they projected to do so during the long‐term planning period of this Master Plan. The current length of Runway 4R‐22L can accommodate a diverse mix of business jets and turboprop aircraft Facility Requirements

3-24

100% Useful Load

Aircraft Name

MTOW lbs.

Payload Takeoff Weight lbs. (lbs)

90% Useful Load

Takeoff Takeoff Length Weight (ft.) Dry (lbs)

80% Useful Load

Takeoff Takeoff Length Weight (ft.) Dry (lbs)

70% Useful Load

Landing Lengths Required (ft.)

60% Useful Load

Takeoff Takeoff Takeoff Takeoff Length Weight Length Weight (ft.) Dry (lbs) (ft.) Dry (lbs)

Takeoff Length (ft.) Dry

Aircraft Name

MLW lbs.

CFR Part 25 Dry Wet

CFR Part 135 Dry (.6) Wet (.6)

CFR Part 91K Dry (.8) Wet (.8)

King Air C90B

10,100

3,030

10,100

4,196

9,797

3,911

9,494

3,649

9,191

3,412

8,888

3,178

King Air C90B

9,600

1,314

N/A

2,190

N/A

1,643

N/A

King Air 200 GT

12,500

3,720

12,500

4,367

12,128

4,256

11,756

4,133

11,384

3,392

11,012

3,834

King Air 200 GT

12,500

1,279

N/A

2,132

N/A

1,599

N/A

King Air 350

15,000

5,115

15,000

5,334

14,489

4,934

13,977

4,573

13,466

4,378

12,954

4,181

King Air 350

15,000

3,062

3,522

5,103

5,870

3,828

4,403

Beech 1900D

17,120

6,120

17,120

6,081

16,508

5,693

15,896

5,303

15,284

4,943

14,672

4,627

Beech 1900D

16,765

3,022

3,476

5,037

5,793

3,778

4,345

Pilatus PC-12

9,921

3,139

9,921

3,519

9,607

3,258

9,293

3,010

8,979

2,776

8,665

2,554

Pilatus PC-12

9,921

2,044

N/A

3,407

N/A

2,555

N/A

Citation Sovereign

30,300

12,150

30,300

5,216

29,085

4,753

27,870

4,373

26,655

4,030

25,440

3,749

Citation Sovereign

27,100

3,278

4,275

5,463

7,125

4,098

5,344

Beechjet 400A

16,300

5,315

16,300

O/L

15,769

6,006

15,237

5,477

14,706

5,026

14,174

4,701

Beechjet 400A

15,700

3,933

5,941

6,555

9,902

4,916

7,426

Citation 560 XL

20,000

7,300

20,000

O/L

19,270

5,967

18,540

5,413

17,810

4,914

17,080

4,472

Citation 560 XL

18,700

3,824

6,039

6,373

10,065

4,780

7,549

Citation X

35,700

13,236

35,700

O/L

34,376

O/L

33,053

7,174

31,729

6,505

30,406

5,933

Citation X

31,800

4,477

6,478

7,462

10,797

5,596

8,098

Citation Bravo

14,800

5,475

14,800

6,482

14,253

5,948

13,705

5,460

13,158

5,026

12,610

4,654

Citation Bravo

13,500

4,175

6,585

6,958

10,975

5,219

8,231

Citation Encore

16,630

6,110

16,630

5,701

16,019

5,137

15,408

4,661

14,797

4,194

14,186

3,822

Citation Encore

15,200

3,497

5,311

5,828

8,852

4,371

6,639

Citation Encore Plus

16,830

6,270

16,830

5,666

16,203

5,148

15,576

4,631

14,949

4,207

14,322

3,831

Citation Encore Plus

15,200

3,498

5,325

5,830

8,875

4,373

6,656

Citation III

21,500

9,689

21,500

O/L

20,531

O/L

19,562

O/L

18,593

6,478

17,624

5,772

Citation III

19,000

4,349

6,368

7,248

10,613

5,436

7,960

Citation I/SP

11,850

4,447

11,850

O/L

11,405

O/L

10,961

4,016

10,516

3,697

10,071

3,398

Citation I/SP

11,350

2,532

2,912

4,220

4,853

3,165

3,640

Citation Mustang

8,645

3,085

8,645

O/L

8,337

7,442

8,028

5,729

7,720

4,881

7,411

4,154

Citation Mustang

8,000

2,857

4,036

4,762

6,727

3,571

5,045

Citation (525) CJ1

10,600

3,730

10,600

O/L

10,227

O/L

9,854

7,510

9,481

6,597

9,108

5,721

Citation (525) CJ1

9,800

3,272

4,458

5,453

7,430

4,090

5,573

Citation (525A) CJ2

12,375

4,575

12,375

O/L

11,918

5,050

11,460

4,639

11,003

4,315

10,545

3,978

Citation (525A) CJ2

11,500

3,618

5,227

6,030

8,712

4,523

6,534

Citation CJ3

13,870

5,110

13,870

5,304

13,359

4,732

12,848

4,281

12,337

3,910

11,826

3,603

Citation CJ3

12,750

3,455

4,733

5,758

7,888

4,319

5,916

Falcon 7X

70,000

33,400

70,000

8,290

66,660

7,455

63,320

6,606

59,980

5,877

56,640

5,240

Falcon 7X

62,400

3,009

3,461

5,015

5,768

3,761

4,326

Gulfstream 200

35,450

15,250

35,450

O/L

33,925

O/L

32,400

8,441

30,875

7,476

29,350

6,604

Gulfstream 200

30,000

3,863

4,443

6,438

7,405

4,829

5,554

Gulfstream 350

70,900

28,000

70,900

7,027

68,100

6,438

65,300

5,891

62,500

5,386

59,700

4,924

Gulfstream 350

66,000

3,354

3,857

5,590

6,428

4,193

4,821

Gulfstream 450

74,600

31,400

74,600

7,902

71,460

7,146

68,320

6,484

65,180

5,689

62,040

5,305

Gulfstream 450

66,000

3,354

6,203

5,590

10,338

4,193

7,754

Gulfstream 550

91,000

42,300

91,000

9,371

86,770

8,265

82,540

7,171

78,310

6,254

74,080

5,495

Gulfstream 550

75,300

2,852

5,567

4,753

9,278

3,565

6,959

Gulfstream IIB

69,700

31,550

69,700

O/L

66,545

O/L

63,390

6,106

60,235

5,562

57,080

5,038

Gulfstream IIB

58,500

3,242

6,214

5,403

10,357

4,053

7,768

Global 5000

92,500

41,660

92,500

7,547

88,334

6,880

84,168

6,245

80,002

5,636

75,836

5,056

Global 5000

78,600

2,737

3,147

4,562

5,245

3,421

3,934

Global XRS

98,000

46,800

98,000

O/L

93,320

O/L

88,640

6,966

83,960

6,246

79,280

5,562

Global XRS

78,600

2,737

3,147

4,562

5,245

3,421

3,934

Hawker 900 XP

28,000

11,500

28,000

O/L

26,850

O/L

25,700

5,917

24,550

5,382

23,400

4,885

Hawker 900 XP

23,350

2,735

4,231

4,558

7,052

3,419

5,289

Hawker 4000

39,500

15,800

39,500

7,799

37,920

6,943

36,340

6,160

34,760

5,552

33,180

5,088

Hawker 4000

33,500

3,545

4,077

5,908

6,795

4,431

5,096

Lear 60

23,500

8,728

23,500

O/L

22,627

8,898

21,754

7,916

20,882

7,148

20,009

6,552

Lear 60

19,500

3,805

5,216

6,342

8,693

4,756

6,520

Premier 1A

12,500

3,900

12,500

8,832

12,110

7,795

11,720

6,980

11,330

6,258

10,940

5,538

Premier 1A

11,600

3,590

4,674

5,983

7,790

4,488

5,843

Westwind I

22,850

9,850

22,850

O/L

21,865

O/L

20,880

O/L

19,895

O/L

18,910

5,761

Westwind I

19,000

2,540

2,390

4,233

3,983

3,175

2,988

Facility Requirements O/L: Aircraft climb limitation at that takeoff weight

3-25 MTOW: Maximum Takeoff Weight

MLW: Maximum Landing Weight

N/A: No wet data available

Exhibit 3E RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS

This page intentionally left blank

Facility Requirements

3-26

that fall within the existing and ultimate RDC B‐II design being planned for the Airport. Furthermore, newer generation business aircraft tend to operate more efficiently, requiring shorter runway lengths. Other factors related to airfield safety and design must also be considered when determining appropri‐ ate runway length for safe and efficient operations of aircraft at Falcon Field Airport. Previous analysis outlined the safety areas associated with the runway environment and existing infrastructure develop‐ ment (i.e., roads) located in proximity to the runway ends. There are obstacles beyond each runway end that would have to be considered, especially related to safety areas and RPZs. Given the impracticability of relocating roads and other existing infrastructure development, any such extension would be limited in its use in order to meet FAA runway design standards previously discussed. Runway 4L‐22R can accommodate smaller general aviation aircraft, primarily under 12,500 pounds. Any potential extension is not feasible when considering the impacts to safety areas associated with this runway and infrastructure development located adjacent to the runway ends. Its existing length will continue to accommodate the majority of smaller aircraft that desire to utilize it. As such, the current length of Runways 4R‐22L and 4L‐22R will be adequate through the planning period of this study and a runway extension will not be further evaluated on the airfield. Runway Width Runway width design standards are primarily based on the critical aircraft but can also be influenced by the visibility minimums of published instrument approach procedures. For Runway 4R‐22L, RDC B‐II design criteria stipulate a runway width of 75 feet. Its current runway width of 100 feet exceeds this standard and should be maintained in the future. This width provides added safety enhancements for existing operations by larger aircraft that utilize the Airport. Runway 4L‐22R is 75 feet wide, which exceeds the existing 60‐foot design standard width for RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft). Since ultimate planning calls for this runway to be designed to RDC B‐II criteria, its ex‐ isting width of 75 feet should be maintained. Runway Strength An important feature of airfield pavement is its ability to withstand repeated use by aircraft. The FAA reports the pavement strength for Runway 4R‐22L at 38,000 pounds single wheel loading (SWL), 60,000 pounds dual wheel loading (DWL), and 90,000 pounds double tandem wheel loading (2D). Runway 4L‐ 22R provides a strength rating of 12,500 pounds SWL. These strength ratings refer to the configuration of the aircraft landing gear. For example, SWL indicates an aircraft with a single wheel on each landing gear. The strength rating of a runway does not preclude aircraft weighing more than the published strength rating from using the runway. The strength is based on design parameters which support a high volume of aircraft at or below the published weight, allowing the pavement to survive its intended useful life. Facility Requirements

3-27

Aircraft weighing more than the published weight could damage the runway in severe conditions, but more likely will simply reduce the life cycle of the pavement. All federally obligated airports must remain open to the public, and it is typically up to the pilot of the aircraft to determine if a runway can support their aircraft safely. An airport sponsor cannot restrict an aircraft from using the runway simply because its weight exceeds the published strength rating. On the other hand, an airport sponsor has an obligation to properly maintain the runway and protect the useful life of the runway, typically for 20 years. According to the FAA publication, Chart Supplement, “Runway strength rating is not intended as a max‐ imum allowable weight or as an operating limitation. Many airport pavements are capable of supporting limited operations with gross weights in excess of the published figures.” The supplement directory goes on to say that those aircraft exceeding the pavement strength should contact the airport sponsor for permission to operate at the airport. The strength rating of a runway can change over time. Regular usage by heavier aircraft can decrease the strength rating, while periodic runway resurfacing or other maintenance methods can increase the strength rating. The current strength on Runway 4R‐22L is adequate to accommodate a large majority of aircraft that operate at the Airport. As such, future planning should maintain the existing pavement strength on Runway 4R‐22L. The strength rating on Runway 4L‐22R is adequate to serve small general aviation aircraft. Future planning should consider strengthening this runway to 30,000 pounds SWL. Runway Markings Runway markings are typically designed to the type of instrument approach available on the runway. FAA AC 150/5340‐1L, Standards for Airport Markings, provides guidance necessary to design airport markings. Runway 4R‐22L is served by non‐precision markings, and these markings should be maintained through the long‐term planning period to accommodate the non‐precision instrument approach serving Runway 4R. Runway 4L‐22R currently has basic markings; however, Runway 4L is served by a non‐precision in‐ strument approach. It is recommended that threshold markings be implemented on each end of Runway 4L‐22R in the future. Blast Pads Blast pads serve each runway end at Falcon Field Airport. Each end of Runway 4R‐22L is equipped with a 150‐foot long by 130‐foot wide blast pad. Blast pads are also provided on each end of Runway 4L‐22R, measuring 150 feet long by 95 feet wide. These blast pad dimensions currently exceed the existing RDC designations for each runway. Ultimate RDC B‐II standards call for blast pad dimensions of 150‐foot length by 95‐foot width. As such, the existing blast pads should be maintained through the long‐term planning period of this study. Facility Requirements

3-28

Helicopter Parking As outlined in Chapter One, two designated helicopter parking pads are situated approximately 250 feet northeast of the ATCT. This location is segregated from fixed‐wing aircraft activity, which is preferred. As such, these helicopter parking pads should be maintained through the planning period. It should be noted that these helicopter parking pads are not constructed to FAA‐approved standards for a helipad. Airport management intends to maintain them in their current condition during the long term period of this Master Plan. TAXIWAYS The design standards associated with taxiways are determined by the Taxiway Design Group (TDG) or the Airplane Design Group (ADG) of the critical design aircraft. As determined previously, the applicable ADG for Runway 4R‐22L is ADG II for both existing and ultimate conditions. For Runway 4L‐22R, ADG I currently applies, and ultimate planning calls for ADG II on this runway. Table 3L presents the various taxiway design standards related to ADGs I and II. TABLE 3L Taxiway Dimensions and Standards Falcon Field Airport STANDARDS BASED ON WINGSPAN Taxiway Protection Taxiway Safety Area width (feet) Taxiway Object Free Area width (feet) Taxilane Object Free Area width (feet) Taxiway Separation Taxiway Centerline to: Fixed or Movable Object (feet) Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane (feet) Taxilane Centerline to: Fixed or Movable Object (feet) Parallel Taxilane (feet) Wingtip Clearance Taxiway Wingtip Clearance (feet) Taxilane Wingtip Clearance (feet) STANDARDS BASED ON TDG Taxiway Width Standard (feet) Taxiway Edge Safety Margin (feet) Taxiway Shoulder Width (feet) ADG: Airplane Design Group TDG: Taxiway Design Group Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design

ADG I 49 89 79 44.5 70 39.5 64 20 15 TDG 1A/1B 25 5 10

ADG II

79 131 115

65.5 97

57.5 97

26 18 TDG 2 35 7.5 15

The table also shows those taxiway design standards related to TDG. The TDG standards are based on the Main Gear Width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance of the critical design aircraft expected to use those taxiways. Different taxiway and taxilane pavements can and should be planned to the most appropriate TDG design standards based on usage. Facility Requirements

3-29

The current taxiway design for Runway 4R‐22L should be TDG 2. As such, the taxiways supporting the runway should be at least 35 feet wide. Parallel Taxiway D is 50 feet wide. In addition, all en‐ trance/exit/connector taxiways between Runway 4R‐22L and parallel Taxiway D are at least 50 feet wide. For Runway 4L‐22R, the current taxiway design should meet TDG 1A and 1B. In doing so, the taxiway system supporting the runway should be at least 25 feet wide. Parallel Taxiway E and entrance/ exit/con‐ nector taxiways on the north side of the runway are currently 40 feet wide. While this taxiway exceeds current TDG 1A and 1B standards for width, it is recommended that the current width of 40 feet be maintained as future planning calls for ultimate TDG 2 standards. In addition, Taxiways A and C serve the midfield area and connect the thresholds of Runways 4R‐22L and 4L‐22R. Taxiways A and C are 50 feet wide. These taxiways should at least meet TDG II standards. Tax‐ iway B also serves as a connector taxiway between the parallel runways, in addition to providing access to landside development on the north and south sides of the airfield. This taxiway varies in width from 70 feet to 150 feet. While many of the taxiway widths exceed the current and projected design needs on the airfield, they could be maintained unless financial constraints dictate. As such, the widths should remain until such time as rehabilitation is needed and financial resources to support such are not available. FAA grant eligibility can only be provided if the project meets eligibility thresholds as determined by the FAA. It is also important to note that a significant cost can be associated with adjusting the width of existing taxi‐ ways as this would impact airfield lighting, signage, and markings. Taxiway Design Considerations FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design, provides guidance on recommended taxiway and tax‐ ilane layouts to enhance safety by avoiding runway incursions. A runway incursion is defined as “any occurrence at an airport involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the pro‐ tected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft.” The taxiway system at Falcon Field Airport generally provides for the efficient movement of aircraft; however, AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design, provides recommendations for taxiway design. The following is a list of the taxiway design guidelines and the basic rationale behind each recommenda‐ tion. 1. Taxi Method: Taxiways are designed for “cockpit over centerline” taxiing with pavement being suf‐ ficiently wide to allow a certain amount of wander. On turns, sufficient pavement should be provided to maintain the edge safety margin from the landing gear. When constructing new taxiways, upgrad‐ ing existing intersections should be undertaken to eliminate “judgmental oversteering,” which is where the pilot must intentionally steer the cockpit outside the marked centerline in order to assure the aircraft remains on the taxiway pavement.

Facility Requirements

3-30

2. Steering Angle: Taxiways should be designed such that the nose gear steering angle is no more than 50 degrees, the generally accepted value to prevent excessive tire scrubbing. 3. Three‐Node Concept: To maintain pilot situational awareness, taxiway intersections should provide a pilot a maximum of three choices of travel. Ideally, these are right and left angle turns and a con‐ tinuation straight ahead. 4. Intersection Angles: Turns should be designed to 90 degrees wherever possible. For acute angle intersections, standard angles of 30, 45, 60, 120, 135, and 150 degrees are preferred. 5. Runway Incursions: Taxiways should be designed to reduce the probability of runway incursions. - Increase Pilot Situational Awareness: A pilot who knows where he/she is on the airport is less likely to enter a runway improperly. Complexity leads to confusion. Keep taxiway systems simple using the “three node” concept. - Avoid Wide Expanses of Pavement: Wide pavements require placement of signs far from a pilot’s eye. This is especially critical at runway entrance points. Where a wide expanse of pavement is necessary, avoid direct access to a runway. - Limit Runway Crossings: The taxiway layout can reduce the opportunity for human error. The benefits are twofold – through simple reduction in the number of occurrences, and through a reduction in air traffic controller workload. - Avoid “High Energy” Intersections: These are intersections in the middle third of runways. By limiting runway crossings to the first and last thirds of the runway, the portion of the runway where a pilot can least maneuver to avoid a collision is kept clear. - Increase Visibility: Right‐angle intersections, both between taxiways and runways, provide the best visibility. Acute angle runway exits provide for greater efficiency in runway usage but should not be used as runway entrance or crossing points. A right‐angle turn at the end of a parallel taxiway is a clear indication of approaching a runway. - Avoid “Dual Purpose” Pavements: Runways used as taxiways and taxiways used as runways can lead to confusion. A runway should always be clearly identified as a runway and only a runway. - Indirect Access: Do not design taxiways to lead directly from an apron to a runway. Such config‐ urations can lead to confusion when a pilot typically expects to encounter a parallel taxiway. - Hot Spots: Confusing intersections near runways are more likely to contribute to runway incur‐ sions. These intersections must be redesigned when the associated runway is subject to recon‐ struction or rehabilitation. Other Hot Spots should be corrected as soon as practicable. 6. Runway/Taxiway Intersections: - Right‐Angle: Right‐angle intersections are the standard for all runway/taxiway intersections, ex‐ cept where there is a need for a high‐speed exit. Right‐angle taxiways provide the best visual perspective to a pilot approaching an intersection with the runway to observe aircraft in both the left and right directions. They also provide optimal orientation of the runway holding position signs so they are visible to pilots. - Acute Angle: Acute angles should not be larger than 45 degrees from the runway centerline. A 30‐degree taxiway layout should be reserved for high‐speed exits. The use of multiple

Facility Requirements

3-31

intersecting taxiways with acute angles creates pilot confusion and improper positioning of taxi‐ way signage. Large Expanses of Pavement: Taxiways must never coincide with the intersection of two run‐ ways. Taxiway configurations with multiple taxiway and runway intersections in a single area create large expanses of pavement, making it difficult to provide proper signage, marking, and lighting.

7. Taxiway/Runway/Apron Incursion Prevention: Apron locations that allow direct access into a run‐ way should be avoided. Increase pilot situational awareness by designing taxiways in such a manner that forces pilots to consciously make turns. Taxiways originating from aprons and forming a straight line across runways at mid‐span should be avoided. - Wide Throat Taxiways: Wide throat taxiway entrances should be avoided. Such large expanses of pavement may cause pilot confusion and make lighting and marking more difficult. - Direct Access from Apron to a Runway: Avoid taxiway connectors that cross over a parallel taxi‐ way and directly onto a runway. Consider a staggered taxiway layout that forces pilots to make a conscious decision to turn. - Apron to Parallel Taxiway End: Avoid direct connection from an apron to a parallel taxiway at the end of a runway. FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design, states that “existing taxiway geometry should be im‐ proved whenever feasible, with emphasis on designated ‘hot spots.’ To the extent practicable, the re‐ moval of existing pavement may be necessary to correct confusing layouts.” The FAA has identified the following Hot Spot at the Airport.  Hot Spot 1: Complex intersection. Aircraft approaching Runway 4R from the ramp and des‐ tined for Runway 4R or Runway 22L sometimes miss the turn into Taxiway D and enter onto Runway 4R at Taxiway A. This Hot Spot was created due to a previous taxiway alignment asso‐ ciated with the Runway 4R threshold. It should be noted that recent airfield geometry improve‐ ments have been made in this area on the airfield to help improve overall safety and circulation associated with this Hot Spot. Exhibit 3C depicts the location of the Hot Spot. For the most part, the taxiway system at Falcon Field Airport meets the recommended design and ge‐ ometry standards set forth by the FAA. As previously stated, the Airport has made significant enhance‐ ments to the airfield system in the recent past to help improve overall safety and efficiency. There are certain non‐standard conditions that include:  Taxiways D3, D4, D7, and D8 provide for direct access from aircraft parking aprons to Runway 4R‐ 22L.  Taxiway B links with Taxiways D5 and D6 in the high energy area associated with Runway 4R‐22L.  Taxiway B links with Taxiways E2 and E3 in the high energy area associated with Runway 4L‐22R.  Taxiway B could be considered a wide throat taxiway/wide expanse of pavement as it connects with Runways 4R‐22L and 4L‐22R.

Facility Requirements

3-32

Exhibit 3C identifies these areas of interest. In the alternatives chapter, potential solutions to these non‐ standard conditions will be presented. Analysis in the next chapter will also consider improvements which could be implemented on the airfield to minimize runway incursion potential, improve efficiency, and better conform to FAA standards for taxiway design.

Taxilane Design Considerations Taxilanes are distinguished from taxiways in that they do not provide access to or from the runway sys‐ tem directly. Taxilanes typically provide access to hangar areas. As a result, taxilanes can be planned to varying design standards depending on the type of aircraft utilizing the taxilane. For example, a taxilane leading to a T‐hangar area only needs to be designed to accommodate those aircraft typically accessing the T‐hangar. NAVIGATIONAL AND APPROACH AIDS Navigational aids are devices that provide pilots with guidance and position information when utilizing the runway system. Electronic and visual guidance to arriving aircraft enhance the safety and capacity of the airfield. Such facilities are vital to the success of an airport and provide additional safety to pas‐ sengers using the air transportation system. While instrument approach aids are especially helpful dur‐ ing poor weather, they are often used by pilots conducting flight training and operating larger aircraft when visibility is good. Falcon Field Airport employs the following navigational and approach aids. Instrument Approach Aids Instrument approaches are categorized as either precision or non‐precision. Precision instrument ap‐ proach aids provide an exact course alignment and vertical descent path for an aircraft on final approach to a runway, while non‐precision instrument approach aids provide only course alignment information. In the past, most existing precision instrument approaches in the United States have been the instrument landing system (ILS); however, with advances in global positioning system (GPS) technology, it can now be used to provide both vertical and lateral navigation for pilots under certain conditions. Falcon Field Airport has straight‐in instrument approach capabilities to Runways 4L and 4R. Both runway ends are served by a non‐precision area navigation (RNAV) GPS approach. The RNAV GPS approach to Runway 4L provides for approach minimums with one‐mile visibility and 397‐foot cloud ceilings. The RNAV GPS approach to Runway 4R also provides for one‐mile approach visibility minimums and cloud ceilings at 297 feet. There is also an RNAV GPS approach that is a circling approach only, allowing for minimums to either end of the parallel runway system. It is important to note that aircraft with approach speeds between 141 – 166 knots (Category D) are not authorized to conduct a straight‐in instrument approach at the airport.

Facility Requirements

3-33

As a general aviation reliever airport, the lowest possible visibility minimums should be considered. Vis‐ ibility minimums as low as ¾‐mile or ½‐mile are common at these airports; however, weather conditions at Falcon Field Airport are very rarely below approach minimums to prevent an aircraft from landing. Visibility minimums of ¾‐mile are recommended to have an approach lighting system and ½‐mile mini‐ mums are required to have an approach lighting system. This is a significant investment that may cost $1 million or more. The size of the RPZs increases dramatically with lower visibility minimums. The RPZ associated with ¾‐mile visibility minimums encompass nearly 49 acres and 79 acres for ½‐mile. These new RPZs would have to be cleared of any incompatible land uses, including roads and buildings, which is a significant obstacle for Falcon Field Airport. While lower visibility minimums are likely not feasible for these reasons, it may be feasible to reduce the vertical (cloud ceiling) component. Future planning will consider not lower than one‐mile visibility minimums associated with each end of Runways 4L‐22R and 4R‐22L. Visual Approach Aids In most instances, the landing phase of any flight must be conducted in visual conditions. To provide pilots with visual guidance information during landings to the runway, electronic visual approach aids are commonly provided at airports. The most common visual approach aids at airports include the visual approach slope indicator (VASI) and precision approach path indicator (PAPI). Currently, each runway end is served by a precision approach path indicator (PAPI) system. Four‐box precision approach path indicators (PAPI‐4s) serve each end of Runway 4R‐22L and two‐box precision approach path indicators (PAPI‐2s) are provided on each end of Runway 4L‐22R. These approach aids should be maintained through the planning period. Runway end identification lights (REILs) are flashing lights located at the runway threshold end that fa‐ cilitate rapid identification of the runway end at night and during poor visibility conditions. REILs provide pilots with the ability to identify the runway thresholds and distinguish the runway end lighting from other lighting on the airport and in the approach areas. The FAA indicates that REILs should be consid‐ ered for all lighted runway ends not planned for a more sophisticated approach lighting system. There are currently REIL systems serving all four runway ends at the airport. These systems should be main‐ tained through the long‐term planning period. Weather Reporting Aids Falcon Field Airport has a lighted wind cone and segmented circle, as well as additional supplemental wind cones in various locations on the airfield. The wind cones provide information to pilots regarding wind speed and direction. The segmented circle consists of a system of visual indicators designed to provide traffic pattern information to pilots. These should be maintained throughout the planning pe‐ riod.

Facility Requirements

3-34

An automated surface observation system (ASOS) was recently implemented on the airfield, which pro‐ vides weather observations 24 hours per day. The system updates weather observations every minute, continuously reporting significant weather changes as they occur. This information is then transmitted at regular intervals (usually once per hour). Aircraft in the vicinity can receive this information if they have their radio tuned to the correct frequency (118.25 MHz). This system should be maintained through the planning period. Previously, an LAWRS provided on‐site weather reporting. Now that the ASOS has been installed and commissioned, consideration should be given to decommissioning the LAWRS. Communication Facilities Falcon Field Airport has an operational ATCT located approximately 850 feet south of the Runway 4R‐ 22L centerline and immediately adjacent to the east side of the terminal building. The ATCT is staffed from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. It should be noted that the ATCT becomes operational at 5:30 a.m. from May 15 to August 15 each year. The ATCT enhances safety at the airport and should be maintained through the planning period. AIRFIELD LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE There are several lighting and signage aids serving pilots using Falcon Field Airport. These aids assist pilots in locating the airport and runway at night or in poor visibility conditions. They also assist in the ground movement of aircraft. Airport Identification Lighting The location of the airport at night is universally indicated by a rotating beacon. For civil airports, a rotating beacon projects two beams of light, one white and one green, 180 degrees apart. The existing beacon located atop the ATCT should be maintained through the planning period. Runway and Taxiway Lighting Runway lighting provides the pilot with positive identification of the runway and its alignment. Runways 4L‐22R and 4R‐22L are served by medium intensity runway lighting (MIRL). This system should be main‐ tained through the planning period as it complements the runway’s instrument approach capabilities during poor visibility conditions. As noted earlier in this study, Runway 4L‐22R is closed when the ATCT closes (9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). As such, the MIRL associated with this runway is turned off during this time.

Facility Requirements

3-35

Medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL) is provided on parallel Taxiways D and E and all associated entrance/exit, access, and connecting taxiways serving the airfield system. This system is vital for safe and efficient ground movements and should be maintained in the future. Future planning should also consider MITL on future taxiways that directly support the runway system at the airport. At a minimum, planning should also consider edge reflectors on more remote taxiways and taxilanes serving landside development areas. The airport has also undertaken a project to upgrade the airfield lighting system with light emitting diode (LED) technology. LEDs have many advantages, including lower energy consumption, longer lifetime, tougher construction, reduced size, greater reliability, and faster switching. While a substantial initial investment is required upfront, the energy savings and reduced maintenance costs will outweigh any additional costs in the long run. Airfield Signs Airfield identification signs assist pilots in identifying their location on the airfield and directing them to their desired location. Lighted and/or reflective signs are installed on the runway and taxiway system on the airfield. The signage system includes runway and taxiway designations, holding positions, rout‐ ing/directional, and runway exits. Distance remaining signs are also implemented on Runway 4R‐22L. All these signs should be maintained throughout the planning period. A summary of the airside facilities previously discussed at Falcon Field Airport is presented on Exhibit 3F.

LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Landside facilities are those necessary for the handling of aircraft and passengers while on the ground. These facilities provide the essential interface between the air and ground transportation modes. The capacity of the various components of each area was examined in relation to projected demand to iden‐ tify future landside facility needs. At Falcon Field Airport, this includes components for general aviation needs such as:  General Aviation Terminal Facilities  Aircraft Hangars  Aircraft Parking Aprons  Airport Support Facilities GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL FACILITIES The terminal facilities at an airport are often the first impression of the community that corporate offi‐ cials and other visitors will encounter. General aviation terminal facilities at an airport provide space for passenger waiting, pilots’ lounge, pilot flight planning, concessions, management, storage, and other Facility Requirements

3-36

RUNWAYS RUNWAY 4R-22L

CURRENT

POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT / CHANGE

RDC B-II-5000 5,101' x 100' 38,000 lbs. SWL / 60,000 lbs. DWL / 90,000 lbs. 2D RSA/ROFA/ROFZ - meets standards RPZs extend over roadways and beyond Airport property

Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain Consider acquisition of all property encompassed by Runway 22L RPZ and remove incompatibilities if feasible

RDC B-I (Small Aircraft) - 5000 3,799' x 75' 12,500 lbs. SWL RSA/ROFA/ROFZ - meets standards

RDC B-II-5000 Maintain 30,000 lbs. SWL Maintain current configuration to meet meet ultimate B-II standards for RSA/ROFA; Relocate parallel Taxiway E in order to meet ultimate ROFZ Consider acquisition of all property encompassed by Runway 22R RPZ and remove incompatibilities if feasible

RUNWAY 4L-22R

RPZs extend over roadways and beyond Airport property

TAXIWAYS Taxiways D3, D4, D7, and D8 provide direct access from aircraft parking aprons to Runway 4R-22L High energy area taxiway crossings on Runways 4R-22L and 4L-22R

Examine taxiway system for safety, efficiency, and proper geometry Examine taxiway system for safety, efficiency, and proper geometry Consider improvements to midfield Taxiway B

All taxiways 40' - 50' wide

Re-evaluate width during future rehabilitation projects (Minimum 35' wide) Maintain Examine improvements to hold apron adjacent to Taxiway D serving Runway 22L

RUNWAY 4R-22L Runway/Parallel Taxiway Separation - 250' Holding Bays/Hold Apron

RUNWAY 4L-22R All taxiways 40' - 50' wide Runway/Parallel Taxiway Separation - 200' Hold Aprons

NAVIGATIONAL AND APPROACH AIDS

RNAV (GPS) - Runways 4R and 4L (not lower than 1-mile visibility minimums) RNAV (GPS) - B (circling only) ASOS LAWRS ATCT Lighted Windcones PAPI-4 - Runway 4R-22L PAPI-2 - Runway 4L-22R REILs - All Runway Ends

Re-evaluate width during future rehabilitation projects (Minimum 35' wide) 240' in order to adhere to ultimate B-II standards Examine improvements to hold aprons adjacent to Taxiway E Maintain Maintain Maintain Ultimately decommission Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain

LIGHTING, MARKING, AND SIGNAGE Rotating Beacon Non-Precision Markings - Runway 4R-22L Basic Markings - Runway 4L-22R MIRL with LED - Both Runways MITL with LED on Parallel, Entrance/Exit, and Connector Taxiways Hold Lines 200' from Runway 4R-22L and 125' from Runway 4L-22R Lighted Airfield Signs

Maintain Maintain Non-Precision Markings - Runway 4L-22R Maintain Maintain All Hold Lines 200' from runway centerline Maintain

KEY: 2D - Dual Tandem Wheel Loading ASOS - Automated Surface Observing System ATCT - Airport Traffic Control Tower DWL - Dual Wheel Loading GPS - Global Positioning System LAWRS - Limited Aviation Weather Reporting Station

Facility Requirements

LED - Light Emitting Diode MIRL - Medium Intensity Runway Lighting MITL - Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator RDC - Runway Design Code REIL - Runway End Identification Light RNAV - Area Navigation

3-37

ROFA - Runway Object Free Area ROFZ - Runway Obstacle Free Zone RPZ - Runway Protection Zone RSA - Runway Safety Area SWL - Single Wheel Loading

Exhibit 3F AIRSIDE FACILITIES SUMMARY

various needs. This space is not necessarily limited to a single, separate terminal building, but can in‐ clude space offered by fixed base operators (FBOs) and other specialty operators for these functions and services. At Falcon Field Airport, aviation terminal facilities are primarily provided by the two FBOs (Fal‐ con Executive Aviation and Heliponents, Inc.), as well as the Airport terminal building. The amount of general aviation terminal building space currently provided by the FBOs and the Airport terminal building is estimated at 10,000 square feet. Other specialty aviation operators also provide secondary terminal support facilities. The methodology used in estimating general aviation terminal facility needs was based upon the number of airport users expected to utilize general aviation facilities during the design hour. Space requirements for terminal facilities were based on providing 125 square feet per design hour itinerant passenger. A multiplier of 2.2 in the short term, increasing to 2.5 in the long term, was also applied to terminal facility needs in order to better determine the number of passengers associated with each itinerant aircraft operation. This increasing multiplier indicates an expected increase in business operations through the long term. Business operations typically support larger turboprop and jet aircraft which accommodate an increasing passenger load factor. Such is the case at Falcon Field Airport, as the facility is expected to experience an increase in these activities through the planning period of this study. Table 3M outlines the space requirements for general aviation terminal services at Falcon Field Airport through the long‐term planning period. As shown in the table, up to 10,500 square feet of space could be needed in the long term for general aviation passengers. As previously mentioned, the amount of space currently offered in the FBO facilities and the Airport terminal building is approximately 10,000 square feet. Other specialty aviation operators on the airfield also provide space for pilots and passen‐ gers. It can be assumed that adequate services and space is provided to accommodate their customers. TABLE 3M General Aviation Terminal Area and Automobile Parking Falcon Field Airport Currently Short Term Intermediate Available Need Term Need Design Hour Itinerant Operations 54 57 61 Passenger Multiplier 2.0 2.2 2.3 Design Hour Itinerant Passengers 108 125 141 Terminal Facility Area (s.f.) 10,000¹ 15,600 17,600 Vehicle Parking Spaces 1,800² 520 574 Total Automobile Parking Area (s.f.) ‐ 43,800 49,400 1 Includes approximate space offered by Airport terminal building and FBOs at the Airport. 2 Approximate number of total marked automobile parking spaces at the Airport. Source: Coffman Associates analysis

Long Term Need 72 2.5 180 22,500 700 63,000

General aviation vehicular parking demands have also been determined for Falcon Field Airport. Space determinations for itinerant passengers were based on an evaluation of existing airport use, as well as standards set forth to help calculate projected terminal facility needs. Facility Requirements

3-38

The parking requirements of based aircraft owners should also be considered. Although some owners prefer to park their vehicles in their hangar, safety can be compromised when automobile and aircraft movements are intermixed. For this reason, separate parking requirements, which consider one‐half of based aircraft at the Airport, were applied to general aviation automobile parking space requirements. Utilizing this methodology, parking requirements for general aviation activity call for approximately 520 spaces in the short term, increasing to approximately 700 spaces in the long‐term planning horizon. It is estimated that there are 1,800 marked vehicle parking spaces at Falcon Field Airport currently serving various airport activities, including both aviation and non‐aviation functions. It is important to note that the estimated vehicle parking space needs are associated with aviation‐related activities. Of the esti‐ mated 1,800 marked vehicle parking spaces currently located on the Airport, approximately 700 are re‐ lated to non‐aviation activities, such as the U.S. Post Office and commercial office complexes. When taking this into consideration, the need for future vehicle parking space is not as pronounced. Future consideration in the Master Plan will be given to providing vehicle parking to support additional devel‐ opment potential. AIRCRAFT HANGARS Utilization of hangar space varies as a function of local climate, security, and owner preferences. The trend in general aviation aircraft, whether single or multi‐engine, is toward more sophisticated aircraft (and consequently, more expensive aircraft); therefore, many aircraft owners prefer enclosed hangar space to outside tiedowns. The demand for aircraft storage hangars is dependent upon the number and type of aircraft expected to be based at the Airport in the future. For planning purposes, it is necessary to estimate hangar require‐ ments based upon forecast operational activity. However, actual hangar construction should be based upon actual demand trends and financial investment conditions. While the majority of aircraft owners prefer enclosed aircraft storage, a number of based aircraft will still use outdoor tiedown spaces (due to lack of hangar availability, hangar rental rates, and/or opera‐ tional needs). Therefore, enclosed hangar facilities do not necessarily need to be planned for each based aircraft. At Falcon Field Airport, it is estimated that approximately 19 percent of aircraft are currently based on aircraft parking aprons, with the remainder housed in hangar spaces. There are a variety of aircraft storage options typically available at an airport, including covered tiedowns (shade hangars), T‐hangars, linear box hangars, executive hangars, and bulk storage conventional hang‐ ars. Covered tiedowns are the most basic form of aircraft protection and are common in warmer cli‐ mates. These structures provide a roof covering, but no walls or doors. There are covered tiedowns at Falcon Field Airport, and for purposes of planning, any future covered tiedowns would be included in the T‐hangar need forecast. There is an estimated 101,000 square feet of storage space at the Airport com‐ prised of covered tiedown facilities. T‐hangars are intended to accommodate one small single engine piston aircraft or, in some cases, one multi‐engine piston aircraft. T‐hangars are so named because they are in the shape of a “T,” providing Facility Requirements

3-39

a space for the aircraft nose and wings, but no space for turning the aircraft within the hangar. Basically, the aircraft can be parked in only one position. T‐hangars are commonly “nested” with several individual storage units to maximize hangar space. In these cases, taxiway access is needed on both sides of the nested T‐hangar facility. T‐hangars are popular with aircraft owners with tighter budgets as they tend to be the least expensive enclosed hangar space to build and lease. T‐hangar positions at the Airport total approximately 579,100 square feet of aircraft storage capacity. Similar to the T‐hangar style is the linear box hangar. Linear box hangars typically provide storage for a single aircraft and can be nested with multiple individual linear box hangars. Unlike the T‐hangar, linear box hangars enable the user to store aircraft in more ways than one. Ultimately, this will allow the user to maximize aircraft storage space. At this time, there is approximately 301,200 square feet of linear box hangar aircraft storage space. The next type of aircraft hangar common for storage of general aviation aircraft is the executive hangar. Executive hangars typically provide a larger space, generally with an area between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet. This type of hangar can provide for maneuverability within the hangar, can accommodate more than one aircraft, and may have a small office and utilities. Executive hangars may be connected in a row of units with doors facing a taxilane. Executive hangars may also be stand‐alone hangars. These hangars are typically utilized by a corporate/business entity or to support an on‐airport business. Falcon Field Airport currently has approximately 51,400 square feet of executive hangar aircraft storage capac‐ ity. Conventional hangars are the large, clear span hangars typically located facing the main aircraft apron at airports. These hangars provide for bulk aircraft storage and are often utilized by airport businesses, such as an FBO and/or aircraft maintenance business. Conventional hangars are generally larger than executive/box hangars and can range in size from 10,000 square feet to more than 20,000 square feet. Often, a portion of a conventional hangar is utilized for non‐aircraft storage needs, such as maintenance or office space. There is an estimated 363,800 square feet of conventional hangar space at Falcon Field Airport. Planning for future aircraft storage needs is based on typical owner preferences and standard sizes for hangar space. For determining future aircraft storage needs in T‐hangars and linear box hangars, plan‐ ning standards of 1,200 square feet and 1,500 square feet are utilized for single engine piston aircraft and multi‐engine piston aircraft, respectively. For executive and conventional hangars, a planning stand‐ ard of 3,000 square feet is utilized for turboprop aircraft, 5,000 square feet is utilized for business jet aircraft, and 1,500 square feet is utilized for helicopter storage needs. At Falcon Field Airport, with a total of 719 based aircraft, there are currently 140 estimated aircraft uti‐ lizing outside tiedown positions. With the trend toward aircraft owners preferring enclosed aircraft stor‐ age space, minimal growth is projected for aircraft that utilize outside tiedowns. Providing a mix of aircraft storage options is preferred when planning storage needs, in order to meet the varied needs of aircraft owners. Table 3N provides a summary of the aircraft storage needs through the long‐term plan‐ ning horizon. Facility Requirements

3-40

TABLE 3N Aircraft Hangar Requirements Falcon Field Airport Currently Available 719 579

Short Term Need 790 648

Total Based Aircraft Aircraft to be Hangared Hangar Area Requirements T‐Hangar/Linear Box Hangar Area (s.f.) 981,300 1,040,700 Executive Hangar Area (s.f.) 51,400 75,400 Conventional Hangar Area (s.f.) 363,800 390,800 Office/Maintenance Area (s.f.) ‐ 81,000 Total Hangar Area (s.f.) 1,396,500* 1,587,900 *Includes total hangar and maintenance area currently at the Airport. Source: Coffman Associates analysis

Intermediate Term Need 865 718

Long Term Need 1,040 884

1,088,100 105,400 445,300 170,800 1,809,600

1,233,300 153,400 532,800 281,300 2,200,800

The analysis shows that future hangar requirements indicate that there is a potential need for over 2,200,000 square feet of hangar storage space to be offered through the long‐term planning period. This includes a mixture of hangar and maintenance areas. Due to the projected increase in based aircraft, annual aircraft operations, and hangar storage needs, facility planning will consider additional hangars at the Airport. It is expected that the aircraft storage hangar requirements will continue to be met through a combination of hangar types. The largest need could involve the construction of conventional‐ style hangars that are better‐suited to accommodate larger turboprop and jet aircraft. It should be noted that hangar requirements are general in nature and based on the aviation demand forecasts. The actual need for hangar space will further depend on the actual usage within hangars. For example, some hangars may be utilized entirely for non‐aircraft storage, such as maintenance; yet from a planning standpoint, they have an aircraft storage capacity. Therefore, the needs of an individual user may differ from the calculated space necessary. AIRCRAFT PARKING APRONS The aircraft parking apron is an expanse of paved area intended for aircraft parking and circulation. Typ‐ ically, a main apron is centrally located near the airside entry point, such as the terminal building or FBO facility. Ideally, the main apron is large enough to accommodate transient airport users as well as a portion of locally based aircraft. Often, smaller aprons are available adjacent to FBO hangars and at other locations around the airport. The apron layout at Falcon Field Airport generally follows this typical pattern. The total aircraft parking apron area at Falcon Field Airport is approximately 238,200 square yards and includes those spaces outlined in Chapter One. A planning criterion of 800 square yards was used for single and multi‐engine itinerant aircraft, while a planning criterion of 1,600 square yards was used to determine the area for transient turboprop and jet aircraft. Facility Requirements

3-41

A parking apron should also provide space for the number of locally based aircraft that are not stored in hangars. Locally based tiedowns typically will be utilized by smaller single engine aircraft; thus, a plan‐ ning standard of 360 square yards per position is utilized. For local tiedown needs, an additional 50 spaces are identified for maintenance activities. Maintenance activities would include the movement of aircraft into and out of hangar facilities and temporary storage of aircraft on the apron. The total apron parking requirements are presented in Table 3P. Currently, there are approximately 350 marked positions available for based and itinerant aircraft as well as specialty aviation operations at Falcon Field Airport. As shown in the table, it appears that there are adequate marked tiedown positions available through the planning period of this study; however, there is a projected need for additional aircraft parking apron space, especially in the form of large aircraft parking to accommodate turboprop, jet, and specialty aviation operator needs. TABLE 3P Aircraft Parking Apron Requirements Falcon Field Airport

Currently Available

Based GA Aircraft Positions Transient Single/Multi‐Engine Aircraft Positions Transient Business Jet Positions Total Positions 350* Total Apron Area (s.y.) 238,200 *Available parking only includes marked positions. Source: Coffman Associates analysis

Short Term Need 192 80 17 289 215,700

Intermediate Term Need 197 86 21 304 229,900

Long Term Need 206 101 30 337 263,200

In addition to fixed‐wing aircraft parking, areas should also be dedicated for helicopter parking. Helicop‐ ters also operate on various apron areas shared by fixed‐wing aircraft at Falcon Field Airport. Helicopter operations should be segregated to the extent practicable to increase safety and efficiency of aircraft parking aprons. Long‐term facility planning will continue to consider dedicated helicopter activity areas at the Airport. AIRPORT SUPPORT FACILITIES Various other landside facilities that play a supporting role in overall airport operations have also been identified. These support functions include facilities related to fuel storage, aircraft rescue and fire‐ fighting (ARFF), maintenance, aircraft wash rack, and security. Fuel Storage The Airport has four separate fuel farms that provide a combined storage capacity for 44,000 gallons of Jet A fuel, which is used by turbine aircraft and 30,000 gallons of 100LL (AvGas), which is used by piston Facility Requirements

3-42

aircraft. It is important to note that 32,000 gallons of Jet A storage capacity and 20,000 gallons of 100LL storage capacity are associated with the commercial re‐sale of aviation fuel. Based upon historic fuel flowage records provided by Airport management, in calendar year 2017, the Airport pumped approxi‐ mately 495,400 gallons of Jet A and 822,100 gallons of 100LL. Based upon the Traffic Flow Management System Count (TFMSC) database, an approximate number of turbine operations was derived. From this data, an estimate of piston aircraft operations was also obtained. Dividing the total fuel flowage by the total number of operations provides a ratio of fuel flowage per operation. In 2017, the Airport pumped approximately 220 gallons of Jet A per turbine operation and 2.75 gallons of 100LL per piston operation. It is anticipated that over the course of the planning period, these ratios will gradually increase. Maintaining a 14‐day fuel supply would allow the Airport to limit the impact of a disruption of fuel de‐ livery. Future aircraft demand experienced by the FBOs will determine the need for additional fuel stor‐ age capacity. In the future, based on these usage assumptions, additional fuel storage capacity could be needed to meet demand for 100LL fueling operations. One option to address this storage capacity issue is to increase the frequency of fuel deliveries. The forecasted fuel storage requirements are summarized in Table 3Q. It is important that Airport personnel work with FBOs to plan for adequate levels of fuel storage capacity through the long‐term planning period of this study. TABLE 3Q Fuel Storage Requirements Falcon Field Airport

Planning Horizon Intermediate Long Term Available Current Term Need Need Jet A Daily Usage (gal.) 1,357 1,970 2,190 2,410 14‐Day Supply (gal.) 44,0001 24,500 27,600 30,700 33,700 Annual Usage (gal.) 495,4172 719,100 799,400 879,700 100LL Daily Usage (gal.) 2,250 3,140 3,460 3,970 14‐Day Supply (gal.) 30,0001 41,200 44,000 48,500 55,600 Annual Usage (gal.) 822,0652 1,146,100 1,262,900 1,449,100 1 Total fuel storage capacity on Airport. Fuel storage capacity associated with commercial re‐sale includes 32,000 gallons of Jet A and 20,000 gallons of 100LL. 2 2017 fuel sales prorated for October – December based on previous years’ fuel flowage. Source: Airport Records; Coffman Associates analysis Short Term Need

Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Title 14 CFR Part 139 airports are required to provide ARFF services during air carrier operations. Each certificated airport maintains equipment and personnel based on an ARFF index established according to the length of aircraft and scheduled daily flight frequency. In terms of flight frequency, an airport’s ARFF index is determined by the longest aircraft conducting at least five or more daily departures. In terms of aircraft length, there are five indices, A through E, with A applicable to the smallest aircraft and E the largest. Facility Requirements

3-43

The current ARFF equipment and staffing available at Falcon Field Airport generally meets ARFF Index B; however, it should be noted that ARFF capabilities are not a requirement for Falcon Field Airport since only certificated airports providing scheduled commercial passenger service are required to provide ARFF services. Although it is not anticipated that Falcon Field Airport will have a required need to provide ARFF services, it is recommended that the Airport be able to continue providing these services in the future. Table 3R presents the vehicle requirements and capacities for each index level. TABLE 3R ARFF Index Requirements Aircraft Index Requirements Length 1. One ARFF vehicle with 500 lbs. of sodium‐based dry chemical or Index A <90' 2. One vehicle with 450 lbs. of potassium‐based dry chemical and 100 lbs. of water and AFFF for simultaneous water and foam application 1. One vehicle with 500 lbs. of sodium‐based dry chemical and 1,500 gallons of water and AFFF or Index B 90'‐126' 2. Two vehicles, one with the requirements for Index A and the other with enough water and AFFF for a total quantity of 1,500 gallons 1. Three vehicles, one having Index A, and two with enough water and AFFF for all three vehicles to combine for at least 3,000 gallons of agent or Index C 126'‐159' 2. Two vehicles, one with Index B and one with enough water and AFFF for both vehicles to total 3,000 gallons 1. One vehicle carrying agents required for Index A and Index D 159'‐200' 2. Two vehicles carrying enough water and AFFF for a total quantity by the three vehicles of at least 4,000 gallons 1. One vehicle with Index A and Index E >200' 2. Two vehicles with enough water and AFFF for a total quantity of the three vehicles of 6,000 gallons AFFF: Aqueous Film‐Forming Foam ARFF: Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Source: Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 139

Maintenance Facilities A dedicated maintenance facility is located in the southeast area of the Airport and provides approxi‐ mately 7,500 square feet for the storage of Airport maintenance equipment and supplies. This facility should be maintained through the long‐term planning period. Aircraft Wash Rack A recently constructed aircraft wash rack is located in the southeast area of the Airport adjacent to sev‐ eral T‐hangar and covered tiedown complexes. The wash rack includes a 3,000‐square‐foot covered and lighted service bay, a 3,000‐square‐foot open‐air service bay, and a waste disposal station. This facility should be maintained through the long‐term planning period. Facility Requirements

3-44

Perimeter Fencing and Gates Perimeter fencing is used at airports primarily to secure the aircraft operational area. The physical bar‐ rier of perimeter fencing provides the following functions:  Gives notice of the legal boundary of the outermost limits of a facility or security‐sensitive area.  Assists in controlling and screening authorized entries into a secured area by deterring entry else‐ where along the boundary.  Supports surveillance, detection, assessment, and other security functions by providing a zone for installing intrusion‐detection equipment and closed‐circuit television (CCTV).  Deters casual intruders from penetrating a secured area by presenting a barrier that requires an overt action to enter.  Demonstrates the intent of an intruder by their overt action of gaining entry.  Causes a delay to obtain access to a facility, thereby increasing the possibility of detection.  Creates a psychological deterrent.  Optimizes the use of security personnel, while enhancing the capabilities for detection and ap‐ prehension of unauthorized individuals.  Demonstrates a corporate concern for facilities.  Limits inadvertent access to aircraft operations area by wildlife. Falcon Field Airport’s perimeter is enclosed with eight‐foot tall chain‐link fence. Several controlled‐ac‐ cess gates and manual access gates lead to different areas on the airfield. Airport Property – Non‐Aviation Related As previously detailed, the Airport consists of approximately 784 acres of property, the majority of which is provided direct access to the airfield and, thus, utilized for aviation purposes. Approximately 200 acres in the west and southwest quadrants of the Airport are segregated from the airfield by public roadways, namely North Greenfield Road. This property is currently being utilized for agricultural purposes (or‐ chards). As part of this Master Plan, this property will be evaluated for its highest and best future use. It should be noted that approximately 70 acres of this property directly west of North Greenfield Road is being considered for future commercial development. As such, the land to the south of this proposed development will be further analyzed during this study. A summary of the landside facilities previously discussed at Falcon Field Airport is presented on Exhibit 3G.

