Extracted text (via pymupdf)
85418 characters
The airport master plan for Chandler Municipal Airport (CHD) has progressed through a systematic and
logical process with a goal of formulating a recommended 20‐year development plan. The process began
with an evaluation of existing and future operational demand, which aided in creating an assessment of
future facility needs and were used to develop alternative facility plans. Each step in the planning pro‐
cess included the development of draft working papers, which have been presented and discussed at
previous Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings and public information workshops and are avail‐
able on the project website (www.chandler.airportstudy.com).
In the previous chapter, several development alternatives were analyzed to explore options for the fu‐
ture growth and development of CHD. The development alternatives have been refined into a single
recommended concept for the master plan. This chapter describes, in narrative and graphic form, the
recommended direction for the future use and development of CHD.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-1
The recommended concept provides the ability to meet the disparate needs of the array of airport op‐
erators. The goal of this plan is to ensure the airport can continue, and even improve, in its role of
serving general aviation operators and military aviation in and around the City of Chandler and the Phoe‐
nix metropolitan area. The plan has been specifically tailored to support existing and future growth in
all forms of potential aviation activity as the demand materializes.
The recommended airport development concept, as shown on Exhibit 5A, presents a long‐term config‐
uration for the airport, which preserves and enhances the role of the airport, while meeting Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards. The phased implementation of the recommended de‐
velopment concept will be presented in Chapter Six. The following sections describe the key details of
the recommended master plan concept.
AIRSIDE CONCEPT
The airside plan generally considers those improvements related to the runway and taxiway system and
navigational aids.
DESIGN STANDARDS
The FAA has established design criteria to define the physical dimensions of runways and taxiways, as
well as the imaginary surfaces surrounding them, to enhance the safe operation of aircraft at airports.
These design standards also define the separation criteria for the placement of landside facilities.
As discussed previously, the design criteria primarily center on the airport’s critical design aircraft. The
critical aircraft is the most demanding aircraft, or family of aircraft, which currently, or are projected to,
conduct 500 or more operations (takeoffs and landings) per year at the airport. Factors included in air‐
port design are an aircraft’s wingspan, approach speed, tail height and, in some cases, the instrument
approach visibility minimums for each runway. The FAA has established the Runway Design Code (RDC)
to relate these design aircraft factors to airfield design standards. The most restrictive RDC is also con‐
sidered the overall Airport Reference Code (ARC).
While airfield elements, such as safety areas, must meet design standards associated with the applicable
RDC, landside elements can be designed to accommodate specific categories of aircraft. For example,
an airside taxiway must meet taxiway object free area (TOFA) for all aircraft types using the taxiway,
while the taxilane to a T‐hangar area only needs to meet width standards for smaller single and multi‐
engine piston aircraft expected to utilize the taxilane.
The applicable RDC and critical design aircraft for each runway at CHD in the existing and ultimate con‐
ditions, as established in Chapter Two, are summarized in Table 5A.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-2
A
J
B
C
M
C6
C5
C4
C3
C9
C8
B9
B8
B7
B4
A4
A9
A8
A7
C7
A6
A5
A3
A2
B2
A1
B1
B3
B6
C2
B5
C1
B10
C10
Germann Road
Germann Road
E Ryan Rd
S Stinson Way
E Yeager Dr
E Yeager Dr
S Cooper Road
S Cooper Road
S Heliport Way
S Heliport Way
Insight Way
Insight Way
Emmett Dr
Emmett Dr
S McQueen Rd
S McQueen Rd
S Airport Blvd
Aviation Dr.