SUMMARY This chapter has outlined the safety design standards and facilities required to meet potential aviation demand projected at Falcon Field Airport for the next 20 years. In an effort to provide a more flexible Master Plan, the yearly forecasts from Chapter Two have been converted to planning horizon levels. The Facility Requirements

3-45

GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL SERVICES

Intermediate Term (6-10 years)

Long Term (11-20 years)

15,600 520 43,800

17,600 574 49,400

22,500 700 63,000

790 648 1,040,700 75,400 390,800 81,000 1,587,900

865 718 1,088,100 105,400 445,300 170,800 1,809,600

1,040 884 1,233,300 153,400 532,800 281,300 2,200,800

---3504 238,200

192 80 17 289 215,700

197 86 21 304 229,900

206 101 30 337 263,200

30,0005 44,0005 Dedicated Airport Maintenance Facility Newly Constructed Wash Rack Services Offered Security Fencing/Gates

44,000 27,600

48,500 30,700 Maintain

55,600 33,700

Available General Aviation Services Facility Area (s.f.) Automobile Parking Spaces Total Automobile Parking Area (s.f.)

10,0001 1,8002

Short Term (1-5 years)

AIRCRAFT STORAGE HANGAR REQUIREMENTS

Total Based Aircraft Aircraft to be Hangared T-Hangar/Linear Box Hangar (s.f.) Executive Hangar (s.f.) Conventional Hangar (s.f.) Office/Maintenance Area (s.f.) Total Hangar Area (s.f.)

719 579 981,300 51,400 363,800 -1,396,5003

AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON REQUIREMENTS

Locally-Based Aircraft Positions Transient Single and Multi-Engine Aircraft Positions Transient Turboprop and Jet Aircraft Positions Total Marked Positions Total Apron Area (s.y.)

SUPPORT FACILITIES Fuel Storage - 100LL 14-Day Supply (gal.) Fuel Storage - Jet A 14-Day Supply (gal.) Airport Maintenance Aircraft Wash Rack ARFF Airport Security

Maintain Maintain Maintain

Includes approximate space offered by Airport terminal building and FBOs Approximate number of total marked vehicle parking spaces at the Airport 3 Includes estimated hangar and maintenance area currently at Airport 4 Available parking only includes marked positions 5 Total fuel storage capacity on Airport. Fuel storage capacity associated with commercial re-sale includes 32,000 gallons of Jet A and g 20,000 gallons of 100LL 2

Facility Requirements

3-46

Exhibit 3G LANDSIDE FACILITIES SUMMARY

short term roughly corresponds to a five‐year timeframe, the intermediate term is approximately 10 years, and the long term is 20 years. By utilizing planning horizons, Airport management can focus on demand indicators for initiating projects and grant requests rather than on specific dates in the future. In Chapter Four, potential improvements to the airside and landside systems will be examined through a series of development alternatives. Most of the alternatives discussion will focus on those capital improvements that would be eligible for federal and state grant funds. Other projects of local concern will also be presented. Ultimately, an overall development plan that presents a vision beyond the 20‐ year scope of this Master Plan will be developed for Falcon Field Airport.

Facility Requirements

3-47

AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 4

In the previous chapter, aviation facilities required to satisfy airside and landside demand through the long‐term planning period of the Master Plan were identified. In addition, various Federal Aviation Ad‐ ministration (FAA) standards were discussed that apply to airfield design. The next step in the planning process is to evaluate reasonable ways these facilities can be provided and the design standards can be met. The purpose of this chapter is to formulate and examine rational development alternatives that address the short, intermediate, and long term planning horizon levels. Because there are a multitude of possibilities and combinations, it is necessary to focus on those opportunities that have the greatest potential for success. Each alternative provides a differing approach to meet existing and future facility needs, and these layouts are presented for purposes of evaluation and discussion Some airports become constrained due to limited availability of space, while others may be constrained due to adjacent land use development. Careful consideration should be given to the layout of future facilities and impacts to potential airfield improvements at Falcon Field Airport (Airport). Proper plan‐ ning at this time can ensure the long term viability of the Airport for aviation and economic growth. The primary goal of this planning process is to develop a feasible plan for meeting the needs resulting from the projected market demand over the next 20 years. The plan of action should be developed in a manner that is consistent with the future goals and objectives of the City of Mesa, Airport users, the local community, and the surrounding region, all of whom have a vested interest in the development and operation of Falcon Field Airport.

Airport Alternatives

4-1

The ultimate goal is to develop an underlying rationale which supports the final recommended concept. Through this process, an evaluation of the highest and best uses of Airport property will be made, while also weighing local development goals, efficiency, physical and environmental factors, capacity, and ap‐ propriate safety design standards. The alternatives presented in this chapter have been formulated as potential means to meet the overall program objectives for the Airport in a balanced manner. Through coordination with the City of Mesa, Airport management, the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), and the public, an alternative (or combi‐ nation thereof) will be refined and modified as necessary into a recommended development concept. Therefore, the planning considerations and alternatives presented in this chapter can be considered a beginning point in the evolution of a recommended concept for the future of Falcon Field Airport.

PLANNING OBJECTIVES A set of basic planning objectives has been established to guide the alternatives development process. It is the goal of this master planning effort to produce a development plan for the Airport that addresses forecast aviation demand and meets FAA design standards to the greatest degree possible. As owner and operator, the City of Mesa provides the overall guidance for the operation and development of the Airport. It is of primary concern that Falcon Field Airport is marketed, developed, and operated for the betterment of the community and its users. The following basic planning principles and objectives will be utilized as general guidelines during this planning effort:  To develop a safe, attractive, and efficient aviation facility in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations;  To preserve and protect public and private investments in existing Airport facilities;  To provide a means for the Airport to grow as dictated by demand;  To put into place a plan to ensure the long term viability of the Airport as well as to promote compatible land uses surrounding the Airport;  To develop a facility that is readily responsive to the changing needs of all aviation users;  To be reflective and supportive of the long term planning efforts currently applicable to the re‐ gion;  To develop a facility with a focus on self‐sufficiency in both operational and developmental cost recovery; and,  To ensure that future development is environmentally compatible.

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS AIRPORT PLANS The previous Master Plan for Falcon Field Airport was completed in 2010. More recently, the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) was updated and approved by the FAA in 2016.

Airport Alternatives

4-2

The existing Airport Layout Drawing and associated Airport Data (Title Sheet) are shown on Exhibit 4A. The Airport data, detailed on the front of the exhibit, provides information on existing and ultimate con‐ ditions at Falcon Field Airport, including:  Data related to the facility’s service level, Airport Reference Code (ARC), elevation, wind condi‐ tions, temperature, and navigational aids located at the Airport.  Data related to the critical design aircraft, safety areas, markings, lighting, and visual and naviga‐ tional aids associated with the runway and taxiway system. On the back of the exhibit, the Airport Layout Drawing graphically depicts information contained on the Title Sheet and further outlines airside and landside recommendations based upon previous airport plan‐ ning that include:  Meeting ultimate ARC B‐II design standards for Runway 4R‐22L and ultimate ARC B‐II design standards for Runway 4L‐22R.  Consideration of additional taxiway development on the airfield.  Additional landside development in the form of hangars, aircraft parking, and support facilities.  Ultimate parcel layout in various areas on Airport property that could support future develop‐ ment. The analysis presented in this chapter will revisit the recommendations presented on the Airport Layout Drawing as well as in the previous Master Plan. Since completion of the last plan, the FAA has made some significant modifications to design standards as outlined in the previous chapter. As such, some of the previous plan’s elements may be carried over to this Master Plan and others may be changed and/or removed from further consideration.

NO ACTION/NON‐DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The City of Mesa is charged with managing the Airport for the economic betterment of the community and region. In some cases, alternatives may include a no action option; however, for Falcon Field Airport, this would effectively reduce the quality of services being provided to the general public, affect the avi‐ ation facility’s ability to meet FAA design standards, and potentially affect the region’s ability to support aviation needs. The ramifications of a no action alternative extend into impacts on the economic well‐ being of the region. An analysis of the economic benefit of the Airport is being conducted concurrently with this Master Plan and will be included as an appendix to the study. If facilities are not maintained and improved so that the Airport provides a pleasant experience for the visitor or business traveler, or if delays become unacceptable, then these individuals may consider doing business elsewhere. The no action alternative is also inconsistent with the long term goals of the FAA and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) – Aeronautics Group, which is to enhance local and interstate commerce. There‐ fore, a no action alternative is not considered further in this Master Plan. Likewise, this study will not consider the relocation of services to another airport or development of a new airport site. The development of a new facility such as Falcon Field Airport is a very complex and Airport Alternatives

4-3

expensive option. A new site will require greater land area, duplication of investment in facilities, instal‐ lation of supporting infrastructure that is already available at the existing site, and greater potential for negative impacts to natural, biological, and cultural resources. The purpose of this Master Plan is to examine aviation needs at Falcon Field Airport over the course of the next 20 years. Therefore, this Master Plan will examine the needs of the existing Airport and will present a program of needed capital improvement projects to cover the scope of the plan. The Airport is a lucrative business, transportation utility, and economic asset for the region. It is quite capable of accommodating existing and future demand and should be developed accordingly to support the inter‐ ests of local residents and businesses which rely upon it. Ultimately, the final decision with regards to pursuing development rests with the City of Mesa and the FAA on an individual project basis. The anal‐ ysis to follow considers airside and landside development alternatives that take into account an array of facility demands including safety, capacity, access, and efficiency.

AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS The development alternatives are categorized into two functional areas: airside and landside. Airside considerations relate to runways, taxiways, navigational aids, lighting and marking aids, etc., and require the greatest commitment of land area to meet the physical layout of an airport, as well as the required airfield safety standards. The design of the airfield also defines minimum set‐back distances from the runway and object clearance standards. These criteria are defined first to ensure that the fundamental needs of Falcon Field Airport are met. Landside considerations include hangars, aircraft parking aprons, terminal services, as well as utilization of remaining property to provide revenue support for the Airport and to benefit the economic development and well‐being of the regional area. Each functional area interrelates and affects the development potential of the others. Therefore, all areas must be examined individually and then coordinated as a whole to ensure the final plan is func‐ tional, efficient, and cost‐effective. The total impact of all these factors must be evaluated to determine if the investment in Falcon Field Airport will meet the needs of the surrounding area, both during and beyond the planning period of this study. Exhibit 4B presents a summary of the primary planning considerations for the alternatives analysis. These considerations are the result of the findings of the aviation demand forecasts and facility require‐ ments evaluations, as well as input from the PAC, Airport management, and general public. Not all air‐ side or landside elements will require a detailed alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is re‐ served for presenting viable solutions to specific problems or challenges. For those airside or landside elements where only one solution is reasonable or where no alternative is necessary, an explanatory narrative is provided. The remainder of this chapter will describe various development alternatives for airside and landside facilities. Although each area is treated separately, ultimate planning will integrate the individual re‐ quirements so that they can complement one another. Airport Alternatives

4-4

Airport Alternatives

4-5

Exhibit 4A CURRENT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN

LEGEND EXISTING

N/A

BRL

EXISTING THROUGH-THE-FENCE ACCESS POINT (BRIDGE)

BRL

TTF EASEMENTS

PHOTO

EASEMENTS

C ROAD

AIRPORT

PROPERTY

PHOTO

ULTIMATE HANGARS

L BR

RVZ

L BR

ROAD

DRIVE

2. RUNWAY 4L-22R HOLD LINES ARE 130' FROM RWY CL. RUNWAY 4R-22L HOLD LINES ARE 200' FROM RWY CL.

L BR

AIRPORT CONTROL

L BR

E R

L BR

D2 D1

TIM

L BR

DRIVE

L BR

A ) C

FALCON

(RW

L BR

AIRPORT

PROPERTY

LINE

ULTIMATE CORPORATE HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA

4 3 9 10

BACKGROUND MAPPING IS MARICOPA COUNTY GIS IMAGING, DATED DECEMBER, 2014. GROUND CONTOURS ARE FROM THE .PREVIOUS ALP, ORIGINALLY GENERATED IN 2007 BY COFFMAN ASSOCIATES, AND UPDATED IN 2014 BY DIBBLE ENGINEERING.

nicholas j pela & associates c o n s u l t a n t s

1. THERE ARE NO KNOWN PENETRATIONS OF THE RUNWAY 4L-22R AND 4L-22R OBSTACLE FREE ZONES (OFZ).

L BR

CS SA Z F RL FF B

NOTES

L BR

E AT N M RO TI P UL LD A O L H BR

L BR

LD N HO RO AP BRL

L BR

D Y

L BR

TIM

L BR

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST OF REMOVING EXISTING CITRUS TREES FOR NON-AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT

L BR

LAND

L BR

P PA

AIRPORT

Y A

E NE AT O IM N Z LT IO 0' / U CT 70 E X NG T ' TI O 00 IS PR 1,0 EX AY ' X 0 W 0 UN 5

UNDEVELOPED

L BR

SOURCES OF INFORMATION:

a i r p o r t

0' 15 OP S T AY W IL RE

TRI FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST OF REMOVING EXISTING CITRUS TREES FOR NON-AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT

DIS LAND

LD N HO RO AP

ION

VAT

E NE AT ZO E IM N AT ' LT IO 0' M 95 /U CT 70 LTI ' X AD G E X U 50 P IN OT 00' 1 ST T 2 IS PR 1,0 A EX AY ' X BL 0 NW 50 RU

T T

L BR

CS SA Z E FF

E AT M TI LD UL HO ON R AP

R PA

IO E Y

E PI

L BR

R E

E AT L IM LD BR T UL HO ON R P A CS SA Z D FF

TER

GREENFIELD

L BR

I RE

AIRPORT

Airport Alternatives

L BR

R PA

L BR

N RO

R CO

UNDEVELOPED

City of Mesa, Arizona

L BR

RS E GA AT AN IM E H T L UL AT BR R PO

L BR

EVE

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST OF REMOVING EXISTING CITRUS TREES FOR NON-AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT

L BR

N RO

L BR

LD N HO RO AP

L BR

OS LAND

L BR

CS P SA ESA M

T OR

P PA

L BR

UNDEVELOPED

E AT M G TI DIN UL OL ON R H P A

L BR

E G AT AN M TI E H UL AT R L PO

AIRPORT

E AT TE T M A N TI OR ME UL RP OP L CO VE DE

LINE

LD N HO RO AP

L BR

PROPERTY

0' 15 OP ST AY W EIL R

0 D1

ULTIMATE HANGARS

L BR

AIRPORT

N/A

INDICATES DEVIATION FROM CURRENT FAA DESIGN STANDARDS - SEE SHEET 4 FOR INFORMATION

MESA-FALCON FIELD AIRPORT (FFZ)

L BR

ROAD

RVZ

A M TI LD UL HO ON R AP

HIGLEY

RVZ

E N AT O IM N Z LT IO 0' / U CT 70 E X G T ' N TI O 00 IS PR 1,0 EX AY ' X W 500 N RU

PHOTO

RVZ

E AT ZO M TI ION 0' UL T 70 G/ TEC ' X N TI O 00 IS PR 1,0 EX AY ' X 0 NW 50 U R E 2 AT M 95' D I T A UL 0' X T P 15 LAS B

LINE

L BR

McDOWELL

34 35 3 2

33 34 4 3

PHOTO

THE BOEING COMPANY

ULTIMATE

PACS AND SACS CENTERLINES (RWY/TWY) AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP) BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES (BRL) BUILDINGS THRESHOLD LIGHTS FAR PART 77 SURFACES FENCES OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA) OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ) PAVEMENT PAVEMENT MARKING AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES (RPZ) RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS (RSA) RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ) WIND CONE GROUND CONTOURS PAPI ROTATING BEACON REIL

REVISION DESCRIPTION

McKELLIPS

DATE

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS and ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

ROAD

AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING

2930 East Northern Ave., Bldg A-100 Phoenix, Arizona 85028 (602) 349-9967 nicholas.pela@nicholaspela.com

MESA - FALCON FIELD AIRPORT (FFZ) MESA, ARIZONA

4-6

3 2 10 11

Planning: Drawn: Checked: Date:

NJP NJP RT 07/15/2016

Sheet No.

2 of 10

Exhibit 4A (continued) CURRENT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN

AIRSIDE CONSIDERATIONS Explore design criteria required to meet Runway Design Code (RDC) B-II on Runway 4L-22R and consider alternative design options if it is not feasible to apply RDC B-II standards. Evaluate the airfield taxiway system in adhering to safety, design, efficiency, capacity, and geometry standards. Consider hold apron improvements serving runway ends. Examine runway protection zone (RPZ) design standards following current FAA guidance. LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS Determine efficient land uses that allow the Airport to meet the needs of aviation users and promote non-aviation uses where possible. Identify locations for expanded hangar storage capacity to meet future demand. Evaluate options to construct support facilities as needed for aviation activities. Consider non-aviation development options in the west and southwest quadrants of Airport property. Maximize Airport property for revenue enhancement opportunities.

Airport Alternatives

4-7

Exhibit 4B PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

AIRPORT LAND USE The objective of airport land use planning is to coordinate future uses of airport property in a manner that is both functional with the design of an airport and compatible with an airport’s environs. There are two primary considerations for on‐airport land use planning. The first is to secure those areas es‐ sential to the safe and efficient operation of an airport. The second is to determine compatible land uses for the balance of the property which would be most economically advantageous to the airport and the community/region it serves. Prior to presenting development alternatives, it is important to have a basic understanding of the land use guidelines. With this understanding, facilities can be located to ensure the highest and best use of airport property. There are also certain design standards that affect facility location options. For exam‐ ple, future structures should be planned so they do not compromise safe and efficient aircraft opera‐ tions. The FAA requires that all federally obligated airports utilize property for aviation purposes first and fore‐ most. If an airport has land that is unlikely to be utilized for aviation purposes because it exceeds that which is forecast to be needed or is inaccessible by aircraft, then these lands may be considered for compatible, non‐aviation revenue support development. The revenue from these activities would pro‐ vide supplemental funds to the airport with the goal of improving an airport’s overall financial position. By categorizing the entirety of airport property, Airport management can plan and direct any develop‐ ment proposals to the appropriate locations. There are three major land use categories on an airport: airfield operations, aviation development, and non‐aviation development. The non‐aviation develop‐ ment category is only available to those airports with property that is unlikely to be needed for airfield operations or aviation development or cannot be utilized for those purposes. Often these categories are further subdivided to provide a better understanding of current or intended uses of airport property. Exhibit 4C presents baseline land use classifications for Falcon Field Airport to guide the alternatives analysis. Once a long‐term plan for the Airport is established in subsequent chapters, a formal land use plan will be developed and included in the ALP drawing set. AIRFIELD OPERATIONS The airfield operations area is that portion of airport property that encompasses the major airside ele‐ ments, such as the runways, taxiways, runway safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway obstacle free zone (ROFZ), runway protection zone (RPZ) (on airport property), taxiway safety area, tax‐ iway object free area (TOFA), and navigational aid critical areas. The airfield operations area is intended for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft to and from the airfield. This land use designation in‐ cludes the various object clearing areas and only elements necessary for aircraft navigation can be lo‐ cated here.

Airport Alternatives

4-8

LEGEND Airport Property Line Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Airfield Operations Aviation Development Non-Aviation Development

1,000

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

East McDowell Rd

Taxilane to Boeing Company

ay xiw Ta e rcl Ci

’x 99 ,7

2 -2

’) 75

’x 01 ,1

2L -2 4R

) 0’ 10

n lco Fa

ive Dr

Th un de rb ird

Dr ive

l Cana

n Ru

North Higley Rd.

evelt

Roos

North Greenfield Rd.

ry lo al M

Eagle Drive

a Ro

un ne r

ive

Falcon Drive

Fighter Aces Drive

Taxiway

East McKellips Rd.

Airport Alternatives

4-9

Exhibit 4C PRELIMINARY AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN

This page intentionally left blank

Airport Alternatives

4-10

AVIATION DEVELOPMENT The Aviation Development land use category includes those areas that should be reserved for develop‐ ment and which require access to the airfield operations area such as aircraft hangars and aviation busi‐ nesses. A rule of thumb is that all land immediately adjacent to the runway and taxiway system should be reserved for aviation development. For undeveloped areas in this classification, a depth of approxi‐ mately 1,000 feet, when feasible, from the runway centerline is ideal as it allows for future taxiways, taxilanes, aprons, hangars, and access roads. In the case at Falcon Field Airport, additional depth moving away from the runway environment is considered for development in order to maximize aviation de‐ mand potential. This land use category will also include support elements that may not require taxiway access such as drainage infrastructure. NON‐AVIATION DEVELOPMENT This land use classification includes development that is compatible with aviation activities but is unlikely to require access to the runway and taxiway system. Typically, it is preferable that activities in these areas will complement airport activities to some degree, but that is not required. It is required that any non‐aviation facilities be compatible with airport operations so development such as houses would be excluded. Examples of potential uses include research facilities, laboratories, manufacturing and pro‐ cessing facilities, warehouses, commercial office complexes, and other facilities compatible with an air‐ port environment. At Falcon Field Airport, physical barriers such as public roadways help determine the likelihood of certain properties serving non‐aviation development both now and in the future.

ANALYSIS OF AIRSIDE CONSIDERATIONS Generally, airside issues relate to those airport elements that contribute to the safe and efficient transi‐ tion of aircraft and passengers from air transportation to the landside facilities at the airport. Planning must factor and balance many airside items including meeting FAA design parameters of the established design aircraft, instrument approach capability, airfield capacity, runway length, taxiway layouts, and navigational aids. Each of these elements for Falcon Field Airport was analyzed in the previous chapters. This chapter will examine several airside issues specific to the Airport, which will then be applied to certain development alternatives and considerations. As previously detailed, Exhibit 4B presents a sum‐ mary of the major airside considerations. Falcon Field Airport currently offers a robust airside facility with a parallel runway system supported by an extensive taxiway network. Primary Runway 4R‐22L is 5,101 feet long by 100 feet wide, and second‐ ary parallel Runway 4L‐22R is 3,799 feet long by 75 feet wide. The current length and width of these runways are being maintained through the long term planning period of this Master Plan. Airside issues involve proper planning of the runway system to provide safe and efficient aircraft opera‐ tions. As part of this alternatives analysis, the future disposition of Runway 4L‐22R will be evaluated in terms of planning to appropriate design standards. Other considerations include airfield capacity and Airport Alternatives

4-11

taxiway geometry. The previous chapter outlined updated FAA airfield design standards which have changed, in some cases significantly, since the last planning effort at the Airport. The analysis to follow will consider changes to the airfield to meet new FAA design standards and improve capacity. AIRPORT DESIGN CRITERIA Applicable standards for airport design are outlined in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, Change 1. The design of airfield facilities is primarily based on the physical and operational char‐ acteristics of the critical design aircraft using the airport. As discussed in Chapter Two, a Runway Design Code (RDC) is applied to each runway at an airport in order to identify the appropriate design standards for the runway and associated taxiway system. The RDC is made up of the Aircraft Approach Category (AAC), the Airplane Design Group (ADG), and the approach visibility minimums expressed in runway visual range (RVR) values. It relates to the largest and fastest aircraft that regularly operates at the airport. The FAA has historically defined regular use as at least 500 annual operations at an airport. While this can, at times, be represented by one specific make and model of aircraft, most of the runways’ RDC values are represented by several different aircraft, which collectively operate frequently at the airport. Analysis indicated that the RDC for primary TABLE 4A Runway 4R‐22L at Falcon Field Airport is cur‐ Runway Design Codes rently B‐II‐5000. This runway should con‐ Falcon Field Airport tinue to be planned to meet ultimate RDC Existing Runway Ultimate Runway Runway Design Code Design Code standards for B‐II‐5000. The Airport is also 4R‐22L B‐II‐5000 B‐II‐5000 served by Runway 4L‐22R. This runway is 4L‐22R B‐I (Small Aircraft) ‐ 5000 To Be Analyzed currently utilized by small general aviation aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less. As such, the existing RDC for Runway 4L‐22R is B‐I (Small Aircraft) – 5000. Previous planning, including the 2010 Master Plan and currently approved ALP, indicate that this runway should ultimately meet RDC B‐ II‐5000 standards. As detailed in Chapter Three, the application of RDC B‐II design standards would cre‐ ate significant impacts to the runway and taxiway environment. The following analysis will present al‐ ternatives that address the future disposition of Runway 4L‐22R and associated design and safety stand‐ ard requirements. Table 4A summarizes the existing and ultimate RDC for the runway system at Falcon Field Airport. ULTIMATE RUNWAY 4L‐22R DESIGN ALTERNATIVES As previously discussed, Runway 4L‐22R is currently designed to meet B‐I (Small Aircraft) design stand‐ ards, which is adequate to accommodate a large majority of smaller general aviation aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less. Its existing and ultimate length of 3,799 feet limits the ability of larger aircraft utilizing it on a regular basis. Furthermore, the runway is currently strength‐rated at 12,500 pounds. Consideration has been given in the past to improving Runway 4L‐22R to meet RDC B‐II design standards Airport Alternatives

4-12

to better meet the operational needs of the airfield system. It is important to note that the runway currently accommodates B‐II aircraft operations; however, it does not do so on a regular basis as defined by the FAA. Table 4B summarizes the primary design standards for RDCs B‐I (Small Aircraft), B‐II (Small Aircraft), and B‐II which are being analyzed on Runway 4L‐22R. The impacts of the associated design standards are examined with three alternatives. These alternatives are depicted on Exhibit 4D and described below. TABLE 4B Runway 4L‐22R ‐ Design Standard Conditions Falcon Field Airport B‐I (Small Aircraft) Design Standard Standard (width x length beyond runway end) RSA 120' x 240' ROFA 250' x 240' ROFZ 250' x 200' RPZ 250' / 450' / 1,000' Hold Line Separation 125' Taxiway Separation 150' B‐II (Small Aircraft) Design Standard Standard (width x length beyond runway end) RSA 150' x 300' ROFA 500' x 300' ROFZ 250' x 200' RPZ 250' / 450' / 1,000' Hold Line Separation 125' Taxiway Separation 240' B‐II Design Standards Standard (width x length beyond runway end) RSA 150' x 300' ROFA 500' x 300' ROFZ 400' x 200' RPZ 500' / 700' / 1,000' Hold Line Separation 200' Taxiway Separation 240' RSA ‐ Runway Safety Area ROFA ‐ Runway Object Free Area ROFZ ‐ Runway Obstacle Free Zone RPZ ‐ Runway Protection Zone

Does the Airport Meet this Standard? Yes Yes Yes No (Public Roadways and Vehicle Parking Lot) Yes Yes (200' existing) Does the Airport Meet this Standard? Yes Yes Yes No (Public Roadways and Vehicle Parking Lot) Yes No (200' existing) Does the Airport Meet this Standard? Yes Yes No (Parallel Taxiway E) No (Public Roadways and Vehicle Parking Lot) No (125' existing) No (200' existing)

Alternative 1 As shown in the top portion of Exhibit 4D, Alternative 1 depicts the existing RDC associated with Runway 4L‐22R. The runway currently meets the RSA, ROFA, and ROFZ design standards for RDC B‐I (Small Air‐ craft). Furthermore, current hold line markings are situated 125 feet from the runway centerline and meet proper separation standards. Parallel Taxiway E is located 200 feet the runway, which exceeds the separation standard of 150 feet for runway to parallel taxiway separation. It is also important to note Airport Alternatives

4-13

that the TOFA associated with parallel Taxiway E is 131 feet wide (extending 65.5 feet on either side of the taxiway centerline). The TOFA is associated with ADG II standards as called for on the currently approved ALP. There are no obstructions to the existing TOFA. Another design standard that is important to the runway system is related to the RPZ. A separate dis‐ cussion regarding the RPZs associated with each design standard being evaluated will take place follow‐ ing the presentation of these alternatives. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is depicted in the middle portion of Exhibit 4D and presents RDC B‐II (Small Aircraft) design standards in relation to Runway 4L‐22R. Under this scenario, the RSA and ROFA increase in width and further extend beyond each runway end; however, both surfaces would remain free of penetrations as dictated by current airfield conditions. The dimensions of the ROFZ are similar to B‐I (Small Aircraft) standards and would meet existing airfield criteria. Similarly, the standard for placement of hold line markings from the runway centerline remains at 125 feet, which is met. The standard that currently precludes the runway environment from meeting RDC B‐II (Small Aircraft) design is the separation between the runway and parallel Taxiway E. For B‐II (Small Aircraft), the sepa‐ ration standard is 240 feet, which is greater than the existing separation of 200 feet. As depicted, Taxi‐ way E would be relocated 40 feet to the north. In doing so, the associated TOFA would be penetrated by approximately 35 marked aircraft tiedown spaces located on the parking apron adjacent to the north side of the taxiway. As a result, these tiedowns would need to be removed/relocated outside the TOFA. In addition, portions of the Airport’s internal perimeter access road north of the taxiway would also fall within the relocated TOFA. Alternative 3 The bottom portion of Exhibit 4D presents Alternative 3, which depicts the safety and separation stand‐ ards associated with meeting full RDC B‐II design. As shown, improving Runway 4L‐22R to RDC B‐II design standards would expand the RSA and ROFA dimensions similar to what is required for RDC B‐II (Small Aircraft). In addition, the width of the ROFZ would increase to 400 feet. While the proposed RSA and ROFA would remain free of penetrations, the ROFZ would be obstructed by parallel Taxiway E in its cur‐ rent configuration. This alternative calls for the relocation of parallel Taxiway E to 240 feet from the runway to meet the appropriate separation standard and remove it from the proposed ROFZ. As with Alternative 2, the TOFA associated with the relocated parallel taxiway would be obstructed by approximately 35 marked tiedown positions on the adjacent aircraft parking apron as well as portions of the internal perimeter access road. In order to meet full B‐II design, the hold line markings would also need to be relocated from their cur‐ rent 125‐foot separation distance from the runway centerline to 200 feet. In order to meet this hold line Airport Alternatives

4-14

Mallory Circle ALTERNATIVE 1: RDC B-I (SMALL AIRCRAFT) - EXISTING CONDITIONS

Ea st Mc Do we ll R d

E E1

200’

125’ Hold Line Markings

2.31 acres

Runway 4L-22R (3,799’ x 75’)

No rth

Gr ee nfi eld Rd .

C A

A Runway 4R-22L (5,101’ x 100’)

Gr ee nfi eld Rd .

ALTERNATIVE 2: RDC B-II (SMALL AIRCRAFT)

No rth

Remove/Relocate Aircraft Tiedowns

Relocate Parallel Taxiway E

240’

125’ Hold Line Markings

Relocate Perimeter Access Road E

LEGEND Airport Property Line C Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA)

Hold Line Avigation Easement Pavement to be Removed Proposed Pavement Uncontrolled Property

2.31 acres

Runway 4L-22R (3,799’ x 75’) C

A Ea st Mc Do we ll R d

A Runway 4R-22L (5,101’ x 100’)

Gr ee nfi eld Rd .

ALTERNATIVE 3: RDC B-II

No rth

Remove/Relocate Aircraft Tiedowns

Relocate Parallel Taxiway E

200’ Hold Line Markings

240’

Relocate Perimeter Access Road

4.08 acres

Runway 4L-22R (3,799’ x 75’) C

A 0

500

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

Airport Alternatives Acreage calculations are approximated for planning purposes only and not tied to legal descriptions.

Ea st Mc Do we ll R d

Runway 4R-22L (5,101’ x 100’)

4-15

Exhibit 4D ULTIMATE RUNWAY 4L-22R DESIGN

This page intentionally left blank

Airport Alternatives

4-16

marking standard, the relocation of parallel Taxiway E would be required on the north side of the runway as previously detailed. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES It is also important to evaluate the RPZs that extend beyond each runway end when considering the ultimate design of Runway 4L‐22R. The function of the RPZ is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground which is best achieved through airport owner control over RPZs. Control is pref‐ erably exercised through the acquisition of sufficient property interest in the RPZ and includes clearing the RPZ areas of incompatible objects and activities. A significant challenge to clearing RPZ land is that RPZs are not always owned in their entirety by an airport, as is the case at Falcon Field Airport. As discussed in Chapter Three, there are existing incompatible land uses in the RPZs that extend beyond each end of Runways 4R‐22L and 4L‐22R. On the southwest side of the airfield, the RPZs associated with Runways 4L and 4R extend over North Greenfield Road, which is a public access road. On the northeast side of the airfield, the RPZ associated with Runway 22L extends across portions of East McDowell Road and North Higley Road and includes a portion of the Boeing Company’s vehicle parking lot as well as a golf course area. The Runway 22R RPZ also extends over East McDowell Road and into the vehicle park‐ ing lot associated with the Boeing Company. FAA Memorandum, Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone, published in 2012, indicates that these existing land uses are considered in‐ compatible. However, the FAA Memorandum only addresses new incompatible land uses within an RPZ. Under FAA’s current guidance, existing public roadways and other incompatible conditions can effec‐ tively be “grandfathered,” and are therefore allowed within the RPZ as long as no modifications to the runway or RPZ are made. Should modifications be made to the runway that introduce new or modified incompatible land uses to the RPZ, a detailed review and determination of the land uses by the FAA will be required. The review process involves coordination between the airport sponsor and several FAA lines‐of‐business including the Regional Office, Airport’s District Office (ADO), National Airport Planning and Environmental Division (APP‐400), and Airport Engineering Division, (AAS‐100). Because the incompatible land uses associated with the RPZs at Falcon Field Airport existed prior to the 2012 Interim Guidance, no immediate action is required. Furthermore, action may not be needed in the long term if there are no planned modifications to the runway environment that would necessitate a change to the RPZs and as long as no local development is being proposed within the RPZs. This is the case on primary Runway 4R‐22L, as the placements of the runway and associated RPZs are planned to remain in their current conditions through the long term planning period of this study and no new or reconfigured development is proposed in the existing RPZs. As such, it is assumed that the current con‐ ditions associated with the RPZs serving Runway 4R‐22L can remain. As depicted on Exhibit 4D, the RDC B‐II design (Alternative 3) that has been evaluated for Runway 4L‐ 22R has impacts on the RPZs serving each end of the runway. For B‐II design, the RPZs would dimen‐ sionally increase and encompass additional portions of North Greenfield Road on the southwest side of the airfield. On the northeast side of the airfield, the enlarged RPZ would encompass increased coverage of East McDowell Road and the Boeing Company’s vehicle parking lot. As detailed previously in Chapter Airport Alternatives

4-17

Three, a change in the runway’s critical aircraft that increases RPZ dimensions is considered an action or event that will require a detailed review and determination of the incompatible land uses within an RPZ by the FAA. It is important to note that current RPZ dimensions associated with RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft) would also apply to B‐II (Small Aircraft). Similar to the previous assumption made regarding the ultimate disposition of the RPZs serving Runway 4R‐22L, it is expected that no future change to or within the RPZs associated with Runway 4L‐22R could allow the current conditions to remain (grandfathered). If the runway were to be ultimately planned to meet RDC B‐II standards which necessitate expanded RPZ dimensions, then it is incumbent upon the Airport to seek opportunities to provide clear, compatible RPZs. Potential development options to meet updated RPZ guidance associated with B‐II design include the following: 1. Re‐route or tunnel portions of North Greenfield Road and East McDowell Road. 2. Acquire fee‐simple control of the property within the entire RPZ associated with Runway 22R and remove the Boeing Company’s vehicle parking lot. 3. Displace the runway thresholds and implement declared distances on Runway 4L‐22R to shift the RPZs away from incompatible land uses, including the public roadways. 4. Allow all existing conditions to remain in the expanded RPZs associated with an ultimate RDC B‐ II design. Given the utilization and infrastructure associated with North Greenfield Road and East McDowell Road, it is not considered practicable or feasible to re‐route or tunnel these roadways in order to remove them from a modified RPZ associated with Runway 4L‐22R. As such, this option is not considered viable. A second option includes the removal/relocation of the Boeing Company’s vehicle parking lot. This would require the Airport to acquire approximately 4.08 acres of property from Boeing Company. Even if the Airport were to purchase and clear this land, the proposed RPZ would still contain an incompati‐ bility associated with East McDowell Road. As such, it would still not fully meet FAA compatibility stand‐ ards for RPZ development. The third option explores displacing the Runway 4L and 22R thresholds and implementing declared dis‐ tances to mitigate the incompatible land uses. In order to shift the Runway 4L RPZ entirely off of North Greenfield Road, the Runway 4L threshold would need to be displaced by approximately 800 feet to the northeast. Similarly, the Runway 22R threshold would need to be displaced by approximately 800 feet to the southwest to remove the Runway 22L RPZ off the vehicle parking lot and East McDowell Road. In doing so, the utilization of this runway would be severely limited, resulting in less than 3,000 feet of takeoff and landing distance available for each runway direction. As a result, it is recommended that this option not be pursued further. A final option could entail allowing all existing conditions beyond the runway ends to remain in the mod‐ ified RPZs associated with B‐II design. The FAA has indicated, in certain situations, that accepted plans such as Falcon Field Airport’s ALP, which has historically called for an ultimate B‐II design standard on Runway 4L‐22R, could also be grandfathered since these previous plans were approved prior to 2012 when the Interim Guidance was released. As such, the FAA could approve a B‐II design as proposed even Airport Alternatives

4-18

though roads and other incompatibilities would be in the modified RPZs. The FAA holds full discretion in approving roads within the RPZ, a decision which is made only by FAA headquarters (APP‐400 division). PRELMINARY ENGINEERNG ANALYSIS FOR ULTIMATE RUNWAY 4L‐22R DESIGN As part of this alternatives analysis, Coffman Associates’ subconsultant (Dibble Engineering) has further evaluated the ultimate design of Runway 4L‐22R, in particular, providing construction cost estimates associated with improvements necessary to meet airfield design standards for RDCs B‐II (Small Aircraft) and full B‐II. Dibble Engineering is providing engineering support for the Master Plan and is familiar with Falcon Field Airport, having been involved with the design and construction of several capital projects on the airfield in the recent past. Table 4C provides cost estimates associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 related to the evaluation of the ultimate Runway 4L‐22R design. As detailed, the primary airfield improvement necessary to adhere to RDC B‐II (Small Aircraft) and full B‐II standards involves the relocation of parallel Taxiway E to 240 feet from the runway centerline. In addition, the RDC B‐II standards would require the relocation of the hold line markings on Taxiways E1, E2, E3, and E4. These estimates include design, construction, administra‐ tion, and contingency costs. Cost estimates presented here should be viewed only as “order‐of‐magni‐ tude” estimates subject to further refinement during engineering analysis. They are based on present‐ day construction, design, and administration costs, and adjustments will need to be made over time to account for inflation. Specific detail for several project cost estimates is provided in Appendix C. TABLE 4C Ultimate Runway 4L‐22R Design Cost Estimates Falcon Field Airport Design Alternatives Runway Design Code B‐II (Small Aircraft) ‐ Alternative 2 Runway Design Code B‐II ‐ Alternative 3 Source: Dibble Engineering

Project Total $3,852,500 $4,118,900

Both alternatives reflect a total cost estimate of approximately $4 million, which is primarily tied to the relocation of parallel Taxiway E. It should be noted that other considerations would be needed to meet airfield design standards for Alternatives 2 and 3, including the removal of aircraft parking tiedowns on the parking apron adjacent to the north side of the taxiway as well as relocation of portions of the inter‐ nal perimeter access road. Furthermore, additional costs could be incurred with Alternative 3 in order to gain proper control of the expanded RPZs that would be associated with larger B‐II standards as pre‐ viously discussed.

Airport Alternatives

4-19

ULTIMATE RUNWAY 4L‐22R DESIGN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY While it would be advantageous to have two runways capable of accommodating full B‐II design stand‐ ards at Falcon Field Airport, it is not a requirement and the Airport is more than capable of serving larger aircraft operations on primary Runway 4R‐22L. The evaluation of design standards as previously detailed has shown that improving Runway 4L‐22R to meet RDC B‐II standards would result in significant impacts related to meeting RPZ standards and relocating existing airfield infrastructure (i.e., parallel Taxiway E) that would be financially significant to the Airport as well as the FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group. Previous planning, including the 2010 Master Plan, was conducted prior to the FAA Memorandum that was issued in 2012 which provided updated guidance relating to development within RPZs. This docu‐ ment has dictated a new approach to analyzing development beyond runway ends, and as a result, tests the viability of future B‐II design criteria that has historically been proposed for the secondary parallel runway at the Airport. Based on previous analysis, it is recommended that Runway 4L‐22R maintain its current RDC designation of B‐I (Small Aircraft) during the duration of this Master Plan’s long term planning period. Given the runway’s length of 3,799 feet, it will be limited to regular utilization by smaller general aviation aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less. An examination of aircraft activity conducted in Chapter Two further validates this operational threshold: most aircraft capable of utilizing Runway 4L‐22R at the Airport fall within the B‐I design category and weigh 12,500 pounds or less. Planning to this ultimate design thresh‐ old will allow parallel Taxiway E to remain in its current location and not disrupt additional landside infrastructure farther north (i.e., aircraft parking areas). Furthermore, the existing RPZs serving Runway 4L‐22R would remain in their current condition and not increase in size. As a result, it is assumed that the current conditions associated with the RPZs serving Runway 4R‐22L could be maintained through the long term planning period of this study. It is important to note that an existing and ultimate RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft) designation on Runway 4L‐ 22R does not preclude larger aircraft, such as those designated as B‐II, from utilizing the runway; how‐ ever, it recognizes that these operations will not occur on a regular basis (500 annual operations) as defined by the FAA. Moving forward, Airport management should regularly coordinate with airport traf‐ fic control tower (ATCT) personnel to monitor aircraft activity on Runway 4L‐22R to make sure it is ade‐ quately accommodating aircraft design thresholds associated with RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft). TAXIWAY DESIGN AND GEOMETRY Taxiway design has historically followed the critical aircraft utilizing the runway and taxiway system. Common design issues have included parallel taxiway separation from the runway, taxiway width, and overall system efficiency. FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, Airport Design, instituted new design stand‐ ards for taxiways, some of which impact planning for Falcon Field Airport. Most of the new or updated standards were enacted to mitigate the potential for runway incursion events. Changes were also aimed at improving pilot situational awareness. The FAA has indicated that all airfields should be planned to meet these standards. Actual changes will be made over time as grant funding is made available. Airport Alternatives

4-20

Falcon Field Airport is served by an extensive taxiway system which includes a full‐length parallel taxiway and multiple entrance/exit taxiways serving Runways 4R‐22L and 4L‐22R. While the existing taxiway system meets many standards outlined in the AC, there are some issues that should be addressed. The following are the taxiway geometry concerns on the airfield:  Taxiways D3, D4, D7, and D8 provide for direct access from aircraft parking aprons to Runway 4R‐ 22L.  The width of midfield Taxiway B as it connects with Runways 4R‐22L and 4L‐22R should be recon‐ sidered in order to avoid wide throat/wide expanses of pavement.  Midfield Taxiway B links with Taxiways D5 and D6 in the high energy area associated with Runway 4R‐22L and with Taxiways E2 andE3 in the high energy area associated with Runway 4L‐22R. Indirect Access A new taxiway design standard put into place under AC 150/5300‐13A, Change 1, is the prohibition of direct access between an aircraft parking area and a runway. At Falcon Field Airport, the extensions of Taxiways D3, D4, D7, and D8 north of the aircraft parking apron offer a direct pavement connection to Runway 4R‐22L. Taxiway routing markings and enhanced airfield signage/marking are not considered sufficient per FAA guidance. As such, the FAA recommends constructing no‐taxi islands or removing the taxiways and relocating them in areas that do not provide direct access. No‐taxi islands can be developed using markings around the island, green paint to identify the island, and lighting around the island; or, the islands can be developed by removing the pavement altogether. Either option will present an obstruction which will require a pilot to navigate a turn prior to entering a runway environment. The FAA has found that requiring a turn prior to entering a runway can minimize runway incursion events. For Falcon Field Airport, no‐taxi islands are not considered prudent as they would interfere with existing parking apron circulation south of parallel Taxiway D. One option to improve taxiway geometry is to eliminate the existing extensions on Taxiways D3, D4, D7, and D8 between parallel Taxiway D and the aircraft parking apron and replace them with a single stub taxiway extension centered between the connection of the exit taxiways and the parallel taxiway. Ex‐ hibit 4E depicts these improvements that would prevent direct access from the parking apron to Runway 4R‐22L. Placing a stub taxiway in these locations would require an immediate 90‐degree turn onto/from the aircraft parking apron to avoid aircraft parked directly adjacent to the stub taxiway connections pro‐ posed. Another option associated with Taxiways D3 and D4 involves shifting the stub taxiway extensions and realigning them at a 90‐degree angle with parallel Taxiway D, as shown on Exhibit 4E. In doing so, the direct apron access is eliminated, and the aircraft parking layout associated with the adjacent parking apron to the south can be maintained. This is an important consideration given that this portion of the aircraft parking apron was recently reconstructed with all new aircraft parking layouts to meet size and efficiency requirements. Airport Alternatives

4-21

Also proposed on Exhibit 4E is the implementation of pavement in areas between parallel Taxiway D and the aircraft parking apron on the south side of the runway system. Airport management has indicated that helicopters occasionally hover‐taxi in these areas and create a safety issue associated with blowing dust and foreign object debris (FOD). As such, this pavement addition would enhance safety on the airfield. The pavement would not be designed to accommodate taxiing aircraft. As a result, these areas could be painted green and serve as no‐taxi areas between the parallel taxiway and parking apron net‐ work. Wide Throat Taxiway / Wide Expanse of Pavement The portion of Taxiway B that connects the parallel runway system is currently 150 feet wide. As detailed in Chapter Three, the FAA discourages wide throat taxiway entrances and wide expanses of pavement as they have been demonstrated to cause pilot confusion. Furthermore, Airport management has indi‐ cated that there have been instances involving aircraft operations that inadvertently cross over the hold line markings associated with Taxiway B without permission from the ATCT. This can be attributed to the wide pavement area causing confusion amongst pilots. As depicted on Exhibit 4E, consideration should be given to narrowing the width of Taxiway B in the future and enhancing the hold line markings adjacent to each runway. In order to meet Taxiway Design Group (TDG) II standards, a minimum taxiway width of 35 feet is required. Previous analysis has studied the potential for converting existing midfield Taxiway B into a dual‐lane taxiway considering its current width. At this time, Airport management does not want to further ex‐ plore this option. As such, the recommendation is to decrease the width of the taxiway to better con‐ form to FAA geometry standards. High Energy Intersections FAA design standards also present a new concept of a runway’s high energy area. The high energy area is defined as the middle third of a runway and is typically the location where aircraft are moving rapidly for takeoff or landing. It is in this area that aircraft are more vulnerable to accidents as aircraft crossing through cannot readily slow or stop to avoid impacts. FAA guidance highly discourages the location of taxiways which route aircraft across a runway in the high energy area. At Falcon Field Airport, the link between midfield Taxiway B and Taxiways D5 and D6 provides for a runway crossing in the high energy area on Runway 4R‐22L, as depicted on Exhibit 4E. In addition, the link between Taxiway B and Taxiways E2 and E3 impact the high energy area associated with Runway 4L‐ 22R. In order to eliminate these crossing opportunities for the existing airfield configuration, midfield Taxiway B would need to be removed. Given its importance in connecting the parallel runway system, this is not a viable option. As such, the location of Taxiway B should remain and enhancements to the taxiway as previously discussed, along with oversight from ATCT personnel, can improve overall utiliza‐ tion of this taxiway in relation to airfield activity. Airport Alternatives

4-22

LEGEND Airport Property Line High Energy Area Pavement to be Removed Proposed Pavement No-Taxi Pavement

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

’)

Proposed Holding Bays

Option 2: Relocate Taxiway B

400

-2

’ 01

)

’ 00

lo al

rc Ci

North Greenfield Rd.