S Curtiss Way
S Cooper Rd
S Cooper Rd
Runway 4R-22L 4,870’ x 75’
Runway 4R-22L 4,870’ x 75’
Runway 4L-22R 4,401’ x 75’
Runway 4L-22R 4,401’ x 75’
( 5,550’ x 75’ Ultimate)
( 5,550’ x 75’ Ultimate)
( 5,550’ x 75’ Ultimate)
E Queen Creek Rd
E Queen Creek Rd
S Cooper Rd
S Cooper Rd
0
800
SCALE IN FEET
Photo: Woolpert 11/2019
RUNWAY DESIGN CODE (RDC)
Runway 4R-22L | RDC B-II-5000
Runway 4L-22R | RDC B-II-VIS (small airplane)
LEGEND
Existing Airport Property Line
Existing Avigation Easement
Taxiway Designation
Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA)
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ)
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
High-Energy Area
Pavement to be Removed
Ultimate Pavement
Environmental Site
A
FBO - Fixed Base Operator
MRO - Maintenance/Repair/Overhaul Operator
SASO - Specialty Aviation Service Operator
ACRONYMS
Exhibit 5A
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
S Stinson W
S Stinson W
E Ryan R
E Ryan Rd
S Ai
t Bl d
S Ai
t Bl
Relocated Above Ground
Self-Service 100LL Fuel Storage
Airport Operations/
Maintenance
16,000 sf New Terminal
Building/Airport Administration
Environmental Site to be Redeveloped
as Apron/Aircraft Wash Rack
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Pedestrian Gate
REILs
680' Extension
Holding Bay
Holding Bay
Apron Pavement
Holding Bay
Reroute
Perimeter Road
DRAFT CONCEPT FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Holding Bay
Holding Bay
REILs
Self-Service
Fuel Station
Reroute
Perimeter Road
Environmental Site
(~10.7 Acres)
Small
Aircraft
Facilities
Development
Reserve
(~4.9 Acres)
Small Aircraft
Facilities
Development
Reserve (~10 Acres)
Mixed Use Reserve
(Aviation/
Non-Aviation)
(~7.6 Acres)
Mixed Use Reserve
(Aviation/
Non-Aviation)
(~8.8 Acres)
Executive Hangar
Development
Reserve
(~18.6 Acres)
FBO/SASO
Development
Reserve (~19.5 Acres)
Large-Scale
SASO/MRO
Development
Reserve
(~15.5 Acres)
Non-Aviation Development
Reserve - Floodplain Restrictions (~11.4 Acres)
Non-Aviation
Development
Reserve
(~4.8 Acres)
Small Aircraft
Facilities
Development
Reserve
(~3.3 Acres)
Executive
Hangar
Development
Reserve
(~4.3 Acres)
FBO/SASO
Development
Reserve (~3.1 Acres)
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-3
This page intentionally left blank
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-4
TABLE 5A
Airport and Runway Classifications
Chandler Municipal Airport
Runway 4R‐22L
(existing/ultimate)
Runway 4L‐22R
(existing/ultimate)
Airport Reference Code (ARC)
B‐II
B‐II (small airplane)
Critical Aircraft (Typ.)
Beechcraft King Air 200/300/350 (existing)
Cessna Citation Jet CJ4/Citation X (ultimate)
Beechcraft King Air C/F90
Runway Design Code (RDC)
B‐II‐5000
B‐II‐VIS (small airplane)
Approach Reference Code (APRC)
D/IV/5000 and D/V/5000
B/II/VIS
Departure Reference Code (DPRC)
D/IV and D/V
B/II
Taxiway Design Group (TDG)
2
2
Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design
PRIMARY RUNWAY 4R‐22L
Runway Designation | A runway’s designation is based upon its magnetic headings, which are deter‐
mined by the magnetic declination for the area. The magnetic declination in the area of CHD is 10° 2’E1.
The primary runway is oriented northeast/southwest with a true heading of 049°/229°. Adjusting for
the magnetic declination, the current magnetic heading of the runway is 039°/219°. As a result, Runway
4R‐22L should maintain this designation.