SCALE IN FEET

w un

(

R 22

’) 00 1 x

Proposed Holding Bays

’)

Option 1: Narrow Width of Midfield Taxiway B and Enhance Hold Line Markings

y wa

L 22

R-

’ 01

, (5

’)

D8 D7 Eliminate Direct Apron Access

nD o c l Fa

Th un

e riv

ird

ive

Paved No-Taxi Areas

Eagle Drive

D4 D3

velt

e Roos

Option 1: Eliminate Direct Apron Access with New Stub Taxiway

A D2

r ad Ro

’ 01 1 , D4 (5

Cana Airport Alternatives

Proposed Exit Taxiway

SCALE IN FEET

Option 2: Eliminate Direct Apron Access by Realigning Existing Stub Taxiways

Proposed Exit Taxiway

400

’x

7 3,

L-

Proposed Holding Bays

L 22 R D3 y4 a w n Ru

Relocate Taxiway D9 (Bypass Taxiway)

D10 D9

North Higley Rd.

(

East McDowell Rd

SCALE IN FEET

ive

w un

2 L-

7 3,

500

un ne r

Dr ive

Falcon Dr

’x

4-23

Exhibit 4E TAXIWAY DESIGN AND GEOMETRY STANDARDS

This page intentionally left blank

Airport Alternatives

4-24

As called out on Exhibit 4E, another option associated with improving the high energy intersection area involves shifting midfield Taxiway B east or west and aligning with exit Taxiways E3 and D6 or Taxiways E2 and D5. For purposes of this analysis, the exhibit depicts the relocation of Taxiway B to align with Taxiways E2 and D5. In doing so, aircraft could take a direct route across either runway, thus limiting the time needed to cross it. It is important to note that this option could introduce impacts to taxi operational demand on Taxiways D and E as a result of aircraft coming to/from midfield Taxiway B. It would be assumed that aircraft traversing north‐to‐south or vice versa would utilize Taxiways D5 and E2 (per Option 2) in order to limit runway crossing time as previously discussed. It should be noted that previous planning efforts have analyzed the ultimate configuration of a midfield parallel taxiway extending between the parallel runway system. This taxiway could allow for airfield improvements to help eliminate the high energy area runway crossings; however, after further coordi‐ nation with Airport management and ATCT personnel, it has been determined to discontinue ultimate planning for a midfield parallel taxiway during this study process. Future Taxiway Design Exhibit 4E proposes the removal and relocation of Taxiway D9 serving Runway 4R‐22L. The current lo‐ cation of Taxiway D9 was previously dependent on connecting with Taxiway C north of the runway. Since then, Taxiway C has been reconfigured and no longer requires Taxiway D9 as a runway crossing connec‐ tion. In its proposed location, it could serve as a bypass exit taxiway, similar to Taxiway D2 on the oppo‐ site end of the runway. Acute‐angled taxiway exits are also presented on Runway 4L‐22R. This concept is depicted on the cur‐ rent ALP and could help improve overall airfield capacity by providing additional opportunities for air‐ craft to exit the runway system. These taxiways were further evaluated in an exit taxiway concept study prepared by Nicholas J. Pela & Associates in association with Dibble Engineering in 2015. This study particularly focused on the placement of these taxiways in relationship to Runway 4L‐22R. Since this time, these taxiways have been designed and their construction is programmed in the Airport’s current capital improvement program. Exhibit 4E depicts the location of the acute‐angled taxiway exits. Holding Bays An additional consideration is for the construction of taxiway holding bays at each runway end at the Airport. The FAA has provided updated guidance on the configuration of hold areas. This guidance recommends that hold areas be designed to allow aircraft to bypass one another to taxi to the runway. Under this concept, each parking area within the hold area is independent, with the ability for aircraft to bypass others both on entrance and exit. This design would warrant a deeper hold area. These proposed holding bays improve taxiway circulation efficiency by providing a location for aircraft to perform engine run‐up procedures and allowing aircraft to bypass each other if necessary. Exhibit 4E includes the con‐ struction of holding bays that would serve Runway 22L as well as each end of Runway 4L‐22R. This is a similar concept to the holding bays that were recently implemented near the Runway 4R threshold at the Airport. Airport Alternatives

4-25

The holding bays being proposed to serve Runway 22L are located in an area that currently accommodates a hold apron adjacent to Taxiway D9. The relocation of Taxiway D9 as previously discussed would better adhere to recommended airfield geometry, as the FAA discourages a direct runway connection from a hold apron/holding bay. The holding bays proposed on Taxiway E serving Runway 4L‐22R are positioned in such a way to eliminate a direct runway connection. The holding bay associated with Runway 4L would deem certain areas of the existing aircraft parking apron unusable for tiedowns and circulation. TAXIWAY EXIT ANALYSIS An analysis of the taxiway exits serving the parallel runway system at Falcon Field Airport was conducted to further evaluate taxiway geometry and to examine potential opportunities to improve circulation. Exhibit 4F presents an analysis of the exit taxiways serving Runways 4R‐22L and 4L‐22R. The exhibit shows the distance from the landing threshold to each specified exit taxiway in both directions. FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, presents a methodology to assess the utilization percentages for taxiway exits based on location. The methodology considers both right‐angled and acute‐angled exits (which typically have a higher utilization rate for larger aircraft) and presents an approximate percentage of the small1 single engine, small1 twin‐engine, large2, and heavy3 aircraft fleet that can utilize the exits under both wet and dry conditions. It should be noted that the heavy aircraft category was not analyzed since these aircraft do not conduct operations at the Airport. In addition, all existing exit taxiways as well as those proposed earlier in this chapter are evaluated as part of this analysis. As presented on the bottom half of the exhibit, for arrivals on Runway 4R, a high percentage of small single engine aircraft can exit the runway at Taxiway D6. It is estimated that 84 percent of small single engine aircraft can exit the runway system at this location, and this percentage increases moving farther northeast. Under dry conditions, the utilization percentage is even higher. The existing and proposed locations of Taxiway D9 capture a large majority of single engine and twin‐engine aircraft in the fleet under both wet and dry conditions. Large aircraft are likely to utilize Taxiway D10. The proposed relo‐ cation of Taxiway D9 would also capture a higher percentage of large aircraft operations when compared to its existing location, further enhancing airfield capacity. While the overall percentage of large aircraft operations capable of utilizing Taxiway D10 is just over 50 percent for dry conditions and only 10 percent for wet conditions, one must realize that the large aircraft category is very broad as defined by the FAA for this analysis; encompassing aircraft from 12,500 pounds up to 300,000 pounds. The majority of large aircraft that utilize Falcon Field Airport range from 12,500 pounds up to 75,000 pounds. As such, these aircraft are more capable of utilizing the runway than heav‐ ier aircraft that do not operate at the Airport due to operational mission (i.e., commercial service) or airfield constraints (i.e., runway length).

Small aircraft are defined as those weighing less than 12,500 pounds. 2 Large aircraft are defined as those weighing between 12,500 and 300,000 pounds. 3 Heavy aircraft are defined as those weighing greater than 300,000 pounds.

Airport Alternatives

4-26

RUNWAY 4L-22R

S - 62% T - 0% L - 0% B S - 91% T - 2% L - 0%

E1 E

2,700’ 2 700’

3,800’ 00’

E2 2

2,040’ 2 040’

x 75’) (3 (3 (3,799’ L 4L-22R Runway 4 2,040’ ,

S - 62% T - 0% L - 0% S - 91% T - 2% L - 0%

600

SCALE IN FEET

S - 89% T - 5% L - 0% S - 99% T - 22% L - 0%

rth

d taxiway exit to marked sh sh Distance from Runway 4L landing threshold S - 10 100% T - 64% L - 1% S - 100% T - 92% L - 19%

3,800’ 3,80

2,700’ ,

LEGEND Airport Property Line Proposed Pavement Wet Runway Dry Runway

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

RUNWAY 4R-22L

S - 1% T - 0% L - 0% S - 2% T - 0% L - 0%

Distance from Runway 22L landing threshold to marked taxiway exit

No rth

Gr ee nfi eld Rd .

5,100’

Ea st M cK ell ips Rd .

Airport Alternatives

4,900’ 4

630’

1,900’

2,800’

3,760’

x 100’) ( (5,101’ R 4R-22L Runway 4 D2

1,340’

2,520’ ,

D9 D

3,200’

Ea st Mc Do we ll R d

KEY S - Small, Single-Engine Aircraft (12,500 lbs or less) T - Small, Twin-Engine Aircraft (12,500 lbs or less) L - Large Aircraft (12,500 lbs to 300,000 lbs)

S - 53% T - 0% L - 0% S - 83% T - 1% L - 0%

S - 91% T - 6% L - 0% S - 95% T - 28% L - 0%

S - 100% T - 61% L - 1% S - 100% T - 90% L - 18%

4,470’

rth

S - 100% T - 99% L - 10% S - 100% T - 100% L - 44%

ose

vel

ana

S - 100% T - 100% L - 15% S - 100% T - 100% L - 54%

Hi gl ey Rd .

Ea st Mc Do we ll R d

Rd .

S - 89% T - 5% L - 0% S - 99% T - 22% L - 0%

Distance from Runway 22R landing threshold to marked taxiway exit

No rth

ose

vel

Gr ee nfi eld Rd .

ana

S - 100% T - 64% L - 1% S - 100% T - 92% L - 19% 9%

D10 D D1 0 4,900’ 5,100’ 5,10

taxiway exit r rk to marked t th ce from Runway 4R landing threshold Distance S - 17% T - 0% L - 0% S - 40% T - 0% L - 0%

S - 84% T - 1% L - 0% S - 99% T - 10% L - 0% 4-27

S - 97% T - 22% L - 0% S - 100% T - 57% L - 4%

S - 100% T - 94% L - 3% S - 100% T - 100% L - 21%

S - 10 100% 00% T - 99% L - 10% S - 100% T - 100% L - 44%

S - 100% T - 100% L - 15% S - 100% T - 100% L - 54% Exhibit 4F TAXIWAY EXIT UTILIZATION ANALYSIS

This page intentionally left blank

Airport Alternatives

4-28

For arrivals on Runway 22L, most small single engine aircraft can exit the runway at Taxiways D7 and D5 under wet conditions. Small twin‐engine aircraft likely utilize Taxiway D3 under these same conditions. For dry conditions, these small aircraft can look to exit the runway system farther northeast. Large air‐ craft typically exit at Taxiway D2 or rollout to the end of the runway during dry and wet conditions. Given the length of Runway 4L‐22R, this runway primarily accommodates small single engine and twin‐ engine aircraft as illustrated on the top half of the exhibit. The proposed construction of the two exit taxiways, one serving each runway direction, would improve the capacity of the runway system by al‐ lowing an additional exit option for small aircraft between the existing midfield taxiways (Taxiways E2 and E3 depending on direction) and exit taxiways located at each respective runway end. The relatively low percentage of large aircraft exhibiting the ability to utilize the full length of Runway 4L‐22R to satisfy landing requirements further enforces the ultimate RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft) design recommended for this runway. Table 4D summarizes the findings of the taxiway exit utilization analysis conducted for Falcon Field Airport. TABLE 4D Taxiway Exit Utilization Analysis Falcon Field Airport Taxiway Exit Utilization Percentages Small Single Engine Aircraft Small Twin Engine Aircraft Dry Wet Dry Wet Landing Runway 4R Taxiway D4 40% 17% 0% 0% Taxiway D6 99% 84% 10% 1% Taxiway D8 100% 97% 57% 22% Taxiway D9 (existing) 100% 100% 100% 94% Taxiway D9 (proposed) 100% 100% 100% 99% Taxiway D10 100% 100% 100% 100% Landing Runway 22L Taxiway D9 (existing) 2% 1% 0% 0% Taxiway D7 83% 53% 1% 0% Taxiway D5 95% 91% 28% 6% Taxiway D3 100% 100% 90% 61% Taxiway D2 100% 100% 100% 99% Taxiway D1 100% 100% 100% 100% Landing Runway 4L Taxiway E3 91% 62% 2% 0% Acute Taxiway (proposed) 99% 89% 22% 5% Taxiway E4 100% 100% 92% 64% Landing Runway 22R Taxiway E2 91% 62% 2% 0% Acute Taxiway (proposed) 99% 89% 22% 5% Taxiway E1 100% 100% 92% 64% Small Single Engine Aircraft ‐ 12,500 pounds or less Small Twin Engine Aircraft ‐ 12,500 pounds or less Large Aircraft ‐ 12,500 pounds to 300,000 pounds Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design

Large Aircraft Dry Wet 0% 0% 4% 21% 44% 54%

0% 0% 0% 3% 10% 15%

0% 0% 0% 18% 44% 54%

0% 0% 0% 1% 10% 15%

0% 0% 19%

0% 0% 1%

0% 0% 19%

0% 0% 1%

Airport Alternatives

4-29

As part of this analysis, the relocation of existing taxiway exits on Runway 4R‐22L was evaluated as it relates to airfield capacity. While the relocation of certain taxiways on Runway 4R‐22L could improve capacity under specific operational conditions, Airport management has determined to keep the existing exit taxiway network in place except for the proposed relocation of Taxiway D9 as discussed earlier. PRELMINARY ENGINEERNG ANALYSIS FOR TAXIWAY DESIGN AND GEOMETRY Dibble Engineering has also provided preliminary TABLE 4E engineering analysis for the airside considerations Airside Cost Estimates related to taxiway design and geometry as previously Falcon Field Airport detailed. Table 4E presents cost estimates associated Airside Projects Project Total with certain airside improvements, including the im‐ Runway 22L Holding Bay $689,000 $669,700 plementation of holding bays on Runway 22L and Runway 4L‐22R Holding Bays $344,000 each end of Runway 4L‐22R and the relocation of Taxiway D9 Relocation Source: Dibble Engineering Taxiway D9. Similar to the cost estimates presented earlier in this chapter, these project totals will be subject to further refinement during engineering and design analysis. Appendix C provides a detailed breakdown of these costs. AIRSIDE SUMMARY The airside considerations have focused on several elements that include the ultimate design of Runway 4L‐22R, improving existing and future taxiway development on the airfield and analyzing other ancillary airfield support items. These alternatives will be considered by the PAC, Airport management, City of Mesa, and the general public. Following discussion and review with these entities, a preferred recom‐ mended airside development concept will be drafted and presented in the next chapter.

ANALYSIS OF LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS Generally, landside issues are related to those facilities necessary or desired for the safe and efficient parking and storage of aircraft, movement of pilots and passengers to and from aircraft, airport support facilities, and overall revenue support functions. Landside planning considerations, summarized previ‐ ously on Exhibit 4B, will focus on strategies following a philosophy of separating activity levels. To max‐ imize airport efficiency, it is important to locate facilities together that are intended to serve similar functions. The best approach to landside facility planning is to consider the development to be like that of a community where land use planning is the guide. For airports, the land use guide in the terminal area should generally be dictated by aviation activity levels. Due to the amount of developable land available at Falcon Field Airport, consideration will also be given to non‐aviation uses that can provide additional revenue support to the Airport and support economic development for the region. Airport Alternatives

4-30

As previously discussed, landside facilities at the Airport have been developed throughout a variety of locations on the north and south sides of the parallel runway system. Exhibit 4G presents the existing landside development and designates other areas on Airport property for future development potential. Certain areas are currently leased to private entities for future aviation use. Other areas are set aside for future aviation development per ongoing coordination between Airport management and private aviation‐related entities. Finally, several areas are currently vacant and provide opportunities for devel‐ opment and/or redevelopment potential. The areas are generally located in the northwest, south, and east quadrants of the Airport. The following alternatives explore potential parcel layouts in association with future airfield access within the designated development/redevelopment areas in these three quadrants. With these land areas under consideration for development, the potential landside alterna‐ tives can be numerous. Also included on Exhibit 4G is a dedicated public viewing area situated adjacent to the east side of the Airport terminal building. This area would allow an opportunity for the general public to gain perspective of the activities and operations occurring on the airfield. AVIATION ACTIVITY LEVELS The aviation development areas should be divided into high, medium, and low activity levels at Falcon Field Airport. The high activity area should be planned and developed to provide aviation services on the Airport. An example of the high activity areas is the Airport terminal building and adjoining aircraft parking apron, which provides tiedown locations and circulation for aircraft. In addition, large conven‐ tional hangars used for fixed base operators (FBOs), large aviation businesses, corporate aviation depart‐ ments, or storing a large number of aircraft would be considered a high activity use area. The best loca‐ tion for high activity areas is along the flight line near midfield, for ease of access to all areas on the airfield. All major utility infrastructure would need to be provided to these areas. The medium activity use category defines the next level of airport use and primarily includes smaller aviation businesses and corporate aircraft that may desire their own executive hangar storage on an airport. The best location for medium activity use is off the immediate flight line, but still readily acces‐ sible to aircraft including corporate jets. Due to an airport’s layout and other existing conditions, if this area is to be located along the flight line, it is best to keep it out of the midfield area of the airport, so as to not cause congestion with transient aircraft utilizing the airport. Parking and utilities, such as water and sewer, should also be provided in this area. The low activity use category defines the area for storage of smaller single and multi‐engine aircraft. Low activity users are personal or small business aircraft owners who prefer individual space in linear box hangars or T‐hangars. Low activity areas should be located in less conspicuous areas. This use cat‐ egory will require electricity, but generally does not require water or sewer utilities. In addition to the functional compatibility of the aviation development areas, the proposed development concept should provide a first‐class appearance for Falcon Field Airport as described in the City of Mesa – Falcon Field Airport Planned Area Development Design Standards (June 2011). As previously Airport Alternatives

4-31

mentioned, the Airport serves as a very important link to the entire region, whether it is for business or pleasure. Consideration to aesthetics should be given high priority in all public areas, as the Airport will serve as the first impression a visitor may have of the community. To allow for maximum development of the Airport while keeping with mandated safety design stand‐ ards, it is very important to devise a plan allowing for the orderly development of aviation facilities. Typically, airports will reserve property adjacent to the runway system for aviation‐related activity ex‐ clusively. This will allow for the location of taxiways, aprons, and hangars. SEPARATION STANDARDS When planning landside facilities, consideration must be given to the design standards for separating structures. The separation standards are a function of the critical design aircraft for the future condition. Separation standards are directly related to the wingspan of the critical design aircraft, which ranges from 49 feet for ADG I to 79 feet for ADG II. The TOFA, as previously outlined, is the area required to be clear of object penetrations surrounding taxiways. For ADG I aircraft, the TOFA is 89 feet wide centered on the taxiway. For ADG II taxiways, the TOFA is 131 feet wide. While these design standards should be implemented for all primary movement areas (e.g., parallel tax‐ iways, aprons), facilities not intended to serve the critical design aircraft can be designed to different separation standards. For example, T‐hangar access areas that serve general aviation aircraft can apply separation standards for smaller single‐engine aircraft in ADG I. HANGAR DEVELOPMENT Analysis in Chapter Three indicated that the Airport should plan for the construction of additional aircraft hangars over the next 20 years. Hangar development takes on a variety of sizes corresponding with several different intended uses. Commercial general aviation activities are essential to providing the necessary services on an airport. This includes privately owned businesses involved with, but not limited to, aircraft rental and flight train‐ ing, flight testing, aircraft manufacturing, aircraft charters, aircraft maintenance, line service, and aircraft fueling. These types of operations are commonly referred to as FBOs or specialized aviation service operators (SASOs). The facilities associated with businesses such as these include large conventional‐ type hangars that hold several aircraft. High levels of activity often characterize these operations, with a need for apron space for the storage and circulation of aircraft. These facilities are best placed along ample apron frontage with good visibility from the runway system for transient aircraft. Utility services are needed for these types of facilities, as well as vehicle parking areas.

Airport Alternatives

4-32

LEGEND Airport Property Line Development/Redevelopment Area Privately Leased Aviation-Use Parcel

East McDowell Rd 0

600

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

ay iw x Ta

Future Aviation Development

r lo al M

le irc C y

’x

’) 75

9 79

a nw

2 L-

y wa

x 1’ 0 ,1 (5

) 0’ 0 1 D on c l Fa

2 R-

e riv

Th un de rb ird

North Higley Rd.

evelt

Roos

North Greenfield Rd.

Dr ive

Cana

Eagle Drive

Public Viewing Area P Airport Terminal Building

U.S. Post Office U ad Ro

ru nn er

Future Aviation F D Development

Fighter Aces Drive

Falcon Drive

Falcon Field Park

Dr ive

Taxiway

East McKellips Rd.

Airport Alternatives

4-33

Exhibit 4G LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

This page intentionally left blank

Airport Alternatives

4-34

Aircraft hangars used for the storage of smaller aircraft primarily involve T‐hangars, covered tiedowns (shade hangars), or linear box hangars. Since storage hangars often have lower levels of activity, these types of facilities can be located away from the primary apron areas in more remote locations of the airport. Limited utility services are needed for these areas. Other types of hangar development can include executive hangars for accommodating small aviation businesses, one larger aircraft, or multiple smaller aircraft. Typically, these types of hangars are used by small aviation businesses, corporations with company‐owned aircraft, or by an individual or group of individuals with multiple aircraft. These hangar areas typically require all utilities and segregated road‐ way access. Table 4F summarizes the aircraft hangar types and corresponding size and aviation uses that are typically associated with each facility. Currently, there is approximately 1,396,500 square feet of hangar space (including maintenance area) provided on the Airport, made up of a combination of the hangar types previously discussed. TABLE 4F Aircraft Hangar Types Hangar Type Conventional Executive

Typical Size Clear span hangars greater than 10,000 square feet Clear span hangars less than 10,000 square feet

T‐Hangar / Individual storage spaces offering Linear Box Hangar 1,200 ‐ 1,500 square feet FBO – Fixed Base Operator SASO – Specialized Aviation Service Operator

Aviation Uses FBOs, SASOs, and other commercial aviation busi‐ nesses and activities resulting in high activity uses SASOs, small aviation businesses, corporate flight de‐ partments, and private aircraft storage resulting in medium‐to‐high activity uses Private aircraft storage resulting in low activity uses

AIRPORT SUPPORT FACILITIES Airport support facilities include a variety of activities related to the overall operation of Falcon Field Airport and include fuel storage, Airport maintenance, aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF), and an aircraft wash rack, among others. As detailed in Chapter Three, additional future storage capacity could be needed to meet aircraft demand. Future consideration should be given to areas that could accom‐ modate additional fuel storage. Other support facilities offered at the Airport (as detailed in previous chapters) are adequate and should be maintained accordingly. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE The building restriction line (BRL) identifies suitable building area locations on the Airport. The BRL en‐ compasses the RPZs, the ROFA, navigational aid critical areas, areas required for terminal instrument procedures, and other areas necessary for meeting line‐of‐sight criteria. Airport Alternatives

4-35

Two primary factors contribute to the determination of the BRL: type of runway (utility or other‐than‐ utility) and the capability of the instrument approaches. Runway 4R‐22L is considered an “other‐than‐ utility” runway and Runway 4L‐22R is considered a “utility” runway. The BRL is the product of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 transitional surface clearance requirements. These requirements stipulate that no object be located in the primary surface, defined as being no closer than 250 feet from a non‐precision instrument runway centerline and not closer than 500 feet to a runway served by a precision instrument approach. For Falcon Field Airport, the primary surface is 500 feet wide (250 feet either side of the runway centerline). From the primary surface, the transitional surface extends outward at a slope of one vertical foot to every seven horizontal feet. The location of the BRL is dependent upon the selected allowable structure height. Traditionally, the BRL is set at a point where the transitional surface is 20 feet or 35 feet above runway elevation. The alternatives to follow consider a 35‐foot BRL in relationship to the runway system and existing and pro‐ posed land uses. LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES The following section describes a series of landside alternatives as they relate to considerations detailed above. Six alternatives have been prepared with emphasis given to utilizing existing property in the northwest, south, and east quadrants of the airfield for development. Per direction from Airport man‐ agement, these alternatives depict various parcel layouts that could be served through existing and pro‐ posed taxiway/taxilane/apron development. Within these parcels, an array of aviation activities could be supported through different hangar facilities that accommodate high, medium, and low activity levels as well as various support functions. The alternatives provide potential development plans aimed at meeting the needs of general aviation through the long term planning period and, in some cases, beyond. The alternatives to be presented are not the only reasonable options for development. In some cases, a portion of one alternative could be intermixed with another. Also, some development concepts could be replaced with others. The overall intent of this exercise is to outline basic development concepts to spur collaboration for a final recom‐ mended plan. The final recommended plan only serves as a guide for the Airport which will aid the City of Mesa in the strategic planning of Airport property. Many times, airport operators change their plan to meet the needs of specific users. The goal in analyzing landside development alternatives is to focus future development so that Airport property can be maximized and aviation activity can be protected. Northwest Landside Alternatives 1 and 2 Northwest Landside Alternative 1 is depicted on Exhibit 4H. As presented, the primary development items include the following:

Airport Alternatives

4-36

LEGEND Airport Property Line 35’ Building Restriction Line (BRL) Future Aviation Development Parcel Proposed Taxiway/Taxilane Privately Leased Aviation-Use Parcel

East McDowell Rd

~3.9 acres

~2.3 acres

ay w i x Ta

~7.1 acres

r lo l a M

North Greenfield Rd.

~2.8 acres

e rcl i yC

~1.6 acres E2

’ 99

~8.6 acres

’) 75

y wa

2 L-

300

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

Airport Alternatives

4-37

Exhibit 4H NORTHWEST LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 1

Acreage calculations are approximated for planning purposes only and not tied to legal descriptions.

   

The proposed extension of Taxiway B in the far northwest portion of the Airport that would pro‐ vide access to approximately four acres of development potential. The construction of two taxilanes, one extending to the north and one to the south, from the existing taxiway that extends west of Taxiway B. Two separate aviation development parcels are provided access to these taxilanes. A large 7.1‐acre development parcel is proposed to the east with ideal access to taxiway/taxilane development and vehicle access from Mallory Circle. Two aviation development parcels are proposed between Mallory Circle and the aircraft parking apron farther south. These parcels could accommodate high activity use levels given ideal access to the immediate runway system. Larger conventional‐style hangars should be considered for these areas.

Northwest Landside Alternative 2 as shown on Exhibit 4J presents a second development concept for this area. The proposed improvements considered in this alternative differ from the previous alternative mainly in the distribution and location of development parcels. It includes the following layout:  A designated aviation development parcel served by the extension of Taxiway B in the northwest corner of the Airport.  Two shorter taxilanes that extend north and south of the existing taxiway leading to Taxiway B farther east.  An additional taxilane extending south of this same taxiway that further segregates potential parcel development.  Extension of a taxilane north from the aircraft parking apron that could provide a differing layout to future aviation use in this area. Within this same area, a vehicle access roadway connecting Mallory Circle to the aircraft parking apron is shown to be relocated farther east of its current location. It is important that the Airport consider a road in this area to accommodate emergency access personnel and other aviation functions regardless of future development layouts. Each alternative provides a significant amount of development space that can help to accommodate demand needed at the Airport through the planning period of this study. The potential layouts pre‐ sented allow development to follow a phased approach that could serve the Airport well beyond the long term planning horizon. South Landside Alternatives 1 and 2 Exhibit 4K depicts South Landside Alternative 1. This alternative takes a different approach from the previous landside alternatives in that it considers a potential layout of hangar facilities in certain areas and includes the following:  In the south portion of the Airport between Falcon Field Park and East McKellips Road, a specific hangar layout is depicted which was included in the previous Master Plan. This layout is based upon a site plan that has been approved by the City of Mesa and platted in order to make use of available property to meet future aviation demand. Airport Alternatives

4-38

LEGEND Airport Property Line 35’ Building Restriction Line (BRL) Future Aviation Development Parcel Proposed Taxiway/Taxilane Proposed Roadway Privately Leased Aviation-Use Parcel

~3.0 acres

~3.1 acres

ay w i x Ta

~2.1 acres

~3.1 acres

r lo l a M

e rcl i yC

North Greenfield Rd.

~4.1 acres ~2.1 acres

~2.7 acres

’ 99

~4.4 acres

’) 75

y wa

2 L-

300

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

Airport Alternatives

4-39

Exhibit 4J NORTHWEST LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 2

Acreage calculations are approximated for planning purposes only and not tied to legal descriptions.

LEGEND Airport Property Line Proposed Building/Hangar Proposed Airfield Pavement Proposed Parking/Roadway Non-Aviation Development Parcel Privately Leased Aviation-Use Parcel

300

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

2 -2

’x 1 0 ,1 5 (

) 0’ 0 1

D4 D3

n Ru

Falcon D

rive

~1.1 acres Falcon Field Park

East McKellips Rd.

Airport Alternatives

4-40

Exhibit 4K SOUTH LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 1

Acreage calculations are approximated for planning purposes only and not tied to legal descriptions.



An approximate one‐acre development parcel adjacent to the east side of Falcon Drive that could accommodate future non‐aviation development. This could complement existing non‐aviation activities that occur adjacent to the entrance of Falcon Drive on the south side of the Airport.

Exhibit 4L illustrates South Landside Alternative 2. This alternative takes an approach to potential rede‐ velopment of the area directly east of Falcon Field Park and includes the following:  Relocate a portion of Fighter Aces Drive as it extends west from Falcon Drive. In doing so, airfield access could be provided in the area currently served by the Civil Air Patrol and additional space could be made available to accommodate a hangar facility directly east of Falcon Field Park.  A scaled‐back version of hangar development farther south adjacent to East McKellips Road and the addition of two separate aviation development parcels. A taxilane would need to be ex‐ tended into this area to provide airfield access to the parcel proposed adjacent to Falcon Drive.  Designate future aviation use in an area currently occupied by non‐aviation related development. In summary, South Landside Alternative 1 considers a hangar layout that has been given careful consid‐ eration by Airport management and the City of Mesa. All or portions of this layout could be carried forward depending on future demand. Alternative 2 proposes a significant development consideration that includes offering potential airfield access to the area adjacent to the east side of Falcon Field Park. East Landside Alternatives 1 and 2 The final set of landside alternatives relate to development potential on the east side of Falcon Field Airport. Since the 2010 Master Plan, the Airport has made this area more conducive to aviation‐related development by clearing a parcel adjacent to the west side of Roadrunner Drive. In doing so, future plans call for the construction of a taxilane extending through this parcel and allowing airfield access to currently vacant property farther east. Both East Landside Alternatives depict the construction of a dual‐ lane taxilane that extends approximately 1,400 feet to the east and would serve future landside devel‐ opment. The dual‐lane taxilane is designed to meet ADG II standards and would require the separation of Roadrunner Drive and Eagle Drive. In order to best accommodate aircraft access via this proposed taxilane, the removal of one T‐hangar complex is called for adjacent to Taxiway B. As presented on Exhibit 4M, East Landside Alternative 1 provides the following landside offerings:  Four separate aviation development parcels ranging in size from 2.2 acres to 9.6 acres that would be provided direct access to the dual‐lane taxilane extension.  New roadway extending south from Eagle Drive to provide vehicle access to existing and pro‐ posed development adjacent to Roadrunner Drive.  Identification of two aviation development parcels north of Falcon Drive. These parcels and as‐ sociated infrastructure could support FBO and/or SASO activities having ideal access to the run‐ way system.  Designation of 1.1 acres farther west in the existing T‐hangar area that could accommodate avi‐ ation activities (preferred low activity uses) in order to maximize development potential. Airport Alternatives

4-41

LEGEND Airport Property Line Proposed Building/Hangar Proposed Airfield Pavement Proposed Parking/Roadway Pavement to be Removed Future Aviation Development Parcel Non-Aviation Development Parcel Privately Leased Aviation-Use Parcel

300

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

2 -2

’x 1 0 ,1 5 (

) 0’ 0 1

D4 D3

n Ru

~0.7 acres

Falcon D

rive

~1.1 acres Falcon Field Park

Relocated Fighter Aces Drive

~2.3 acres

~2.7 acres

East McKellips Rd.

Airport Alternatives

4-42

Exhibit 4L SOUTH LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 2

Acreage calculations are approximated for planning purposes only and not tied to legal descriptions.

LEGEND Airport Property Line 35’ Building Restriction Line (BRL) Proposed Taxiway/Taxilane Proposed Roadway Pavement/Building to be Removed Future Aviation Development Parcel D

y wa

2 R-

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

Th un de rb ird

n Ru D6

~1.7 acres

400

nD o c l Fa

~9.6 acres

e riv

~2.2 acres

~2.6 acres

Dr ive

~3.1 acres Eagle Drive

~2.2 acres Roadway Connecting Eagle Drive and Roadrunner Drive

Dual-Lane Taxilane

ne r

Dr ive

~1.1 acres

Airport Alternatives

4-43

North Higley Rd.

a Ro

dr un

Exhibit 4M EAST LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 1

Acreage calculations are approximated for planning purposes only and not tied to legal descriptions.

Exhibit 4N depicts the final alternative for this landside analysis. This alternative is similar to the previous alternative except for the following:  Vehicle access to existing and proposed development adjacent to Roadrunner Drive would be provided via the extension of the road to North Higley Road. Further coordination would be needed with the City of Mesa to determine if this connection is possible.  The extension of a taxilane north of the proposed dual‐lane taxilane that could support two de‐ velopment parcels on the east side of the Airport immediately south of Falcon Drive. In order to accommodate future aviation development on the Airport’s east side, significant infrastruc‐ ture development would be required, namely in the form of extending taxilane access as proposed. Re‐ configuration of existing roadways and new roadway access would also be important to maximizing land‐ side development in this area. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERNG ANALYSIS FOR LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS The following provides high‐level engineering analysis provided by Dibble Engineering for the landside alternatives previously detailed. Similar to the airside analysis, more detailed design and construction evaluations would be needed on a project‐by‐project basis prior to actual implementation. Northwest Landside Alternatives Northwest Landside Alternative 1 could be more advantageous than Alternative 2 because fewer utility connections may be required since there are fewer development parcels being proposed. In addition, Alternative 1 provides more flexibility for on‐site storage for drainage requirements. The proposed lay‐ out of taxilanes in Alternative 2 could be more challenging in achieving on‐site drainage storage related to the layout of development parcels. South Landside Alternatives South Landside Alternative 2 is preferred when compared to Alternative 1 as it provides more space for the required on‐site storage for drainage. Both alternatives also show development adjacent to the water tower, which could limit access to this facility. Consideration should be given to an access road or pavement immediately east of the water tower to provide proper access. South Landside Alternative 2 provides for airfield accessibility to/from the Civil Air Patrol building and, in doing so, would require the relocation of Fighter Aces Drive. Any utility infrastructure under the ex‐ isting alignment of Fighter Aces Drive would need to be relocated and reconnected, including potential water, sewer, and electrical lines. These utility relocations are expected to be relatively minor. The estimated cost of relocating Fighter Aces Drive (including utilities) is approximately $300,000. This does not include the aircraft access and parking apron pavement shown on Alternative 2. Airport Alternatives

4-44

LEGEND Airport Property Line 35’ Building Restriction Line (BRL) Proposed Taxiway/Taxilane Proposed Roadway Pavement/Building to be Removed Future Aviation Development Parcel D

y wa

400

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

2 R-

~3.8 acres

~1.7 acres

e riv D on c l Fa

~4.5 acres

~2.2 acres

~2.6 acres

~3.1 acres

North Higley Rd.

Eagle Drive

~2.7 acres Dual-Lane Taxilane a Ro

dr un

ne r

Dr ive

Connect to North Higley Road

~1.1 acres

Airport Alternatives

4-45

Exhibit 4N EAST LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 2

Acreage calculations are approximated for planning purposes only and not tied to legal descriptions.

East Landside Alternatives In order to allow for airfield access to the east side of the Airport, East Landside Alternatives 1 and 2 propose the extension of a dual‐lane taxilane extending east across existing Roadrunner and Eagle Drives. The cost estimate associated with the design and construction of this dual‐lane taxilane is $4.3 million. A detailed breakdown of the costs associated with this project is found in Appendix C. Due to the proposed taxilane crossing Roadrunner and Eagle Drives, a vehicle turnaround area would likely be required at each roadway stub as it approaches the taxilane. For any utilities under these roadways, the City of Mesa may prefer to terminate and relocate these utilities to other locations to avoid crossing from a public‐use roadway to secured‐access development (taxilane/airfield access). Alternatively, the City could develop an arrangement with Falcon Field Airport for maintenance of the utilities that cross into the secure area of the airfield, which could result in a significant cost savings due to not having to relocate the utilities. East Landside Alternative 1 shows a new connector roadway alignment between Eagle Drive and Road‐ runner Drive, while Alternative 2 shows new access for Roadrunner Drive directly to/from North Higley Road. The addition of another access point to North Higley Road may introduce the need for a traffic study and would require removing the existing vehicle turnaround area at the east end of Roadrunner Drive. In addition, Roadrunner Drive may need to be widened to match the other access road configu‐ rations extending from North Higley Road. With the connection shown on Alternative 1, Eagle Drive likely has enough capacity to handle the traffic from Roadrunner Drive. A minor roadway connection as proposed on Alternative 1 is anticipated to be less costly than making a new connection to North Higley Road from Roadrunner Drive, as depicted on Alternative 2. Hangar Development Considerations and Costs During the landside alternatives analysis, various locations have been evaluated to accommodate future hangar development as demand would dictate. The following provides a list of requirements to consider for future hangar development based on the International Building Code and local development guide‐ lines:  Two‐hour exterior walls if the walls are less than 30 feet from a property line.  Any heating equipment must be in a two‐hour enclosure.  All hangars will require a fire suppression system.  Two means of egress are required for hangars over 30,000 square feet.  Smoke detectors must be provided.  One‐hour or two‐hour separations between hangars may be required based on the group type and construction types.

Airport Alternatives

4-46

TABLE 4G Table 4G details conceptual/order‐of‐ magnitude costs for a range of hangar Hangar Development Cost Estimates Hangar Type/Size Cost Estimate sizes as previously detailed. It is im‐ Executive Hangar (8,000 s.f.) $450,000 portant to note that these costs are not $1,100,000 inclusive of significant engineering/site Conventional Hangar (20,000 s.f.) Conventional Hangar (30,000 s.f.) $1,700,000 preparations that may be required for T‐Hangar/Linear Box Hangar $45 ‐ $50 per s.f.) unique site conditions and do not in‐ Source: Dibble Engineering clude special amenities such as office space, conference areas, etc. NON‐AVIATION DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES In certain instances, an airport should consider non‐aviation related development. Non‐aviation related uses can be allowed on airports for areas not required for aviation purposes. The FAA typically requires airports to receive approval through a land‐use release to lease airport‐owned land for non‐aviation related purposes. The FAA stipulates that all land with reasonable airside access should be used or re‐ served for aviation purposes. Those areas on an airport not readily linked to the airfield can be consid‐ ered favorably in a land‐use release. In some cases, the FAA will be hesitant to release land‐use if the airport has limited development areas near the airfield system. As outlined earlier in this Master Plan, approximately 200 acres of land in the west and southwest quad‐ rants of Falcon Field Airport are segregated from the airfield by public roadways, including North Green‐ field Road and East McKellips Road. This property is currently being utilized for agricultural purposes (citrus orchards). Non‐aviation use could continue to support the agricultural‐related activities that have occurred within these areas in the past. Other non‐aviation activities could incorporate commercial, industrial, or business development and would provide the Airport with an opportunity to improve rev‐ enue streams. In the recent past, approximately 70 acres of this property has been designated as the proposed Falcon Tech Center site that is intended to attract future commercial/business development. As part of this Master Plan, the City of Mesa is evaluating the remaining 130 acres for future non‐aviation development potential, considering its highest and best use. It is important to note that the City would prefer to limit future commercial, industrial, or business development within the 130 acres in the future. When considering non‐aviation development within these areas, there are certain safety parameters that should be considered. As depicted on Exhibit 4P, the RPZs that extend southwest of Runways 4L and 4R should remain free of future development. A detailed discussion on RPZs was provided earlier in this chapter. In addition, Title 14 CFR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, has been established for use by local authorities to analyze the impact of and control the height of objects near airports. Air‐ port sponsors should do all in their power to ensure development stays below the Part 77 surfaces to protect the role of the airport. Penetrations to Part 77 surfaces are considered to be obstructions. Of importance to this analysis is the Part 77 approach surface which is established for each runway end. Given that Runways 4L and 4R are each served by a non‐precision instrument approach, the approach surface slope extends up at a 34:1 ratio beyond the end of the runway. As detailed on the exhibit, a significant portion of the non‐aviation property being evaluated falls within the approach surfaces asso‐ ciated with the parallel runway system.

Airport Alternatives

4-47

North Greenfield Rd. d. d.

LEGEND Airport Property Line Proposed Falcon Tech Center Site Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Part 77 Approach Surface Non-Aviation Development Opportunities (Commercial, Industrial) Existing Citrus Agriculture

1,000

SCALE IN FEET

East McDowell Rd

r lo al M

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

le irc yC

’x 99 7 ,

R 22

a nw

L 22

’) 75

x 1’ 0 ,1 (5

) 0’ 10

w un

~23.7 acres

~41.1 acres Falcon Drive

Fighter Aces Drive

~33.4 acres

East McKellips Rd.

~31.2 acres

velt

e Roos l Cana

Airport Alternatives

4-48

Exhibit 4P: NON-AVIATION DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 1

Acreage calculations are approximated for planning purposes only and not tied to legal descriptions.

For purposes of this analysis, two Non‐Aviation Development Alternatives have been prepared that call out potential options for the future use of Airport property west of North Greenfield Road. Exhibit 4P highlights approximately 24 acres that could accommodate non‐aviation development in areas immedi‐ ately south of the proposed Falcon Tech Center site as something other than traditional agricultural‐ related use, perhaps similar to what is being proposed in the Falcon Tech Center area. All other identified property could continue to support existing citrus orchards. Exhibit 4Q considers the 130 acres to continue to support non‐aviation development, but in the form of non‐citrus agricultural production. Growing something other than trees in these areas to support agri‐ cultural‐related development would change the surrounding landscape and could also improve safety of flight operations in the vicinity of the Airport by eliminating trees in the approach paths to the runway system. It is important to consider the impacts of agricultural‐related uses in these areas, whether or‐ chards or an alternative crop, and their ability to attract land‐based or avian wildlife. During the alternatives phase of this Master Plan, Airport management and the City of Mesa are soliciting input from the PAC and general public regarding the future disposition of the approximate 130 acres of land previously identified. Through a detailed discussion at the PAC meeting and Public Information Workshop scheduled during this phase of the study process, comments and ideas will be coordinated with Airport management and City officials to help determine a future course of action related to this property that will be considered for the recommended development concept. This will be detailed in the final phase of the Master Plan. LANDSIDE SUMMARY The landside alternatives previously detailed look to accommodate an array of aviation activities that either currently occur or could be expected to occur at Falcon Field Airport in the future. As with many of the alternatives detailed in this chapter, Airport management should monitor the demand on the airfield and in the region to help determine the potential need for enhanced landside facilities, both aviation‐ and non‐aviation‐related. Each of the development options considers a long term vision that would, in some cases, extend beyond the 20‐year scope of this Master Plan. Nonetheless, it is beneficial to provide a long term vision for the Airport for future generations.

SUMMARY This chapter is intended to present analysis of various options that may be considered for specific airport elements. The need for alternatives is typically spurred by projections of aviation demand growth and/or by the need to resolve non‐standard airport elements. FAA design standards are frequently updated with the intent of improving the safety and efficiency of aircraft movements on and around airports, which can lead to certain pavement geometries now being classified as non‐standard when previously they qualified to meet standard.

Airport Alternatives

4-49

LEGEND Airport Property Line Proposed Falcon Tech Center Site Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Part 77 Approach Surface Other Non-Citrus Agriculture

1,000

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

North Greenfield Rd.

East McDowell Rd

r lo al M

le irc yC

’x 99 7 ,

R 22

a nw

L 22

’) 75

x 1’ 0 ,1 (5

) 0’ 10

w un

~64.8 acres Falcon Drive

Fighter Aces Drive

~33.4 acres

East McKellips Rd.

~31.2 acres

velt

e Roos l Cana

Airport Alternatives

4-50

Exhibit 4Q: NON-AVIATION DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 2

Acreage calculations are approximated for planning purposes only and not tied to legal descriptions.

Several development alternatives related to both the airside and the landside have been presented. On the airside, the major considerations involve the ultimate design of Runway 4L‐22R and its associated impacts related to safety and separation standards as well as positioning the airfield to meet proper taxiway design and geometry standards. For the landside, alternatives were presented to consider ad‐ ditional aviation development and potential for revenue support. Considerations are given to develop‐ ment within the existing landside area and expanding beyond to other undeveloped areas of the Airport, considering both aviation and non‐aviation development potential. A detailed preliminary engineering analysis related to potential airside and landside considerations has also been provided that will aid in further coordination of this Master Plan. The next step in the Master Plan development process is to arrive at a recommended development con‐ cept. Participation of the PAC and the public will be important considerations. Additional consultation with the FAA may also be required. Once a consolidated development plan is identified, a 20‐year capital improvement program, with a list of prioritized projects tied to aviation demand and/or necessity, will be presented. Finally, a financial analysis will be presented to identify potential funding sources and to show Airport management what local funds will be necessary to implement the plan.

Airport Alternatives

4-51

RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT

CHAPTER 5

The process for the preparation of the Master Plan has included technical efforts in the previous chapters intended to establish the role of Falcon Field Airport (Airport), forecast potential aviation demand, es‐ tablish airside and landside facility needs, and evaluate alternatives for improving the Airport to meet those facility needs. The planning process has included the development of draft working papers that have been presented to the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), a group comprised of stakeholders/con‐ stituents with an investment or interest in the Airport and surrounding area. This diverse group has provided extremely valuable input into the Master Plan. Additionally, a series of Public Information Workshops have been conducted as part of this planning process, providing the public an opportunity to be involved and educated about the study. The alternatives that outlined future scenarios for enhanced safety and development in the previous chapter have been refined into a recommended development concept for the Master Plan, which is in‐ cluded for presentation in this chapter. Environmental conditions that need to be considered during development are also examined later in the chapter as are recommended recycling, reuse, and waste reduction methods for the Airport to consider.

Recommended Concept

5-1

One of the objectives of the Master Plan is to allow decision makers the ability to either accelerate or slow development goals based on actual demand. If demand slows, development of the Airport (beyond routine safety and maintenance projects) could be minimized. If aviation demand accelerates, develop‐ ment could be expedited. Any plan can account for limited development, but the lack of a plan for accelerated growth can sometimes be challenging. Therefore, to ensure flexibility in planning and de‐ velopment to respond to unforeseen needs, the Master Plan Concept considers the full and balanced development potential for the Airport.

MASTER PLAN CONCEPT Falcon Field Airport is a vital aviation asset, as evidenced by the role that the Federal Aviation Admin‐ istration (FAA) assigns it. The Airport is classified by the FAA as a reliever airport and is included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). NPIAS airports are considered important to the national aviation system and are eligible for development grant funding from the FAA. Furthermore, the Airport is categorized as a “Regional” general aviation facility by the FAA. As such, it serves as an im‐ portant air transportation facility by connecting adjacent communities to regional and national markets. Regional airports have high levels of activity, ranging from small single engine aircraft to multi‐engine jet aircraft operations. As previously detailed, Falcon Field Airport experiences a broad range of aviation operations and services and is currently home to over 700 based aircraft. At the state level, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) – Aeronautics Group classifies Falcon Field Airport as a reliever airport. The Master Plan Concept, as shown on Exhibit 5A, presents the recommended configuration for the Airport, which preserves its role while meeting FAA design and safety standards to the extent practica‐ ble. It is important to note that the concept provides for anticipated facility needs over the next 20 years, as well as establishing a vision and direction for facility needs beyond the 20‐year planning period of this study. A phased capital program to achieve the recommended Master Plan Concept is presented in Chapter Six. While the Master Plan Concept makes recommendations for the future of Falcon Field Airport, it is im‐ portant to continue to obtain local perspective and input on important development goals and objectives as the study process moves toward completion. The following sections describe the Master Plan Con‐ cept. When assessing future development potential, the plan has separated the Airport into airside and landside functional areas.

AIRSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The airside plan generally considers those improvements related to the runway and taxiway system and often requires the greatest commitment of land area to meet the necessary physical features and asso‐ ciated safety areas required to support flight operations. Operational activity at Falcon Field Airport is anticipated to grow through the 20‐year planning horizon of this Master Plan, and the Airport is pro‐ jected to continue to serve the full range of general aviation aircraft operations. The major airside issues addressed in the Master Plan Concept include the following: Recommended Concept

5-2

Boeing Company Relocate Portion of Airfield Perimeter Access Road

East McDowell Rd

Holding Bays E4

ay xiw Ta

ry lo al M

D10

Midfield Taxiway

North Greenfield Rd.

Narrow Taxiway B and Enhance Hold Line Markings

Holding Bays

e rcl Ci

Relocate Taxiway D9

2 -2

Exit Taxiway

’ 99

Ru E1

) 5’

Relocate Taxiways D7 and D8 Thu

) 0’ 10

Midfield Taxiway x ’ 01 D5 ,1 5 ( L D4 22 4R

nD lco Fa

Eagle Drive

Dual-Lane Taxilane

ad ru nn

Dri

Roadway Connecting Roadrunner Drive and North Higley Road

l Cana

Falcon Drive

evelt

Roos

~33.4 acres

Roadway Connecting Eagle Drive and Roadrunner Drive

Eliminate Direct Apron Access

Falcon Field Park Taxiway

riv e

~66.9 acres

er bi rd D

e riv

ay D3

North Higley Rd.

Exit Taxiway

LEGEND Airport Property Line Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) 35’ Building Restriction Line (BRL) Avigation Easement Runway High Energy Area Pavement to be Removed Proposed Building/Hangar Proposed Airfield Pavement Proposed Parking/Roadway Proposed No-Taxi Pavement Privately Leased Aviation-Use Parcel Existing Agriculture - No Development Proposed Falcon Tech Center Site

East McKellips Rd.

~31.2 acres

1,000

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

Recommended Concept Acreage calculations are approximated for planning purposes only and not tied to legal descriptions.

5-3

Exhibit 5A RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT

This page intentionally left blank

Recommended Concept

5-4

        

Adhere to Runway Design Code (RDC) B‐II standards on Runway 4R‐22L and RDC B‐I (Small Air‐ craft) standards on Runway 4L‐22R; Construct acute‐angled taxiway exits serving Runway 4L‐22R; Enhance airfield geometry by relocating portions of Taxiways D3, D4, D7, and D8; Improve taxiway design and geometry associated with midfield Taxiway B; Construct two midfield taxiways connecting the parallel runway system; Relocate Taxiway D9 to better adhere to future airfield design; Construct holding bays serving Runways 22L and 22R; Implement no‐taxi pavement in areas between parallel Taxiway D and the aircraft parking apron on the south side of the runway system; and Analyze land beyond the northeast end of the airfield that could be needed for positive control of approach/departure protection.

RUNWAY DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS A parallel runway system serves Falcon Field Airport. Runway 4R‐22L is 5,101 feet long by 100 feet wide. The runway can handle the full array of aircraft that utilize the Airport, and Runway 4R supports a non‐ precision area navigation (RNAV) global position system (GPS) approach. Runway 4L‐22R is the shorter parallel runway dimensioned at 3,799 feet in length and 75 feet in width. This runway primarily supports small aircraft operations weighing 12,500 pounds or less. Runway 4L is also served by a non‐precision RNAV GPS approach. The FAA has established design criteria to define the physical dimensions of the runways and taxiways, as well as the imaginary surfaces surrounding them which protect the safe operation of aircraft at air‐ ports. These design standards also define the criteria for the placement of landside facilities. As discussed previously, the design criteria primarily center on an airport’s critical design aircraft. The critical design aircraft is the most demanding aircraft, or family of aircraft, which currently, or are pro‐ jected to, conduct 500 or more operations (takeoffs or landings) per year at an airport. Factors included in airport design are an aircraft’s wingspan, approach speed, tail height, and, in some cases, the instru‐ ment approach visibility minimums for each runway. The FAA has established the RDC to relate these design aircraft factors to airfield design standards. The most restrictive RDC is also considered the overall Airport Reference Code (ARC) for an airport with more than one runway. Analysis at the end of Chapter Two concluded that the current RDC for Runway 4R‐22L is B‐II. Future planning also considers an ultimate RDC of B‐II for Runway 4R‐22L. Runway 4L‐22R is currently utilized by small general aviation aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less. As such, its current RDC is B‐I (Small Aircraft). The 2010 Master Plan and currently approved airport layout plan (ALP) call for Runway 4L‐22R to ultimately meet RDC B‐II standards. Chapters Three and Four de‐ tailed the associated safety and separation dimensions needed to meet RDC B‐II (Small Aircraft) and full RDC B‐II standards on this runway. The most significant airfield improvement needed to meet RDC B‐II standards would involve the separation distance between the runway and parallel Taxiway E. The run‐ way to taxiway separation standard for RDC B‐II (Small Aircraft) and full RDC B‐II with not lower than Recommended Concept

5-5

one‐mile visibility minimums is 240 feet. Currently, parallel Taxiway E, located on the north side of Run‐ way 4L‐22R, has a separation of 200 feet (runway centerline to taxiway centerline). Based on the evaluation of future RDC standards associated with Runway 4L‐22R, the Master Plan Con‐ cept calls for the runway’s ultimate RDC to remain B‐I (Small Aircraft). Previous examination of aircraft operating on this runway supports this future RDC. As such, this design threshold allows parallel Taxiway E to remain in its current location. As pointed out in Chapter Four, the existing runway protection zones (RPZs) serving Runway 4L‐22R can also remain in their current condition and not increase in size, there‐ fore minimizing incompatible development within these areas. As detailed previously, designating Run‐ way 4L‐22R as an existing/ultimate RDC B‐I (Small Aircraft) runway does not preclude larger aircraft, such as those designated as B‐II, from utilizing the runway; however, it recognizes that these operations will not occur on a regular basis (500 annual operations) as defined by the FAA. Table 5A provides a summary of the RDCs for each runway based on the Master Plan Concept. In addi‐ tion to the physical operational components of an aircraft, the RDC also considers the instrument ap‐ proach capabilities for each runway expressed in runway visual range (RVR) values. For Runways 4R‐22L and 4L‐22R, the RVR value of 5,000 indicates approach visibility minimums not lower than one‐mile, which currently corresponds to the RNAV GPS approaches to each end of Runways 4L and 4R. TABLE 5A Runway Design Codes Falcon Field Airport Runway Planned Runway Design Code* 4R‐22L B‐II‐5000 4L‐22R B‐I (Small Aircraft) – 5000 * The ultimate ARC for Falcon Field Airport is B‐II based upon the most demanding RDC associated with Runway 4R‐22L.

ADDITIONAL TAXIWAYS SERVING RUNWAY 4L‐22R As detailed on Exhibit 5A, the Master Plan Concept includes the construction of two acute‐angled exit taxiways on Runway 4L‐22R connecting the runway with parallel Taxiway E to the north. The exit taxi‐ ways are located approximately 1,000 feet from each end of the runway and will improve capacity and efficiency associated with aircraft operating on the runway. The taxiways have been designed and are programmed in the Airport’s current capital improvement program. AIRFIELD GEOMETRY ENHANCEMENTS A safety project involving airfield geometry at Falcon Field Airport is planned to ensure that direct access from an aircraft parking apron to runway is not provided. Configurations that allow for direct access from an apron to runway have been targeted as they tend to increase risks for runway incursions. As depicted on Exhibit 5A, the Master Plan Concept ultimately calls for the elimination of the existing ex‐ tensions on Taxiways D3 and D4 between parallel Taxiway D and the aircraft parking apron and shifting the stub taxiway extensions to realign them at a 90‐degree angle with parallel Taxiway D. As a result, the direct access from the apron to Runway 4R‐22L in this area is eliminated. In addition, the aircraft parking apron layout immediately south of the taxiways can be maintained in its current configuration. Recommended Concept

5-6

In addition, Taxiways D4, D7, and D8 between Runway 4R‐22L and parallel Taxiway D are proposed to be shifted farther northeast along the runway. This will enhance overall airfield safety and geometry. MIDFIELD TAXIWAY B IMPROVEMENTS Another area on the airfield that does not currently adhere to FAA‐recommended geometry standards includes the midfield portion of Taxiway B that connects the parallel runway system. This taxiway can be considered a wide‐throat taxiway entrance and wide expanse of pavement which the FAA discourages on airfields. The Master Plan Concept on Exhibit 5A calls for ultimately narrowing the width of this portion of Taxiway B to meet Taxiway Design Group (TDG) II standards. These standards call for a taxiway width of 35 feet. In addition, it is recommended that the hold line markings associated with the taxiway be enhanced to include in‐pavement flashing yellow lights or elevated flashing yellow lights (wig‐wags) to improve identification and overall airfield safety. The ultimate width of this taxiway (and associated lighting enhancements) can be evaluated during a future pavement rehabilitation project associated with the taxiway system or during a specific project to address airfield safety and geometry. MIDFIELD CONNECTOR TAXIWAYS As part of the Master Plan process, it is recommended by ATCT personnel and tenants who utilize the airfield system that two midfield connector taxiways be planned, each located approximately 1,000 feet on either side of midfield Taxiway B. These taxiways would increase capacity and efficiency on Runway 4L‐22R, as an aircraft desiring to transition to the south side of the Airport could exit the runway system sooner without having to extend its rollout to the end of the runway. The acute‐angled nature of the taxiways extending south of Runway 4L‐22R would enhance the exit capabilities of an aircraft as it tran‐ sitions from the runway to taxiway environment. As depicted on Exhibit 5A, the connector taxiway west of midfield Taxiway B would extend south and connect to Runway 4R‐22L, allowing aircraft to utilize existing Taxiway D3 immediately south to transi‐ tion to the south side of the airfield. This proposed runway crossing is located outside of the high energy area associated with Runway 4R‐22L and could also alleviate the existing runway crossing associated with midfield Taxiway B and Taxiways D5 and D6 that is located in the runway high energy area. To the east of midfield Taxiway B, the second connector taxiway would extend south of Runway 4L‐22R and approach Runway 4R‐22L approximately 300 feet east of the intersection of the runway and existing Taxiway D7. As a result, the Master Plan Concept considers the relocation of Taxiways D7 and D8 in order to provide a direct runway crossing, thereby limiting an aircraft’s crossing time on the runway. This proposed runway crossing would also fall outside the high energy area. The relocation of Taxiways D7 and D8 could also improve airfield geometry by eliminating direct access from the aircraft parking apron farther south and Runway 4R‐22L. As such, the stub taxiways connecting the aircraft parking apron and parallel Taxiway D could remain in their existing location. This further benefits the existing aircraft parking apron layout immediately south.

Recommended Concept

5-7

Finally, the relocation of acute‐angled Taxiways D7 and D8 would still be capable of accommodating a high percentage of aircraft operating on Runway 4R‐22L. The relocation of Taxiway D7 would capture approximately 60 percent of small aircraft landing on Runway 22L. For Taxiway D8, the shift farther east would further increase its already high utilization rate for exiting aircraft landing on Runway 4R. TAXIWAY D9 RELOCATION Exhibit 5A includes the relocation of Taxiway D9 serving Runway 4R‐22L. As detailed in the previous chapter, the current location of the taxiway has historically been tied to an older configuration associ‐ ated with Taxiway C on the north side of the runway. Since Taxiway C has been reconfigured to its current alignment, Taxiway D9 does not provide a runway crossing connection. Relocating the taxiway approximately 130 feet to the northeast would still allow it to act as an exit taxiway serving aircraft landing on Runway 4R. HOLDING BAYS The implementation of two separate taxiway holding bay complexes is included on the Master Plan Con‐ cept exhibit. Chapter Four outlined guidance that the FAA has introduced since the previous Master Plan regarding the configuration of hold areas associated with runway ends. As detailed on Exhibit 5A, one holding bay complex that meets FAA‐recommended guidance is planned at the east end of Taxiway D south of Runway 4R‐22L. These holding bays would provide the ability for up to six aircraft to perform engine run‐up procedures at a given time while allowing aircraft to bypass each other if necessary. A similar holding bay complex was recently implemented farther southwest along Taxiway D near the Run‐ way 4R threshold. It is important to note that the proposed relocation of Taxiway D9 (previously de‐ tailed) would better adhere to recommended airfield geometry in relation to this proposed holding bay complex. A second holding bay complex is located north of Runway 4L‐22R and would serve the Runway 22R end. These holding bays would allow for up to three aircraft at a given time. This holding bay complex would necessitate the relocation of a portion of the airfield perimeter access road as depicted on the Master Plan Concept. While a similar holding bay complex was evaluated farther southwest along Taxiway E (serving the Runway 4L end), it was determined that the depth of the holding bays in this area would interfere with the efficiency of the existing aircraft parking apron and access to existing and future land‐ side development. As such, the existing hold apron serving Runway 4L is being carried forward in the Master Plan Concept. NO‐TAXI PAVEMENT The implementation of pavement between parallel Taxiway D and the aircraft parking apron on the south side of the runway system is also proposed on the Master Plan Concept. As presented on Exhibit 5A, the pavement could be painted green and serve as no‐taxi areas that would help limit blowing dust and other foreign object debris (FOD). Recommended Concept

5-8

APPROACH PROTECTION The FAA recommends that an airport sponsor exercise control of the RPZ property. Portions of the RPZs associated with Runways 22L and 22R extend beyond existing Airport property to the northeast. The RPZ associated with Runway 22L extends across East McDowell Road and North Higley Road and includes a portion of the Boeing Company’s vehicle parking lot as well as a golf course area. The Runway 22R RPZ also extends over East McDowell Road and into the vehicle parking lot associated with the Boeing Com‐ pany. When fee simple ownership is not feasible, positive land use control measures should be imple‐ mented in order to protect the Airport from encroachment by incompatible land uses or obstructions. Currently, avigation easements are in place over the existing RPZs adjacent to the northeast side of the Airport. Since the Master Plan Concept does not propose any changes to the parallel runway system (length, relocation of landing thresholds, declared distances, instrument approach visibility minimums, etc.) at Falcon Field Airport, the approach and departure RPZs associated with each runway end are planned to remain in their existing location. Furthermore, those portions of land within the RPZs that are not under direct ownership of the Airport do fall within the land use and zoning jurisdictions of the City of Mesa. The City of Mesa has worked to ensure that land uses and zoning in the vicinity of the Airport are com‐ patible in nature and protect the RPZs and associated approach surfaces to the parallel runway system. Airport management and the City of Mesa should continue to monitor activity within the RPZs serving each runway and maintain them free of incompatible land uses to the extent practicable.

LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Landside components include terminal buildings, hangars, aircraft parking aprons, and aviation support services, as well as the utilization of remaining airport property to provide revenue support and benefit the economic well‐being of the regional area. The primary goal of landside facility planning is to provide adequate terminal facilities and aircraft storage space to meet forecast needs, while also maximizing operational efficiencies and land uses. Also important is identifying the overall land use classification of airport property in order to preserve the aviation purpose of the facility well into the future. Exhibit 5A presents the view of the planned landside development for Falcon Field Airport. There are numerous facility layout concepts that could be considered. Several potential layouts were presented in the previous chapter that could support hangar development and placement of aviation support facilities. The Master Plan Concept provides an approach to the layout of proposed landside facilities which attempts to maximize potential aviation development space on the airfield. Focus is given to designate areas for future executive and conventional hangar development as the Airport is experiencing greater levels of demand for aviation activities associated with these types of facilities. The major landside issues addressed in the Master Plan Concept include the following:  Construct a dual‐lane taxilane extending into the east quadrant of the Airport to allow aircraft access to future aviation‐related development;  Designate aviation development that can accommodate a range of general aviation infrastruc‐ ture and activities in currently vacant parcels on the Airport; Recommended Concept

5-9

 

Reconfigure roadway access on the east side of the Airport to accommodate the dual‐lane tax‐ ilane extension; and Reserve portions of Airport property for non‐aviation uses.

DUAL‐LANE TAXILANE DEVELOPMENT SERVING EAST LANDSIDE AREA Chapter Four included alternatives for future development in the east quadrant of the Airport, primarily between Roadrunner Drive and North Higley Road. As detailed, the Airport has made the area more conducive for aviation‐related development by clearing a parcel adjacent to the west side of Roadrunner Drive. In doing so, future plans have called for the construction of a taxilane extending through this parcel and allowing airfield access to vacant property farther east. As presented on Exhibit 5A, the Master Plan Concept maintains these plans and extends a dual‐lane taxilane designed to meet TDG and Airplane Design Group (ADG) II standards approximately 1,400 feet to the east. In order to accommodate aircraft access via the proposed taxilane, the removal of one T‐ hangar complex is called for adjacent to Taxiway B. The construction of the taxilane would necessitate the need to reconfigure existing vehicle roadway access on the east side of the Airport, which is discussed in the following sections. AVIATION DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The Master Plan Concept depicts future landside development potential on vacant parcels in the north‐ west, south, and east areas of the Airport. As illustrated on Exhibit 5A, several areas are highlighted for future aviation development, as demand would dictate, that could accommodate aircraft storage hang‐ ars, additional aircraft parking apron space, and other specialty aviation support services. As previously detailed, the majority of proposed hangar development takes the form of executive and conventional hangars that can accommodate the full array of general aviation activities, ranging from private aircraft storage to large‐scale aircraft service operations. Certain proposed hangars are part of existing lease‐ holds in which Airport management has obtained conceptual site drawings of planned hangar/building development for the specific sites. The layout provides approximately 60 acres of space for aviation‐related development. Chapter Three outlined over 800,000 square feet of additional hangar space that could be needed through the long‐ term planning period based upon the aviation demand forecasts. The proposed hangar development set aside in the Master Plan Concept exceeds the amount of space needed for hangar development; therefore, the layout presented can represent a vision for the Airport that extends beyond the scope of this study. As previously detailed, the recommended landside development plan only serves as a guide for the Air‐ port which will aid the City of Mesa in strategic planning of Airport property moving forward. These proposed development areas can be reconfigured as necessary to meet future demand and develop‐ ment needs.

Recommended Concept

5-10

ROADWAY ACCESS IN EAST LANDSIDE AREA

Due to the proposed construction of a dual‐lane taxilane extending into the east landside area, the Mas‐ ter Plan Concept considers a new roadway connecting Eagle Drive and Roadrunner Drive in order to provide access to existing and proposed development adjacent to the south portion of Roadrunner Drive. In addition, the dual‐lane taxilane intersects Eagle Drive and Roadrunner Drive, necessitating further improvements to the roadways. Finally, the development plan presents the south portion of Roadrunner Drive connecting to North Higley Road. Further coordination with the City of Mesa will be needed to determine if this is a viable connection. NON‐AVIATION RELATED REVENUE SUPPORT Exhibit 5A also details portions of property on the Airport that are currently or can be utilized for non‐ aviation development. As part of this Master Plan process, a detailed evaluation of Airport property west of North Greenfield Road was conducted. Approximately 70 acres in this area have been desig‐ nated for the proposed Falcon Tech Center site intended to attract future commercial/business devel‐ opment. The remaining 130 acres divided into three separate parcels were the primary focus of the evaluation to help determine future non‐aviation development potential. Currently, this property is uti‐ lized for agricultural purposes (citrus orchards). The evaluation considered the City of Mesa’s preference to limit future commercial, industrial, or business development within the 130 acres. During the alternatives phase of the Master Plan, Airport management and the City of Mesa solicited input from the PAC and general public (via a Public Information Workshop) regarding the future disposi‐ tion of the 130 acres of land. Two separate alternatives were included in Chapter Four that presented various non‐aviation development options to be considered. In summary, the consensus among inter‐ ested Airport stakeholders, tenants, and the general public was to maintain the property in its current condition. As a result, the Master Plan Concept proposes continued agriculture use and does not pro‐ pose future development within the three separate parcels totaling approximately 130 acres.

ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW

An analysis of potential environmental impact associated with proposed airport projects is an essential consideration in the Master Plan process. The primary purpose of this discussion is to review the pro‐ posed Master Plan Concept and proposed capital program for Falcon Field Airport (to be detailed in the next chapter) to determine whether the projects identified in the Master Plan could, individually or col‐ lectively, significantly impact existing environmental resources. The information contained in this sec‐ tion was obtained from previous studies, official internet websites, and analysis by the consultant. Construction of any and all improvements depicted on the ALP will require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. This includes privately funded projects, such as hangars, and those projects receiving federal funding. For projects not categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, compliance with NEPA is generally sat‐ isfied through the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). In instances where significant Recommended Concept

5-11

environmental impacts are expected, as determined by the FAA, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be required. While this portion of the Master Plan is not designed to satisfy the NEPA require‐ ments, it provides a preliminary review of environmental issues that may need to be considered in more detail within the environmental review processes. It is important to note that the FAA is ultimately re‐ sponsible for determining the level of environmental documentation required for airport actions. The environmental inventory included in Chapter One provides baseline information about the Airport environs. This section provides an overview of the potential impacts to the existing resources which could result from implementation of the planned improvements outlined in the Master Plan Concept. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Table 5B summarizes potential environmental concerns associated with implementation of the recom‐ mended AMP development concept. Analysis under NEPA includes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Table 5B Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Falcon Field Airport Environmental Impact FAA Order 1050.1F Significance Threshold / Factors to Consider Category Threshold: The action would cause pollutant Air Quality concentrations to exceed one or more of the Na‐ tional Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as established by the United States (U.S.) Envi‐ ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act, for any of the time periods ana‐ lyzed, or to increase the frequency or severity of any such existing violations.

Biological Resources

Threshold: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determines that the action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed threatened or endangered spe‐ cies or would result in the destruction or

Potential Concern The Airport is in Maricopa County, Arizona. Accord‐ ing to the U.S. EPA’s Green Book – National Area and County‐Level Multi‐Pollutant Information, the Phoenix‐Mesa part of Maricopa County is in moder‐ ate nonattainment for 8‐Hour Ozone (2008 stand‐ ard) since 2012 and in serious nonattainment for PM10 since 1992.1 Therefore, general conformity applicability analysis per the Clean Air Act may be required prior to im‐ plementation of projects outlined in the Master Plan that would result in a reasonably foreseeable in‐ crease in emissions. Additionally, a qualitative or quantitative emissions inventory under NEPA may be required, depending on the type of environmental review needed for de‐ velopment projects outlined in the Master Plan. Contractors implementing projects outlined in the Master Plan may be required to obtain a Dust Per‐ mit from the Maricopa County Air Quality Division. For federally listed species: None. A Biological Reg‐ ulations Memorandum was prepared for the entire Airport property as part of the Master Plan. The Memorandum identified 18 Threatened or Endan‐ gered species with the potential to occur in Mari‐ copa County and concludes that none of these

U.S. EPA Green Book, Arizona Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for all Criteria Pollutants, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_az.html (accessed January 8, 2019).

Recommended Concept

5-12

Table 5B Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Falcon Field Airport Environmental Impact FAA Order 1050.1F Significance Threshold / Factors to Consider Category adverse modification of federally designated critical habitat. The FAA has not established a significance thresh‐ old for non‐listed species. However, factors to consider are if an action would have the potential for:  Long term or permanent loss of unlisted plant or wildlife species;  Adverse impacts to special status species or their habitats;  Substantial loss, reduction, degradation, dis‐ turbance, or fragmentation of native species’ habitats or their populations; or  Adverse impacts on a species’ reproductive rates, non‐natural mortality, or ability to sus‐ tain the minimum population levels required for population maintenance. Climate Threshold: The FAA has not established a signifi‐ cance threshold for Climate; refer to FAA Order 1050.1F’s Desk Reference for the most up‐to‐date methodology for examining impacts associated with climate change. Coastal Resources The FAA has not established a significant thresh‐ old for Coastal Resources. Factors to consider are if an action would have the potential to:  Be inconsistent with the relevant state coastal zone management plan(s);  Impact a coastal barrier resources system unit;  Pose an impact to coral reef ecosystems;  Cause an unacceptable risk to human safety or property; or  Cause adverse impacts to the coastal environ‐ ment that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Department of Threshold: The action involves more than a mini‐ Transportation (DOT) mal physical use of a Section 4(f) resource or Act: Section 4(f) constitutes a “constructive use” based on an FAA determination that the aviation project would substantially impair the Section 4(f) re‐ source. Resources that are protected by Section 4(f) are publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance; and pub‐ licly or privately‐owned land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance. Substan‐ tial impairment occurs when the activities, fea‐ tures, or attributes of the resource that contrib‐ ute to its significance or enjoyment are substan‐ tially diminished. Farmlands Threshold: The total combined score on Form AD‐1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating,” ranges between 200 and 260. (Form AD‐1006 is used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natu‐ ral Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] to as‐ sess impacts under the Farmland Protection

Recommended Concept

5-13

Potential Concern species are likely to occur in the project area. Fur‐ ther, no activities anticipated to occur with the pro‐ ject are considered likely to have any effects on any of these species. The project area does not occur within proposed or designated critical habitats, and there are no anticipated effects to critical habitats from project activities. For non‐listed species: Non‐listed species of con‐ cern include those protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The potential for impacts to migratory birds should be evaluated on a project‐specific ba‐ sis. This may include pre‐construction surveys or scheduling construction outside of nesting seasons.

An increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could occur over the 20‐year planning horizon of the Master Plan. Project‐specific analysis may be re‐ quired per the FAA Order 1050.1F Desk Reference based on the parameters of the individual projects. None. The Airport is not located within a desig‐ nated Coastal Zone.

As discussed in Chapter One, there are several prop‐ erties near the Airport that are considered Section 4(f) resources. These include the World War II East and West Hangars, Falcon Field Park, and Gene Au‐ try Park, among others. None of the proposed im‐ provements outlined in the Master Plan would re‐ sult in a physical use of properties protected under Section 4(f). During implementation of projects out‐ lined in the Master Plan, consideration of a project’s potential for “constructive use” of these resources may be necessary. “Constructive use” of lands oc‐ curs when “a project’s proximity impacts are so se‐ vere that the protected activities, features, or attrib‐ utes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.” The entire Airport property is classified as prime farmland, if irrigated, by the NRCS. However, no portion of the Airport is irrigated for agricultural purposes. Additionally, the Airport is located within a U.S. Census Urban Area (U.S. Department of Com‐ merce, Census Bureau 2017). As stated in Title 7

Table 5B Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Falcon Field Airport Environmental Impact FAA Order 1050.1F Significance Threshold / Factors to Consider Category Policy Act [FPPA].) Factors to consider are if an action would have the potential to convert important farmlands to non‐agricultural uses. Important farmlands in‐ clude pastureland, cropland, and forest consid‐ ered to be prime, unique, or statewide or locally important land. Hazardous Materials, The FAA has not established a significance thresh‐ Solid Waste, and old for Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention Pollution Prevention. However, factors to con‐ sider are if an action would have the potential to:  Violate applicable federal, state, tribal, or local laws or regulations regarding hazardous mate‐ rials and/or solid waste management;  Involve a contaminated site;  Produce an appreciably different quantity or type of hazardous waste;  Generate an appreciably different quantity or type of solid waste or use a different method of collection or disposal and/or would exceed local capacity; or  Adversely affect human health and the envi‐ ronment. Historical, Architectural, The FAA has not established a significance thresh‐ Archaeological, and old for Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, Cultural Resources and Cultural Resources. Factors to consider are if an action would result in a finding of “adverse ef‐ fect” through the Section 106 process. However, an adverse effect finding does not automatically trigger preparation of an EIS (i.e., a significant im‐ pact).

Potential Concern Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 658.2, urban‐ ized areas as designated on U.S. Census Bureau maps do not meet the definition of farmland.

The recommended Master Plan Concept does not include improvements that would produce an ap‐ preciably different quantity or type of hazardous waste. There are no Superfund or Brownfield sites on Airport property, and the Airport maintains a spill prevention, control, and countermeasure (SPCC) plan.

None. As part of this Master Plan, a cultural re‐ sources survey of the entire Airport was conducted. The survey resulted in the recording of six in‐use his‐ toric‐era properties, including two World War II‐era hangars (West and East), a citrus grove, East Fighter Aces Drive, the Falcon Field Park containing the Ca‐ det Lounge Fireplace monument, the Falcon Field Water Tower, and a corrugated tin‐sheathed air‐ plane hangar. Only the World War II‐era hangars are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The remaining properties are considered to be ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Projects out‐ lined in the Master Plan may require consultation between the FAA and the State Historic Preserva‐ tion Office to determine whether proposed under‐ takings would result in impacts to historic or cultural resources. Additionally, per Environmental Order (E.O.) 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, Tribal coordination, undertaken by the FAA, may be required.

Recommended Concept

5-14

Table 5B (Continued) Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Falcon Field Airport Environmental Impact FAA Order 1050.1F Significance Threshold / Category Factors to Consider Land Use The FAA has not established a significance thresh‐ old for Land Use. There are also no specific inde‐ pendent factors to consider. The determination that significant impacts exist is normally depend‐ ent on the significance of other impacts. Noise and Noise‐ Threshold: The action would increase noise by Compatible Land Use Day‐Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 1.5 decibel (dB) or more for a noise‐sensitive area that is ex‐ posed to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or that will be exposed at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase, when compared to the no‐ action alternative for the same timeframe. Ex‐ amples of noise‐sensitive land uses include resi‐ dences, schools, and places of worship. Another factor to consider is that special consid‐ eration needs to be given to the evaluation of the significance of noise impacts on noise‐sensitive areas within Section 4(f) properties where the land use compatibility guidelines in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 are not rel‐ evant to the value, significance, and enjoyment of the area in question.

Potential Concern

None. The proposed development concept plan considers acquisition of property for areas within the Runway Protection Zone that extends off Airport property northeast of Runway 22L to prevent devel‐ opment in these areas. Exhibits 5B and 5C show existing and future noise exposure contours for the Falcon Field Airport. As shown on Exhibit 5B, the 65 DNL noise contour ex‐ tends off Airport property to the northeast. Devel‐ opment within the noise contours includes offices and parking lots northwest of the intersection of East McDowell Road and North Higley Road, a pri‐ vately owned golf course northeast of the intersec‐ tion, and a privately owned golf course and eight residences southeast of the intersection. In the 2037 condition (Exhibit 5C), the 65 DNL noise exposure contour extends off Airport property to the northeast and southwest of the Airport. To the northeast, development within the noise contours includes offices and parking lots northwest of the in‐ tersection of East McDowell Road and North Higley Road, a privately owned golf course northeast of the intersection, and a privately owned golf course and 13 residences southeast of the intersection. To the southwest, the noise exposure contours encompass a portion of Gene Autry Park, a potential Section 4(f) property, located southwest of the intersection of East McKellips Road and North Greenfield Road. It is important to note that operational growth, un‐ less tied to a specific project, will not result in noise impacts under FAA Order 1050.1F. Impacts to noise‐sensitive land use are only evaluated through NEPA documentation for specific projects or through the voluntary Part 150 process. Projects that could result in operational growth would re‐ quire coordination with the City of Mesa Parks, Rec‐ reation & Community Facilities Department regard‐ ing the potential impacts to Gene Autry Park. Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks Socioeconomics The FAA has not established a significance thresh‐ The proposed development on Airport property old for Socioeconomics. However, factors to con‐ could potentially encourage economic growth for sider are if an action would have the potential to: the City of Mesa and Maricopa County. This growth  Induce substantial economic growth in an area, could include new construction jobs, new jobs for the airport and other commercial uses, new hous‐ either directly or indirectly (e.g., through es‐ ing, and increases to the local tax base. tablishing projects in an undeveloped area);  Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of The Master Plan does not include any recommenda‐ an established community; tions to acquire residences or relocate businesses.  Cause extensive relocation when sufficient re‐ placement housing is unavailable; There are several areas of the Airport identified for  Cause extensive relocation of community busi‐ future aviation development in the Master Plan. nesses that would cause severe economic Development of these areas could increase vehicle hardship for affected communities; traffic and could change the level of service for roads leading to and within the airport, such as East

Recommended Concept

5-15

Table 5B (Continued) Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Falcon Field Airport Environmental Impact FAA Order 1050.1F Significance Threshold / Category Factors to Consider  Disrupt local traffic patterns and substantially reduce the levels of service of roads serving the airport and its surrounding communities; or  Produce a substantial change in the commu‐ nity tax base.

Environmental Justice

Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks

Potential Concern

McDowell Road, North Higley Road, East McKellips Road, and North Greenfield Road. The long‐term changes to the level of service are determined by the type of use proposed, and it may be necessary to perform a traffic study to ensure service is either not substantially impacted or mitigation measures are addressed. In the short‐term, during construc‐ tion of improvements at the airport, there could be temporary disruptions to surface traffic patterns. The FAA has not established a significance thresh‐ E.O. 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental old for Environmental Justice. However, factors Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Pop‐ to consider are if an action would have the poten‐ ulations, and the accompanying Presidential Memo‐ tial to lead to a disproportionately high and ad‐ randum, and Order DOT 5610.2, Environmental Jus‐ verse impact to an environmental justice popula‐ tice, require the FAA to provide for meaningful pub‐ tion (i.e., a low‐income or minority population) lic involvement by minority and low‐income popula‐ due to: tions, as well as analysis that identifies and ad‐ dresses potential impact on these populations that  Significant impacts in other environmental im‐ may be disproportionately high and adverse. If dis‐ pact categories; or  Impacts on the physical or natural environment proportionately high or adverse impacts are noted, that affect an environmental justice population mitigation and enhancement measures and offset‐ ting benefits can be taken into consideration. Both in a way that FAA determines is unique to the low‐income and minority populations have been environmental justice population and signifi‐ identified in the vicinity of the Airport. cant to that population. The FAA has not established a significance thresh‐ Per E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environ‐ old for Children’s Environmental Health and mental Health Risks and Safety Risks, federal agen‐ Safety Risks. However, factors to consider are if cies are directed to identify and assess environmen‐ an action would have the potential to lead to a tal health and safety risks that may disproportion‐ disproportionate health or safety risk to children. ately affect children. These risks include those that are attributable to products or substances that a child is likely to come in contact with or ingest, such as air, food, drinking water, recreational waters, soil, or products to which they may be exposed. Two schools are within one mile of the Airport. Best management practices should be implemented to decrease environmental health risks to children.

During construction of the projects outlined in the Master Plan, appropriate measures should be taken to prevent access by unauthorized persons to con‐ struction projects areas. Visual Visual Effects

The FAA has not established a significance thresh‐ old for Visual Resources/Visual Character. How‐ ever, factors to consider are the extent an action would have the potential to:  Affect the nature of the visual character of the area, including the importance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value of the affected visual re‐ sources;  Contrast with the visual resources and/or vis‐ ual character in the study area; and  Block or obstruct the views of the visual re‐ sources, including whether these resources would still be viewable from other locations.

Recommended Concept

5-16

Development planned in the Master Plan Concept could change the overall visual character of the Air‐ port, as additional structures associated with future aviation development are planned for the site. Most notably, the visual effects may need to be con‐ sidered when developing the areas along the west side of North Higley Road, which is adjacent to resi‐ dential development located east of the roadway. Depending on the proximity, potential visual effects to the World War II East and West Hangars may also need to be considered as part of the evaluation of historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, and Section 4(f) resources.

North Greenfield Rd.

East McDowell Rd

’)

’x

)

0’

1’

North Higley Rd.

a nw

0 ,1

a nw

2 R-

evelt

Roos l

Cana

LEGEND East McKellips Rd. 0

800

SCALE IN FEET

Airport Property Line 65 DNL 70 DNL 75 DNL DNL - Day-Night Noise Level Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

Recommended Concept

5-17

Exhibit 5B EXISTING (2017) NOISE CONTOURS

North Greenfield Rd.

East McDowell Rd

’)

’x

)

0’

1’

North Higley Rd.

y wa

0 ,1

a nw

2 R-

evelt

Roos l

Cana

LEGEND East McKellips Rd.

SCALE IN FEET

Recommended Concept

5-18

800

Airport Property Line 65 DNL 70 DNL 75 DNL DNL - Day-Night Noise Level Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

Exhibit 5C ULTIMATE (2037) NOISE CONTOURS

Table 5B (Continued) Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Falcon Field Airport Environmental Impact FAA Order 1050.1F Significance Threshold / Potential Concern Category Factors to Consider Water Resources (including Wetlands, Floodplains, Surface Waters, Groundwater, and Wild and Scenic Rivers) Wetlands Threshold: The action would: None. As discussed in Chapter One, there are no ju‐ 1. Adversely affect a wetland’s function to pro‐ risdictional wetlands or waters located on or near tect the quality or quantity of municipal water the airport. On‐Airport drainages have no connectiv‐ supplies, including surface waters and sole ity to natural drainages (like the Salt River two miles source and other aquifers; north of the Airport), and wetland indicators (i.e., 2. Substantially alter the hydrology needed to the presence of hydrophytic vegetation or hydric sustain the affected wetland system’s values soils) are not present. and functions or those of a wetland to which it is connected; 3. Substantially reduce the affected wetland’s ability to retain floodwaters or storm runoff, thereby threatening public health, safety or welfare (the term welfare includes cultural, recreational, and scientific resources or prop‐ erty important to the public); 4. Adversely affect the maintenance of natural systems supporting wildlife and fish habitat or economically important timber, food, or fiber resources of the affected or surrounding wet‐ lands; 5. Promote development of secondary activities or services that would cause the circum‐ stances listed above to occur; or 6. Be inconsistent with applicable state wetland strategies. Floodplains Threshold: The action would cause notable ad‐ None. As discussed in Chapter One, there is a 100‐ verse impacts on natural and beneficial flood‐ year floodplain (a one percent annual chance flood) plain values. Natural and beneficial floodplain along the Roosevelt Canal on Airport property but values are defined in Paragraph 4.k of DOT Or‐ located away from aviation facilities and west of der 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protec‐ North Greenfield Road. The improvements outlined tion. in the Master Plan will not occur within the flood‐ plain. Surface Waters Threshold: The action would: The Airport is located within the Middle Gila water‐ 1. Exceed water quality standards established by shed. Stormwater runoff at the Airport is managed federal, state, local, and tribal regulatory with a drainage system subject to a stormwater pol‐ agencies; or lution prevention plan (SWPPP). 2. Contaminate public drinking water supply such that public health may be adversely af‐ Improvements to the Airport will require revisions fected. to the plan to address operational and structural source controls, treatment best management prac‐ tices (BMPs), and sediment and erosion control. FAA’s Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370‐10H, Stand‐ ards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Item C‐ 102, Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion and Siltation Control should also be implemented during construction projects at the Airport. Groundwater Threshold: The action would: None. Proposed projects would not substantially 1. Exceed groundwater quality standards estab‐ change the amount of water used by the Airport. lished by federal, state, local, and tribal regu‐ Additionally, the Airport property does not serve as latory agencies; or a significant source of groundwater recharge and is 2. Contaminate an aquifer used for public water not located near a sole source aquifer. supply such that public health may be ad‐ versely affected.

Recommended Concept

5-19

Table 5B (Continued) Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns Falcon Field Airport Environmental Impact FAA Order 1050.1F Significance Threshold / Category Factors to Consider Factors to consider are when a project would have the potential to:  Adversely affect natural and beneficial ground‐ water values to a degree that substantially di‐ minishes or destroys such values;  Adversely affect groundwater quantities such that the beneficial uses and values of such groundwater are appreciably diminished or can no longer be maintained and such impairment cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated; or  Present difficulties based on water quality im‐ pacts when obtaining a permit or authoriza‐ tion. Wild and Scenic Rivers The FAA has not established a significance thresh‐ old for Wild and Scenic Rivers. Factors to con‐ sider are when an action would have an adverse impact on the values for which a river was desig‐ nated (or considered for designation) through:  Destroying or altering a river’s free‐flowing na‐ ture;  A direct and adverse effect on the values for which a river was designated (or are under study for designation);  Introducing a visual, audible, or other type of intrusion that is out of character with the river or would alter outstanding features of the river’s setting;  Causing the river’s water quality to deteriorate;  Allowing the transfer or sale of property inter‐ ests without restrictions needed to protect the river or the river corridor; or  Any of the above impacts preventing a river on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) or a Sec‐ tion 5(d) river that is not included in the NRI from being included in the Wild and Scenic River System or causing a downgrade in its classification (e.g., from wild to recreational). Source: Coffman Associates Analysis

Potential Concern

None. The nearest designated Wild and Scenic River is over 40 miles from the Airport. The recom‐ mended projects would not have adverse effects on the river’s outstandingly remarkable values (i.e., scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, and his‐ tory).

AIRPORT RECYCLING, REUSE, and WASTE REDUCTION The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), which amended Title 49, United States Code (USC), included several changes to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Two of these changes are related to recycling, reuse, and waste reduction at airports.  Section 132 (b) of the FMRA expanded the definition of airport planning to include “developing a plan for recycling and minimizing the generation of airport solid waste, consistent with appli‐ cable State and local recycling laws, including the cost of a waste audit.” Recommended Concept

5-20



Section 133 of the FMRA added a provision requiring airports that have or plan to prepare a master plan, and that receive AIP funding for an eligible project, to ensure that the new or up‐ dated master plan addresses issues relating to solid waste recycling at the airport, including: - The feasibility of solid waste recycling at the airport; - Minimizing the generation of solid waste at the airport; - Operation and maintenance requirements; - A review of waste management contracts; and, - The potential for cost savings or the generation of revenue.

Typically, airport sponsors have purview over waste handling services in facilities it owns and operates such as the terminal building, aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) station, and maintenance facilities. Tenants of airport‐owned buildings/hangars or tenants that own their own facilities are typically respon‐ sible for coordinating their own waste handling services. While the focus of this plan is on Airport‐oper‐ ated facilities, the Falcon Field Airport should work to incorporate facility‐wide strategies that create consistency in waste disposal mechanisms. This would ultimately result in the reduction of materials sent to the landfill. Understanding the Airport’s waste stream requires an understanding of the types of waste typically gen‐ erated at airports. Generally, waste from airports can be divided into eight categories, with additional types of municipal solid waste (MSW).2  Municipal Solid Waste – more commonly known as trash or gar‐ bage – consists of everyday items that are used and then dis‐ Approximately 25‐35 percent carded, like product packaging. The following subcategories are of deplaned waste, by weight, consists of recyclables. either combined with MSW or sorted separately depending on an airport’s solid waste practices. o Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D) is considered non‐hazardous trash resulting from land clearing, excavation, demolition, renovation or repair of structures, roads and utilities, including concrete, wood, metals, drywall, carpet, plastic, pipe, cardboard, and salvaged building components. o Green Waste is yard waste consisting of tree, shrub and grass clippings, leaves, weeds, small branches, seeds, and pods. o Food Waste includes unconsumed food products or waste generated and discarded dur‐ ing food preparation. o Deplaned Waste is waste removed from passenger aircraft. Deplaned waste includes bot‐ tles, cans, newspaper, mixed paper (newspaper, napkins, paper towels), plastic cups, ser‐ vice ware, food waste, and food‐soiled paper/packaging.  Lavatory Waste is a special waste that is emptied through a hose and pumped into a lavatory service vehicle. The waste is then transported to a triturator3 facility for pretreatment prior to discharge in the sanitary sewage system. Due to the chemical in lavatory waste, it can present 2

Recycling, Reuse and Waste Reduction at Airports, FAA (April 24, 2013) 3 A triturator facility turns lavatory waste into fine particulates for further processing.

Recommended Concept

5-21



environmental and human health risks if mishandled. Caution must be taken to ensure lavatory waste is not re‐ leased to the public sanitary sewerage system prior to pretreatment. Spill Clean and Remediation Wastes are also special wastes and are generated during cleanup of spills and/or the remediation of contamination from several types of sites on an airport. Hazardous Wastes are governed by the Resource Conser‐ vation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as the regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subtitle C, Parts 260 to 270. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed less stringent regulations for certain hazard‐ ous waste, known as universal waste, described in 40 CFR Part 237 – The Universal Waste Rule.

The FAA’s Airport Cooperative Re‐ search Program (ACRP) identified five key best practices in its report, Recy‐ cling Best Practices – A Guidebook for Advancing Recycling from Aircraft Cab‐ ins (2014), that are most effective at advancing aviation recycling. 1. Secure top‐down and bottom‐up commitment within the airport for recycling efforts. 2. Develop consistent recycling pro‐ cedures and infrastructure. 3. Increase the efficiency of existing systems. 4. Track, evaluate, and share data on program performance. 5. Make recycling a part of everyday business.

As seen on Exhibit 5D, there are seven potential areas of an airport contributing to the waste stream, including terminals, airfields, aircraft maintenance hangars, cargo hangars, flight kitchens, offices, and airport construction projects. To create a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling plan for Falcon Field Airport, all potential inputs must be considered. There are often few key staff members that are directly involved in the waste management system, making their support and participation critical. It is also crucial to gain the participation of tenants to ensure buy‐in of the Airport’s recycling efforts. Falcon Field Airport must establish consistent internal procedures to ensure there are no unacceptable items contaminating recycling containers, or recyclables thrown in the trash. Clearly marked signage of what is and is not accepted placed near the solid waste and recycling containers is another significant part of a consistent, effective recycling system. The Airport should ensure that the waste and recycling containers are right‐sized to the existing opera‐ tion, as well as on a collection schedule that picks up only when the containers are full. If recycling services are offered, the Airport could track recycling rates and waste quantities to identify cost‐saving measures that are currently unidentified simply based on the lack of quantitative data. Lastly, the Air‐ port should make recycling a part of everyday business. Airport administration can provide training, education, and support to personnel, tenants, and others who conduct business at the Airport. In‐per‐ son meetings with Airport tenants should be held to create mutual understanding of the Airport’s solid waste and recycling goals and how tenants play a vital role in the Airport’s overall success. The implementation of an effective program requires accurate data of current waste and recycling rates. There are several ways an airport can gain insight into their waste stream. The waste audit is the most comprehensive and intensive way to assess waste stream composition, opportunities for waste reduc‐ tion, and capture of recyclables.