Runway Dimensions | The primary runway is currently 4,870 feet long and 75 feet wide, meeting RDC
B‐II‐5000 design standards. At these current dimensions, the runway is capable of safely accommodating
all small general aviation aircraft. Business jets can also operate on this runway under moderate loading
conditions with shorter trip lengths and during cool to warm temperatures. Longer trips and hot summer
days significantly limit business jet capabilities. As a general aviation reliever airport, CHD’s role is to
relieve the larger airports in the region of general aviation traffic, including business jets. Increasing the
utility of the runway to safely accommodate business jets will also expand CHD’s market potential, at‐
tracting new itinerant operators, based aircraft, and businesses that provide services to business jet cli‐
ents. For these reasons, a 680‐foot extension of the runway is planned to achieve an ultimate length
of 5,550 feet.
Connected actions to the extension of Runway 4R‐22L include the following items:
Extensions to Taxiway B and Taxiway C to the ultimate runway end.
Relocation of the PAPI‐4 and runway end identifier light (REIL) units on the Runway 22L end.
All new runway pavement would be equipped with medium intensity runway edge lighting
(MIRL).
The ultimate runway’s declared distances2 (TORA, TODA, ASDA, and LDA) would equal the full
pavement length of 5,550 feet.
1 Source: NOAA, 02/06/2020.
2 Declared distances are described in detail in Chapter Four, Airside Alternatives section.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-5
The runway width of 75 feet meets the RDC B‐II‐5000 design standard. No change in runway width is
planned.
Pavement Strength | Runway 4R‐22L is currently strength‐rated for up to 30,000 pounds for single wheel
loading aircraft (SWL), which is adequate for all small aircraft and most small to mid‐sized business jets.
The critical design aircraft (Cessna Citation Jet CJ4 and Beechcraft King Air 200/300/350) have maximum
takeoff weights (MTOWs) of 30,000 pounds or less. The Cessna Citation X has a MTOW of 36,100 pounds
on a dual‐wheel main gear configuration, which also can be accommodated by the existing pavement
strength on a regular basis. The existing strength rating is adequate for all aircraft operating at CHD
currently and in the future. Therefore, no plans to strengthen the primary runway are recommended.
Instrument Approach Procedures | Runway 4R has two published one‐mile visibility instrument ap‐
proach procedures. Runway 22L is a visual‐only runway. The plan includes maintaining instrument ap‐
proach capabilities for Runway 4R at a one‐mile visibility and coordinating with the FAA on establishing
one‐mile visibility procedures to Runway 22L. No new on‐site equipment is needed to establish a GPS‐
based approach procedure to Runway 22L, and the size of the associated Runway Protection Zone (RPZ),
would not be changed.
Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) | The existing one mile or greater visibility minimum RPZs for both
ends of the runway encompass 13.77 acres. The RPZs are located on property owned by the airport. If
the runway is extended as planned to the northeast, the Runway 22L RPZ will shift in the same direction
but will still be located entirely on property owned by the airport. The existing perimeter service road
will ultimately pass through the RPZ; however, this is not a public‐use road, so it is not considered an
incompatible land use.
Blast Pads | The blast pads at the ends of the runway are undersized. The plan includes expanding the
blast pads to 95 feet wide and 150 feet long to meet design standards.
PARALLEL RUNWAY 4L‐22R
Runway Designation | Similar to the primary runway, Runway 4L‐22R’s current magnetic heading, ac‐
counting for magnetic declination, is 039°/219°. Therefore, the existing designation should be main‐
tained.
Runway Dimensions | The runway is currently 4,401 feet long and 75 feet wide. These dimensions
adequately accommodate the small aircraft this runway is intended to serve. Therefore, no modifica‐
tions to the runway dimensions are currently justified or planned.
Pavement Strength | The runway is currently strength‐rated for up to 30,000 pounds for SWL aircraft.
This strength rating is more than adequate for the types of aircraft currently using, and planned to use,
the runway, which are small aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less.