Recommended Concept

5-22

AIRPORT WASTE STREAMS AIRPORT AREA TERMINALS AIRPORT

POTENTIAL INPUTS

POTENTIAL OUTPUTS

Restaurants Shops Passengers Employees

Food Waste, Paper Plastic, Aluminum Cans Trash, Grease & Oil Green Waste Deplaned Waste

Aircraft Operations

Runway Rubber Green Waste

Goods Movements

Plastic Wood Vehicle Waste (Tires & Fluids)

Aircraft Ground Support Equipment (GSE)

Vehicle Waste Plastic Wastewater Hazmat

AIRFIELDS

CARGO HANGARS

AIRCRAFT

AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION Construction Re-Construction Demolition FLIGHT KITCHENS

Reused Concrete Reused Asphalt Vehicle Waste Soils, Building Materials Wood, General Waste

Aircraft Food Services

Food Waste Waste Water Plastic Wood

Employees

Food Waste Paper, Plastic Aluminum Cans Trash

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES

Source: Recycling, Reuse, and Waste Reduction at Airports, FAA (April 24, 2013)

Recommended Concept

5-23

EXHIBIT 5D WASTE STREAMS

Examination of Records  Waste hauling and disposal of records and contracts  Supply and equipment invoices  Other waste management costs (commodity rebates, container costs, etc.) Facility Walk‐Through  Qualitative waste information  Understanding waste pickup and hauling practices Waste Audit  Collection and analysis of the types of waste produced EXISTING SERVICES Solid waste services at the Airport are provided by the City of Mesa. Solid waste and recycling bins located throughout landside areas of the Airport are shown on Exhibit 5E. The City has several public‐ use MSW bins throughout the general aviation hangar areas and many of the Airport’s tenants have private‐use MSW bins. The Airport has five private use commingled recycling bins. The City previously had a public use commingled recycling bin; however, after continued misuse, it was removed. No infor‐ mation was available regarding the weight of MSW or recycling materials hauled or the cost of service. City MSW bins at the airport are emptied twice weekly.

Recycling Bin Restrictive Lids

The City of Mesa allows the following items to be recycled, and also details those items that cannot be recycled: Can Be Recycled Cannot Be Recycled  Paper  Bagged recyclables  Pouches  Plastic bottles, cups, &  Foam products  Lumber & yard waste containers  Specialized glass &  Textiles  Milk & juice cartons ceramics  Food waste  Cardboard & paper‐  Hoses & cords  Wire hangers & scrap board  Plastic bags & wrap metal  Metal cans  Paper plates & napkins  Glass bottles & jars  Pet food bags As has been stated, the Airport previously had a public‐use recycling bin available that was ultimately removed. If the Airport chooses to attempt public recycling bins in the future, it should consider utilizing restrictive lids, which would reduce the potential for misuse. Recommended Concept

5-24

800

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

East McDowell Rd

Taxiway C

ry lo al M

’x

’) 75

North Greenfield Rd.

e rcl Ci

y wa

2 -2

w un

D10

x 1’ 10 D6 , (5

) 0’ 10 D7

nD lco a F

e riv

Th un de rb ird

Dr ive

North Higley Rd.

ay iw x Ta

Eagle Drive D4

r ad Ro

un ne rD

riv e

D2 D1

Taxiway

Falcon Drive

Fighter Aces Drive

East McKellips Rd. LEGEND Airport Property Line City Private Recycle

Recommended Concept

5-25

Exhibit 5E TRASH BIN LOCATIONS

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Waste management services at Falcon Field Airport are presently managed independently by various tenants and entities in what is known as a decentralized waste management system. To maximize recy‐ cling efforts, the Airport should more actively engage tenants by transitioning to a centralized waste management system. Exhibit 5F summarizes the differences between these two styles. Centralized waste management systems provide greater opportunity for participation from Airport ten‐ ants who may not be incentivized to recycle on their own. The centralized system is advantageous in that it has less players involved in the overall management of the solid waste and recycling efforts. This management style allows greater control by the Airport over the type, placement, and maintenance of compactors and dumpsters, saving space and eliminating the need for each tenant to have their own containers. A centralized strategy can be inefficient for some airports as it requires more effort and oversight on the part of airport management. Ultimately, a centralized waste management system will streamline waste and recycling collection, maximizing the opportunity to reduce waste generation and increase diversion of recyclables. SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING GOALS While the Airport may or may not pursue the implementation of a centralized waste management sys‐ tem, there are other opportunities for improvement. Table 5C outlines objectives that could help reduce waste generation and increase recycling efforts at Falcon Field Airport. To increase the effectiveness of tracking progress at the Airport, a baseline state of all suggested metrics should be established to provide a comparison over time. TABLE 5C Waste Management and Recycling Goals Falcon Field Airport Goals Objectives Switch to online bill pay to eliminate monthly paper bills Reduce amount of solid Conduct a waste audit to identify most common types of waste waste generated Eliminate purchase of items that are not recyclable (i.e. Styrofoam, plastic bags) Promote the expansion of recycling services to all areas of the Airport Improve waste and recycling tracking and data management Increase amount of Incorporate recycling requirements and/or recommendations into tenant lease agreements material recycled Expand recycling marketing & promotion efforts throughout public areas Require contractors to implement strategies to reduce, reuse & recycle construction, and demolition waste Source: Coffman Associates

MASTER PLAN CONCEPT SUMMARY This chapter has been prepared to help the City of Mesa make decisions on the future growth and de‐ velopment of Falcon Field Airport by describing narratively and graphically the Master Plan Concept. It Recommended Concept

5-26

Components of a Decentralized Airport Waste Management System

S/?q?/k(Iy ?]J?T1dy Individual Airlines

K@78fy @g-82Ve @g-82Vey

?^[J(T1dy

)*@Uy M2)U@U7y M2)U@U7 !2`r@-2y

Airport Tenants

)UBgY`@)My !2`rB-2y

)VDfY_B)My )VDfY_B)M !2btB-2y

')eg2 2-w-MBU7y ')eg2 y YUf_)-ge1 YUf_)-gey

')eg2y y 2-w-MBU7y 2QYr)My YUg_)-fey 2)-;y)B_K@V2y8)ey@geyYuU y 2)-;y)B_K@V2 8)ey@geyYuU y

Airport Administration

1h(CIy"9Z[d 1h(CIy"9Z[dy y 1di(la(Shdy

')eg2y)V0y ')eg2 )V0y 2-w-K@U7y 2-2\g)-K2ey 2)-:y)B_MBU2y:)eyBgeyYuV y 2)-: )B_MBU2 :)eyBgeyYuV y

@_L@U2y 55@-2ey 55@-2ey y #@-G2gAU7y

')eg2 )V0y 2-w-MBU7y ')eg2y)V0y 2-2\g)-M2e 2-2\g)-M2ey

C^[Z^jy

li9ZaCivy Administration 33C.1dy 33C.1d

l+JC.y $1^P?W(Idy

)V@gY_@)My!2_rB-2 )V@gY_@)My!2_rB-2y

')eg2y)U0y ')eg2 )U0y 2-w-K@V7y 2-2\g)-M2ey

')eg2y)U0y 2-w-MBU7y 2-2\g)-M2ey

')ef2 y 2-w-MBU7y 2QYr)My 2QYr)M YUg_)-gey

')eg2 y 2-w-MBU7y 2QYr)M 2QYr)My YUg`)-gey

Components of a Centralized Airport Waste Management System ?a[Zahy mh<Za?hxy Airport Administration

T/EsC/m(Iy ?aICW1d T/EsC/m(Iy ?aICW1dy

M@7:fy @f-82Vey

@_MBU2y 66@-2e y 66@-2ey y #@-H2g@V7y

C^[J(T1dy

)*BUy M2)UBU7y !2_r@-2y

)VBfY_B)M )VBfY_B)My !2_r@-2y

1h(?Jy"9Z[dy 1h(?Jy"9Z[d y 1dh(m^(Widy 1dh(m^(Wid

C^[Zaiy

Administration li9Za?hvy 33C.1dy 33C.1d

l,IC.y %1aRCX(Idy

)U@gY`@)My !2_rF-2y

)VBfY_B)My!2`r@-2y

')eg2y)U0y ')eg2 )U0y 2-w-M@U7y 2-2\f)-M2ey 2-2\f)-M2e !=)_20y')ef2y)U0y 2-w-O@V7y 2-2\f)-M2e 2-2\f)-M2ey

2-w-MBU7y ')eg2 y 2-w-MBU7 YUg`)-gey1

!BV7M2yu)eg2y_2QYr)My)U0y_2-w-MBU7y-YUf`)-gyu@g:yf82y)@`\Ycy administration. )ng8Y`@gw y &:2y-YefyDey2Bg>2_y 4)-fY_20y@UgYyg82y)@_\Y_gyK2)e2y422e y Y_y*@NM20ye2\)`)f2Mw yM@H2y)yngBK@gw y

Flight kitchens usually manage their own waste even if an airport relies on a centralized system Source: Natural Resources Defense Council, Trash Landings: How Airlines and Airports Can Clean Up Their Recycling Programs, December 2006.

Recommended Concept

5-27

Exhibit 5F WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

details environmental and land use conditions that must be taken into consideration when implementing the development plan. The plan represents an airfield facility that fulfills aviation needs for the Airport, while conforming to safety and design standards to the extent practicable. It also provides a landside complex that can be developed as demand dictates and is subject to further refinement pending com‐ ments from the PAC, City of Mesa, and general public. Flexibility will be very important to future development at the Airport, as activity may not occur as pre‐ dicted. The Master Plan Concept provides stakeholders with a general guide that, if followed, can main‐ tain the Airport’s long‐term viability and allow it to continue to provide air transportation service to the region. The next chapter of this Master Plan will provide a reasonable schedule for undertaking the projects based on safety and demand over the course of the next 20 years.

Recommended Concept

5-28

CAPITAL PROGRAM

CHAPTER 6

The Master Plan Concept presented in the previous chapter outlined airside and landside improvements for Falcon Field Airport (Airport) that provide the City of Mesa with a plan to preserve and develop the Airport in order to meet future aviation demands. Utilizing the Master Plan Concept as a guide, this chapter will provide a description and overall cost for projects identified in the capital improvement program (CIP) and development schedule. The program has been evaluated from a variety of perspec‐ tives and represents a comparative analysis of basic budget factors, demand, and priority assignments. The presentation of the capital program has been organized into two sections. First, the Airport’s CIP and associated cost estimates are presented in narrative and graphic form. The CIP has been developed following Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines for Master Plans and primarily identifies those projects that are likely eligible for FAA and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) – Aero‐ nautics Group grant funding. Second, capital improvement funding sources on the federal, state, and local levels are identified and discussed.

AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM With the recommended Master Plan Concept and specific needs and improvements for the Airport hav‐ ing been established, the next step is to determine a realistic schedule for project implementation as well as the associated costs for the plan. The capital program considers the interrelationships among the projects in order to determine an appropriate sequence of projects, while remaining within reason‐ able fiscal constraints.

Capital Program

6-1

The CIP, programmed by planning horizons, has been developed to cover the short (years 1‐5), interme‐ diate (years 6‐10), and long term (years 11‐20) planning horizons. By utilizing planning horizons instead of specific years, the City of Mesa will have greater flexibility to adjust capital needs as demand dictates. Table 6A summarizes the key aviation demand milestones projected at Falcon Field Airport for each of the three planning horizons. TABLE 6A Planning Horizon Activity Levels Falcon Field Airport Base Year Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term BASED AIRCRAFT Single Engine Piston 582 636 683 818 Multi‐Engine Piston 76 74 72 68 Turboprop 14 22 32 48 Jet 7 10 17 30 Helicopter 39 47 60 75 Other 1 1 1 1 TOTAL BASED AIRCRAFT 719 790 865 1,040 ANNUAL OPERATIONS Itinerant General Aviation 53,307 58,195 64,890 81,885 Air Taxi 67,638 69,422 72,924 80,546 Military 3,776 2,966 2,966 2,966 Total Itinerant 124,721 130,583 140,780 165,397 Local General Aviation 175,051 189,520 211,665 239,166 Military 420 330 330 330 Total Local 175,471 189,850 211,995 239,496 TOTAL OPERATIONS* 300,200 320,400 352,800 404,900 * Total operations have been adjusted to account for the hours (9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m.) when the airport traffic control tower (ATCT) is closed and rounded to the nearest 100.

A key aspect of this planning document is the use of demand‐based planning milestones. The short‐term planning horizon contains items of highest need and/or priority, many of which have been previously defined by Airport management. As short‐term horizon activity levels are reached, it will then be time to program for the intermediate term based upon the next activity milestones. Similarly, when the in‐ termediate term milestones are reached, it will be time to program for the long‐term activity milestones. Many development items included in the recommended concept will need to follow these demand indi‐ cators. For example, the plan includes construction of new taxilanes that could serve landside develop‐ ment to support aircraft activity. Based aircraft will be a primary indicator for these projects. If based aircraft growth occurs as projected, additional hangars should be constructed to meet the demand, in which case taxilane access to these hangars could be necessary. If growth slows or does not occur as forecast, some projects may be delayed. As a result, capital expenditures are planned to be made on an as‐needed basis, leading to more responsible use of capital assets. Some development items do not

Capital Program

6-2

depend on demand, such as pavement maintenance. These types of projects typically are associated with day‐to‐day operations and should be monitored and identified by Airport management. At Falcon Field Airport, some hangars are owned and managed by the Airport and leased to individual tenants (mainly T‐hangars), while others are privately owned and managed on land leased from the Air‐ port. Because of economic realities, many airports rely on private developers to construct new hangars. In some cases, private developers can keep construction costs lower, which, in turn, lowers the monthly lease rates necessary to amortize a loan. The CIP for the Airport assumes that future hangars would be constructed through public/private partnerships; therefore, hangar development is not included in the capital plan. This assumption does not preclude the possibility of the Airport constructing new hangars. Ultimately, the City of Mesa will determine, based upon demand and the specific needs of a potential developer, whether to self‐fund hangar construction or to rely on private developers. The capital plan does provide for the Airport to construct taxiway and taxilane improvements leading to proposed devel‐ opment parcels that could support hangar development. These pavement projects are eligible for FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group grant funding as long as they are not for individual (exclusive) use. Not all projects identified are necessary to meet projected demand. Other projects are necessary to enhance the safety of the Airport, maintain existing infrastructure (pavements), or meet FAA design standards. These projects need to be programmed in a timely manner regardless of changes in demand indicators and should be monitored regularly by Airport management. As a Master Plan is a conceptual document, implementation of the capital projects should only be un‐ dertaken after further refinement of their design and costs through architectural or engineering anal‐ yses. Moreover, some projects may require additional infrastructure improvements (i.e., drainage im‐ provements, extension of utilities, etc.) that may increase the estimated cost of the project or increase the timeline for completion. Once a list of necessary projects was identified and refined, project‐specific cost estimates were pre‐ pared. These estimates include design, construction administration, and contingency costs that may arise on the project. Capital costs presented here should be viewed only as “order‐of‐magnitude” esti‐ mates subject to further refinement during engineering/architectural design. Nevertheless, they are considered sufficient for planning purposes. Cost estimates for each of the development projects in the CIP are based on present‐day construction, design, and administration costs. Adjustments will need to be applied over time to account for inflation. Specific detail for several project cost estimates is provided in Appendix C. Cost estimates for these projects were provided by Dibble Engineering, who is providing engineering support for the Master Plan and is familiar with Falcon Field Airport, having been involved with the design and construction of several capital projects on the airfield. Cost estimates for each of the development projects in the CIP are in current dollars. Adjustments will need to be applied over time as construction costs or capital equipment costs change. Exhibit 6A presents the proposed 20‐year CIP for Falcon Field Airport. Two things must be considered. First, the proposed CIP is a point‐in‐time analysis which will change annually based on actual demand and changing needs. Second, an estimate of grant (FAA and/or ADOT – Aeronautics Group) funding eligibility has been included, although actual funding is not guaranteed. For those projects that would Capital Program

6-3

Project # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Short Term Program (1-5 Years)2

8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17

Long Term Program (11-20 Years)2

Intermediate Term Program (6-10 Years)2

18 19 20 21 1 2 3

4 5 1 2

3 4 5

Total Project Cost $1,300,000 $300,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $550,000 $995,700 $300,000

FAA Eligible $1,183,780 $0 $910,600 $728,480 $0 $0 $0

ADOT Eligible $58,110 $270,000 $44,700 $35,760 $500,000 $896,130 $270,000

$1,500,000 $1,313,000 $600,000 $700,000

$1,365,900 $1,195,600 $0 $0

$67,050 $58,700 $540,000 $630,000

$67,050 $58,700 $60,000 $70,000

$677,300

$616,700

$30,300

$1,788,600 $1,300,000

$1,628,700 $1,183,780

$79,950 $58,110

$137,800

$124,020

$13,780

$1,056,300

$961,870

$47,215

$340,000 $500,000

$0 $0

$306,000 $450,000

$34,000 $50,000

$551,200 $600,000 $500,000

$501,900 $546,360 $455,300

$24,650 $26,820 $22,350

$860,000 $344,000

$783,120 $313,250

$38,440 $15,375

$501,200

$456,400

$22,400

$150,000

$136,590

$6,705

$1,000,000 $344,600

$910,600 $313,800

$44,700 $15,400

$665,100

$605,640

$29,730

$3,963,400 $203,800

$3,609,070 $0

$177,165 $0

$177,165 $203,800

$458,800 $2,000,000

$417,780 $1,821,200

$20,510 $89,400

Short Term Program Total $16,809,900 $2,855,200 Intermediate Term Program Total $7,635,700 Long Term Program Total Capital Improvement Program Total $27,300,800

$11,278,970 $2,599,960 $6,767,490

$4,539,865 $127,620 $332,205

$991,065 $127,620 $536,005

$20,646,420

$4,999,690

$1,654,690

Project Description1 Construct Acute-Angled Taxiway Exits on Runway 4L-22R3 Update Storm Water Drainage Plan3 Higley Ramp West - Major Reconstruction Higley Ramp East - 1" AC Overlay Anzio Ramp - Reconstruct/Mill Overlay Runway 4R-22L - Mill & AC Overlay Design Midfield Taxiway B Improvements and Midfield Connector Taxiways Taxiway D and Connector Taxiways - 1" Overlay Realign Taxiways D3, D4, D7, and D8 Taxiway E and Connector Taxiways - Mill & 1" AC Overlay Runway 4L-22R - Mill & AC Overlay Construct Midfield Taxiway B Improvements (Narrowing Taxiway and Enhanced In-Pavement Lighting for Hold Line Markings) Construct Midfield Connector Taxiways Between Parallel Runway System Falcon Ramp East/West and South Taxiway B - 1" Overlay Design Holding Bays Adjacent to Taxiway D Serving Runway 22L Construct Paved No-Taxi Areas Adjacent to the South Side of Taxiway D Design Falcon Ramp Phases 1 & 2 Ramp Lighting Improvements Echo Ramp East and West - 1" AC Overlay Construct Holding Bays Adjacent to Taxiway D Serving Runway 22L and Taxilane Serving Anzio Ramp North and West Taxiway B Overlay Construct Falcon Ramp Lighting (Phase 1) Construct Additional Ramp Apron Lighting Improvements (Phase 2) Relocate Taxiway D9 Construct Holding Bays Adjacent to Taxiway E Serving Runway 22R / Relocate Portion of Perimeter Access Road Adjacent to Holding Bays Environmental Documentation (Cat Ex or EA) for Eastside Dual-Lane Taxilane Construction4 General Airfield Pavement Maintenance Design Eastside Dual-Lane Taxilane Construct Roadway Connecting Eagle and Roadrunner Drives / Reconfigure Existing Eagle and Roadrunner Drives for Eastside Taxilane Construct Eastside Dual-Lane Taxilane (Multiple Phases) / Remove and Replace T-Hangar Complex Extend Roadrunner Drive to North Higley Road Construct Taxilane Extending North from Existing Taxiway Extending West of Taxiway B (Northwest Landside Development Area) General Airfield Pavement Maintenance

FAA - Federal Aviation Administration ADOT - Arizona Department of Transportation - Aeronautics Group Cat Ex - Categorical Exclusion EA - Environmental Assessment AC- Asphaltic Concrete

Airport/Local Share $58,110 $30,000 $44,700 $35,760 $50,000 $99,570 $30,000

1Project implementation is dependent on federal and state grant funding and availability. The CIP is based on FAA fiscal year programming. 2Projects listed are in no particular order of priority and subject to change based on federal and state funding priorities. 3Project programmed for current year (2019). 4Associated project cost assumes preparation of an EA. Further analysis at the time of project will determine level of environmental documentation. Note: Several projects are eligible for federal and state funding assistance; however, certain projects are designated for state/local funding only per the Airport's current CIP. These allocations are subject to change. Certain pavement rehabilitation projects were assumed for full-depth reconstruction based on engineering analysis and others were based on Airport staff coordination.

Capital Program

6-4

Exhibit 6A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

be eligible for federal funding, Airport Improvement Program (AIP) reauthorization provides for 91.06 percent of the total project cost for Falcon Field Airport. The remaining amount (8.94 percent) would be equally shared (4.47 percent each) between ADOT – Aeronautics Group and the City of Mesa. This eligibility breakdown is based upon the Airport’s classification, in addition to the amount of public land within the State of Arizona. Other projects, such as the implementation of certain landside facilities (roadways), are typically not eligible for AIP grants (outside of non‐primary entitlements) or would rank low on the priority scale. As a result, these projects should be planned for local funding or funding through specific ADOT – Aeronautics Group programs. As detailed in the CIP, most projects listed are eligible for federal and state funding. Obviously, demand and justification for these projects must be provided prior to a grant being issued by either the FAA and/or ADOT – Aeronautics Group. It should be noted that certain projects listed in the CIP, while eligible for federal and state funding, are designated for state funding assistance only per the Airport’s current CIP on file with the FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group. The FAA utilizes a national priority rating system to help objectively evaluate potential airport projects. Projects are weighted toward safety, infrastructure preservation, meeting design standards, and capac‐ ity enhancement. The FAA may participate in the highest priority projects before considering lower pri‐ ority projects, even if a lower priority project is considered a more urgent need by the local sponsor. Nonetheless, the project should remain a priority, and funding support should continue to be requested in subsequent years. Some projects identified in the CIP will require environmental documentation. The level of documenta‐ tion necessary for each project must be determined in consultation with the FAA and ADOT – Aero‐ nautics Group. There are three major levels of environmental review to be considered under the Na‐ tional Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that include categorical exclusions (CatEx), Environmental Assess‐ ments (EA), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). Each level requires more time to complete and more detailed information. Guidance on what level of documentation is required for a specific project is provided in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The Environmental Overview presented in Chapter Five addresses NEPA and provides an evaluation of various environmen‐ tal categories for Falcon Field Airport. The level of environmental documentation that could be required for future projects in the CIP is further addressed later in this chapter. The following sections will describe in greater detail the projects identified for the Airport over the next 20 years. The projects are grouped based upon a detailed evaluation of existing and projected demand, safety, rehabilitation needs, and local priority. While the CIP identifies the priority ranking of the pro‐ jects, the list should be evaluated and revised on a regular basis. It is also important to note that certain projects, while listed separately for purposes of evaluation in this study, could be combined with other projects during time of construction/implementation.

Capital Program

6-5

SHORT TERM PROGRAM The short‐term projects are those anticipated to be needed during the first 5 years of the 20‐year CIP. The projects listed are in no particular order of priority and subject to change based on federal and state funding priorities. Projects related to safety and maintenance generally have the highest priority. This applies to many of the projects identified in the short‐term CIP that are associated with maintaining existing airfield pavements and improving airfield safety and geometry standards. The short‐term pro‐ gram considers 21 projects for the planning period as presented on Exhibit 6A and depicted on Exhibit 6B. The following provides a detailed breakdown of each project. Project #1: Construct Acute‐Angled Taxiway Exits on Runway 4L‐22R Description: This project calls for the construction of two acute‐angled taxiways connecting Runway 4L‐ 22R with parallel Taxiway E. These exit taxiways will improve capacity and efficiency associated with aircraft operating on Runway 4L‐22R. It is important to note that these taxiways have been designed and this project is slated for construction in the near future. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #2: Update Storm Water Drainage Plan Description: This study will aid in reviewing the current plan and taking into consideration airfield im‐ provements (existing and future) and their impact on drainage flows, especially in the areas adjacent to the runway and taxiway system. This project is eligible for FAA grant funding; however, per the Airport’s CIP, it is to be funded through the ADOT and local share. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 0 percent / ADOT – 90 percent / Airport‐Local – 10 percent. Project #3: Higley Ramp West – Major Reconstruction Description: The rehabilitation of a portion of the main aircraft parking apron (Higley Ramp) immediately east of Taxiway B is necessary. This area of pavement was given a low pavement condition index (PCI) in the 2017 Arizona Pavement Preservation Program study commissioned by ADOT – Aeronautics Group. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #4: Higley Ramp East – 1” Asphaltic Concrete (AC) Overlay Description: Continued rehabilitation of the main aircraft parking apron east of Taxiway B is pro‐ grammed. The configuration of aircraft parking should be considered during this pavement rehabilita‐ tion to maximize apron efficiency and accommodate local tenant needs. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #5: Anzio Ramp – Reconstruct/Mill Overlay Description: This project focuses on rehabilitating an aircraft parking apron on the east side of the Air‐ port. Further engineering analysis will be needed to determine the scope of the pavement rehabilitation project. This project is eligible for FAA grant funding; however, per the Airport’s CIP, it is to be funded through the ADOT and local share. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 0 percent / ADOT – 90 percent / Airport‐Local – 10 percent.

Capital Program

6-6

Short Term Program (1-5 years)*

LEGEND Airport Property Line Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Avigation Easement Pavement to be Removed Short Term Program Intermediate Term Program Long Term Program Privately Leased Aviation-Use Parcel Existing Agriculture - No Development Proposed Falcon Tech Center Site Private Development

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Boeing Company East McDowell Rd

3 E4

ay xiw a T

D10

11 B

a nw

13 9

4 y wa D5

’ 01 ,1 5 ( D6

nD lco a F

Th un de rb ird

e riv

Dr ive

17 18 19 20 21

Eagle Drive

Intermediate Term Program (6-10 Years)*

21 16 9

21 D2 D1

14 15

14 A

1 2 3

r ad Ro

D7 ) 0’ 0 1 9 x

6 D8

2 R-

’) 75

x 9’

e rcl Ci y r lo al M

North Greenfield Rd.

North Higley Rd.

8 9 10 11 12

un ne r

ive

4 4

l Cana

1 2 East McKellips Rd.

3 4 5

800

SCALE IN FEET

Photo Source: Woolpert Flight Date: 4/4/2018

Capital Program *Projects listed are in no particular order of priority and subject to change based on federal and state funding priorities.

Construct Additional Ramp Apron Lighting Improvements (Phase 2) Relocate Taxiway D9 Construct Holding Bays Adjacent to Taxiway E Serving Runway 22R/Relocate Portion of Perimeter Access Road Adjacent to Holding Bays Environmental Documentation (Cat Ex or EA) for Eastside Dual-Lane Taxilane Construction - Not Pictured General Airfield Pavement Maintenance - Not Pictured

Long Term Program (11-20 Years)*

Falcon Drive

evelt

Roos

Falcon Field Park Taxiway

Construct Acute-Angled Taxiway Exits on Runway 4L-22R Update Storm Water Drainage Plan - Not Pictured Higley Ramp West - Major Reconstruction Higley Ramp East - 1" AC Overlay Anzio Ramp - Reconstruct/Mill Overlay Runway 4R-22L - Mill & AC Overlay Design Midfield Taxiway B Improvements and Midfield Connector Taxiways - Not Pictured Taxiway D and Connector Taxiways - 1" Overlay Realign Taxiways D3, D4, D7, and D8 Taxiway E and Connector Taxiways - Mill & 1" AC Overlay Runway 4L-22R - Mill & AC Overlay Construct Midfield Taxiway B Improvements (Narrowing Taxiway and Enhanced In-Pavement Lighting for Hold Line Markings) Construct Midfield Connector Taxiways Between Parallel Runway System Falcon Ramp East/West and South Taxiway B - 1" Overlay Design Holding Bays Adjacent to Taxiway D Serving Runway 22L - Not Pictured Construct Paved No-Taxi Areas Adjacent to the South Side of Taxiway D Design Falcon Ramp Phases 1 & 2 Ramp Lighting ImprovementsNot Pictured Echo Ramp East and West - 1" AC Overlay Construct Holding Bays Adjacent to Taxiway D Serving Runway 22L and Taxilane Serving Anzio Ramp North and West Taxiway B Overlay Construct Falcon Ramp Lighting (Phase 1)

6-7

Design Eastside Dual-Lane Taxilane - Not Pictured Construct Roadway Connecting Eagle and Roadrunner Drives Reconfigure Existing Eagle and Roadrunner Drives for Eastside Taxilane Construct Eastside Dual-Lane Taxilane (Multiple Phases) / Remove and Replace T-Hangar Complex Extend Roadrunner Drive to North Higley Road Construct Taxilane Extending North from Existing Taxiway Extending West of Taxiway B (Northwest Landside Development Area) General Airfield Pavement Maintenance - Not Pictured

Exhibit 6B CIP DEVELOPMENT STAGING

This page intentionally left blank

Capital Program

6-8

Project #6: Runway 4R‐22L – Mill & AC Overlay Description: Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct the runway to continue to support demand for the full array of aircraft that utilize the Airport. The Airport’s current CIP allocates a state/local grant to the project. Further engineering analysis will determine the degree of rehabilitation needed for the runway. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 0 percent / ADOT – 90 percent / Airport‐Local – 10 percent. Project #7: Design Midfield Taxiway B Improvements and Midfield Connector Taxiways Description: This project calls for the design of airfield geometry improvements associated with midfield Taxiway B. In addition, the design of the two taxiways connecting the parallel runway system on each side of midfield Taxiway B is also included. The funding of this design is currently programmed as a state/local grant; however, it is eligible for FAA funding assistance. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 0 percent / ADOT – 90 percent / Airport‐Local – 10 percent. Project #8: Taxiway D and Connector Taxiways – 1” Overlay Description: This project calls for the rehabilitation of parallel Taxiway D and the entrance/exit taxiways serving the south side of Runway 4R‐22L. As with other pavement rehabilitation projects, further engi‐ neering analysis will determine the extent of rehabilitation efforts. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #9: Realign Taxiways D3, D4, D7, and D8 Description: This project calls for the realignment of the extensions of Taxiways D3 and D4 between the aircraft parking apron and parallel Taxiway D. Shifting and realigning these taxiway extensions will pre‐ vent direct access between the apron and Runway 4R‐22L, which is a recommended geometry enhance‐ ment per FAA guidelines. The realignment of Taxiways D7 and D8 are also called for as part of this project. The proposed location of these taxiways will improve airfield geometry/safety and provide a better connection to the proposed midfield connector taxiway east of Taxiway B. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #10: Taxiway E and Connector Taxiways – Mill & 1” AC Overlay Description: Rehabilitate parallel Taxiway E, including existing entrance/exit Taxiways E1 through E4 ad‐ jacent to the north side of Runway 4L‐22R. Although eligible for FAA grant funding assistance, this pro‐ ject is currently programmed for state funding assistance only. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 0 percent / ADOT – 90 percent / Airport‐Local – 10 percent. Project #11: Runway 4L‐22R – Mill & AC Overlay Description: Airport management has identified the potential rehabilitation of Runway 4L‐22R in the short‐term program. Further engineering analysis will determine the extent of rehabilitation. As part of this project, non‐precision markings should be implemented on the runway to better accommodate the instrument approach serving Runway 4L. It should be noted that the Airport’s current CIP calls for this project to be funded as a state / local grant only. The associated cost estimate does not include a full‐ depth reconstruction of pavement; however, further engineering analysis will be needed to determine the scope of the pavement rehabilitation project. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 0 percent / ADOT – 90 percent / Airport‐Local – 10 percent. Capital Program

6-9

Project #12: Construct Midfield Taxiway B Geometry Improvements (Narrowing Taxiway and En‐ hanced In‐Pavement Lighting for Hold Line Markings) Description: This project would allow for improved airfield geometry by reducing the width of the mid‐ field portion of Taxiway B that connects the parallel runway system. In addition, the hold line markings associated with the taxiway would be enhanced with either in‐pavement flashing yellow lights or ele‐ vated flashing yellow lights (wig‐wags) to improve situational awareness. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #13: Construct Midfield Connector Taxiways Between Parallel Runway System Description: As detailed in Chapter Five, this project entails the construction of two connector taxiways on either side of existing midfield Taxiway B. This project could be split into multiple phases depending on further coordination with the FAA. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #14: Falcon Ramp East/West and South Taxiway B – 1” Overlay Description: The project includes continued airfield pavement rehabilitation, this time covering a large amount of the main aircraft parking apron on the south side of Runway 4R‐22L and west of Taxiway B (Falcon Ramp). Also included in this project is rehabilitating Taxiway B extending south of Runway 4R‐ 22L that serves landside development in the south area of the Airport. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #15: Design Holding Bays Adjacent to Taxiway D Serving Runway 22L Description: The design of a holding bay complex adjacent to the northeast side of Taxiway D is pro‐ grammed similar to what is in place on the southwest side of Taxiway D serving Runway 4R. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 0 percent / ADOT – 90 percent / Airport‐Local – 10 percent. Project #16: Construct Paved No‐Taxi Areas Adjacent to the South Side of Taxiway D Description: The implementation of no‐taxi pavement in areas between parallel Taxiway D and the air‐ craft parking apron on the south side of the runway system is planned in the short term. This pavement addition would enhance safety on the airfield by helping to reduce foreign object debris (FOD). The pavement could be painted green and serve as no‐taxi areas between the parallel taxiway and parking apron network. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #17: Design Falcon Ramp Phases 1 & 2 Ramp Lighting Improvements Description: New lighting will be designed to serve the main aircraft parking apron and adjacent taxilanes on the south side of Runway 4R‐22L, improving overall safety and security at the Airport. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 0 percent / ADOT – 90 percent / Airport‐Local – 10 percent. Project #18: Echo Ramp East and West – 1” AC Overlay Description: This project calls for pavement maintenance associated with the aircraft parking apron lo‐ cated north of Runway 4L‐22R, referred to as the Echo Ramp. This should preserve pavement associated with this parking apron for the foreseeable future. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 0 percent / ADOT – 90 percent / Airport‐Local – 10 percent. Capital Program

6-10

Project #19: Construct Holding Bays Adjacent to Taxiway D Serving Runway 22L and Taxilane Serving Anzio Ramp

Description: The construction of these holding bays would provide the ability for up to six aircraft to perform engine run‐up procedures at a given time while allowing aircraft to bypass each other if neces‐ sary. A similar holding bay complex has been implemented farther southwest along Taxiway D near the Runway 4R threshold. This holding bay configuration adheres to FAA design for hold areas on an airfield. In addition, the construction of a new taxilane is planned to access the Anzio Ramp given the location of the holding bays. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #20: North and West Taxiway B Overlay Description: The rehabilitation of Taxiway B extending north of Runway 4L‐22R is called for, as is the taxiway extending west of Taxiway B and serving the northwest landside development area. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #21: Construct Falcon Ramp Lighting (Phase 1) Description: Based on the design of ramp lighting improvements programmed earlier in the short‐term program, this project calls for the implementation of lighting on the Falcon Ramp west of Taxiway B. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Short Term Program Summary The short‐term CIP includes projects that enhance the overall safety, efficiency, and maintenance of the airfield. The total investment necessary for the short‐term CIP is approximately $16.81 million as de‐ tailed on Exhibit 6A. A significant amount of the short‐term program costs is associated with pavement rehabilitation. As previously discussed, further engineering analysis will determine the degree of pave‐ ment rehabilitation associated with the runways, taxiways, and apron areas. Of the overall short term CIP total, approximately $15.82 million is eligible for federal and state funding assistance. The remaining approximate $991,000 is to be provided through local funding outlets. INTERMEDIATE TERM PROGRAM The intermediate term projects are those that are anticipated to be necessary in years 6 through 10 of the Master Plan. These projects are not tied to specific years for implementation; instead, they have been prioritized so that Airport management has the flexibility to determine when they need to be pur‐ sued based on current conditions. It is not unusual for certain projects to be delayed or advanced based on changing conditions, such as funding availability or changes in the aviation industry. This planning horizon includes 5 projects for the 5‐year timeframe as listed on Exhibit 6A and depicted on Exhibit 6B. The following section includes a description of each project. Project #1: Construct Additional Ramp Apron Lighting Improvements (Phase 2) Description: Additional ramp apron lighting enhancements are planned in the beginning of the interme‐ diate term program in areas associated with the aircraft parking apron south of Runway 4R‐22L. Funding Breakdown: FAA 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Capital Program

6-11

Project #2: Relocate Taxiway D9 Description: This involves the relocation of Taxiway D9 approximately 130 feet north of its current loca‐ tion. In doing so, it will adhere to airfield geometry in relation to the proposed holding bays adjacent to Taxiway D. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #3: Construct Holding Bays Adjacent to Taxiway E Serving Runway 22R / Relocate Portion of Perimeter Access Road Adjacent to Holding Bays Description: A second set of holding bays are planned to serve the Runway 22R end. These holding bays would allow for up to three aircraft at a given time. The relocation of a portion of the airfield perimeter access road is also necessary to accommodate the holding bays. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #4: Environmental Documentation (CatEx or EA) for Eastside Dual‐Lane Taxilane Construction Description: This project will provide the necessary environmental reviews needed to construct a tax‐ ilane that could provide aircraft access to the east side of the Airport. It is important to note that this project will be dependent on justification (demand) and further coordination with the FAA. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #5: General Airfield Pavement Maintenance Description: This includes a line item in the CIP that allocates a certain amount of funding for the general maintenance of various pavements not specifically identified by project in the CIP and could include crack sealing and other routine maintenance. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Intermediate Term Program Summary

The total costs associated with the intermediate term program are estimated at $2.86 million as pre‐ sented on Exhibit 6A. Of this total, approximately $2.73 million could be eligible for federal/state fund‐ ing, and the local share is projected at $127,620.

LONG TERM PROGRAM

The long‐term planning horizon considers 6 projects for the 10‐year period that are mainly demand‐ driven. The projects and their associated costs are listed on Exhibit 6A and graphically depicted on Ex‐ hibit 6B as appropriate. Airport management and the City of Mesa should assess the need and timing for these projects based on actual demand and growth at Falcon Field Airport. Project #1: Design Eastside Dual‐Lane Taxilane Description: Pending environmental clearance, the next phase will include the design of the dual‐lane taxilane and other associated improvements to include vehicle roadway modifications. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Capital Program

6-12

Project #2: Construct Roadway Connecting Eagle and Roadrunner Drives / Reconfigure Existing Eagle and Roadrunner Drives for Eastside Taxilane Description: This project is related to the potential extension of the dual‐lane taxilane and includes con‐ structing a roadway that connects Eagle and Roadrunner Drives. In doing so, vehicle access will be made available to existing businesses in the southeast area of the Airport that would otherwise be prevented access due to the extension of the taxilane proposed across Roadrunner Drive. In conjunction with the roadway construction, portions of Roadrunner and Eagle Drives will need to be reconfigured to allow for the taxilane extension. Although these projects are eligible for FAA funding assistance, they would be considered low priority projects. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #3: Construct Eastside Dual‐Lane Taxilane (Multiple Phases) / Remove and Replace T‐Hangar Complex Description: Once the environmental studies and design associated with the taxilane extension have been completed and improvements to the vehicle roadway network serving the east side of the Airport are made, actual construction of the taxilane is slated. It involves an approximate 1,400‐foot extension which could be split into multiple phases depending on demand. The costs associated with its construc‐ tion in the CIP consider the entirety of the dual‐lane taxilane. The removal and relocation of a T‐hangar is also included with this project. Its relocation will be dependent on further analysis conducted by Air‐ port management leading up to the implementation of this project. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #4: Extend Roadrunner Drive to North Higley Road Description: The plan calls for the extension of the south portion of Roadrunner Drive to North Higley Road. Further coordination with the City of Mesa will be needed to determine if this is a viable connec‐ tion. This project would have a low priority ranking for FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group funding assistance; therefore, it is programmed for local funding only. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 0 percent / ADOT – 0 percent / Airport‐Local – 100 percent. Project #5: Construct Access Taxilane (Northwest Landside Development Area) Description: This project includes extending a taxilane to the north of the taxiway, extending west of Taxiway B, in the northwest landside development area. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent. Project #6: General Airfield Pavement Maintenance Description: This includes a line item in the CIP that allocates a certain amount of funding for the general maintenance of various pavements, not specifically identified by project in the CIP, and could include crack sealing and other routine maintenance. Funding Breakdown: FAA – 91.06 percent / ADOT – 4.47 percent / Airport‐Local – 4.47 percent.

Capital Program

6-13

Long Term Program Summary

The total investment necessary for the long‐term CIP detailed on Exhibit 6A is approximately $7.64 mil‐ lion. Of the total, nearly $4.31 million is associated with the demand‐driven extension of a dual‐lane taxilane serving the east side of the Airport. Approximately $7 million is eligible for federal/state funding assistance. The Airport’s matching share is projected at $536,005. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY The CIP is intended as a road map of improvements to help guide the City of Mesa, the FAA, and ADOT – Aeronautics Group. The plan as presented will help accommodate increases in forecast demand at Falcon Field Airport over the next 20 years and beyond. The sequence of projects may change due to availability of funds or changing priorities based on an annual review by Airport management, the FAA, and ADOT – Aeronautics Group. Nonetheless, this is a comprehensive list of capital projects the Airport should consider in the next 20+ years. The total CIP proposes approximately $27.30 million in Airport development needs. Of this total, approx‐ imately $25.65 million could be eligible for federal/state funding assistance. The local funding estimate for the proposed CIP is $1.66 million. It should be noted that many of these projects are demand‐driven, and such demand may not materialize as planned in this CIP. An example would be construction of taxilanes serving various landside locations on the Airport. These projects should be pursued when quantified demand dictates the need for addi‐ tional aviation‐related development on the Airport. Other projects, such as certain airfield geometry improvements, will be coordinated with the FAA to determine the need and likelihood of them occurring. In any event, this analysis should be viewed for what it represents: a long‐term plan based on factors known at present as well as projections of potential, reasonable, future aviation demand at Falcon Field Airport. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW SUMMARY OF AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

As a follow‐up to the Environmental Overview provided in Chapter Five, Table 6B lists the future devel‐ opment projects previously detailed and the most likely NEPA documentation that might be required by the FAA. Some of the projects are actions normally requiring an EA. However, most of the proposed improvements, unless involving extraordinary circumstances, could be evaluated in terms of NEPA com‐ pliance using one of the CatExes listed in FAA Order 1050.1F. In addition, some of the projects may not require a federal action or federal funding.

Capital Program

6-14

TABLE 6B Anticipated Environmental Review for Future Development Projects Falcon Field Airport Initial NEPA Ac‐ tion

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

SHORT TERM PROGRAM (1‐5 YEARS) Construct Acute‐Angled Taxiway Exits on Runway 4L‐22R CatEx Update Storm Water Drainage Plan CatEx Higley Ramp West – Major Reconstruction CatEx Higley Ramp East – 1” AC Overlay CatEx Anzio Ramp – Reconstruction/Mill Overlay CatEx Runway 4R‐22L – Mill & AC Overlay CatEx Taxiway D and Connector Taxiways – 1” Overlay CatEx Realign Taxiways D3, D4, D7, and D8 CatEx Taxiway E and Connector Taxiways – Mill & 1” AC Overlay CatEx Runway 4L‐22R – Mill & AC Overlay CatEx Construct Midfield Taxiway B Geometry Improvements (Narrowing Taxiway and Enhanced In‐Pave‐ CatEx ment Lighting for Hold Line Markings) Construct Midfield Connector Taxiways Between Parallel Runway System CatEx Falcon Ramp East/West and South Taxiway B – 1” Overlay CatEx Construct Paved No‐Taxi Areas Adjacent to the South Side of Taxiway D CatEx or EA Echo Ramp East and West – 1” AC Overlay CatEx Construct Holding Bays Adjacent to Taxiway D Serving Runway 22L and Taxilane Serving Anzio Ramp CatEx North and West Taxiway B Overlay CatEx Construct Falcon Ramp Lighting (Phase 1) CatEx INTERMEDIATE TERM PROGRAM (6‐10 YEARS) Construct Additional Ramp Apron Lighting Improvements (Phase 2) CatEx Relocate Taxiway D9 CatEx Construct Holding Bays Adjacent to Taxiway E Serving Runway 22R / Relocate Portion of Perimeter CatEx Access Road Adjacent to Holding Bays General Airfield Pavement Maintenance CatEx LONG TERM PROGRAM (11‐20 YEARS) Construct Roadway Connecting Eagle and Roadrunner Drives / Reconfigure Existing Eagle and CatEx or EA* Roadrunner Drives for Eastside Taxilane Construct Eastside Dual‐Lane Taxilane (Multiple Phases) / Remove and Replace T‐Hangar CatEx or EA* Complex Extend Roadrunner Drive to North Higley Road CatEx Construct Taxilane Extending North from Existing Taxiway Extending West of Taxiway B CatEx General Airfield Pavement Maintenance CatEx * The construction of the eastside taxilane and associated roadway improvements could be combined into one environ‐ mental document. The environmental documentation associated with these projects is programmed at the end of the intermediate term program. KEY CatEx – Categorical Exclusion EA – Environmental Assessment

Capital Program

6-15

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING SOURCES There are generally four sources of funds used to finance airport development, which include:  Airport cash flow  Revenue and general obligation bonds  Federal/state/local grants  Passenger facility charges (PFCs), which are reserved for commercial service airports Access to these sources of financing varies widely among airports, with some large airports maintaining substantial cash reserves and the smaller commercial service and general aviation airports often requir‐ ing subsidies from local governments to fund operating expenses and finance modest improvements. Financing capital improvements at Falcon Field Airport will not rely solely on the financial resources of the City of Mesa. Capital improvement funding is available through various grant‐in‐aid programs on both the federal and state levels. Historically, the Airport has received federal and state grants. While more funds could be available some years, the CIP was developed with project phasing in order to remain realistic and within the range of anticipated grant assistance. The following discussion outlines key sources of funding potentially available for capital improvements at the Airport. FEDERAL GRANTS Through federal legislation over the years, various grant‐in‐aid programs have been established to de‐ velop and maintain a system of public‐use airports across the United States. The purpose of this system and its federally based funding is to maintain national defense and to promote interstate commerce. The most recent legislation affecting federal funding, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, was enacted on February 17, 2012. The law authorized the FAA’s AIP at $3.35 billion for fiscal years 2012 through 2015. The law was then extended through a series of continuing resolutions. In 2016, Congress passed legislation (H.R. 636, FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016) amending the law to expire on September 30, 2017. Subsequently, Congress passed a bill (H.R. 3823, Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017) authorizing appropriations to the FAA through March 31, 2018, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 extended FAA’s funding and authority through September 30, 2018. In October 2018, Congress passed legislation entitled, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which will fund the FAA’s AIP at $3.35 billion annually until 2023. This bill reauthorizes the FAA for five years, at a cost of $97 billion, and represents the longest funding authorization period for the FAA since 1982. The source for AIP funds is the Aviation Trust Fund. The Aviation Trust Fund was established in 1970 to provide funding for aviation capital investment programs (aviation development, facilities and equip‐ ment, and research and development). The Aviation Trust Fund also finances the operation of the FAA. It is funded by user fees, including taxes on airline tickets, aviation fuel, and various aircraft parts. Several projects identified in the CIP are eligible for FAA funding through the AIP, which provides enti‐ tlement funds to airports based, in part, on their annual enplaned passengers and pounds of landed Capital Program

6-16

cargo weight. Additional AIP funds, designated as discretionary, may also be used for eligible projects based on the FAA’s national priority system. Although the AIP has been reauthorized several times and the funding formulas have been periodically revised to reflect changing national priorities, the program has remained essentially the same. Public‐use airports that serve civil aviation, like Falcon Field Airport, may receive AIP funding for eligible projects, as described in FAA’s Airport Improvement Program Hand‐ book. The Airport must fund the remaining project costs using a combination of other funding sources, as discussed in the following sections. Table 6C presents the approximate distribution of the AIP funds as described in FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, issued September 30, 2014. Falcon Field Airport is eligible to apply for grants which may be funded through state apportionments, the small airport fund, discretion‐ ary funds, and/or set‐aside categories. TABLE 6C Federal AIP Funding Distribution Funding Category Percent of Total Apportionment/Entitlement Passenger Entitlements 26.6% Cargo Entitlements 3.5% Alaska Supplemental 0.7% State Apportionment for Nonprimary Entitlements 12.5% State Apportionment Based on Area and Population 7.4% Carryover 22.1% Small Airport Fund Small Hubs 2.2% Nonhubs 8.7% Nonprimary (GA and Reliever) 4.3% Discretionary Funds Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise 5.4% Pure Discretionary 1.8% Set Asides Noise 4.2% Military Airports Program 0.5% Reliever 0.1% Totals 100.00% * FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 – expired September 30, 2015 AIP: Airport Improvement Program Source: FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Program Handbook

Funds* $891,100,000 $117,250,000 $23,450,000 $418,750,000 $247,900,000 $740,350,000 $73,700,000 $291,450,000 $144,050,000 $180,900,000 $60,300,000 $140,700,000 $16,750,000 $3,350,000 $3,350,000,000

Funding for AIP‐eligible projects is undertaken through a cost‐sharing arrangement in which the FAA share varies by airport size: generally, 75 percent for large‐ and medium‐hub airports and 90 percent for all other airports. Since the early days of federal participation in airport infrastructure projects, Congress has provided a higher federal share for airports located in states with more than five percent of their geographic acreage comprised of public lands and nontaxable tribal lands. For states that qualify, such as Arizona, the federal share is increased depending on the airport classification. As a general aviation airport, the federal share of eligible capital improvement projects for Falcon Field Airport is 91.06 Capital Program

6-17

percent. In exchange for this level of funding, the airport sponsor is required to meet various Grant Assurances, including maintaining the improvement for its useful life, usually 20 years. Apportionment (Entitlement) Funds

AIP provides funding for eligible projects at airports through an apportionment (entitlement) program. Primary commercial service airports receive a guaranteed minimum level of federal assistance each year, based on their enplaned passenger levels and Congressional appropriation levels. A primary airport is defined as any commercial service airport enplaning at least 10,000 passengers annually. If the threshold is met, the airport receives $1 million annually in entitlement funds. Other entitlement funds are dis‐ tributed to cargo service airports, states and insular areas (state apportionment), and Alaska airports. General aviation airports included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) can receive up to $150,000 each year in non‐primary entitlement (NPE) funds. These funds can be carried over and combined for up to four years, thereby allowing for completion of a more expensive project. It should be noted that Falcon Field Airport is eligible and does receive NPE funds. The FAA also provides a state apportionment based on a federal formula that takes into account area and population. The FAA then distributes these funds for projects at various airports throughout the state. Small Airport Fund If a large‐ or medium‐hub commercial service airport chooses to institute a PFC, which is a fee of up to $4.50 on each airline ticket for funding of capital improvement projects, then their apportionment is reduced. A portion of the reduced apportionment goes to the small airport fund. The small airport fund is reserved for small‐hub primary commercial service airports, non‐hub commercial service airports, re‐ liever, and general aviation airports. As a general aviation airport, Falcon Field Airport is eligible for funds from this source. Discretionary Funds In a number of cases, airports face major projects that will require funds in excess of the airports annual entitlements. Thus, additional funds from discretionary apportionments under AIP become desirable. The primary feature about discretionary funds is that they are distributed on a priority basis. The prior‐ ities are established by the FAA, utilizing a priority code system. Under this system, projects are ranked by their purpose. Projects ensuring airport safety and security are ranked as the most important priori‐ ties, followed by maintaining current infrastructure development, mitigating noise and other environ‐ mental impacts, meeting standards, and increasing system capacity.

Capital Program

6-18

It is important to note that competition for discretionary funding is not limited to airports in the State of Arizona or those within the FAA Western‐Pacific Region. The funds are distributed to all airports in the country and, as such, are more difficult to obtain. High priority projects will often fare favorably, while lower priority projects may not receive discretionary grants. Set‐Aside Funds Portions of AIP funds are set‐asides designed to achieve specific funding minimums for noise compati‐ bility planning and implementation, select former military airfields (Military Airports Program), and se‐ lect reliever airports. As a reliever airport, Falcon Field Airport qualifies for set‐aside funding. FAA Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Program The Airway Facilities Division of the FAA administers the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Program. This program provides funding for the installation and maintenance of various navigational aids and equip‐ ment of the national airspace system. Under the F&E program, funding is provided for FAA airport traffic control towers (ATCTs), enroute navigational aids, on‐airport navigational aids, and approach lighting systems. While F&E still installs and maintains some navigational aids, on‐airport facilities at general aviation air‐ ports have not been a priority. Therefore, airports often request funding assistance for navigational aids through AIP and then maintain the equipment on their own1. STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS The ADOT – Aeronautics Group recognizes the valuable contribution to the state’s transportation econ‐ omy that airports make. Therefore, it administers several programs to aid in maintaining airports in the state. The source for state airport improvement funds is the Arizona Aviation Fund. Taxes levied by the state on aviation fuel, flight property, aircraft registration tax, and registration fees (as well as interest on these funds) are deposited in the Arizona Aviation Fund. The State Transportation Board establishes the policies for distribution of these state funds. Under the State of Arizona’s grant program, an airport can receive funding for one‐half (currently 4.47 percent) of the local share of projects receiving federal AIP funding. The state also provides 90 percent funding for projects which are typically not eligible for federal AIP funding or have not received federal funding. Falcon Field Airport is eligible for these funding allocations. Guidance on the eligibility of a project for federal AIP grant funding can be found in FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improve‐ ment Program Handbook. 1

Capital Program

6-19

Pavement Maintenance Program The airport system in Arizona is a multi‐million‐dollar investment of public and private funds that must be protected and preserved. State aviation fund dollars are limited, and the State Transportation Board recognizes the need to protect and extend the maximum useful life of the airport system’s pavement. The Arizona Pavement Management System (APMS) has been established to assist in the preservation of Arizona airports’ system infrastructure. Public Law 103‐305 requires that airports requesting federal AIP funding for pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction have an effective pavement maintenance program system. To this end, ADOT – Aero‐ nautics Group maintains the APMS. The Arizona APMS uses the Army Corps of Engineers’ “Micropaver” program as a basis for generating a Five‐Year Arizona Pavement Preservation Program (APPP). The APPP consists of visual inspections of all airport pavements. Evaluations are made of the types and severities observed and entered into a com‐ puter program database. PCI values are determined through the visual assessment of pavement condi‐ tions in accordance with the most recent FAA Advisory Circular 150/5380‐7, Pavement Management System, and range from 0 (failed) to 100 (excellent). Every three years, a complete database update with new visual observations is conducted. Individual airport reports from the update are shared with all participating system airports. ADOT – Aeronautics Group ensures that the APMS database is kept cur‐ rent, in compliance with FAA requirements. Every year, ADOT – Aeronautics Group, utilizing the APMS, will identify airport pavement maintenance projects eligible for funding for the upcoming five years. These projects will appear in the state’s Five‐ Year Airport Development Program. Once a project has been identified and approved for funding by the State Transportation Board, the airport sponsor may elect to accept a state grant for the project and not participate in the APPP, or the sponsor may sign an Inter‐Government Agreement (IGA) with ADOT‐MPD – Aeronautics Group to participate in the APPP. Falcon Field Airport is eligible to participate in this pro‐ gram. State Airport Loan Program The ADOT Airport Loan Program was established to enhance the utilization of state funds and provide a flexible funding mechanism to assist airports in funding revenue‐generating projects, such as hangars and fuel storage facilities. Projects which are not currently eligible for the State Airport Loan Program are considered if the project would enhance the airport’s ability to be financially self‐sufficient. This program is currently suspended, and its future is unknown at this time. LOCAL FUNDING The balance of project costs, after consideration has been given to grants, must be funded through local resources. A goal for any airport is to generate enough revenue to cover all operating and capital Capital Program

6-20

expenditures, if possible. There are several local financing options to consider when funding future de‐ velopment at airports, including airport revenues, issuance of a variety of bond types, leasehold financ‐ ing, implementing a customer facility charge (CFC), pursuing non‐aviation development potential, and collecting from special events. These strategies could be used to fund the local matching share or com‐ plete a project if grant funding cannot be arranged. Below is a brief description of the most common local funding options. Airport Revenues An airport’s daily operations are conducted through the collection of various rates and charges. These airport revenues are generated specifically by airport operations. There are restrictions on the use of revenues collected by the airport. All receipts, excluding bond proceeds or related grants and interest, are irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of operating and maintenance expenses, payment of debt service for as long as bonds remain outstanding, or for additions and improvements to airport fa‐ cilities. All airports should establish standard basis rates for various leases. All lease rates should be set to adjust to a standard index, such as the consumer price index (CPI), to assure that fair and equitable rates con‐ tinue to be charged into the future. Many factors will impact what the standard lease rate should be for a particular facility or ground parcel. For example, ground leases for aviation‐related facilities should have a different lease rate than for non‐aviation leases. When airports own hangars, a separate facility lease rate should be charged. The lease rate for any individual parcel or hangar can vary due to availa‐ bility of utilities, condition, location, and other factors. Nonetheless, standard lease rates should fall within an acceptable range. Bonding Bonding is a common method to finance large capital projects at airports. A bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the bond holders, thus a bond is a form of loan or IOU. While bond terms are negotiable, typically the bond issuer is obligated to pay the bond holder interest at regular intervals and/or repay the principal at a later date. Leasehold Financing Leasehold financing refers to a developer or tenant financing improvements under a long term ground lease. The advantage of this arrangement is that it relieves the airport of the responsibility of having to raise capital funds for the improvement. As an example, an FBO might consider constructing hangars and charging fair market lease rates while paying the airport for a ground lease. A fuel farm can be undertaken in the same manner, with the developer of the facility paying the airport a fuel flowage fee. Capital Program

6-21

Customer Facility Charge (CFC) A CFC is the imposition of an additional fee charged to customers for the use of certain facilities. The most common example is when an airport constructs a consolidated rental car facility and imposes a fee for each rental car contract. That fee is then used by the airport to pay down the debt incurred from building the facility. Non‐Aviation Development In addition to generating revenue from traditional aviation sources, airports with excess land can permit compatible non‐aviation development. Generally, an airport will extend a long‐term lease for land not anticipated to be needed for aviation purposes in the future. The developer then pays the monthly lease rate and constructs and uses the compatible facility. Certain areas at Falcon Field Airport are available for non‐aviation development. It should be noted that each individual proposed non‐aviation develop‐ ment must be reviewed and approved by the FAA. Special Events Another common revenue‐generating option is permitted use of airport property for temporary or single events. For example, Falcon Field Airport has historically hosted an airport open house that attracts thousands of spectators from around the region. Airports can also permit portions of their facility to be utilized for non‐aviation special events, such as car shows or video production of commercials. This type of revenue generation must be approved by the FAA.

MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION To implement the Master Plan recommendations, it is key to recognize that planning is a continuous process and does not end with approval of this document. The Airport should implement measures that allow it to track various demand indicators, such as based aircraft, hangar demand, and operations. The issues that this Master Plan is based on will remain valid for a number of years. The primary goal is for Falcon Field Airport to best serve the air transportation needs of the region, while achieving economic self‐sufficiency. The CIP and the phasing program presented will change over time. An effort has been made to identify and prioritize all major capital projects that would require FAA and ADOT – Aeronautics Group grant funding. Nonetheless, the Airport and FAA review the five‐year CIP on an annual basis. The value of this study is keeping the issues and objectives at the forefront of the minds of managers and decision‐makers. In addition to adjustments in aviation demand, decisions on when to undertake the improvements recommended in this Master Plan will impact how long the plan remains valid. The format of this plan reduces the need for formal and costly updates by simply adjusting the timing of Capital Program

6-22

project implementation. Updates can be done by Airport management, thereby improving the plan’s effectiveness. Nonetheless, airports are typically encouraged to update their Master Plans every 7 to 10 years, or sooner if significant changes occur in the interim. In summary, the planning process requires the City of Mesa to consistently monitor the progress of the Airport. The information obtained from continually monitoring activity will provide the data necessary to determine if the development schedule should be accelerated or decelerated.

Capital Program

6-23

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

AÖÖ Ä ®ø A

Glossary of Terms

A ABOVE GROUND LEVEL: The elevaƟon of a point or surface above the ground. ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): See declared distances. ADVISORY CIRCULAR: External publicaƟons issued by the FAA consisƟng of nonregulatory material providing for the recommendaƟons relaƟve to a policy, guidance and informaƟon relaƟve to a specific aviaƟon subject. AIR CARRIER: An operator which: (1) performs at least five round trips per week between two or more points and publishes flight schedules which specify the Ɵmes, days of the week, and places between which such flights are performed; or (2) transports mail by air pursuant to a current contract with the U.S. Postal Service. CerƟfied in accordance with Federal AviaƟon RegulaƟon (FAR) Parts 121 and 127.

AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING: A facility located at an airport that provides emergency vehicles, exƟnguishing agents, and personnel responsible for minimizing the impacts of an aircraŌ accident or incident. AIRFIELD: The porƟon of an airport which contains the faciliƟes necessary for the operaƟon of aircraŌ. AIRLINE HUB: An airport at which an airline concentrates a significant portion of its activity and which often has a significant amount of connecting traffic. AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG): A grouping of aircraŌ based upon wingspan. The groups are as follows: • Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet. • Group II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet. • Group III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet. • Group IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet. • Group V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet. • Group VI: 214 feet or greater.

AIRCRAFT: A transportaƟon vehicle that is used or intended for use for flight. AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: A grouping of aircraŌ based on 1.3 Ɵmes the stall speed in their landing configuraƟon at their maximum cerƟficated landing weight. The categories are as follows:

AIRPORT AUTHORITY: A quasi-governmental public organizaƟon responsible for seƫng the policies governing the management and operaƟon of an airport or system of airports under its jurisdicƟon. AIRPORT BEACON: A navigaƟonal aid located at an airport which displays a rotaƟng light beam to idenƟfy whether an airport is lighted.

• Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. • Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots. • Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots. • Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots. • Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots. AIRCRAFT OPERATION: The landing, takeoff, or touch-and-go procedure by an aircraft on a runway at an airport. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AREA (AOA): A restricted and secure area on the airport property designed to protect all aspects related to aircraŌ operaƟons. AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION: A private organizaƟon serving the interests and needs of general aviaƟon pilots and aircraŌ owners.

AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The planning program used by the Federal AviaƟon AdministraƟon to idenƟfy, prioriƟze, and distribute funds for airport development and the needs of the NaƟonal Airspace System to meet specified naƟonal goals and objecƟves. AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest point on the runway system at an airport expressed in feet above mean sea level (MSL). AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: A program authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 that provides funding for airport planning and development.

A-1

Glossary of Terms AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING (ALD): The drawing of the airport showing the layout of exis ng and proposed airport facili es. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP): A scaled drawing of the exis ng and planned land and facili es necessary for the opera on and development of the airport. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING SET: A set of technical drawings depic ng the current and future airport condi ons. The individual sheets comprising the set can vary with the complexi es of the airport, but the FAA-required drawings include the Airport Layout Plan (some mes referred to as the Airport Layout Drawing (ALD), the Airport Airspace Drawing, and the Inner Por on of the Approach Surface Drawing, On-Airport Land Use Drawing, and Property Map. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN: The planner’s concept of the long-term development of an airport. AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM: A system that provides automated alerts and warnings of poten al runway incursions or other hazardous aircra movement events. AIRPORT OBSTRUCTION CHART: A scaled drawing depicting the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 surfaces, a representation of objects that penetrate these surfaces, runway, taxiway, and ramp areas, navigational aids, buildings, roads and other detail in the vicinity of an airport. AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the opera onal (Aircra Approach Category) to the physical characteris cs (Airplane Design Group) of the airplanes intended to operate at the airport. AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP): The la tude and longitude of the approximate center of the airport. AIRPORT SPONSOR: The en ty that is legally responsible for the management and opera on of an airport, including the fulfillment of the requirements of laws and regula ons related thereto. AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT: A radar system that provides air traﬃc controllers with a visual representa on of the movement of aircra and other vehicles on the ground on the airfield at an airport.

AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR: The primary radar located at an airport or in an air traffic control terminal area that receives a signal at an antenna and transmits the signal to air traffic control display equipment defining the loca on of aircra in the air. The signal provides only the azimuth and range of aircra from the loca on of the antenna. AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT): A central opera ons facility in the terminal air traffic control system, consis ng of a tower, including an associated instrument flight rule (IFR) room if radar equipped, using air/ground communica ons and/or radar, visual signaling and other devices to provide safe and expedi ous movement of terminal air traffic. AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER: A facility which provides en route air traffic control service to aircra opera ng on an IFR flight plan within controlled airspace over a large, mul -state region. AIRSIDE: The por on of an airport that contains the facili es necessary for the opera on of aircra . AIRSPACE: The volume of space above the surface of the ground that is provided for the opera on of aircra . AIR TAXI: An air carrier cer ficated in accordance with FAR Part 121 and FAR Part 135 and authorized to provide, on demand, public transporta on of persons and property by aircra . Generally operates small aircra “for hire” for specific trips. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: A service operated by an appropriate organiza on for the purpose of providing for the safe, orderly, and expedi ous flow of air traffic. AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER (ARTCC): A facility established to provide air traffic control service to aircra opera ng on an IFR flight plan within controlled airspace and principally during the en route phase of flight. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM COMMAND CENTER: A facility operated by the FAA which is responsible for the central flow control, the central al tude reserva on system, the airport reserva on posi on system, and the air traffic service con ngency command for the air traffic control system.

A-2

Glossary of Terms AIR TRAFFIC HUB: A categoriza on of commercial service airports or group of commercial service airports in a metropolitan or urban area based upon the propor on of annual na onal enplanements exis ng at the airport or airports. The categories are large hub, medium hub, small hub, or nonhub. It forms the basis for the appor onment of en tlement funds. AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: An organiza on consis ng of the principal U.S. airlines that represents the interests of the airline industry on major avia on issues before federal, state, and local government bodies. It promotes air transporta on safety by coordina ng industry and governmental safety programs and it serves as a focal point for industry eﬀorts to standardize prac ces and enhance the eﬃciency of the air transporta on system. ALERT AREA: See special-use airspace. ALTITUDE: The ver cal distance measured in feet above mean sea level. ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH (AIA): An approach to an airport with the intent to land by an aircra in accordance with an IFR flight plan when visibility is less than three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or below the minimum ini al approach al tude. APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM (ALS): An airport ligh ng facility which provides visual guidance to landing aircra by radia ng light beams by which the pilot aligns the aircra with the extended centerline of the runway on his final approach and landing. APPROACH MINIMUMS: The al tude below which an aircra may not descend while on an IFR approach unless the pilot has the runway in sight. APPROACH SURFACE: An imaginary obstruc on limi ng surface defined in FAR Part 77 which is longitudinally centered on an extended runway centerline and extends outward and upward from the primary surface at each end of a runway at a designated slope and distance based upon the type of available or planned approach by aircra to a runway. APRON: A specified por on of the airfield used for passenger, cargo or freight loading and unloading, aircra parking, and the refueling, maintenance and servicing of aircra .

AREA NAVIGATION: The air naviga on procedure that provides the capability to establish and maintain a flight path on an arbitrary course that remains within the coverage area of naviga onal sources being used. AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMATION SERVICE (ATIS): The con nuous broadcast of recorded noncontrol informa on at towered airports. Informa on typically includes wind speed, direc on, and runway in use. AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVATION SYSTEM (ASOS): A repor ng system that provides frequent airport ground surface weather observa on data through digi zed voice broadcasts and printed reports. AUTOMATIC WEATHER OBSERVATION STATION (AWOS): Equipment used to automa cally record weather condi ons (i.e. cloud height, visibility, wind speed and direc on, temperature, dew point, etc.) AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER (ADF): An aircra radio naviga on system which senses and indicates the direc on to a non-direc onal radio beacon (NDB) ground transmi er. AVIGATION EASEMENT: A contractual right or a property interest in land over which a right of unobstructed flight in the airspace is established. AZIMUTH: Horizontal direc on expressed as the angular distance between true north and the direc on of a fixed point (as the observer’s heading). B BASE LEG: A flight path at right angles to the landing runway oﬀ its approach end. The base leg normally extends from the downwind leg to the intersec on of the extended runway centerline. See “traﬃc pa ern.” BASED AIRCRAFT: The general avia on aircra that use a specific airport as a home base. BEARING: The horizontal direc on to or from any point, usually measured clockwise from true north or magne c north. BLAST FENCE: A barrier used to divert or dissipate jet blast or propeller wash.

A-3

Glossary of Terms BLAST PAD: A prepared surface adjacent to the end of a runway for the purpose of elimina ng the erosion of the ground surface by the wind forces produced by airplanes at the ini a on of takeoﬀ opera ons.

FL 600

CLASS A

14,500 MSL

CLASS E

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL): A line which iden fies suitable building area loca ons on the airport.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The planning program used by the Federal Avia on Administra on to iden fy, priori ze, and distribute Airport Improvement Program funds for airport development and the needs of the Na onal Airspace System to meet specified na onal goals and objec ves.

CATEGORY I: An Instrument Landing System (ILS) that provides acceptable guidance informa on to an aircra from the coverage limits of the ILS to the point at which the localizer course line intersects the glide path at a decision height of 200 feet above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold. CATEGORY II: An ILS that provides acceptable guidance informa on to an aircra from the coverage limits of the ILS to the point at which the localizer course line intersects the glide path at a decision height of 100 feet above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold.

CLASS B

CARGO SERVICE AIRPORT: An airport served by aircra providing air transporta on of property only, including mail, with an annual aggregate landed weight of at least 100,000,000 pounds.

KEY AGL - Above Ground Level FL - Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet MSL - Mean Sea Level

18,000 MSL

40 n.m.

CLASS C

30 n.m.

20 n.m.

CLASS D

10 n.m.

20 n.m. Nontowered Airport

700 AGL

1,200 AGL 12 n.m.

Nontowered Airport

CLASS G

CLASS A AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS B AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS C AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS D AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS E AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLASS G AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace. CLEAR ZONE: See Runway Protec on Zone. COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORT: A public airport providing scheduled passenger service that enplanes at least 2,500 annual passengers.

CATEGORY III: An ILS that provides acceptable guidance informa on to a pilot from the coverage limits of the ILS with no decision height specified above the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold.

COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY: A radio frequency iden fied in the appropriate aeronau cal chart which is designated for the purpose of transmi ng airport advisory informa on and procedures while opera ng to or from an uncontrolled airport.

CEILING: The height above the ground surface to the loca on of the lowest layer of clouds which is reported as either broken or overcast.

COMPASS LOCATOR (LOM): A low power, low/ medium frequency radio-beacon installed in conjunc on with the instrument landing system at one or two of the marker sites.

CIRCLING APPROACH: A maneuver ini ated by the pilot to align the aircra with the runway for landing when flying a predetermined circling instrument approach under IFR.

CONICAL SURFACE: An imaginary obstruc onlimi ng surface defined in FAR Part 77 that extends

A-4

Glossary of Terms from the edge of the horizontal surface outward and upward at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.

• CLASS E: Generally, controlled airspace that is not classified as Class A, B, C, or D. Class E airspace extends upward from either the surface or a designated al tude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When designated as a surface area, the airspace will be configured to contain all instrument procedures. Class E airspace encompasses all Victor Airways. Only aircra following instrument flight rules are required to establish two-way radio communica on with air traﬃc control.

CONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport that has an opera ng airport traﬃc control tower. CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace of defined dimensions within which air traﬃc control services are provided to instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual flight rules (VFR) flights in accordance with the airspace classifica on. Controlled airspace in the United States is designated as follows:

• CLASS G: Generally, that airspace not classified as Class A, B, C, D, or E. Class G airspace is uncontrolled for all aircra . Class G airspace extends from the surface to the overlying Class E airspace.

• CLASS A: Generally, the airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) up to but not including flight level FL600. All persons must operate their aircra under IFR. • CLASS B: Generally, the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the na on’s busiest airports. The configura on of Class B airspace is unique to each airport, but typically consists of two or more layers of air space and is designed to contain all published instrument approach procedures to the airport. An air traffic control clearance is required for all aircra to operate in the area. • CLASS C: Generally, the airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport eleva on (charted as MSL) surrounding those airports that have an opera onal control tower and radar approach control and are served by a qualifying number of IFR opera ons or passenger enplanements. Although individually tailored for each airport, Class C airspace typically consists of a surface area with a five nau cal mile (nm) radius and an outer area with a 10 nau cal mile radius that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport eleva on. Two-way radio communica on is required for all aircra . • CLASS D: Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the air port elevaon (charted as MSL) surrounding those airports that have an opera onal control tower. Class D airspace is individually tailored and configured to encompass published instrument approach procedure. Unless otherwise authorized, all persons must establish two-way radio communica on.

CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: See special-use airspace. CROSSWIND: A wind that is not parallel to a runway centerline or to the intended flight path of an aircra . CROSSWIND COMPONENT: The component of wind that is at a right angle to the runway centerline or the intended flight path of an aircra . CROSSWIND LEG: A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its upwind end. See “traffic pa ern.” D DECIBEL: A unit of noise represen ng a level rela ve to a reference of a sound pressure 20 micro newtons per square meter. DECISION HEIGHT/ DECISION ALTITUDE: The height above the end of the runway surface at which a decision must be made by a pilot during the ILS or Precision Approach Radar approach to either con nue the approach or to execute a missed approach. DECLARED DISTANCES: The distances declared available for the airplane’s takeoff runway, takeoff distance, accelerate-stop distance, and landing distance requirements. The distances are: • TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): The runway length declared available and suitable for the ground run of an airplane taking off.

A-5

Glossary of Terms • TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway and/or clear way beyond the far end of the TORA.

E EASEMENT: The legal right of one party to use a por on of the total rights in real estate owned by another party. This may include the right of passage over, on, or below the property; certain air rights above the property, including view rights; and the rights to any specified form of development or ac vity, as well as any other legal rights in the property that may be specified in the easement document.

• ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA): The runway plus stopway length declared available for the accelera on and decelera on of an aircra abor ng a takeoﬀ. • LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): The runway length declared available and suitable for landing. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: The cabinet level federal government organiza on consis ng of modal opera ng agencies, such as the Federal Avia on Administra on, which was established to promote the coordina on of federal transporta on programs and to act as a focal point for research and development eﬀorts in transporta on. DISCRETIONARY FUNDS: Federal grant funds that may be appropriated to an airport based upon designa on by the Secretary of Transporta on or Congress to meet a specified na onal priority such as enhancing capacity, safety, and security, or mi ga ng noise. DISPLACED THRESHOLD: A threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway.

M 10 N

ENPLANED PASSENGERS: The total number of revenue passengers boarding aircra , including origina ng, stop-over, and transfer passengers, in scheduled and nonscheduled services. ENPLANEMENT: The boarding of a passenger, cargo, freight, or mail on an aircra at an airport. ENTITLEMENT: Federal funds for which a commercial service airport may be eligible based upon its annual passenger enplanements. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA): An environmental analysis performed pursuant to the Na onal Environmental Policy Act to determine whether an ac on would significantly aﬀect the environment and thus require a more detailed environmental impact statement. ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT: An assessment of the current status of a party’s compliance with applicable environmental requirements of a party’s environmental compliance policies, prac ces, and controls.

20 NM

30 M

DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME): Equipment (airborne and ground) used to measure, in nau cal miles, the slant range distance of an aircra from the DME naviga onal aid.

ELEVATION: The ver cal distance measured in feet above mean sea level.

DNL: The 24-hour average sound level, in Aweighted decibels, obtained a er the addi on of ten decibels to sound levels for the periods between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. as averaged over a span of one year. It is the FAA standard metric for determining the cumula ve exposure of individuals to noise. DOWNWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direc on opposite to landing. The downwind leg normally extends between the crosswind leg and the base leg. Also see “traﬃc pa ern.”

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS): A document required of federal agencies by the Na onal Environmental Policy Act for major projects are legisla ve proposals aﬀec ng the environment. It is a tool for decision-making describing the posi ve and nega ve eﬀects of a proposed ac on and ci ng alterna ve ac ons. ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE: A federal program which guarantees air carrier service to selected small ci es by providing subsidies as needed to prevent these ci es from such service.

A-6

Glossary of Terms F

and in-flight advisory services to pilots through air and ground based communica on facili es.

FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS: The general and permanent rules established by the execu ve departments and agencies of the Federal Government for avia on, which are published in the Federal Register. These are the avia on subset of the Code of Federal Regula ons.

FRANGIBLE NAVAID: A naviga onal aid which retains its structural integrity and s ﬀness up to a designated maximum load, but on impact from a greater load, breaks, distorts, or yields in such a manner as to present the minimum hazard to aircra .

FEDERAL INSPECTION SERVICES: The provision of customs and immigra on services including passport inspec on, inspec on of baggage, the collec on of du es on certain imported items, and the inspec ons for agricultural products, illegal drugs, or other restricted items. FINAL APPROACH: A flight path in the direc on of landing along the extended runway centerline. The final approach normally extends from the base leg to the runway. See “traﬃc pa ern.” FINAL APPROACH AND TAKEOFF AREA (FATO). A defined area over which the final phase of the helicopter approach to a hover, or a landing is completed and from which the takeoﬀ is ini ated.

G GENERAL AVIATION: That por on of civil avia on which encompasses all facets of avia on except air carriers holding a cer ficate of convenience and necessity, and large aircra commercial operators. GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT: An airport that provides air service to only general avia on. GLIDESLOPE (GS): Provides ver cal guidance for aircra during approach and landing. The glideslope consists of the following: 1. Electronic components emi ng signals which provide ver cal guidance by reference to airborne instruments during instrument approaches such as ILS; or

FINAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point at which the final approach segment for an aircra landing on a runway begins for a non-precision approach. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI): A public document prepared by a Federal agency that presents the ra onale why a proposed ac on will not have a significant eﬀect on the environment and for which an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A provider of services to users of an airport. Such services include, but are not limited to, hangaring, fueling, flight training, repair, and maintenance. FLIGHT LEVEL: A measure of al tude used by aircra flying above 18,000 feet. Flight levels are indicated by three digits represen ng the pressure al tude in hundreds of feet. An airplane flying at flight level 360 is flying at a pressure al tude of 36,000 feet. This is expressed as FL 360. FLIGHT SERVICE STATION: An opera ons facility in the na onal flight advisory system which u lizes data interchange facili es for the collec on and dissemina on of No ces to Airmen, weather, and administra ve data and which provides pre-flight

2. Visual ground aids, such as VASI, which provide ver cal guidance for VFR approach or for the visual por on of an instrument approach and landing. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS): A system of 48 satellites used as reference points to enable navigators equipped with GPS receivers to determine their la tude, longitude, and al tude. GROUND ACCESS: The transporta on system on and around the airport that provides access to and from the airport by ground transporta on vehicles for passengers, employees, cargo, freight, and airport services. H HELIPAD: A designated area for the takeoﬀ, landing, and parking of helicopters. HIGH INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The highest classifica on in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delinea ng the sides of a runway.

A-7

Glossary of Terms HIGH-SPEED EXIT TAXIWAY: A long radius taxiway designed to expedite aircra turning oﬀ the runway a er landing (at speeds to 60 knots), thus reducing runway occupancy me. HORIZONTAL SURFACE: An imaginary obstruc onlimi ng surface defined in FAR Part 77 that is specified as a por on of a horizontal plane surrounding a runway located 150 feet above the established airport eleva on. The specific horizontal dimensions of this surface are a func on of the types of approaches exis ng or planned for the runway. I INITIAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point at which the ini al approach segment begins for an instrument approach to a runway. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE: A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircra under instrument flight condi ons from the beginning of the ini al approach to a landing, or to a point from which a landing may be made visually. INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR): Procedures for the conduct of flight in weather condi ons below Visual Flight Rules weather minimums. The term IFR is o en also used to define weather condi ons and the type of flight plan under which an aircra is opera ng. INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS): A precision instrument approach system which normally consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: 1. Localizer. 2. Glide Slope. 3. Outer Marker. 4. Middle Marker. 5. Approach Lights.

K KNOTS: A unit of speed length used in naviga on that is equivalent to the number of nau cal miles traveled in one hour. L LANDSIDE: The por on of an airport that provides the facili es necessary for the processing of passengers, cargo, freight, and ground transporta on vehicles. LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): See declared distances. LARGE AIRPLANE: An airplane that has a maximum cer fied takeoff weight in excess of 12,500 pounds. LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM: A differen al GPS system that provides localized measurement correc on signals to the basic GPS signals to improve naviga onal accuracy integrity, con nuity, and availability. LOCAL OPERATIONS: Aircra opera ons performed by aircra that are based at the airport and that operate in the local traffic pa ern or within sight of the airport, that are known to be depar ng for or arriving from flights in local prac ce areas within a prescribed distance from the airport, or that execute simulated instrument approaches at the airport. LOCAL TRAFFIC: Aircra opera ng in the traffic pa ern or within sight of the tower, or aircra known to be depar ng or arriving from the local prac ce areas, or aircra execu ng prac ce instrument approach procedures. Typically, this includes touch and-go training opera ons. LOCALIZER: The component of an ILS which provides course guidance to the runway.

INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: Meteorological condi ons expressed in terms of specific visibility and ceiling condi ons that are less than the minimums specified for visual meteorological condi ons. ITINERANT OPERATIONS: Opera ons by aircra that are not based at a specified airport.

LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL AID (LDA): A facility of comparable u lity and accuracy to a localizer, but is not part of a complete ILS and is not aligned with the runway. LONG RANGE NAVIGATION SYSTEM (LORAN): Long range naviga on is an electronic naviga onal aid which determines aircra posi on and speed by measuring the diﬀerence in the me of recep on of synchronized pulse signals from two fixed transmi ers. Loran is used for en route naviga on.

A-8

Glossary of Terms LOW INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The lowest classifica on in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delinea ng the sides of a runway. M MEDIUM INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The middle classifica on in terms of intensity or brightness for lights designated for use in delinea ng the sides of a runway. MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM (MLS): An instrument approach and landing system that provides precision guidance in azimuth, eleva on, and distance measurement. MILITARY OPERATIONS: Aircra opera ons that are performed in military aircra . MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): See specialuse airspace MILITARY TRAINING ROUTE: An air route depicted on aeronau cal charts for the conduct of military flight training at speeds above 250 knots. MISSED APPROACH COURSE (MAC): The flight route to be followed if, a er an instrument approach, a landing is not affected, and occurring normally: 1. When the aircra has descended to the decision height and has not established visual contact; or 2. When directed by air traffic control to pull up or to go around again. MOVEMENT AREA: The runways, taxiways, and other areas of an airport which are u lized for taxiing/hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircra , exclusive of loading ramps and parking areas. At those airports with a tower, air traffic control clearance is required for entry onto the movement area. N NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM: The network of air traffic control facili es, air traffic control areas, and naviga onal facili es through the U.S.

NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS: The na onal airport system plan developed by the Secretary of Transporta on on a biannual basis for the development of public use airports to meet na onal air transporta on needs. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD: A federal government organiza on established to inves gate and determine the probable cause of transporta on accidents, to recommend equipment and procedures to enhance transporta on safety, and to review on appeal the suspension or revoca on of any cer ficates or licenses issued by the Secretary of Transporta on. NAUTICAL MILE: A unit of length used in naviga on which is equivalent to the distance spanned by one minute of arc in la tude, that is, 1,852 meters or 6,076 feet. It is equivalent to approximately 1.15 statute mile. NAVAID: A term used to describe any electrical or visual air naviga onal aids, lights, signs, and associated suppor ng equipment (i.e. PAPI, VASI, ILS, etc.) NAVIGATIONAL AID: A facility used as, available for use as, or designed for use as an aid to air naviga on. NOISE CONTOUR: A con nuous line on a map of the airport vicinity connec ng all points of the same noise exposure level. NON-DIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB): A beacon transmi ng nondirec onal signals whereby the pilot of an aircra equipped with direc on finding equipment can determine his or her bearing to and from the radio beacon and home on, or track to, the sta on. When the radio beacon is installed in conjunc on with the Instrument Landing System marker, it is normally called a Compass Locator. NON-PRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE: A standard instrument approach procedure in which no electronic glide slope is provided, such as VOR, TACAN, NDB, or LOC. NOTICE TO AIRMEN: A no ce containing informa on concerning the establishment, condi on, or change in any component of or hazard in the Na onal Airspace System, the mely knowledge of which is considered essen al to personnel concerned with flight opera ons.

A-9

Glossary of Terms O

• CATEGORY II (CAT II): A precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 100 feet and visibility not less than 1200 feet RVR.

OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): An area on the ground centered on a runway, taxiway, or taxilane centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircra opera ons by having the area free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air naviga on or aircra ground maneuvering purposes. OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): The airspace below 150 feet above the established airport eleva on and along the runway and extended runway centerline that is required to be kept clear of all objects, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of their func on, in order to provide clearance for aircra landing or taking oﬀ from the runway, and for missed approaches. ONEͳENGINE INOPERABLE SURFACE: A surface emana ng from the runway end at a slope ra o of 62.5:1. Air carrier airports are required to maintain a technical drawing of this surface depic ng any object penetra ons by January 1, 2010. OPERATION: The take-oﬀ, landing, or touch-and-go procedure by an aircra on a runway at an airport. OUTER MARKER (OM): An ILS naviga on facility in the terminal area naviga on system located four to seven miles from the runway edge on the extended centerline, indica ng to the pilot that he/she is passing over the facility and can begin final approach. P PILOT CONTROLLED LIGHTING: Runway ligh ng systems at an airport that are controlled by ac va ng the microphone of a pilot on a specified radio frequency. PRECISION APPROACH: A standard instrument approach procedure which provides runway alignment and glide slope (descent) informa on. It is categorized as follows: • CATEGORY I (CAT I): A precision approach which provides for approaches with a decision height of not less than 200 feet and visibility not less than 1/2 mile or Runway Visual Range (RVR) 2400 (RVR 1800) with opera ve touchdown zone and runway centerline lights.

• CATEGORY III (CAT III): A precision approach which provides for approaches with minima less than Category II. PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR (PAPI): A ligh ng system providing visual approach slope guidance to aircra during a landing approach. It is similar to a VASI but provides a sharper transi on between the colored indicator lights. PRECISION APPROACH RADAR: A radar facility in the terminal air traﬃc control system used to detect and display with a high degree of accuracy the direc on, range, and eleva on of an aircra on the final approach to a runway. PRECISION OBJECT FREE AREA (POFA): An area centered on the extended runway centerline, beginning at the runway threshold and extending behind the runway threshold that is 200 feet long by 800 feet wide. The POFA is a clearing standard which requires the POFA to be kept clear of above ground objects protruding above the runway safety area edge eleva on (except for frangible NAVAIDS). The POFA applies to all new authorized instrument approach procedures with less than 3/4 mile visibility. PRIMARY AIRPORT: A commercial service airport that enplanes at least 10,000 annual passengers. PRIMARY SURFACE: An imaginary obstruc on limi ng surface defined in FAR Part 77 that is specified as a rectangular surface longitudinally centered about a runway. The specific dimensions of this surface are a func on of the types of approaches exis ng or planned for the runway. PROHIBITED AREA: See special-use airspace. PVC: Poor visibility and ceiling. Used in determining Annual Service Volume. PVC condi ons exist when the cloud ceiling is less than 500 feet and visibility is less than one mile.

A - 10

Glossary of Terms R RADIAL: A naviga onal signal generated by a Very High Frequency Omni-direc onal Range or VORTAC sta on that is measured as an azimuth from the sta on. REGRESSION ANALYSIS: A sta s cal technique that seeks to iden fy and quan fy the rela onships between factors associated with a forecast. REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUTLET (RCO): An unstaffed transmi er receiver/facility remotely controlled by air traffic personnel. RCOs serve flight service sta ons (FSSs). RCOs were established to provide ground-to-ground communica ons between air traffic control specialists and pilots at satellite airports for delivering en route clearances, issuing departure authoriza ons, and acknowledging instrument flight rules cancella ons or departure/ landing mes. REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER (RTR): See remote communica ons outlet. RTRs serve ARTCCs. RELIEVER AIRPORT: An airport to serve general avia on aircra which might otherwise use a congested air-carrier served airport. RESTRICTED AREA: See special-use airspace. RNAV: Area naviga on - airborne equipment which permits flights over determined tracks within prescribed accuracy tolerances without the need to overfly ground-based naviga on facili es. Used en route and for approaches to an airport. RUNWAY: A defined rectangular area on an airport prepared for aircra landing and takeoff. Runways are normally numbered in rela on to their magne c direc on, rounded off to the nearest 10 degrees. For example, a runway with a magne c heading of 180 would be designated Runway 18. The runway heading on the opposite end of the runway is 180 degrees from that runway end. For example, the opposite runway heading for Runway 18 would be Runway 36 (magne c heading of 360). Aircra can takeoff or land from either end of a runway, depending upon wind direc on. RUNWAY ALIGNMENT INDICATOR LIGHT: A series of high intensity sequen ally flashing lights installed

on the extended centerline of the runway usually in conjunc on with an approach ligh ng system. RUNWAY DESIGN CODE: A code signifiying the design standards to which the runway is to be built. RUNWAY END IDENTIFICATION LIGHTING (REIL): Two synchronized flashing lights, one on each side of the runway threshold, which provide rapid and posi ve iden fica on of the approach end of a par cular runway. RUNWAY GRADIENT: The average slope, measured in percent, between the two ends of a runway. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ): An area off the runway end to enhance the protec on of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape. Its dimensions are determined by the aircra approach speed and runway approach type and minima. RUNWAY REFERENCE CODE: A code signifying the current opera onal capabili es of a runway and associated taxiway. RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ): An area on the airport to be kept clear of permanent objects so that there is an unobstructed line of- site from any point five feet above the runway centerline to any point five feet above an intersec ng runway centerline. RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR): An instrumentally derived value, in feet, represen ng the horizontal distance a pilot can see down the runway from the runway end. S SCOPE: The document that iden fies and defines the tasks, emphasis, and level of effort associated with a project or study. SEGMENTED CIRCLE: A system of visual indicators designed to provide traffic pa ern informa on at airports without opera ng control towers.

A - 11

Glossary of Terms SHOULDER: An area adjacent to the edge of paved runways, taxiways, or aprons providing a transi on between the pavement and the adjacent surface; support for aircra running off the pavement; enhanced drainage; and blast protec on. The shoulder does not necessarily need to be paved. SLANT-RANGE DISTANCE: The straight line distance between an aircra and a point on the ground. SMALL AIRCRAFT: An aircra that has a maximum cer fied takeoff weight of up to 12,500 pounds. SPECIAL-USE AIRSPACE: Airspace of defined dimensions iden fied by a surface area wherein ac vi es must be confined because of their nature and/or wherein limita ons may be imposed upon aircra opera ons that are not a part of those ac vi es. Special-use airspace classifica ons include: • ALERT AREA: Airspace which may contain a high volume of pilot training ac vi es or an unusual type of aerial ac vity, neither of which is hazardous to aircra . • CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: Airspace wherein ac vi es are conducted under condi ons so controlled as to eliminate hazards to nonpar cipa ng aircra and to ensure the safety of persons or property on the ground. • MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): Designated airspace with defined ver cal and lateral dimensions established outside Class A airspace to separate/segregate certain military ac vi es from instrument flight rule (IFR) traffic and to iden fy for visual flight rule (VFR) traffic where these ac vi es are conducted. • PROHIBITED AREA: Designated airspace within which the flight of aircra is prohibited. • RESTRICTED AREA: Airspace designated under Federal Avia on Regula on (FAR) 73, within which the flight of aircra , while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restric on. Most restricted areas are designated joint use. When not in use by the using agency, IFR/VFR opera ons can be authorized by the controlling air traffic control facility. • WARNING AREA: Airspace which may contain hazards to nonpar cipa ng aircra .

STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE (SID): A preplanned coded air traffic control IFR departure rou ng, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual form only. STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES: A published standard flight procedure to be u lized following takeoff to provide a transi on between the airport and the terminal area or en route airspace. STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL ROUTE (STAR): A preplanned coded air traffic control IFR arrival rou ng, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and textual or textual form only. STOP-AND-GO: A procedure wherein an aircra will land, make a complete stop on the runway, and then commence a takeoff from that point. A stop-and-go is recorded as two opera ons: one opera on for the landing and one opera on for the takeoff. STOPWAY: An area beyond the end of a takeoff runway that is designed to support an aircra during an aborted takeoff without causing structural damage to the aircra . It is not to be used for takeoff, landing, or taxiing by aircra . STRAIGHT-IN LANDING/APPROACH: A landing made on a runway aligned within 30 degrees of the final approach course following comple on of an instrument approach. T TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (TACAN): An ultrahigh frequency electronic air naviga on system which provides suitably-equipped aircra a con nuous indica on of bearing and distance to the TACAN sta on. TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA): See declared distances. TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA): See declared distances. TAXILANE: The por on of the aircra parking area used for access between taxiways and aircra parking posi ons. TAXIWAY: A defined path established for the taxiing of aircra from one part of an airport to another.

A - 12

Glossary of Terms

TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA (TSA): A defined surface alongside the taxiway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to an airplane uninten onally depar ng the taxiway.

TRAFFIC PATTERN: The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircra landing at or taking off from an airport. The components of a typical traffic pa ern are the upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base leg, and final approach.

EN TR Y

TAXIWAY DESIGN GROUP: A classifica on of airplanes based on outer to outer Main Gear Width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance.

TERMINAL INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES: Published flight procedures for conduc ng instrument approaches to runways under instrument meteorological condi ons. TERMINAL RADAR APPROACH CONTROL: An element of the air traffic control system responsible for monitoring the en-route and terminal segment of air traffic in the airspace surrounding airports with moderate to high levels of air traffic. TETRAHEDRON: A device used as a landing direc on indicator. The small end of the tetrahedron points in the direc on of landing. THRESHOLD: The beginning of that por on of the runway available for landing. In some instances the landing threshold may be displaced.

DOWNWIND LEG CROSSWIND LEG

BASE LEG FINAL APPROACH

DEPARTURE LEG RUNWAY

UPWIND LEG

U UNCONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport without an air traffic control tower at which the control of Visual Flight Rules traffic is not exercised. UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace within which aircra are not subject to air traffic control.

TOUCH-AND-GO: An opera on by an aircra that lands and departs on a runway without stopping or exi ng the runway. A touch-and go is recorded as two opera ons: one opera on for the landing and one opera on for the takeoﬀ.

UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION (UNICOM): A nongovernment communica on facility which may provide airport informa on at certain airports. Loca ons and frequencies of UNICOM’s are shown on aeronau cal charts and publica ons.

TOUCHDOWN: The point at which a landing aircra makes contact with the runway surface.

UPWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direc on of landing. See “traﬃc pa ern.”

TOUCHDOWN AND LIFT-OFF AREA (TLOF): A load bearing, generally paved area, normally centered in the FATO, on which the helicopter lands or takes oﬀ. TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ): The first 3,000 feet of the runway beginning at the threshold. TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION (TDZE): The highest eleva on in the touchdown zone. TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ) LIGHTING: Two rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically about the runway centerline normally at 100- foot intervals. The basic system extends 3,000 feet along the runway.

V VECTOR: A heading issued to an aircra to provide naviga onal guidance by radar. VERY HIGH FREQUENCY/ OMNIDIRECTIONAL RANGE (VOR): A ground-based electronic naviga on aid transmi ng very high frequency naviga on signals, 360 degrees in azimuth, oriented from magne c north. Used as the basis for naviga on in the na onal airspace system. The VOR periodically iden fies itself by Morse Code and may have an addi onal voice iden fica on feature.

A - 13

Glossary of Terms W 360°

WARNING AREA: See special-use airspace.

0° 12

0°

° 40

180°

VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OMNI-DIRECTIONAL RANGE/ TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (VORTAC): A naviga on aid providing VOR azimuth, TACAN azimuth, and TACAN distancemeasuring equipment (DME) at one site.

VICTOR AIRWAY: A control area or por on thereof established in the form of a corridor, the centerline of which is defined by radio naviga onal aids. VISUAL APPROACH: An approach wherein an aircra on an IFR flight plan, opera ng in VFR condi ons under the control of an air traﬃc control facility and having an air traﬃc control authoriza on, may proceed to the airport of des na on in VFR condi ons. VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR (VASI): An airport ligh ng facility providing ver cal visual approach slope guidance to aircra during approach to landing by radia ng a direc onal pa ern of high intensity red and white focused light beams which indicate to the pilot that he is on path if he sees red/ white, above path if white/white, and below path if red/red. Some airports serving large aircra have three-bar VASI’s which provide two visual guide paths to the same runway. VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conduc ng flight under visual condi ons. The term VFR is also used in the United States to indicate weather condi ons that are equal to or greater than minimum VFR requirements. In addi on, it is used by pilots and controllers to indicate type of flight plan. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: Meteorological condi ons expressed in terms of specific visibility and ceiling condi ons which are equal to or greater than the threshold values for instrument meteorological condi ons. VOR: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirec onal Range Sta on.” VORTAC: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirec onal Range Sta on/Tac cal Air Naviga on.”

WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM: An enhancement of the Global Posi oning System that includes integrity broadcasts, diﬀeren al correc ons, and addi onal ranging signals for the purpose of providing the accuracy, integrity, availability, and con nuity required to support all phases of flight.