Instrument Approach Procedures | Both ends of this runway are visual‐only, meaning there are no pub‐
lished instrument approach procedures available. The plan allows for the possibility of establishing GPS‐
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-6
based approach procedures with one‐mile or greater visibility minimums. These types of procedures do
not require the installation of on‐site equipment and would not alter the dimensions of the RPZs. If in‐
strument approach procedures are established on this runway, markings will need to be improved to
non‐precision markings by adding threshold markings.
Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) | The RPZ dimensions for the parallel runway will remain the same as
they are currently, at 8.035 acres. A portion of the Runway 4L RPZ extends beyond property owned by
the airport over E Queen Creek Road; however, this property is controlled by an avigation easement.
There are no plans to extend the runway or alter its design standards; therefore, E Queen Creek Road
can be allowed to remain within the RPZ. The Runway 22R RPZ is located entirely on property owned by
the airport without incompatibilities.
Visual Approach Aids | The parallel runway is not currently equipped with Runway End Identifier Lights
(REILs). The plan includes adding REILs at both ends of the runway to improve pilot situational awareness.
TAXIWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Taxiway Design | The entirety of the CHD taxiway system is planned to meet Taxiway Design Group
(TDG) 2 standards. Many of the taxiway intersections on the airfield do not currently meet proper taxi‐
way fillet design standards. Taxiway fillets are tapered pavement sections at intersections that allow
aircraft to turn while maintain taxiing speed and obstruction clearance. Additional taxiway fillet pave‐
ment to meet design standards are depicted on Exhibit 5A.
Taxiway Nomenclature | Current taxiway designations do not meet FAA Engineering Brief (EB) 89, Tax‐
iway Nomenclature Convention standards. According to the EB, stub taxiways associated with a parallel
taxiway should be designated with a letter and number, such as A1, A2, A3, etc., beginning with the
northernmost stub for north/south taxiways and starting with the westernmost stub for east/west taxi‐
ways. Ultimate taxiway designations that meet the EB standards, along with the additional taxiway ex‐
tensions/improvements, are identified on Exhibit 5A.
Taxiway A | Taxiway A, the full‐length parallel taxiway supporting parallel Runway 4L‐22R, is 40 feet
wide, which exceeds the TDG 2 width standard of 35 feet. Improvements planned for Taxiway A and its
connectors include removing pavement sections of Taxiway F to eliminate direct‐access from the apron
to the runway. New connecting Taxiway A2 is planned to replace the portion of Taxiway F that is being
removed.
The southwest portion of Taxiway A from Taxiway A1 to A7 is separated from the T‐hangar area edge
taxilane by 74 feet, which meets only Airplane Design Group (ADG) I separation standards (ADG II stand‐
ards require separation of 105 feet). As a result, ADG II aircraft should use caution in this area to ensure
wingtip clearance is maintained with other aircraft. Figure 5A depicts the ADG I limitation area.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-7
FIGURE 5A – TAXIWAY A ADG I SEPARATION AREA
Taxiway B | Taxiway B is located between the two runways and is 40 feet wide. Taxiway B is planned to
be extended to the northeast and southwest to coincide with the extension to Runway 4R‐22L and to
provide for improved airfield circulation. For aircraft taxiing to the Runway 22L end from the north side,
there is currently only one access route that does not require multiple runway crossings. The southwest
extension of Taxiway B will create a full‐length parallel for both runways and multiple routes for aircraft
to access the Runway 22L end from the north side without having to cross both runways. The expansion
of Taxiway B is also planned in phases to alleviate congestion issues at the Runway 22R threshold that
has resulted in Hot Spot #1. All new Taxiway B pavement is planned to be equipped with LED medium
intensity taxiway lighting (MITL) and airfield signage.
Taxiway C | Taxiway C is the 40‐foot‐wide south parallel taxiway to the primary runway. This taxiway is
planned to be extended to the northeast to coincide with the runway extension. Existing Taxiway N,
which is planned to be re‐designated as part of the taxiway nomenclature change, is planned to be relo‐
cated south of Runway 4R‐22L. This section of taxiway pavement will be shifted to the southwest to
eliminate a crossing intersection in the high‐energy area of the runway. The shifted connector will ulti‐
mately be designated Taxiway C3.