Abbreviations AC: advisory circular ADF: automa c direc on finder ADG: airplane design group AFSS: automated flight service sta on AGL: above ground level AIA: annual instrument approach AIP: Airport Improvement Program AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford Avia on Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century ALS: approach ligh ng system ALSF-1: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach ligh ng system with sequenced flashers (CAT I configura on) ALSF-2: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach ligh ng system with sequenced flashers (CAT II configura on) AOA: Aircra Opera on Area APV: instrument approach procedure with ver cal guidance ARC: airport reference code

A - 14

Abbreviations ARFF: aircra rescue and fire figh ng

ILS: instrument landing system

ARP: airport reference point

IM: inner marker

ARTCC: air route traﬃc control center

LDA: localizer type direc onal aid

ASDA: accelerate-stop distance available

LDA: landing distance available

ASR: airport surveillance radar

LIRL: low intensity runway edge ligh ng

ASOS: automated surface observa on sta on

LMM: compass locator at middle marker

ATCT: airport traﬃc control tower

LOM: compass locator at outer marker

ATIS: automated terminal informa on service

LORAN: long range naviga on

AVGAS: avia on gasoline - typically 100 low lead (100LL)

MALS: medium intensity approach ligh ng system with indicator lights

AWOS: automa c weather observa on sta on BRL: building restric on line CFR: Code of Federal Regula on CIP: capital improvement program DME: distance measuring equipment DNL: day-night noise level DWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircra with dual-wheel type landing gear DTWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircra with dual-tandem type landing gear FAA: Federal Avia on Administra on

MIRL: medium intensity runway edge ligh ng MITL: medium intensity taxiway edge ligh ng MLS: microwave landing system MM: middle marker MOA: military opera ons area MSL: mean sea level NAVAID: naviga onal aid NDB: nondirec onal radio beacon NM: nau cal mile (6,076.1 feet)

FAR: Federal Avia on Regula on

NPES: Na onal Pollutant Discharge Elimina on System

FBO: fixed base operator

NPIAS: Na onal Plan of Integrated Airport Systems

FY: fiscal year

NPRM: no ce of proposed rule making

GPS: global posi oning system

ODALS: omnidirec onal approach ligh ng system

GS: glide slope

OFA: object free area

HIRL: high intensity runway edge ligh ng

OFZ: obstacle free zone

IFR: instrument flight rules (FAR Part 91)

OM: outer marker

A - 15

Abbreviations PAC: planning advisory commi ee

SID: standard instrument departure

PAPI: precision approach path indicator

SM: statute mile (5,280 feet)

PFC: porous fric on course

SRE: snow removal equipment

PFC: passenger facility charge

SSALF: simplified short approach ligh ng system with runway alignment indicator lights

PCL: pilot-controlled ligh ng

STAR: standard terminal arrival route

PIW public informa on workshop PLASI: pulsa ng visual approach slope indicator

SWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircra with single-wheel tandem type landing gear

POFA: precision object free area

TACAN: tac cal air naviga onal aid

PVASI: pulsa ng/steady visual approach slope indicator

TAF:

PVC: poor visibility and ceiling RCO: remote communica ons outlet RRC: Runway Reference Code RDC: Runway Design Code REIL: runway end iden fica on ligh ng RNAV: area naviga on RPZ: runway protec on zone RSA: runway safety area RTR: remote transmi er/receiver RVR: runway visibility range RVZ: runway visibility zone SALS: short approach ligh ng system SASP: state avia on system plan

Federal Avia on Administra on Terminal Area Forecast

(FAA)

TDG: Taxiway Design Group TLOF: Touchdown and li -off TDZ: touchdown zone TDZE: touchdown zone eleva on TODA: takeoff distance available TORA: takeoff runway available TRACON: terminal radar approach control VASI: visual approach slope indicator VFR: visual flight rules (FAR Part 91) VHF: very high frequency VOR: very high frequency omni-direc onal range VORTAC: VOR and TACAN collocated

SEL: sound exposure level

A - 16

APPENDIX B

FAA FORECAST APPROVAL LETTER

B-1

APPENDIX C

PROJECT COST ESTIMATES

FALCON FIELD ‐ RELOCATE PARALLEL TAXIWAY 'E' (B‐II SM.) ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$50,000.00

Mobilization

$100,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$25,000.00

SWPPP

$37,500.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$25,000.00

3,000

$2.50

$7,500.00

25,000

$2.50

$62,500.00

12,000

$2.00

$24,000.00

4,700

$2.00

$9,400.00

900

$4.00

$3,600.00

6 7 8 9

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4‐1/2") Remove Asphaltic Concrete Shoulder Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 2") Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 2")

Obliterate Pavement Marking

Unclassified Excavation

9,000

$12.00

$108,000.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

5,000

$45.00

$225,000.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

31,000

$2.00

$62,000.00

25,000

$12.00

$300,000.00

11,000

$13.00

$143,000.00

5,000

$22.00

$110,000.00

31,000

$15.00

$465,000.00

14 15 16 17

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 7‐1/2‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 3‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

18,100

$1.00

$18,100.00

Permanent Pavement Markings (White)

$1.00

$0.00

Seeding

20,000

$0.50

$10,000.00

Drainage

$200,000.00

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$1,985,600.00

$96.00

$480,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$480,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$2,465,600.00

ELECTRICAL 22

9/8/2018

Electrical

5,000

Dibble Engineering

C-1

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ RELOCATE PARALLEL TAXIWAY 'E' (B‐II SM.) ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

9/8/2018

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

Dibble Engineering

C-2

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contingency

$616,400.00

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$3,082,000.00

Construction Management Fee

$308,200.00

Admin Fee

$154,100.00

Design Fee

$308,200.00

PROJECT TOTAL

$3,852,500.00

Page 2

FALCON FIELD ‐ RELOCATE PARALLEL TAXIWAY 'E' (B‐II) ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$52,000.00

Mobilization

$104,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$26,000.00

SWPPP

$39,000.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$26,000.00

3,000

$2.50

$7,500.00

25,000

$2.50

$62,500.00

12,000

$2.00

$24,000.00

4,700

$2.00

$9,400.00

900

$4.00

$3,600.00

6 7 8 9

Obliterate Pavement Marking

Unclassified Excavation

9,000

$12.00

$108,000.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

5,000

$45.00

$225,000.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

31,000

$2.00

$62,000.00

20,000

$12.00

$240,000.00

5,000

$12.00

$60,000.00

11,000

$15.00

$165,000.00

25,000

$22.00

$550,000.00

11,000

$15.00

$165,000.00

14 14 15 16 17

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐1/2‐inch Thickness) Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 7‐1/2‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 3‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

17,100

$1.00

$17,100.00

Permanent Pavement Markings (White)

$1.00

$0.00

Seeding

20,000

$0.50

$10,000.00

Drainage

$200,000.00

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$2,156,100.00

$96.00

$480,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$480,000.00

ELECTRICAL 22

9/8/2018

Electrical

5,000

Dibble Engineering

C-3

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ RELOCATE PARALLEL TAXIWAY 'E' (B‐II) ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

9/8/2018

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

Dibble Engineering

C-4

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$2,636,100.00

Contingency

$659,025.00

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$3,295,125.00

Construction Management Fee

$329,512.50

Admin Fee

$164,756.25

Design Fee

$329,512.50

PROJECT TOTAL

$4,118,906.25

Page 2

FALCON FIELD ‐ RW 22L HOLDING BAY ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$9,000.00

Mobilization

$18,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$4,500.00

SWPPP

$6,750.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$4,500.00

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth)

450

$2.50

$7,500.00

Remove Asphaltic Concrete Shoulder Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 2")

800

$2.00

$1,600.00

Obliterate Pavement Marking

450

$4.00

$1,800.00

Unclassified Excavation

11,250

$12.00

$135,000.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

100

$45.00

$4,500.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

5,500

$2.00

$11,000.00

5,500

$12.00

$66,000.00

5,500

$22.00

$121,000.00

1,800

$1.00

$1,800.00

12 13 14

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness) Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$392,950.00

$96.00

$48,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$48,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$440,950.00

Contingency

$110,237.50

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$551,187.50

Construction Management Fee

$55,118.75

Admin Fee

$27,559.38

Design Fee

$55,118.75

PROJECT TOTAL

$688,984.38

ELECTRICAL 15

9/8/2018

Electrical

500

Dibble Engineering

C-5

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ RW 22R & 4L HOLDING BAYS ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$8,500.00

Mobilization

$17,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$4,250.00

SWPPP

$6,500.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$4,250.00

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth)

950

$2.50

$7,500.00

Remove Asphaltic Concrete Shoulder Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 2")

2,900

$2.00

$5,800.00

Obliterate Pavement Marking

600

$4.00

$2,400.00

Unclassified Excavation

550

$12.00

$6,600.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

2,600

$45.00

$117,000.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

5,500

$2.00

$11,000.00

5,500

$12.00

$66,000.00

5,500

$22.00

$121,000.00

2,800

$1.00

$2,800.00

12 13 14

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness) Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$380,600.00

$96.00

$48,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$48,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$428,600.00

Contingency

$107,150.00

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$535,750.00

Construction Management Fee

$53,575.00

Admin Fee

$26,787.50

Design Fee

$53,575.00

PROJECT TOTAL

$669,687.50

ELECTRICAL 15

9/8/2018

Electrical

500

Dibble Engineering

C-6

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ TW 'D9' ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$4,400.00

Mobilization

$8,800.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$2,200.00

SWPPP

$3,300.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$2,200.00

600

$2.50

$1,500.00

1,100

$2.50

$2,750.00

1,120

$2.00

$2,240.00

350

$4.00

$1,400.00

$12.00

$0.00

6 7 8

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4‐1/2") Remove Asphaltic Concrete Shoulder Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 2")

Obliterate Pavement Marking

Unclassified Excavation

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

2,000

$45.00

$90,000.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

2,220

$2.00

$4,440.00

1,100

$12.00

$13,200.00

1,120

$15.00

$16,800.00

1,100

$22.00

$24,200.00

1,120

$15.00

$16,800.00

15 16 17 18

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐1/2‐inch Thickness) Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 7‐1/2‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 3‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

1,245

$1.00

$1,245.00

Seeding

1,345

$0.50

$672.50

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$196,147.50

$96.00

$24,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$24,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$220,147.50

Contingency

$55,036.88

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$275,184.38

Construction Management Fee

$27,518.44

ELECTRICAL 21

9/8/2018

Electrical

250

Dibble Engineering

C-7

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ TW 'D9' ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

9/8/2018

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

Dibble Engineering

C-8

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Admin Fee

$13,759.22

Design Fee

$27,518.44

PROJECT TOTAL

$343,980.47

Page 2

FALCON FIELD ‐ DUAL TAXILANE (EXH. 4M & 4N) ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$54,000.00

Mobilization

$108,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$27,000.00

SWPPP

$40,500.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$27,000.00

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth)

1,800

$2.50

$4,500.00

Sawcut Concrete Median

$5.00

$250.00

Sawcut Curb

$3.00

$48.00

Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 2")

13,000

$2.00

$26,000.00

Remove Concrete Sidewalk

4,600

$2.00

$9,200.00

Remove Concrete Curb

800

$6.00

$4,800.00

Obliterate Pavement Marking

500

$4.00

$2,000.00

Remove Tree

$500.00

$4,000.00

Remove Security Fence

300

$2.00

$600.00

Remove Concrete Gutter

700

$50.00

$35,000.00

Remove Catch Basin

$1,500.00

$3,000.00

Unclassified Excavation

80,000

$12.00

$960,000.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

1,500

$45.00

$67,500.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

26,590

$2.00

$53,180.00

25,230

$13.00

$327,990.00

1,360

$12.00

$16,320.00

26,590

$22.00

$584,980.00

150

$13.00

$1,950.00

2,100

$21.00

$44,100.00

$2,000.00

$4,000.00

20 21 22

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐1/2‐inch Thickness) Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Single Curb

6' Security Fence with Wildlife Deterrent

Double Swing Gate

9/8/2018

Dibble Engineering

C-9

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ DUAL TAXILANE (EXH. 4M & 4N) ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

Drainage

Structural (Hangar Removal)

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

2,050

$1.00

$2,050.00

$50,000.00

189,000

$0.77

$145,530.00

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$2,603,498.00

ELECTRICAL 30

Electrical

Remove Light Pole

9/8/2018

1,600

$96.00

$153,600.00

$460.00

$920.00

Dibble Engineering

C-10

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$153,600.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$2,757,098.00

Contingency

$689,274.50

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$3,446,372.50

Construction Management Fee

$344,637.25

Admin Fee

$172,318.63

Design Fee

$344,637.25

PROJECT TOTAL

$4,307,965.63

Page 2

FALCON FIELD ‐ RW '4L‐22R' REHAB ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$55,000.00

Mobilization

$110,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$27,000.00

SWPPP

$42,000.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$27,000.00

1,240

$2.50

$3,100.00

32,000

$2.50

$80,000.00

8,500

$2.00

$17,000.00

6 7 8

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4") Remove Asphaltic Concrete Shoulder Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 3")

Unclassified Excavation

7,000

$12.00

$84,000.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

2,000

$45.00

$90,000.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

40,101

$2.00

$80,202.00

40,101

$12.00

$481,212.00

40,101

$22.00

$882,222.00

41,127

$1.00

$41,127.00

8,443

$0.50

$4,221.50

15 17

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (White)

Seeding

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$2,024,084.50

$96.00

$748,800.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$748,800.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$2,772,884.50

Contingency

$693,221.13

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$3,466,105.63

Construction Management Fee

$346,610.56

Admin Fee

$173,305.28

Design Fee

$346,610.56

PROJECT TOTAL

$4,332,632.03

ELECTRICAL 21

2/5/2019

Electrical

7,800

Dibble Engineering

C-11

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ TW 'D3' & 'D4' REALIGN ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$3,200.00

Mobilization

$6,300.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$1,600.00

SWPPP

$2,400.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$1,600.00

700

$2.50

$1,750.00

1,100

$2.50

$2,750.00

650

$2.00

$1,300.00

6 7 8

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4") Remove Asphaltic Concrete Shoulder Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 3")

Unclassified Excavation

350

$12.00

$4,200.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

100

$45.00

$4,500.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

2,150

$2.00

$4,300.00

2,150

$12.00

$25,800.00

2,150

$22.00

$47,300.00

1,050

$1.00

$1,050.00

500

$0.50

$250.00

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

Seeding

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$108,300.00

DRAINAGE 16

Drainage

$27,000.00

$22,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$22,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$157,300.00

Contingency

$39,325.00

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$196,625.00

Construction Management Fee

$19,662.50

Admin Fee

$9,831.25

Design Fee

$19,662.50

ELECTRICAL 17

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-12

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ TW 'D3' & 'D4' REALIGN ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE PROJECT TOTAL

2/5/2019

Dibble Engineering

C-13

AMOUNT $245,781.25

Page 2

FALCON FIELD ‐ NO TAXI AREAS ‐ SOUTH OF TW 'D' ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$13,500.00

Mobilization

$27,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$7,000.00

SWPPP

$10,000.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$7,000.00

4,000

$2.50

$10,000.00

2,250

$2.00

$4,500.00

6 7

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Shoulder Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 3")

Unclassified Excavation

2,000

$12.00

$24,000.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

1,000

$45.00

$45,000.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

7,750

$2.00

$15,500.00

7,750

$12.00

$93,000.00

7,750

$22.00

$170,500.00

11 12

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Green)

70,000

$1.00

$70,000.00

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

4,000

$1.00

$4,000.00

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$501,000.00

DRAINAGE 15

Drainage

$125,000.00

$50,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$50,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$676,000.00

Contingency

$169,000.00

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$845,000.00

Construction Management Fee

$84,500.00

Admin Fee

$42,250.00

Design Fee

$84,500.00

PROJECT TOTAL

$1,056,250.00

ELECTRICAL 16

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-14

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ RW '4R‐22L' REHAB ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$95,000.00

Mobilization

$187,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$45,000.00

SWPPP

$70,000.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$45,000.00

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4") Remove Asphaltic Concrete Shoulder Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 3")

1,575

$2.50

$3,937.50

56,678

$2.50

$141,694.44

22,672

$2.00

$45,344.00

Unclassified Excavation

13,225

$12.00

$158,697.78

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

4,500

$45.00

$202,500.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

79,349

$2.00

$158,698.00

79,349

$12.00

$952,188.00

79,349

$22.00

$1,745,678.00

6 7 8

15 17

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (White)

50,243

$1.00

$50,243.00

Seeding

11,336

$0.50

$5,668.00

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$3,906,648.72

$780,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$780,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$4,686,648.72

Contingency

$1,171,662.18

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$5,858,310.90

Construction Management Fee

$585,831.09

Admin Fee

$292,915.55

Design Fee

$585,831.09

PROJECT TOTAL

$7,322,888.63

ELECTRICAL 21

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-15

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ TW 'B' GEOMETRY IMPROVEMENTS ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$9,500.00

Mobilization

$19,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$4,500.00

SWPPP

$7,200.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$4,500.00

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4") Remove Asphaltic Concrete Shoulder Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 3")

400

$2.50

$1,000.00

6,800

$2.50

$17,000.00

2,750

$2.00

$5,500.00

Unclassified Excavation

1,100

$12.00

$13,200.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

350

$45.00

$15,750.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

6,150

$2.00

$12,300.00

6,150

$12.00

$73,800.00

6,150

$22.00

$135,300.00

6 7 8

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

3,050

$1.00

$3,050.00

Permanent Pavement Markings (White)

288

$1.00

$288.00

Permanent Pavement Markings (Red)

864

$1.00

$864.00

Seeding

6,778

$0.50

$3,389.00

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$326,141.00

DRAINAGE 16

Drainage

$65,000.00

$80,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$80,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$471,141.00

Contingency

$117,785.25

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$588,926.25

Construction Management Fee

$58,892.63

Admin Fee

$29,446.31

ELECTRICAL 17

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-16

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ TW 'B' GEOMETRY IMPROVEMENTS ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

2/5/2019

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

Dibble Engineering

C-17

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Design Fee

$58,892.63

PROJECT TOTAL

$736,157.81

Page 2

FALCON FIELD ‐ REHAB ECHO RAMP EAST & NORTH TW 'B' ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$48,000.00

Mobilization

$95,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$25,000.00

SWPPP

$37,000.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$25,000.00

2,635

$2.50

$6,587.50

46,081

$2.50

$115,202.50

6 7

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4")

Unclassified Excavation

7,680

$12.00

$92,162.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

1,000

$45.00

$45,000.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

46,081

$2.00

$92,162.00

46,081

$12.00

$552,972.00

46,081

$22.00

$1,013,782.00

10,770

$1.00

$10,770.00

2,500

$0.50

$1,250.00

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

Seeding

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$2,159,888.00

DRAINAGE 16

Drainage

$150,000.00

$75,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$75,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$2,384,888.00

Contingency

$596,222.00

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$2,981,110.00

Construction Management Fee

$298,111.00

Admin Fee

$149,055.50

Design Fee

$298,111.00

PROJECT TOTAL

$3,726,387.50

ELECTRICAL 17

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-18

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ REMOVE TW 'D7' & 'D8' EXTENSIONS ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$2,400.00

Mobilization

$4,800.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$1,200.00

SWPPP

$1,800.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$1,200.00

1,550

$2.50

$3,875.00

5,000

$2.50

$12,500.00

1,000

$12.00

$12,000.00

100

$45.00

$4,500.00

1,050

$2.00

$2,100.00

1,050

$12.00

$12,600.00

1,050

$22.00

$23,100.00

6 7

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4")

Unclassified Excavation

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

475

$1.00

$475.00

Seeding

500

$0.50

$250.00

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$82,800.00

DRAINAGE 16

Drainage

$21,000.00

$17,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$17,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$120,800.00

Contingency

$30,200.00

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$151,000.00

Construction Management Fee

$15,100.00

Admin Fee

$7,550.00

Design Fee

$15,100.00

PROJECT TOTAL

$188,750.00

ELECTRICAL 17

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-19

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ CONSTRUCT ACCESS TO HIGLEY RAMP ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$1,600.00

Mobilization

$3,200.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$800.00

SWPPP

$1,200.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$800.00

400

$2.50

$1,000.00

1,050

$2.50

$2,625.00

200

$12.00

$2,400.00

$45.00

$2,250.00

1,050

$2.00

$2,100.00

1,050

$12.00

$12,600.00

1,050

$22.00

$23,100.00

6 7

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4")

Unclassified Excavation

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

475

$1.00

$475.00

Seeding

500

$0.50

$250.00

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$54,400.00

DRAINAGE 16

Drainage

$14,000.00

$11,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$11,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$79,400.00

Contingency

$19,850.00

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$99,250.00

Construction Management Fee

$9,925.00

Admin Fee

$4,962.50

Design Fee

$9,925.00

PROJECT TOTAL

$124,062.50

ELECTRICAL 17

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-20

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ CONSTRUCT TAXILANE SOUTH ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$7,000.00

Mobilization

$13,800.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$3,500.00

SWPPP

$5,200.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$3,500.00

100

$2.50

$250.00

$2.50

$100.00

648

$12.00

$7,778.00

6 7

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4")

Unclassified Excavation

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

1,200

$45.00

$54,000.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

3,889

$2.00

$7,778.00

3,889

$12.00

$46,668.00

3,889

$22.00

$85,558.00

800

$1.00

$800.00

1,556

$0.50

$778.00

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

Seeding

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$236,710.00

DRAINAGE 16

Drainage

$60,000.00

$48,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$48,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$344,710.00

Contingency

$86,177.50

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$430,887.50

Construction Management Fee

$43,088.75

Admin Fee

$21,544.38

Design Fee

$43,088.75

PROJECT TOTAL

$538,609.38

ELECTRICAL 17

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-21

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ CONSTRUCT HOLD BAYS FOR RW '22R' ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$6,500.00

Mobilization

$12,700.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$3,200.00

SWPPP

$4,800.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$3,200.00

250

$2.50

$625.00

600

$2.50

$1,500.00

6 7

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4")

Unclassified Excavation

750

$12.00

$9,000.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

500

$45.00

$22,500.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

4,246

$2.00

$8,492.00

4,246

$12.00

$50,952.00

4,246

$22.00

$93,412.00

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (White)

250

$1.00

$250.00

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

3,150

$1.00

$3,150.00

Seeding

1,000

$0.50

$500.00

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$220,781.00

DRAINAGE 17

Drainage

$55,000.00

$45,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$45,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$320,781.00

Contingency

$80,195.25

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$400,976.25

Construction Management Fee

$40,097.63

Admin Fee

$20,048.81

Design Fee

$40,097.63

PROJECT TOTAL

$501,220.31

ELECTRICAL 18

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-22

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ CONNECT EAGLE & ROADRUNNER DRIVES ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$8,500.00

Mobilization

$17,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$4,200.00

SWPPP

$6,200.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$4,200.00

400

$2.50

$1,000.00

1,600

$2.50

$4,000.00

1,030

$12.00

$12,356.00

250

$45.00

$11,250.00

6,178

$2.00

$12,356.00

6,178

$12.00

$74,136.00

6,178

$22.00

$135,916.00

975

$1.00

$975.00

1,200

$0.50

$600.00

6 7

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4")

Unclassified Excavation

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (White)

Seeding

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$292,689.00

DRAINAGE 16

Drainage

$74,000.00

$59,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$59,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$425,689.00

Contingency

$106,422.25

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$532,111.25

Construction Management Fee

$53,211.13

Admin Fee

$26,605.56

Design Fee

$53,211.13

PROJECT TOTAL

$665,139.06

ELECTRICAL 17

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-23

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ EXTEND ROADRUNNER DR TO N. HIGLEY RD ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$2,600.00

Mobilization

$5,250.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$1,250.00

SWPPP

$2,650.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$1,250.00

500

$2.50

$1,250.00

1,200

$2.50

$3,000.00

6 7

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4")

Unclassified Excavation

200

$12.00

$2,400.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

600

$45.00

$27,000.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

1,112

$2.00

$2,224.00

1,112

$12.00

$13,344.00

1,112

$22.00

$24,464.00

2,500

$1.00

$2,500.00

500

$0.50

$250.00

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (White)

Seeding

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$89,432.00

DRAINAGE 16

Drainage

$23,000.00

$18,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$18,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$130,432.00

Contingency

$32,608.00

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$163,040.00

Construction Management Fee

$16,304.00

Admin Fee

$8,152.00

Design Fee

$16,304.00

PROJECT TOTAL

$203,800.00

ELECTRICAL 17

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-24

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ CONSTRUCT TAXILANE NORTH ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$6,000.00

Mobilization

$11,700.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$3,000.00

SWPPP

$4,500.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$3,000.00

100

$2.50

$250.00

$2.50

$100.00

556

$12.00

$6,668.00

6 7

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4")

Unclassified Excavation

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

1,000

$45.00

$45,000.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

3,334

$2.00

$6,668.00

3,334

$12.00

$40,008.00

3,334

$22.00

$73,348.00

700

$1.00

$700.00

1,334

$0.50

$667.00

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

Seeding

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$201,609.00

DRAINAGE 16

Drainage

$51,000.00

$41,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$41,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$293,609.00

Contingency

$73,402.25

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$367,011.25

Construction Management Fee

$36,701.13

Admin Fee

$18,350.56

Design Fee

$36,701.13

PROJECT TOTAL

$458,764.06

ELECTRICAL 17

2/5/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-25

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ CONSTRUCT MIDFIELD TWYS ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$25,000.00

Mobilization

$50,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$12,000.00

SWPPP

$18,000.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$60,000.00

1,000

$2.50

$2,500.00

1,000

$2.50

$2,500.00

6 7

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4")

Unclassified Excavation

7,000

$12.00

$84,000.00

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

1,000

$45.00

$45,000.00

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

14,000

$2.00

$28,000.00

14,000

$12.00

$168,000.00

14,000

$22.00

$308,000.00

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

4,600

$1.00

$4,600.00

Seeding

3,200

$0.50

$1,600.00

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$809,200.00

DRAINAGE 16

Drainage

$185,000.00

$250,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$250,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$1,244,200.00

Contingency

$311,050.00

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$1,555,250.00

Construction Management Fee

$155,525.00

Admin Fee

$77,762.50

Design Fee

$155,525.00

PROJECT TOTAL

$1,944,062.50

ELECTRICAL 17

4/2/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-26

Page 1

FALCON FIELD ‐ RELOCATE TW 'D7' & 'D8' ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST LINE No.

APPROX. QTY. UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Contractor Quality Control

$14,000.00

Mobilization

$28,000.00

Location of Underground Utilities

$7,000.00

SWPPP

$10,000.00

Airfield Safety and Security

$40,000.00

840

$4.00

$3,360.00

7,700

$3.00

$23,100.00

3,850

$20.00

$77,000.00

490

$45.00

$22,050.00

7,700

$2.00

$15,400.00

7,700

$12.00

$92,400.00

7,700

$22.00

$169,400.00

6 7

Sawcut Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth) Remove Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Full‐Depth, ± 4")

Unclassified Excavation

Over‐Excavation and Replacement of Unsuitable Materials, Backfill & Compaction (Contingent Item)

Subgrade Preparation (8‐Inch Depth)

12 13

Crushed Aggregate Base Course (FAA, 6‐inch Thickness) Bituminous Surface Course (FAA 3/4", 4‐Inch Thickness)

Permanent Pavement Markings (Yellow)

2,800

$1.00

$2,800.00

Seeding

1,750

$0.50

$875.00

CIVIL SUBTOTAL

$505,385.00

DRAINAGE 16

Drainage

$77,000.00

$100,000.00

ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL

$100,000.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

$682,385.00

Contingency

$170,596.25

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL

$852,981.25

Construction Management Fee

$85,298.13

Admin Fee

$42,649.06

Design Fee

$85,298.13

PROJECT TOTAL

$1,066,226.56

ELECTRICAL 17

4/2/2019

Electrical

Dibble Engineering

C-27

Page 1

APPENDIX D

ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Appendix D ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS This section presents an analysis of economic benefits created by Falcon Field Airport (Airport). The Airport initially came into existence as a primary training field for allied pilots during World War II. Be‐ tween 1941 and 1945, several thousand British Royal Air Force and U.S. Army Air Corps pilots earned their wings at the facility in the Arizona desert. The Airport was sold by the federal government to the City of Mesa for one dollar in 1948. While World War II pilot training was underway, Falcon Field was a bustling center of activity, with a staff of over 100, including a large overnight maintenance crew, composed of up to 60 percent women who carried out specialized technical tasks for checking, testing, and repair. Today, the tradition of flight training continues, Falcon Field has evolved into a key economic asset for the City of Mesa, and over 700 aircraft are based on the Airport. Moreover, measured by operations, Falcon Field is among the top five most active general aviation airports in the nation. General aviation aircraft owners based at the Airport enjoy the benefits of on‐demand flight schedules to destinations within the state or any of the nearly 5,000 general aviation airports that pro‐ vide access to large and small communities across the country. Corporate flyers journey to Falcon Field to conduct business, meet with clients and suppliers, and place orders for goods and services produced in the region. Many general aviation visitors come for personal reasons, to visit friends and relatives, attend sporting events, or to simply vacation near world‐class scenery and recreation opportunities. Falcon Field creates significant benefits that extend beyond the aviation community to impact economic growth and development as well as the quality of life of residents of Mesa, Maricopa County, and the entire state. The availability of an airport with sufficient infrastructure to support corporate jets is invar‐ iably listed by business executives as a key criterion for business location and expansion. Public safety and national security objectives are supported by aviation operations of police officers and government agencies. Medical transport, aerial mapping, and air cargo shipments are all essential functions provided at Falcon Field Airport every day of the year.

D‐1

DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY Although qualitative advantages created by an airport are important, they are also challenging to meas‐ ure. In studying the economic benefits of airports and aviation, analysts have emphasized economic benefits that can be quantified:  Employment is the number of jobs supported by economic activity created by the presence of Falcon Field Airport.  

Payroll includes income to workers as employee compensation (the dollar value of payments received by workers as wages and benefits) and proprietor’s income to business owners.

Output is the value of the production of private firms and public agencies. For a private firm, output is equal to the annual value of revenue or gross sales at producer prices (before addition of further margins or transportation costs), including sales or excise taxes. Output, revenue, and sales are interchangeable, synonymous terms used throughout this study and in turn, these are equal to spending or expenditures from the perspective of the buyer. For government units, the agency budget is used as the measure of output.

Economic benefit studies differ from cost‐benefit analyses, which are often used to support a “go‐no‐ go” decision to undertake a proposed project. Analysis of economic benefits is related to measurement of the economic contribution of an industry or a particular component of the economy. This methodol‐ ogy was standardized in the publication by the Federal Aviation Administration, Estimating the Regional Economic Significance of Airports, Washington, D.C., 1992, and has been closely followed in recent years by public and private sector aviation analysts. Consistent with the FAA methodology, this study views Falcon Field Airport as a source of measurable benefits that impact the Falcon Field community and the residents of Mesa and Maricopa County. Aviation activity creates revenues for firms and employment and income for workers on and off the Airport. On‐airport activity by private aviation‐related firms and government agencies located on the airport is a source of output, jobs, and worker payrolls. Business spending on the airport injects revenues into the community when firms and public sector agencies buy products from local and regional suppliers and again when employees of the airport spend for goods and services in their communities. Included in on‐ airport economic benefits are capital improvement projects that provide for growth and enhance air safety. Off‐airport spending by visitors that arrive by general aviation aircraft is a second source of economic benefits. Air visitor spending creates jobs, income, and revenues in the region’s lodging, food service, ground transportation, retail, and recreation industries. DIRECT, SECONDARY, AND TOTAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS Economic activity (such as purchase of fuel by an aircraft pilot) creates an initial economic impact or benefit when the purchase is made. The spending by the pilot provides revenue to the Fixed Base Operator, a portion of which is retained as margin and the remainder is used for payments to suppliers or to pay salaries to workers (who then spend their wages in their home communities). As payments

D‐2

are received by suppliers or spent by workers, the initial direct spending from the fuel purchase recir‐ culates in the economy in a series of secondary transactions known as multiplier or “ripple effects,” illustrated in Figure A. These combined direct and secondary benefits summed together provide a measure of total economic benefits.

DIRECT BENEFITS

SECONDARY BENEFITS

Figure A. Direct, Secondary, and Total Economic Benefits

TOTAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS

The terminology is explained in further detail below.

 



Total economic benefits are the combined sum of direct and secondary benefits created both on and off the airport.

Direct benefits measure the initial output, employment, and payroll when businesses and agencies on the airport generate sales and revenues, hire workers, and make payments to em‐ ployees. Off‐airport direct benefits result when visitors that arrive by air spend for goods and services including lodging, restaurants, auto rental, retail items, or recreational activity. The on‐airport direct benefits are tabulated by obtaining data on revenues received by airport em‐ ployers, the number of workers, and compensation paid. Air visitor direct spending benefits are based on the number of visitors and their outlays for goods and services. These initial direct benefit figures are the “inputs” to an input‐output model to estimate secondary bene‐ fits.

Secondary benefits are created when the initial spending on system airports or by visitors cir‐ culates and recycles through the economy. The secondary benefits measure the magnitude of successive rounds of re‐spending in the broader regional economy. There are two types of secondary benefits:  Indirect benefits include activity by suppliers and vendors who sell to airport or hospitality businesses, along with the jobs created and incomes paid to workers by these suppliers. For example, businesses and agencies on the airport purchase services such as insurance and hard goods such as tools or office furniture from off‐airport providers. The revenues to suppliers and jobs supported as well as wages paid are indirect benefits.  Induced benefits measure the consumer spending of workers who produced both the direct or indirect goods and services. For example, when an aircraft technician’s salary is spent for consumer goods such as groceries or medical services, this contributes to additional employ‐ ment and income in the general economy for providers of these goods and services. Economic benefit studies rely on multiplier factors from input‐output models to estimate how direct spending on the goods and services of a particular industry or set of industries creates secondary indirect

D‐3

and induced benefits or multiplier effects. An input‐output model incorporates inter‐industry or “supply chain” relationships within the region that account for changes in employment, payroll, and output in related industries set off by a change in demand in an initial industry. The input‐output model used for this study was the IMPLAN model, based on data and coefficients for the Maricopa County economy from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. This model is frequently used for studying the economic benefits of airports and aviation across the nation, as well as economic im‐ pacts associated with changes in regional economies, such as closing of a military base or construction of a major sports venue. Because the Airport is an existing facility, the current IMPLAN application is a contribution study, analyzing the benefits the Airport creates annually for the local economy. The time period studied is calendar year 2018 and figures are expressed in 2018 dollars.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The direct benefits of on‐airport and air visitor activity related to Falcon Field Airport consisted of eco‐ nomic output of $449.9 million, employment of 1,619 workers, and payroll of $108.3 million in 2018. The total economic benefits of Falcon Field Airport, incorporating direct benefits and all multiplier or secondary benefits, included 4,009 jobs with payroll of $237.7 million and output of $811.7 million. The direct, secondary, and total economic benefits created by on‐airport, commercial service and general aviation activity are set out in Table D1. Table D1 Summary of Economic Benefits Falcon Field Airport SOURCE EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL OUTPUT Direct Economic Benefits On‐Airport Benefits: Activity by Aviation & Non‐Aviation Private Firms, Government Agencies, Capital Improvement 1,486 $104,367,000 $434,335,000 Projects Air Visitor Benefits: Activity by General Aviation Travelers 133 $3,984,000 $15,544,000 Direct Benefits 1,619 $108,351,000 $449,879,000 Secondary Economic Benefits Indirect Benefits: Activity by Suppliers & Vendors 822 $52,216,000 $145,497,000 Induced Benefits: Activity by Employees as Consumers 1,568 $77,107,000 $216,301,000 Secondary Benefits 2,390 $129,323,000 $361,798,000 Total Economic Benefits Total Benefits 4,009 $237,674,000 $811,677,000 Source: On‐airport employment was obtained through on‐site interviews and records maintained by Falcon Field adminis‐ trative staff. Payroll figures based on Maricopa County wage data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Output estimates were computed from the IMPLAN input‐output model, with coefficients for Maricopa County. Air visitor spending estimates were provided by Mesa Convention and Visitors Bureau and Longwoods International. Secondary benefits (indirect and induced) were computed from the IMPLAN model. All Values are in 2018 dollars.

SUMMARY: ON‐AIRPORT DIRECT BENEFITS On‐airport direct benefits include employment, payroll, and output created by private firms and govern‐ ment agencies on the airport. Capital improvement projects are also included in on‐airport benefits

D‐4

since these outlays generate employment and payroll when private contractors earn revenues from their on‐airport activity. Including non‐aviation firms, private employment accounted for nine out of every ten jobs on the Airport in 2018.

There were 110 on‐airport employers, with 1,486 workers in combined private aviation, non‐aviation, construction firms, and government units. Payroll for on‐airport workers was $104.4 million. The direct output created by on‐airport tenants, public agencies, and capital improvement project spending was $434.3 million.

SUMMARY: AIR VISITOR DIRECT BENEFITS An estimated 19,226 transient general aviation aircraft arrived at Falcon Field Airport in 2018. Of these, 4,672 remained overnight and the remaining 14,554 stayed for one day or a portion of a day. The direct spending on lodging, food and drink, retail, and recreation and entertainment off the Airport by general aviation visitors was $15.5 million in the regional hospitality industry, creating 133 private sector jobs with payroll to workers of $4.0 million.

SUMMARY: SECONDARY BENEFITS The production of goods and services on the airport and for air visitors requires intermediate inputs from suppliers across the supply chain, creating secondary benefits in the form of additional output, employ‐ ment, and payroll in the regional economy. As the initial direct benefits of Falcon Field Airport recircu‐ lated, secondary benefits as estimated by the IMPLAN model added output of $361.8 million and 2,390 additional jobs with payroll of $129.3 million. Each 100 direct jobs supported 148 additional secondary jobs in other sectors, and each $1 million dollars of direct output created an additional $805,000 of sec‐ ondary spending in the general economy. Of the 2,390 secondary jobs due to the presence of the Airport, 822 were indirect jobs in supplier indus‐ tries for airport employers or visitor service firms. These suppliers included firms in the general economy such as finance and insurance, business services, transportation and warehousing, information systems, and communication. Indirect benefits included output in the regional economy of $145.5 million and payroll to workers of $52.2 million. In addition, on‐airport and visitor industry direct employees and the secondary employees of suppliers created induced benefits as they spent their payroll in their home communities. There were 1,568 ad‐ ditional jobs induced by employee household spending across a broad spectrum of consumer industries including health care, food service, retail trade, and personal services. These induced benefits added $216.3 million of output to the area economy. SUMMARY: TOTAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS The total benefits are the sum of the direct and secondary benefits. Including direct benefits from on‐ airport economic activity and air visitor spending plus all secondary (multiplier) benefits, Falcon Field Airport contributed total economic benefits as shown in Figure B.

D‐5

Figure B. Falcon Field Airport Total Economic Benefits

The average salary for all jobs in the area supported by activity at Falcon Field Airport can be calculated as $59,266. The average annual pay for all workers in the Maricopa County economy as of mid‐year 2018, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, was $52,832. Salaries associated with the pres‐ ence of Falcon Field were some 12 percent higher. Moreover, average salaries for on‐airport jobs at Falcon Field were significantly greater than the Maricopa County average, at $70,233.

A DAY AT FALCON FIELD AIRPORT Airports are available to serve the flying public and support the economy every day of the year. The Falcon Field Airport is a “24/7” source of revenues, employment and income for the regional economy. During an average day in 2018, Falcon Field Airport generated $2.2 million of total economic benefits (including direct plus secondary benefits) and supported 4,009 area workers bringing home daily income of $651,000 for spending in their home communities (Table D2). Table D2 Economic Benefits for an Average Day Falcon Field Airport Activity Average Day All Aircraft Operations 767 Daily Aircraft Operations On‐Airport Employment 1,486 Workers on the Airport On‐Airport Payrolls $286,000 Paid to Airport Workers General Aviation Air Visitors 215 Air Visitors in the Area Daily* Air Visitor Spending $43,000 Daily Visitor Spending Total Employment 4,009 Total Area Jobs Supported Total Payrolls $651,000 Paid to Area Workers Total Economic Benefits $2,224,000 Daily Economic Benefits *Includes overnight visitors as well as those who remain for only part of a day

On an average day at the Airport, there were 767 operations by aircraft involved in local or itinerant activity including touch‐and‐go operations, pilot training flights, corporate travel on business jets, or general aviation flights bringing passengers visiting the area for personal travel or on business. On an average day, 215 air visitors were in the area spending for lodging, food and drink, retail goods and services, recreation and ground transportation. Visitor spending injected $43,000 per day into the re‐ gional economy.

D‐6

ON‐AIRPORT ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Economic benefits on the Airport flow from the employment, payroll, and output created by the 110 private firms and public agencies located on the Airport, as well as capital improvement projects under‐ taken by private contractors that come onto the Airport.

Information about employers on the Air‐ port was obtained through surveys and in‐ terviews with managers conducted at mid‐ year 2018. Final follow‐up tallies were completed over the following weeks. Fig‐ ures for employment, payroll, and output reported in this study were current as of November 2018. Survey participants were informed that the individual employer re‐ sults were confidential and only aggregate totals would appear in the written report.

The Falcon Field Airport administration provided substantial data and collaboration in support of this study. Airport staff shared tenant records, facilitated on‐site interviews with business owners and man‐ agers, and provided specialized knowledge regarding airport operations.

As of November 2018, the 110 employers on the Airport reported 1,473 employees (Table D3). This tally includes five government agencies with 169 employees and 105 private firms with 1,304 employees. Gov‐ ernment units include Falcon Field Airport staff, City of Mesa fire and police units, FAA Air Traffic Control Tower, and the U.S. Postal Service. Ninety‐five percent of on‐airport employers and 88 percent of on‐ airport jobs are in the private sector. Table D3 On‐Airport Economic Benefits Falcon Field Airport SOURCE Direct Economic Benefits Private Aviation Employers (60 Firms) Government Aviation Employers (4 Public Sector Agencies) Non‐Aviation Employers (45 Firms + U.S. Postal Service) Capital Improvement Projects (Five Year Average Value)

EMPLOYMENT

Direct Benefits Secondary Economic Benefits Indirect Benefits: Activity by Suppliers & Vendors Induced Benefits: Activity by Workers as Consumers Secondary Benefits Total Economic Benefits Total Benefits

PAYROLL

OUTPUT

832

$66,564,000

$354,970,000

$8,466,000

$14,467,000

555

$28,712,000

$62,962,000

$625,000

$1,936,000

1,486

$104,367,000

$434,335,000

789 1,499 2,288

$50,484,000 $73,594,000 $124,078,000

$140,243,000 $207,008,000 $347,251,000

3,774

$228,445,000

$781,585,000

Source: On‐airport employment was obtained through on‐site interviews and records maintained by Falcon Field administrative staff. Payroll figures based on Maricopa County wage data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Output estimates were computed from the IMPLAN input‐output model, with coefficients for Maricopa County. Values are in 2018 dol‐ lars.

D‐7

There were 64 tenants on the Airport involved in the supply or support of aviation activity, as shown in Figure C. Of these, 60 were private firms and four were public sector agencies. Falcon Field has a diverse economic base of aviation firms, ranging from full FBO services to specialized maintenance, manufacturing, his‐ torical aircraft, and more. The private sector aviation firms re‐ ported employment of 832 workers with compensation of $66.6 million and output (revenues) of $355.0 million. There were 46 non‐aviation employers on the Airport, including business and financial services, manufacturing, and health care. The non‐aviation tenants created direct employment of 555 workers with compensation of $28.7 million and output of $63.0 million. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Capital improvement projects are also included as a source of air‐ port economic benefits, since construction activity generates spending and employment both on and off the airport. Runway improvements, fencing, drainage projects, and building construc‐ tion are all examples of capital improvements that enhance safety and provide for growth. Major capital improvement projects that begin at a particular point in time can extend over more than one year and reported outlays can vary sharply from year to year when larger projects are underway. In order to smooth out the annual variation in capital improvement spending, economic benefit studies average outlays over a multi‐year period. For this study, figures on capital improvements were obtained from Falcon Field Airport records and averaged over the five‐year period from 2013 through 2018. The average annual outlay was $1.9 million (Table D4). This value was used to obtain the em‐ ployment estimate of 13 workers and payroll of $625,000 as rep‐ resentative annual figures for capital improvement activity at the Airport.

D‐8

FALCON FIELD EMPLOYERS Aviation Employers (64 Firms & Agencies)                  

FBO Services & Fueling Flight Training Avionics & ADS‐B Systems Maintenance & Inspections Aircraft Painting Helicopter Service Repair & Upgrades Aircraft Manufacturing Sales & Rental Aircraft Parts Photography Charter Flights &Tours Hangar Rental Pilot Supplies Historical Aircraft FAA Tower Mesa Police & Fire Airport Administration

Non‐Aviation Employers (46 Firms & Agencies)         

Business Services Real Estate Sales Financial Services Insurance Health Care Construction Manufacturing Food Service U.S. Postal Service

Figure C. Airport Employers

Table D4 Capital Improvement Projects: Five Year Summary ($ Thousands) Falcon Field Airport Source FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Federal $575.5 $349.4 $1,538.2 $1,984.9 State $647.3 $2,006.9 $155.8 $498.6 Total $1,222.9 $2,356.3 $1,694.1 $2,483.6

FY 2017 $1,827.5 $97.4 $$1,925.0

Total $6,275.6 $3,406.2 $9,681.7

Average $1,255.1 $681.2 $1,936.3

Source: Falcon Field Airport records of Federal and State grant awards, various years.

DIRECT, SECONDARY, AND TOTAL ON‐AIRPORT BENEFITS The capital improvement projects undertaken on the Airport by private contract firms were incorporated into the computation of direct benefits of on‐airport activity to provide a final sum of 1,486 jobs on the Airport, with payroll of $104.4 million and output of $434.3 million. Secondary benefits as estimated by the IMPLAN model added employment of 2,288 more jobs and ad‐ ditional output of $347.2 million as the initial direct spending recirculated within the regional economy. As noted earlier, secondary effects come from two sources. On‐airport private firms and public agencies make purchases from suppliers and vendors, who in turn purchase inputs and hire employees to support production of goods and services for airport customers. This effect is known as the indirect benefit. Simultaneously, employees of airport firms and agencies and employees of their suppliers are also con‐ sumers who spend incomes in their home communities. This spending stimulates additional jobs and output in the sectors serving consumers, creating induced benefits across the area economy. Of the 2,288 secondary jobs created by airport operations, 789 were indirect jobs adding to the number of workers in supplier industries to on‐airport activity, such as finance and insurance, business services, providers of parts, supplies and materials, transportation and warehousing, information and communi‐ cation systems. There were 1,499 additional jobs induced by airport and supplier employee household spending across a broad spectrum of consumer industries including health care, food service, retail trade, and personal services. The total benefits of on‐airport operations are the sum of the combined direct and secondary benefits. The total benefits were 3,774 jobs supported, with payroll of $228.4 million, and output of $781.6 million contributed to the area economy. Comparison of total on‐airport benefit figures with the initial direct benefits gives insight into the multi‐ plier values for each component. For example, the 1,486 direct on‐airport jobs support total employ‐ ment of 3,774, a multiple of 2.54. The economic interpretation is that, on average, every 100 on‐airport jobs support an additional 154 jobs in the general economy. The output multiplier is the ratio of total output ($781.6 million) to direct output ($434.3 million), or 1.80. Every million dollars of direct output on the Airport results in $625,000 more of additional output as the initial direct spending recirculates in the regional economy.

D‐9

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF FLIGHT TRAINING ACTIVITY The tradition of flight training continues at Falcon Field Airport with pilot instruction in helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. From its earliest days of existence, the Airport has been recognized as an ideal loca‐ tion for flight instruction, with minimal weather restrictions on training activity. From the initial empha‐ sis on military aircraft, the Airport now offers opportunities for those interested in civilian flying to have individual instruction or participate in a more formal training environment. Fuel, maintenance, parts, and general administrative outlays in support of flight training all contribute importantly to the economic footprint of the Airport. Moreover, there are economic benefits associated with expenditures by Academy flight students not shown in these tables, but nonetheless significant. Most students who have come to Mesa for their training are from other nations and other states. Students were not surveyed for this study, but a very conservative calculation of combined rental costs and living expenses yields an estimate of student ex‐ penditures easily exceeding $10 million per year injected into the local economy.

GENERAL AVIATION VISITOR ECONOMIC BENEFITS Visitors travel on general aviation aircraft to Falcon Field Airport for business, as vacationers, to reunite with friends and relatives, to attend sporting or cultural events in the Phoenix/Mesa metropolitan area, or for various personal or professional reasons. Although general aviation travel is sometimes viewed as a luxury mode of transport, the efficiencies and flexibility of general aviation are highly desirable, especially to corporate travelers. Studies of companies that use business aviation find that these firms outperform other firms on key financial measures such as earnings and share price growth. General aviation flights to Falcon Field Airport can originate at any of some 5,000 public‐use airport fa‐ cilities across the nation, while commercial service Table D5 travelers are limited to flights originating at approxi‐ mately 500 commercial service airports. Moreover, General Aviation Itinerant Aircraft Falcon Field Airport aviation flyers face fewer restrictions on transporta‐ Category Value bility of baggage, more efficient security checks, and Itinerant GA Arrivals 26,337 flexibility of arrival and departure schedules. Itinerant Based Aircraft 7,111 Transient Aircraft 19,226 Overnight Stay Aircraft 4,672 Extrapolating flight data from the FAA Air Traffic Ac‐ One Day Stay Aircraft 14,554 tivity System (ATADS), an estimate was developed of Aircraft with < 3 Hour Stay 5,843 26,337 itinerant general aviation (GA) arrivals at Fal‐ Aircraft with > 3 Hour Stay 8,711 con Field Airport in 2018 (Table D5). An itinerant ar‐ Source: Derived from FAA Air Traffic Activity System rival is defined as a flight that has originated at an air‐ (ATADS) and FAA 24‐hour daily arrival and departure port other than Falcon Field. This definition includes N number records for Falcon Field Airport as compiled returning based aircraft as well as arriving non‐based by the FlightAware Flight Tracker system, 2018 (transient) aircraft. To determine the number of tran‐ sient arrivals, the FlightAware Flight Tracker database for Falcon Field was used. This source includes arrival and departure times for aircraft identified by N numbers, on a 24‐hour basis. Based aircraft arri‐ vals were identified by matching arriving N numbers with known N numbers of Falcon Field based air‐ craft, including CAE Oxford Aviation Academy training flights. Through this process, 19,226 non‐based itinerant arrivals were estimated for 2018, defined in this study as “true transients.”

D‐10

Of these, an estimated 4,672 remained overnight while the GA travel party conducted business or visited in the area for personal reasons. The remaining 14,554 aircraft stayed for a portion of one day but not overnight. To compute a conservative estimate of economic benefits of GA visitors, one‐day aircraft were further partitioned into those staying less than 3 hours (5,843) and 3 hours or more (8,711), based on arrival and departure times. GENERAL AVIATION VISITOR SPENDING Visitor spending estimates were computed for overnight visitors and those staying 3 hours or longer, with the assumption that those staying longer than 3 hours had sufficient opportunity to attend off air‐ port business meetings, travel to sporting events, or leave the Airport for other business or personal activity that might include expenditures, such as shopping. Overall visitor spending depends on the number of visitors, their length of stay, and the types of expend‐ itures made. The number of visitors for an arriving aircraft was based on studies by the National Business Aviation Association and Harris Interactive that found average count across general aviation aircraft flights of 3.0 persons. In this study, it was also assumed that 25 percent of transient general aviation aircraft included, in addition, two crewmembers. From analysis of the arrival and departure database, it was determined that the average length of stay of overnight general aviation aircraft was 2.8 days. Multiplying length of stay by numbers of passengers and crew, the result is 45,786 visitor days by general aviation visitors that remained overnight. The num‐ ber of visitor days by those who only Table D6 stayed in the area one day or a por‐ General Aviation Visitor Spending per Person per Day tion of one day was 32,672 visitor Falcon Field Airport Overnight One Day days. The sum of general aviation Category GA Visitors GA Visitors visitor days for 2018 was 78,458. Lodging $128 Food & Drink $58 $39 Note that dividing this figure by 365 Retail Goods & Services $39 $26 $21 $14 gives 215, an estimate of how many Entertainment $25 $17 general aviation visitors are in the Ground Transportation Spending per Day $271 $96 area during a typical day. Visitor Days* 45,786 32,672 Direct Visitor Spending $12,408,000 $3,136,000 Estimates for visitor spending per Direct Visitor Benefits $15,544,000 person per day are set out in Table *Visitor day sum includes 2 crew for 25% of transient GA aircraft Source: Spending based on surveys from Mesa Convention and Visitors D6. Data on spending by category Bureau and Longwoods International, adjusted to 2018 values by Con‐ were obtained from the Mesa Con‐ sumer Price Index, U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics. Day visitor spending for each category is 66% of one full day spending. Some figures are rounded vention and Visitors Bureau, as de‐ and may not compute exactly. veloped by Longwoods Interna‐ tional. Visitor spending per person per day for overnight visitors was $271. The largest component was lodging at $128, which accounted for 47 percent of the total. The next largest category for overnight visitors was food and drink, at $58 per person per day and 21 percent of the total. Visitors who were only in the area for a day had no expenses for lodging and therefore total spending per person was lower than for

D‐11

overnight visitors, at $96. Since one‐day visitors were often in the area for only a portion of a full day, each spending category was further reduced by a factor of one third to adjust day visitor per person spending downward. Multiplication of spending per person per day by the total number of visitor days results in estimates of annual overnight visitor spending of $12.4 million and annual one‐day visitor spending of $3.1 million, for a direct economic benefit of $15.5 million in 2018. DIRECT, SECONDARY, AND TOTAL AIR VISITOR BENEFITS Annual direct, secondary, and total air visitor benefits are shown in Table D7. Output (visitor expendi‐ tures) benefits are shown for overnight, one day, and combined general aviation visitors. The largest spending category by aviation visitors was overnight expenditures for hotel or other accommodation, with outlays of $5.9 million. The level of lodging employment associated with this spending level was 65 jobs and payroll of $2.1 million. The second greatest spending category was food and drink, with com‐ bined outlays of $3.9 million, creating 34 jobs with payroll of $725,000. Direct visitor benefits include spending of$15.5 million, 133 jobs supported, and payroll of $4.0 million. TABLE D7 Economic Benefits from Air Visitors Falcon Field Airport Category

Overnight GA Visitors

One Day GA Visitor

Output (All Expendi‐ tures)

Worker Payroll

Employment

Direct Economic Benefits Lodging $5,861,000 $5,861,000 $2,148,000 65 Food/Drink $2,656,000 $1,272,000 $3,928,000 $725,000 34 Retail Sales $1,786,000 $855,000 $2,641,000 $365,000 13 Entertainment $960,000 $461,000 $1,421,000 $486,000 16 Ground Transport $1,145,000 $548,000 $1,693,000 $260,000 5 Direct Benefits $12,408,000 $3,136,000 $15,544,000 $3,984,000 133 Secondary Economic Benefits Indirect Benefits $4,276,000 $978,000 $5,254,000 $1,732,000 33 Induced Benefits $7,641,000 $1,651,000 $9,293,000 $3,513,000 69 Secondary Benefits $11,917,000 $2,629,000 $14,546,000 $5,245,000 102 Total Economic Benefits Total Benefits $24,325,000 $5,766,000 $30,091,000 $9,172,000 235 Source: Spending estimates based on figures from Mesa Convention and Visitors Bureau and Longwoods Inter‐ national. Employment and payroll estimated by the IMPLAN input‐output model.

Each one million dollars of direct spending by air visitors created 8.6 jobs in the hospitality industry. This figure is obtained from 133 jobs/$15.5 million. By visitor spending category, the employment benefits from spending on lodging are greatest, with 11.1 jobs created per one million dollars of outlays. Benefits from retail spending are smaller (4.9 jobs per million dollars) and recreation spending creates the fewest jobs (2.9 per million dollars of spending).

D‐12

The indirect benefits created by purchase of intermediate goods and services from suppliers to the hos‐ pitality industry were output of $5.2 million and 33 additional jobs across the regional economy. The induced spending by workers as consumers created benefits of $9.3 million revenues and 69 jobs. Both the indirect and induced spending recirculated within the area economy to increase revenues to busi‐ ness, create jobs for workers, and provide payroll for further expenditures. The secondary benefits due to multiplier effects summed to $14.5 million of revenues, 102 jobs, and $5.2 million of payroll. The total economic benefits from air visitor spending were $30.1 million in output and 235 jobs sup‐ ported throughout the economy, with payroll income to workers of $9.2 million. The output multiplier for GA visitor spending was $30.1/$15.5 = 1.94, indicating that each one million dollars of direct air visitor spending recycled in the economy to create total final output of $1.94 million (or $940,000 of secondary spending benefits per million dollars of direct spending). The employment multiplier (comparing total employment of 235 with direct employment of 133) was 1.77. Each 100 direct jobs related to air visitor spending created an additional 77 jobs in the overall economy. THE BOEING COMPANY ECONOMIC BENEFITS The world’s largest aerospace firm, the Boeing Company, has been in Arizona for more than three dec‐ ades. The site at 5000 E. McDowell Road is directly north of Falcon Field and has runway access for operations on the Airport. The Mesa facility produces military rotorcraft, most notably the AH‐64E Apache helicopter, with a fleet of more than 1,000 in use by customers worldwide. The Boeing Company in Mesa has a significant economic presence, supported by some 350 Arizona suppliers and annual pur‐ chases exceeding $1 billion. As of mid‐year 2018, the Boeing Company reported 4,281 employees at the Mesa site. Although the Boeing Company is not located within Falcon Field property boundaries, economic benefit studies often include the employment, payroll, and output of those firms with runway access in calcula‐ tion of the economic benefits of the Airport. (An example is Scottsdale Municipal Airport, where many employers are located in the private Airpark adjacent to the Airport with “through the fence” authoriza‐ tion for runway access. Employment and output at these firms is directly related to the Airport and included in analysis of economic benefits.) In Table D8, the Boeing Company has been added to the economic benefit calculations for Falcon Field. These figures illustrate the importance to Mesa and the entire Phoenix/Mesa metropolitan area of the Airport and the Boeing Company as a contiguous employer. Employment figures were provided by the Boeing Company. The Boeing Company output and payroll were estimated from the IMPLAN model, based on internal coefficients from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Bureau of Labor Sta‐ tistics for Maricopa County. The output for the Boeing Company Mesa facility estimated by the model was $3.6 billion. At an estimated wage rate of $125,600, payroll was calculated to be $537.8 million.

With the Boeing Company included, the direct impact of Falcon Field rises to 5,900 employees, payroll of $646.2 million and output of $4.1 billion. Incorporating secondary benefits as calculated through the IMPLAN model, the total economic benefits across the regional economy rise to employment of 23,184, payroll of $1.6 billion, and total output of $6.8 billion.

D‐13

Table D8 Economic Benefits Including the Boeing Company Falcon Field Airport Source Employment Payroll Output On‐Airport 1,486 $104,367,000 $434,335,000 General Aviation Visitors 133 $3,984,000 $15,544,000 The Boeing Company 4,281 $537,828,000 $3,624,059,000 Direct Benefits 5,900 $646,179,000 $4,073,938,000 Secondary Benefits 17,284 $984,563,000 $2,759,654,000 Total Economic Benefits Total Benefits 23,184 $1,630,742,000 $6,833,592,000 Source: On‐airport data from employer interviews and Falcon Field Airport staff records; air visitor calculations from FAA arrival and departure flight records and FlightAware Flight Tracker system; visitor spending from Mesa Convention and Visitors Bureau; the Boeing Company employment from the Boeing Company; the Boeing Company payroll and output calculated from the IMPLAN input‐output model.

FUTURE ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Maricopa County and Falcon Field service area economic indicators such as population, employment, and income have consistently grown more rapidly than the nation as a whole. That trend is expected to continue into the future, although at a somewhat slower pace. For example, population in the Airport service area is projected to grow at an annual rate of 1.7% until 2022, and by 1.2% between 2022 and 2027. However, the national rate of population growth is expected to be well below 1% over the entire period. By 2027, the Falcon Field service area is expected to add 205,500 new residents and create an additional 124,500 jobs (Falcon Field Airport Master Plan, Tables 2C and 2D). As the regional economy grows, the demand and supply of aviation services will rise, increasing future economic benefits.

Table D9 shows a baseline summary of current economic benefits associated with the presence of Falcon Field Airport. Tables D10 through D12 illustrate the future benefits of the Airport based on projections for the short, intermediate, and long‐term growth periods, represented respectively by annual values for 2022, 2027, and 2037. The methodology for estimating future economic benefits is a linear extrap‐ olation of current baseline values of the direct on‐airport and visitor benefits applying growth rates for aviation activity represented by operations, adjusted for tower closure hours, as developed in Chapter 2 of the Falcon Field Airport Master Plan. All figures are expressed in 2018 dollars.

On‐airport revenues, employment, and payrolls increase by the forecast growth rate of combined annual operations: 5.3 percent by 2022, 10.1 percent between 2022 and 2027, and 14.8 percent from 2027 to 2037. Non‐aviation employment, payroll, and output are all assumed to maintain current ratios to avi‐ ation activity and therefore increase at the pace of operations. General aviation visitor spending, payroll, and employment likewise increase at the same pace as operations and on‐airport activity. The Boeing Company is not included in the projection calculations. These extrapolations are based on the standard assumption of “ceteris paribus” or no change in economic relationships (including the multiplier value of IMPLAN coefficients for secondary benefits) in the years ahead.

D‐14

Table D9 Baseline Economic Benefits: 2018 Falcon Field Airport Source Employment Payroll On‐Airport 1,486 $104,367,000 Air Visitors 133 $3,984,000 Direct Benefits 1,619 $108,351,000 Secondary Benefits 2,390 $129,323,000 Total Benefits 4,009 $237,674,000 Source: Estimates calculated from 2017 operations of 300,200 and adjusted for growth to 2018 values

Output $434,335,000 $15,544,000 $449,879,000 $361,798,000 $811,677,000

Airport activity in future years will be demand driven but is represented here by forecast activity levels five, ten, and twenty years from the base year. Falcon Field Airport operations are forecast to rise from 300,200 in 2017 to 320,400 by 2022. Between 2022 and 2027, operations increase by 32,400, rising to 352,800 in 2027. There are 404,900 annual operations forecast in 2037, an increase of 34.9% from 2017.

Airport direct benefits from on‐airport activity are projected to rise from $434.3 million output and 1,496 on‐site jobs in 2018 to $457.6 million output and 1,566 jobs in 2022 (Table D10). The rise in operations to 320,400 in 2022 increases air visitor spending to $16.4 million. Assuming no changes in the inter‐ industry relationships of the IMPLAN model, the ratios of indirect and induced benefits to initial direct benefits remain stable while the economy and airport related activity grow. By 2022, total benefits in‐ clude employment of 4,224 with payroll of $250.4 million and output of $855.2 million. Table D10 Projected Economic Benefits: 2022 Falcon Field Airport Source Employment On‐Airport 1,566 Air Visitors 140 Direct Benefits 1,706 Secondary Benefits 2,518 Total Benefits 4,224 Source: Based on 320,400 annual operations; all figures are in $2018

Payroll $109,960,000 $4,197,000 $114,157,000 $136,254,000 $250,411,000

Output $457,612,000 $16,377,000 $473,989,000 $381,187,000 $855,176,000

For the year 2027, on‐airport output is projected to be $503.9 million, with 1,724 on‐site jobs. Output from air visitor spending is projected to rise to $18 million, creating 154 hospitality sector jobs. By 2027, total benefits increase to 4,651 jobs in the region with payroll of $275.7 million and output of $941.6 million (Table D11). Table D11 Projected Economic Benefits: 2027 Falcon Field Airport Source Employment On‐Airport 1,724 Air Visitors 154 Direct Benefits 1,878 Secondary Benefits 2,773 Total Benefits 4,651 Source: Based on 352,800 annual operations; all figures in $2018

D‐15

Payroll $121,080,000 $4,622,000 $125,702,000 $150,032,000 $275,734,000

Output $503,887,000 $18,033,000 $521,920,000 $419,733,000 $941,653,000

By 2037, aviation demand levels rise to 404,900 operations. Based aircraft at Falcon Field Airport are projected to number 1,040, including 30 jet aircraft and 75 helicopters. At this level of activity, on‐airport employment increases to 1,979 workers, with payroll of $139.0 million and output of $578.3 million (Table D12). Visitor spending is projected to rise to $20.7 million, creating 177 jobs. In the year 2037, Falcon Field Airport becomes a billion‐dollar economic asset. Total output, including all secondary benefits, is forecast to be $1.1 billion, an increase of one third over baseline total output of $811.7 million. For 2037, total regional employment due to the presence of the Airport increases to 5,338 workers with payroll of $316.4 million. Table D12 Projected Economic Benefits: 2037 Falcon Field Airport Source Employment On‐Airport 1,979 Air Visitors 177 Direct Benefits 2,156 Secondary Benefits 3,182 Total Benefits 5,338 Source: Based on 404,900 annual operations; all figures in $2018

Payroll $138,960,000 $5,304,000 $144,264,000 $172,189,000 $316,453,000

Output $578,299,000 $20,696,000 $598,995,000 $481,718,000 $1,080,713,000

GOVERNMENT REVENUE BENEFITS Because of the output, jobs, and income created by the presence of Falcon Field Airport, the facility is an important source of public revenues. As airport activity expands, tax revenues will continue to grow. Estimated tax revenue potential is set out in Table D13. The table shows the revenues for each tax category derived from the IMPLAN model. The model uses current average tax rates for Maricopa County and Arizona for profits, personal income, property, and sales taxes and applies these rates to direct and secondary economic activity. Federal taxes are applied using current federal rates for Social Security taxes, income, profits, and federal excise taxes and fees. The first column of Table D13 shows tax revenues associated with the 2018 baseline level of total output of $811.7 million. The total economic benefits include direct and secondary benefits from on‐airport activity and air visitor spending. The 4,009 total workers supported by airport activity receive payrolls of $237.7 million. Employers and workers are subject to various federal, state, and local taxes. The largest federal component is the social security tax, with contributions from employers and workers of $27.1 million in 2018. The second largest federal tax category is the personal income tax paid by workers and proprietors of $16.4 million. The federal corporate profits tax is $8.2 million. Overall, fed‐ eral tax revenues estimated due to economic activity associated with Falcon Field Airport are calculated to be $54.0 million for 2018. State and local tax revenues, shown in the lower portion of the table, sum to $22.3 million for 2018. The largest state and local component is sales taxes of $10.7 million. Property taxes for homeowners and businesses are estimated to be $5.7 million. Combined federal, state, and local government tax revenues created by the presence of Falcon Field Airport are $76.3 million at the 2018 level of airport activity and visitor spending. D‐16

Table D13 Government Revenue Benefits Falcon Field Airport Source 2018 2022 2027 2037 Federal Taxes Corporate Profits Tax $8,171,000 $8,609,000 $9,479,000 $10,879,000 Personal Income Tax $16,419,000 $17,299,000 $19,049,000 $21,862,000 Social Security Tax $27,150,000 $28,605,000 $31,497,000 $36,149,000 All Other Federal Taxes $2,255,000 $2,375,000 $2,616,000 $3,002,000 Total Federal Taxes $53,995,000 $56,888,000 $62,641,000 $71,892,000 State and Local Taxes Corporate Profits Tax $858,000 $904,000 $995,000 $1,142,000 Property Tax $5,717,000 $6,024,000 $6,633,000 $7,613,000 Sales Tax $10,670,000 $11,242,000 $12,379,000 $14,207,000 Personal Income Tax $2,804,000 $2,954,000 $3,253,000 $3,733,000 All Other State & Local $2,213,000 $2,209,000 $2,432,000 $2,791,735 Total State & Local Taxes $22,262,000 $23,333,000 $25,692,000 $29,486,000 Total Federal, State and Local Taxes Total Taxes $76,257,000 $80,221,000 $88,333,000 $101,378,000 Source: Calculations from the IMPLAN input‐output model based on tax rates for Maricopa County and Arizona and cur‐ rent federal rates. All figures are in 2018 dollars.

Projected tax revenues rise as future airport activity increases. In the year 2022, total economic benefits created by the presence of Falcon Field Airport are projected to be $855.2 million, with 4,224 jobs sup‐ ported in the region and worker compensation of $250.4 million. At the federal level, the rise in em‐ ployment and income will be accompanied by an increase of business and employee social security con‐ tributions paid to $28.6 million. Federal personal income taxes will rise to $17.3 million. All figures assume constant 2018 tax rates. In 2022, state and local government revenues will be $23.3 million, and combined total annual state and federal tax collections will be $80.2 million. Total economic benefits due to the presence of the Airport are projected to increase to $941.6 million for the year 2027. Jobs supported will rise to 4,651 and worker and proprietor income will be $275.7 million. Total state and federal tax collections will be $88.3 million. Within the long‐term (2037) horizon, total economic benefits from activity at Falcon Field Airport are projected to exceed one billion dollars ($1.1 billion), with 5,338 jobs supported and payroll of $316.4 million. Annual federal tax collections in 2037 are estimated to be $71.9 million, with social security contributions of $36.1 million and personal income taxes paid of $21.9 million (assuming rates under current law). At the state and local levels, annual sales tax collections increase to $14.2 million and property tax collections rise to $7.6 million. Combined state and federal tax collections will be $101.4 million, an increase of 33 percent over the 2018 base year revenues.

D‐17

APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS

Appendix E AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS

As part of this Master Plan, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires the development of Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawings detailing specific parts of Falcon Field Airport and its environs. The ALP drawings are created on a computer‐aided drafting (CAD) system and serve as the official depiction of the current and planned condition at the airport. The ALP drawings are delivered to the FAA and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) – Aeronautics Group for their review. These entities critique the drawings from a technical perspective to be sure all applicable federal regulations are met. Ultimately, the FAA will approve the ALP drawing set. The ALP will then be used as the basis for justification for funding decisions. It should be noted that the FAA requires any changes to the airfield (i.e., runway and taxiway system, navigational aids, etc.) to be presented on the ALP. The landside configuration developed during the master planning process is also depicted on the ALP, but the FAA recognizes that landside development is much more fluid and dependent on developer needs. Thus, an updated ALP set is typically not necessary for future landside development. The five primary functions of the ALP that define its purpose are provided in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070‐6B, Airport Master Plans, as follows: 1) An approved plan is necessary for the airport to receive financial assistance under the terms of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AIP), as amended, and to be able to receive specific Passenger Facility Charge funding. An airport must keep its ALP current and follow that plan, since those are grant assurance requirements of the AIP and previous airport development programs, including the 1970 Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) and Federal Aid Airports Program (FAAP) of 1946, as amended. While ALPs are not required for airports other than those developed with assistance under the aforementioned federal programs, the same guidance can be applied to all airports. 2) An ALP creates a blueprint for airport development by depicting proposed facility improvements. The ALP provides a guideline by which the airport sponsor can ensure that development maintains airport design standards and safety requirements and is consistent with airport and community land use plans. 3) The ALP is a public document that serves as a record of aeronautical requirements, both present and future, and as a reference for community deliberations on land use proposals and budget resource planning. E‐1

4) The approved ALP enables the airport sponsor and the FAA to plan for facility improvements at the airport. It also allows the FAA to anticipate budgetary and procedural needs. The approved ALP will also allow the FAA to protect the airspace required for facility or approach procedure improvements. 5) The ALP can be a working tool for the airport sponsor, including its development and maintenance staff.

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SET The ALP set includes several technical drawings which depict various aspects of the current and future layout of the airport. The following is a description of the ALP drawings included with this Master Plan. AIRPORT DATA SHEET The Airport Data Sheet provides existing and ultimate conditions for the airport as they relate to the runways, taxiways, navigational aids, and wind data tabulations. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING An official ALP Drawing has been developed for Falcon Field Airport. The ALP Drawing graphically presents the existing and ultimate airport layout. The ALP Drawing includes such elements as the physical airport features, location of airfield facilities (i.e., runways, taxiways, navigational aids), and existing aviation development. Also presented on the ALP Drawing are the runway safety areas, airport property boundary, and revenue support areas. The computerized plan provides detailed information on existing and future facility layouts on multiple layers that permit the user to focus on any section of the airport at a desired scale. The plan can be used as base information for design and can be easily updated in the future to reflect new development and more detail concerning existing conditions as made available through design surveys. The ALP Drawing is used by the FAA to determine funding eligibility for future capital projects. TERMINAL AREA DRAWING The Terminal Area Drawing is a larger scale plan view drawing of existing and planned aprons, buildings, hangars, parking lots, and other landside facilities. E‐2

AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, was established for use by local authorities to control the height of objects near airports. The Part 77 Airspace Drawing is a graphic depiction of this regulatory criterion. The Airspace Drawing is a tool to aid local authorities in determining if proposed development could present a hazard to aircraft using the airport. It can be a critical tool for the airport sponsor’s use in reviewing proposed development in the vicinity of the airport and for establishing locally enforceable height and hazard zoning regulations. The Airspace Drawing assigns three‐dimensional imaginary surfaces associated with the airport. These imaginary surfaces emanate from the runway centerline(s) and are dimensioned according to the visibility minimums associated with the approach to the runway end and size of aircraft to operate on the runway. The Part 77 imaginary surfaces include the primary surface, horizontal surface, approach surface, transitional surface, and conical surface. Penetrations to the Part 77 surfaces are considered obstructions to the airport airspace. Further analysis by the FAA, through an aeronautical survey, is necessary to determine if any obstructions are hazards to air navigation. It should be noted that the Part 77 drawings are based on ultimate planning recommendations and not necessarily existing conditions. APPROACH SURFACE PROFILE DRAWINGS The Approach Surface Profile Drawings present the entirety of the Part 77 approach surface to the end of each runway. It also depicts the runway centerline profile with elevations. This drawing provides profile details that the Airspace Drawings do not. The Approach Surface Profile Drawings include identified penetrations to the approach surface. Penetrations to the approach surface are considered obstructions. The FAA will determine if any obstructions are also hazards which require mitigation. The FAA utilizes other design criteria such as the threshold siting surface (TSS) and various surfaces defined in FAA Order 8260.3B, Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), to determine if an obstruction is a hazard. If an obstruction is a hazard, the FAA can take many steps to protect air navigation. The mitigation options range from the airport owner removing the hazard to installing obstruction lighting, to the FAA adjusting the instrument approach minimums. The drawing set includes the following approach surface drawings:  Approach profile drawings for each runway end  Inner portion of the approach surface drawings for each runway end E‐3

LAND USE DRAWING The objective of the Land Use Drawing is to coordinate uses of the airport property in a manner compatible with the functional design of the airport facility. Airport land use planning is important for orderly development and efficient use of available space. There are two primary considerations for airport land use planning. These are to secure those areas essential to the safe and efficient operation of the airport and to determine compatible land uses for the balance of the property which would be most advantageous to the airport and community. In essence, this drawing depicts the suggested highest and best potential uses for airport property. The Land Use Drawing presents generalized proposed uses of property for the future. The on‐airport land uses on this drawing become the official FAA acceptance of current and future land uses. The map also depicts the existing and ultimate noise exposure limits. EXHIBIT “A” AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP The Airport Property Map provides information on property under airport control and is, therefore, subject to FAA grant assurances. The various recorded deeds that make up the airport property are listed in tabular format. The primary purpose of the drawing is to provide information for analyzing the current and future aeronautical use of land acquired with federal funds. DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING The Departure Surface Drawing provides detailed analysis of the existing and ultimate departure surface for each corresponding runway end. A composite profile of the extended ground line is depicted. Obstructions are shown where appropriate.

APPROVED ALP The preparation of the ALP set has been supported, in part, through financial assistance from the FAA through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of the Master Plan does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the FAA to participate in any development depicted on the ALP drawings, nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable or would have justification in accordance with appropriate public laws. The ALP set has been approved in accordance with FAA standards.

E‐4

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS for

VICINITY MAP

INDEX OF DRAWINGS

LOCATION MAP

1. TITLE SHEET 2. AIRPORT DATA SHEET 3. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING 4. AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING 5. APPROACH PROFILES FOR RUNWAYS 4R-22L AND 4L-22R 6. INNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE DRAWING RUNWAY 4R-22L 7. INNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE DRAWING RUNWAY 4L-22R COUNTY MAP

8. DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING RUNWAY 4R-22L 9. DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING RUNWAY 4L-22R

City of Mesa, Arizona

10. TERMINAL AREA DRAWING - NORTH 11. TERMINAL AREA DRAWING - SOUTH MARICOPA COUNTY

12. LAND USE DRAWING FALCON FIELD AIRPORT

13. AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP - EXHIBIT "A"

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

12/02/2016

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

10/26/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

No.

APP'D.

THE PREPARATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS WAS FINANCED IN PART THROUGH A PLANNING GRANT FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 505 OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1982, AS AMENDED. THE CONTENTS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY OF THE FAA. ACCEPTANCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS BY THE FAA DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT OF THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS.

TITLE SHEET MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

AIRPORT DATA

RUNWAY 4R-22L RUNWAY DATA

EXISTING 4R 22L

RUNWAY DESIGN CODE (RDC) B-II-5000 APPROACH REFERENCE CODE B/II/5000 B/II DEPARTURE REFERENCE CODE RUNWAY AZIMUTH (TRUE) 51° 231° RUNWAY BEARING (TRUE BEARING-DECIMAL DEGREES) 51.17° 231.18° "SEE TABLE THIS SHEET" RUNWAY END COORDINATES APPROACH TYPE NONPREC VISUAL 20:1 34:1 PART 77 APPROACH CATEGORY APPROACH VISIBILITY MINIMUMS 1 MILE VISUAL RUNWAY DEPARTURE SURFACE 40:1 40:1 TYPE OF AERONAUTICAL SURVEY REQUIRED NON-VERTICALLY GUIDED THRESHOLD SITING SURFACE 20:1 20:1 DESIGN AIRCRAFT CITATION II DESIGN AIRCRAFT UNDERCARRIAGE WIDTH (FEET) 17.6' DESIGN AIRCRAFT WINGSPAN 52.2' DESIGN AIRCRAFT TAIL HEIGHT 15.0' 5,101' RUNWAY LENGTH RUNWAY WIDTH 100' 10.5 knots 95.47% PERCENT OF WIND COVERAGE 13 knots 98.15% (ALL WEATHER) 16 knots 99.54% RUNWAY END ELEVATION 1 1365.55' 1393.97' 1383.50' 1394.08' TOUCH DOWN ZONE ELEVATION 1 NONE NONE DISPLACED THRESHOLD 1 0.5% EFFECTIVE RUNWAY GRADIENT MAXIMUM GRADIENT 2.0% ASPHALT RUNWAY SURFACE TYPE RUNWAY PAVEMENT STRENGTH (in thousand lbs.) 2 38(S), 60(D),90(DT) PCN NUMBER UNKNOWN NONE RUNWAY SURFACE TREATMENT MIRL RUNWAY LIGHTING NONPREC NONPREC RUNWAY MARKING VISUAL AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA BEYOND STOP END (ACTUAL) RUNWAY SAFETY AREA WIDTH (ACTUAL) RUNWAY SAFETY AREA STANDARD OBJECT FREE AREA BEYOND STOP END OBJECT FREE AREA WIDTH OBSTACLE FREE ZONE BEYOND STOP END OBSTACLE FREE ZONE WIDTH APPROACH RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE DEPARTURE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE

MODIFICATIONS TO STANDARDS APPROVAL TABLE APPROVAL DATE NONE REQUESTED/REQUIRED

AIRSPACE CASE NUMBER

STANDARD MODIFICATION

DESCRIPTION

RUNWAY CENTERLINE TO AIRCRAFT PARKING THRESHOLD SITING SURFACE OBJECT PENETRATIONS VERTICAL DATUM HORIZONTAL DATUM

PAPI-4L-RWY. 4R,22L RNAV GPS-RWY. 4R REILs-RWY. 4R,22L ATCT ASOS LIGHTED WINDCONES 300' 300' 150' 300'/150' 300' 300' 500' 200' 200' 400' 500'x1,000' 500'x1,000' x700' x700' 500'x1,000'x 700"

500'x1,000' x700'

392' NONE NAVD 88 NAD 83

RUNWAY 4L-22R

ULTIMATE 4R 22L

EXISTING 4L 22R

SAME SAME SAME

B-I(SMALL AIRCRAFT)-5000 B/I(S)/5000 B/I (S) 51° 231° 51.15° 231.16° "SEE TABLE THIS SHEET" NONPREC VISUAL 20:1 20:1 1 MILE VISUAL 40:1 40:1 NON-VERTICALLY GUIDED 20:1 20:1 KING AIR 100 13.9' 45.9' 15.4' 3,799' 75' 95.47% 98.15% 99.54% 1365.73' 1386.03' 1382.60' 1386.03' NONE NONE 0.5% 2.0% ASPHALT 12.5(S) UNKNOWN NONE MIRL BASIC BASIC

SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME NONPREC NONPREC

PAPI-2L-RWY. 4L-22R RNAV GPS-RWY. 4L REILs-RWY. 4L,22R ATCT ASOS LIGHTED WINDCONES

SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME

SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME

SAME SAME SAME

SAME

SAME SAME SAME NONPREC 34:1 1 MILE SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME

SAME RNAV GPS-RWY. 4R-22L SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME

240'

SAME

240'

SAME

200'

SAME

250'x1,000' x450'

SAME

SAME SAME SAME SAME

SAME

250'x1,000' x450'

SAME SAME SAME SAME

SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME

SAME

SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME

SAME SAME SAME

SAME

SAME SAME SAME

240'

SAME

200'

SAME

250'x1,000' x450'

SAME

RUNWAY END COORDINATES (NAD 83)

SAME SAME

250'

SAME SAME

SAME SAME SAME

250'

SAME SAME

SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME

120' 240'/120'

SAME SAME SAME

240'

ULTIMATE 4L 22R

RUNWAY

SAME SAME

250'x1,000' x450'

278' NONE NAVD 88 NAD 83

RUNWAY 4R

SAME

RUNWAY 22L

SAME

RUNWAY 4L

SAME SAME SAME SAME

RUNWAY 22R

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude

EXISTING

ULTIMATE

33° 27' 21.26" N 111° 44' 02.70" W 33° 27' 52.89" N 111° 43' 15.80" W 33° 27' 29.90" N 111° 44' 03.04" W 33° 27' 53.48" N 111° 43' 28.12" W

SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME

NOTES: 1. RUNWAY END ELEVATIONS, COORDINATES, DISTANCES, AND BEARING NOTED IN THIS ALP ARE FROM THE WOOLPERT 18B SURVEY DATED APRIL 4, 2018.. 2. SW-SINGLE WHEEL, DW-DUAL WHEEL, AND DT-DUAL TANDEM WHEEL.

DECLARED DISTANCES DATA TORA TODA ASDA LDA

TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE

EXISTING RUNWAY 4R-22L 4R 22L 5,101' 5,101' 5,101' 5,101'

5,101' 5,101' 5,101' 5,101'

ULTIMATE RUNWAY 4R-22L 4R 22L 5,101' 5,101' 5,101' 5,101'

5,101' 5,101' 5,101' 5,101'

EXISTING RUNWAY 4L-22R 4L 22R 3,799' 3,799' 3,799' 3,799'

ULTIMATE RUNWAY 4L-22R 4L 22R

3,799' 3,799' 3,799' 3,799'

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT 4

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

No.

12/02/2016

10/26/2016

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

APP'D.

AIRPORT DATA SHEET MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT 4

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

12/02/2016

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

10/26/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

No.

APP'D.

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT 4

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

12/02/2016

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

10/26/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

No.

APP'D.

AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

H RT NO AG

100

200

VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET 0

1000

2000

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

RUNWAY 4R APPROACH OBSTRUCTION TABLE Obj. No. 1 -

Object Description

RUNWAY 22l APPROACH OBSTRUCTION TABLE

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Part 77 Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

Obj. No.

---

NONE --

GENERAL NOTES:

1. Obstructions, clearances, and locations are calculated from ultimate runway end elevations and ultimate approach surfaces, unless otherwise noted. Road obstructions reflect a safety clearance of 10' for dirt roads, 15' for non-interstate roads, 17' for interstate roads, and 23' for railroads.

RUNWAY 4R TSS OBSTRUCTION TABLE Obj. No. t1 -

Object Description

Top Object Elevation

NONE --

Obstructed Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

---

4 5 6

2. Depiction of features and objects within the inner portion of the approach surfaces, are illustrated on the Inner Portion of the Approach Surface for Runway 4R-22L sheet 6 and Runway 4L-22R Sheet 7 of these plans.

3. Existing and future height and hazard ordinances are to be amended and/or referenced upon approval of updated PART 77 Airspace Plan.

8 9 11 12

4. Survey used for obstruction data from Woolpert 18B survey dated April 4, 2018.

5. Obstruction Data for groups represent the tallestt (Natural or Man Made) object within the group.

14 15 16 17 18

Object Description Road Road Road Tree Light Pole Tree Pole Sign Tree Tree Pole Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Part 77 Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

1406.81' MSL 1410.83' MSL 1410.20' MSL 1424.30' MSL 1414.27' MSL 1418.52' MSL 1416.77' MSL 1411.81' MSL 1420.76' MSL 1425.61' MSL 1416.77' MSL 1423.41' MSL 1421.64' MSL 1427.66' MSL 1466.58' MSL 1450.84' MSL 1430.72' MSL 1455.26' MSL

Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach Rwy 22L Approach

1404.43' MSL 1407.78' MSL 1409.87' MSL 1409.47' MSL 1412.98' MSL 1411.99' MSL 1414.01' MSL 1411.35' MSL 1411.52' MSL 1414.68' MSL 1415.59' MSL 1418.95' MSL 1421.34' MSL 1422.69' MSL 1419.47' MSL 1426.67' MSL 1425.72' MSL 1429.27' MSL

2.38' 3.05' 0.33' 14.83' 1.29' 6.53' 2.76' 0.46' 9.24' 10.93' 1.18' 4.46' 0.30' 4.97' 47.11' 24.17' 5.00' 25.99'

To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Lowered or Removed Request Aeronautical Study To Be Lowered or Removed Request Aeronautical Study Request Aeronautical Study To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed Request Aeronautical Study To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed

RUNWAY 22L TSS OBSTRUCTION TABLE Obj. No. 4 16 18

Object Description Tree Tree Tree

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

1424.30' MSL 1450.84' MSL 1455.26' MSL

Threshold Siting Surface Threshold Siting Surface Threshold Siting Surface

1420.31' MSL 1449.56" MSL 1453.98' MSL

3.98' 1.27' 1.28'

To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed

VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET 0

200

400

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

RUNWAY 4L APPROACH OBSTRUCTION TABLE Object Description

Obj. No. 20 -

Pole --

RUNWAY 22R APPROACH OBSTRUCTION TABLE

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Part 77 Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

Obj. No.

1384.25' MSL --

Rwy 4L Approach --

1378.30'MSL --

5.95' --

Lighted --

19 -

100

Object Description Tree --

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Part 77 Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

1428.00' MSL --

Rwy 22R Approach --

1420.03' MSL --

7.97' --

To Be Lowered or Removed --

200

VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET 0

1000

2000

RUNWAY 4L TSS OBSTRUCTION TABLE Obj. No. t1 -

Object Description NONE --

Top Object Elevation ---

Obstructed Surface

RUNWAY 22R TSS OBSTRUCTION TABLE

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

---

Object Description

Obj. No.

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

19 -

Tree --

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Surface

1428.00' MSL --

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

1420.03' MSL --

7.97' --

Proposed Object Disposition To Be Lowered or Removed --

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT 0

VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET 0

200

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

400

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

12/02/2016

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

10/26/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

No.

APP'D.

APPROACH PROFILES FOR RUNWAYS 4R-22L AND 4L-22R MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

NO M

RUNWAY 4R APPROACH OBSTRUCTION TABLE Obj. No. 1 -

Object Description

RUNWAY 22L APPROACH OBSTRUCTION TABLE

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Part 77 Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

Obj. No.

---

NONE --

GENERAL NOTES: 1. Obstructions, clearances, and locations are calculated from ultimate runway end elevations and ultimate approach surfaces, unless otherwise noted. Road obstructions reflect a safety clearance of 10' for dirt roads, 15' for non-interstate roads, 17' for interstate roads, and 23' for railroads. 2. Depiction of features and objects within the outer portion of the approach surfaces, is illustrated on the Outer Portion of the Approach Surface for Runways 4R-22L and 4L-22R Sheet 5 of these plans. 3. Existing and future height and hazard ordinances are to be amended and/or referenced upon approval of updated PART 77 Airspace Plan.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

4. Survey used for obstruction data from Woolpert 18B survey dated April 4 2018. 5. Obstruction Data for groups represent the tallest object (Natural or Man Made) within the group.

RUNWAY 4R TSS OBSTRUCTION TABLE Obj. No. 1 -

Object Description NONE --

Top Object Elevation ---

Obstructed Surface

12 13 14 15

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

---

Object Description Road Road Road Tree Light Pole Tree Pole Sign Tree Tree Pole Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Part 77 Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

2.38' 3.05' 0.33' 14.83' 1.29' 6.53' 2.76' 0.46' 9.24' 10.93' 1.18' 4.46' 0.30' 4.97' 47.11' 24.17' 5.00' 25.99'

RUNWAY 22L TSS OBSTRUCTION TABLE Obj. No. 4 16 18

Object Description Tree Tree Tree

VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET 0

200

400

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT 4

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

12/02/2016

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

10/26/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

1424.30' MSL 1450.84' MSL 1455.26' MSL

Threshold Siting Surface Threshold Siting Surface Threshold Siting Surface

1420.31' MSL 1449.56" MSL 1453.98' MSL

3.98' 1.27' 1.28'

To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed

No.

APP'D.

INNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE DRAWING 4R-22L MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

XOFZ XOFZ

XOFZ

NO M

RUNWAY 4L APPROACH OBSTRUCTION TABLE Object Description

Obj. No. 20 -

Pole --

Top Object Elevation

1384.25' MSL --

Obstructed Part 77 Surface

Rwy 4L Approach --

Surface Elevation

1378.30'MSL --

Object Penetration

5.95' --

RUNWAY 22R APPROACH OBSTRUCTION TABLE Proposed Object Disposition

Lighted --

Object Description

Obj. No. 19 -

Tree --

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Part 77 Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

1428.00' MSL --

Rwy 22R Approach --

1420.03' MSL --

7.97' --

To Be Lowered or Removed --

2. Depiction of features and objects within the outer portion of the approach surfaces, is illustrated on the Outer Portion of the Approach Surface for Runways 4R-22L and 4L-22R Sheet 5 of these plans.

VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET 0

200

400

3. Existing and future height and hazard ordinances are to be amended and/or referenced upon approval of updated PART 77 Airspace Plan.

Obj. No. t1 -

Object Description NONE --

Top Object Elevation ---

Obstructed Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

---

5. Obstruction Data for groups represent the tallest object (Natural and Man Made) within the group.

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

4. Survey used for obstruction data from Woolpert 18B survey dated April 4 2018.

RUNWAY 4L TSS OBSTRUCTION TABLE

RUNWAY 22R TSS OBSTRUCTION TABLE Obj. No. 19 -

Object Description Tree --

Top Object Elevation 1428.00' MSL --

Obstructed Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

1420.03' MSL --

7.97' --

To Be Lowered or Removed --

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

12/02/2016

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

10/26/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

No.

APP'D.

INNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE DRAWING 4L-22R MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

3 8

9 1

NO M

1 M RA 2.18 AG TE 97 NE OF °E TIC (N CH O VA AN VE RIA GE MB NC -3 ER E.3 20 92 0 83 2) 'W

3 4

100

200

9 VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET 0

1000

2000

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

RUNWAY 4R DEPARTURE OBSTRUCTION TABLE Obj. No. 8 9 10

Object Description Greenfield Road Greenfield Road McKellips Road

RUNWAY 22L DEPARTURE OBSTRUCTION TABLE

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Departure Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration*

Proposed Object Disposition

Obj. No.

Object Description

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Departure Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration*

Proposed Object Disposition

1375.00' MSL 1374.00' MSL 1373.00' MSL

Rwy 4R Departure Rwy 4R Departure Rwy 4R Departure

1372.52' MSL 1384.27' MSL 1398.30' MSL

2.48' -10.27' -25.30'

To Be Determined NAR NAR

Higley Road McDowell Road Higley Road McDowell Road McDowell Road Lema Road Natural High Point Group

1413.00' MSL 1408.47' MSL 1396.62' MSL 1404.00' MSL 1425.57' MSL 1416.51' MSL 1466.58' MSL

Rwy 22L Departure Rwy 22L Departure Rwy 22L Departure Rwy 22L Departure Rwy 22L Departure Rwy 22L Departure Rwy 22L Departure

1404.88' MSL 1417.72' MSL 1437.55' MSL 1400.07' MSL 1454.52' MSL 1437.41' MSL 1420.65' MSL

8.12' -9.25' -40.93' 3.93' -28.95' -20.66' 45.93

To Be Determined NAR NAR To Be Determined NAR NAR To Be Lowered or Removed

* Negative Penetration value: Object is clear of surface NAR - No Action Required

GENERAL NOTES: 1. Obstructions, clearances, and locations are calculated from ultimate runway end elevations and ultimate approach surfaces, unless otherwise noted. Road obstructions reflect a safety clearance of 10' for dirt roads, 15' for non-interstate roads, 17' for interstate roads, and 23' for railroads. 2. Survey used for obstruction data are from Woolpert 18B survey dated April 4 2018. 3. Obstruction Data for groups represent the tallest object (Natural or Man Made) within the group.

2 3 4 5 6 7

* Negative Penetration value: Object is clear of surface NAR - No Action Required

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

12/02/2016

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

10/26/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

No.

APP'D.

DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING RUNWAY 4R-22L MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

1 13 14

NO M

1 M RA 2.18 AG TE 97 NE OF °°E TIC (N CH O VA AN VE RIA GE MB NC -3 ER E.3 20 92 0 83 2) 'W

14 11 6

100

200

VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET 0

1000

2000

HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET

RUNWAY 4L DEPARTURE OBSTRUCTION TABLE Obj. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Object Description Greenfield Road Greenfield Road Greenfield Road Pole Tree Greenfield Road

RUNWAY 22R DEPARTURE OBSTRUCTION TABLE

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Departure Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

Obj. No.

1373.00' MSL 1375.00' MSL 1375.00' MSL 1384.25' MSL 1401.83' MSL 1376.00' MSL

Rwy 4L Departure Rwy 4L Departure Rwy 4L Departure Rwy 4L Departure Rwy 4L Departure Rwy 4L Departure

1401.29' MSL 1372.52' MSL 1383.29' MSL 1377.02' MSL 1373.82' MSL 1371.79' MSL

-28.29 2.48' -8.29 7.23' 28.01' -20.66'

NAR To Be Determined NAR Lighted To Be Lowered or Removed NAR

* Negative Penetration value: Object is clear of surface NAR - No Action Required

GENERAL NOTES:

2. Surveys used for obstruction data are from Woolpert 18B survey dated April 4 2018.

9 11 12 13 14

3. Obstruction Data for groups represent the tallest object within the group.

Object Description McDowell Road Tree Tree McDowell Road Higley Road Higley Road Tree McDowell Tree

Top Object Elevation

Obstructed Departure Surface

Surface Elevation

Object Penetration

Proposed Object Disposition

1394.33' MSL 1419.30' MSL 1428.52' MSL 1402.87' MSL 1399.98' MSL 1413.91' MSL 1424.30' MSL 1411.00' MSL 1455.26' MSL

Rwy 22R Departure Rwy 22R Departure Rwy 22R Departure Rwy 22R Departure Rwy 22R Departure Rwy 22R Departure Rwy 22R Departure Rwy 22R Departure Rwy 22R Departure

1390.50' MSL 1403.73' MSL 1408.30' MSL 1407.31' MSL 1443.50' MSL 1424.61' MSL 1423.61' MSL 1442.81' MSL 1440.44' MSL

3.83' 15.57' 20.22' -4.44' -43.52' -10.70' 0.69' -31.81' 14.82'

To Be Determined To Be Lowered or Removed To Be Lowered or Removed NAR NAR NAR To Be Lowered or Removed NAR To Be Lowered or Removed

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT

* Negative Penetration value: Object is clear of surface NAR - No Action Required 4

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

12/02/2016

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

10/26/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

No.

APP'D.

DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING RUNWAY 4L-22R MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT 4

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

2 1

No.

12/02/2016

10/26/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

APP'D.

TERMINAL AREA DRAWING - NORTH MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT 4

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

2 1

No.

12/02/2016

10/26/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

APP'D.

TERMINAL AREA DRAWING - SOUTH MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT 4

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

No.

12/02/2016

10/26/2016

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

APP'D.

LAND USE DRAWING MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

GENERAL NOTES 1. This property was transferred from the U.S. Government to the City of Mesa under the Surplus Property Act of 1947 and was to be used only for an airport. The transfer documents required that all the property (including buildings/facilities) be used for aviation purposes only. The property originally taken by the U.S. Government included 160 acres north of McDowell Road. This property was not included in the Transfer agreement and was returned to the City of Mesa. 2. A search of all the property records in the City of Mesa, McDonnell Douglas Helicopters, the Maricopa County Recorder and the Title companies, failed to produce any recorded avigation easements. Recommend the Sponsor secure recorded Avigation Easements for these properties. 3. The SOP 3 Checklist requires unique property designations to be maintained on subsequent Exhibit A sheets. An identifiable designation system was not presented on the previous Exhibit A, so a new property designation was applied on this project.

FALCON FIELD AIRPORT 4

REVISED TO SHOW EXISTING RWY 4L NP APPROACH

HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AREA REVISIONS

2 1

No.

12/02/2016

10/26/2016

ADD EXISTING ASOS AND ULTIMATE RWY 4L-22R BLAST PADS

07/15/2016

UPDATE ALP - EXISTING AND ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

01/20/2016

REVISIONS

DATE

APP'D.

EXHIBIT 'A" PROPERTY MAP MESA, ARIZONA PLANNED BY:

Matt Quick

DETAILED BY:

Maggie Beaver

APPROVED BY:

Jim Harris P.E.

JUNE 2020

SHEET

Airport Consultants

Airport Consultants www.coffmanassociates.com

KANSAS CITY (816) 524-3500

PHOENIX (602) 993-6999

12920 Metcalf Avenue Suite 200 Overland Park, KS 66213

4835 E. Cactus Road Suite 235 Scottsdale, AZ 85254