Taxiway Geometry Improvements | Previous chapters have discussed non‐standard taxiway geometry
issues at CHD, including where taxiways provide direct access from the apron area to the runway and
where taxiways intersect with runways in the high‐energy area. Existing direct‐access taxiways include:
Taxiway F (to the southwest end of Runway 4L), M (to the northeast end of Runway 22R), and Q (to the
Runway 22L threshold). The plan includes removing pavement sections on these taxiways to eliminate
runway access. Specific changes are described in the bullets below:
The portion of Taxiway F pavement that connects Taxiway A to Runway 4L‐22R will be removed
and relocated to the east to become ultimate Taxiway A2.
Taxiway J is located approximately 475 feet from Taxiway L (ultimate A3). As previously men‐
tioned, taxiway exits should be spaced 750 feet or greater to effect capacity. Since it does not
meet this spacing recommendation, it is planned for removal.
Taxiway M (ultimate A9), between Taxiway A and the runway is planned to be removed to elim‐
inate the direct‐access point. The connection from the apron area to Taxiway A will remain. Tax‐
iway M is located less than 750 feet from Taxiway L (ultimate A3) and Taxiway N (ultimate A4).
Taxiway exits should be spaced 750 feet or greater to effect capacity. Since it does not meet this
spacing recommendation, it is planned for removal.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-8
Taxiway Q (ultimate C5) between Taxiway C and the heliport apron will be removed. A new con‐
necting taxiway (C10) is planned to be constructed 100 feet west to create a new access point to
the heliport apron.
Holding Bays | The traditional holding aprons on the airfield are now considered non‐standard since the
wide expansive pavement area makes signage and lighting more difficult for pilots to see, which can lead
to pilot confusion near the entrance to a runway. Therefore, the plan includes eliminating the existing
holding aprons and replacing them with taxiway holding bays. Holding bays have clear entrance/exit points
and independent parking areas separated by islands. Single‐lane holding bays are planned for the west end
of Taxiway B at the Runway 4L threshold, and on Taxiway B east of the Runway 22R RPZ. Multi‐lane holding
bays are planned for the east end of Taxiway A3 and on the south side of Taxiway B near the runway ends.
The holding bays on the south side will encroach upon the existing perimeter service road. The plan in‐
cludes rerouting the perimeter service road in these areas so that it does not pass through the taxiway
object free area (TOFA). Each holding bay is designed to accommodate ADG II aircraft.
LANDSIDE CONCEPT
The primary goal of landside facility planning is to provide adequate space to meet reasonably anticipated
general aviation needs, while also optimizing operational efficiency and land use. Achieving these goals
yields a development scheme that segregates functional uses while maximizing the airport’s revenue po‐
tential. The CHD landside concept reflects generalized land use areas as opposed to specific facility/hangar
layouts, which are likely to change depending on the needs of the developer and its target customers.
The key issues to be addressed in the landside areas at CHD are typical of most general aviation airports
and include providing an expanded terminal services facility, increasing hangar and apron capacities,
expanding Jet A fuel storage capacity, and adding amenities to accommodate existing users and attract
new users.
As a reminder, all general aviation‐related development, such as new hangar construction, should oc‐
cur only as dictated by demand. The recommended concept is intended to be used strictly as a guide
for CHD staff when considering new developments.
Sections below describe reserving portions of airport property for non‐aviation uses. Generally, airport
property is subject to Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant assurances; therefore, CHD will need to
request a release of these properties of federal obligations by the FAA. Once a release of federal obliga‐
tion is issued by the FAA, CHD would be able to lease or sell these certain properties to support revenue
diversification and generation. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Section 163 changed how the FAA’s
Office of Airport’s staff reviews and considers the release of airport property for non‐aviation uses. The
section focuses FAA’s review and approval of Airport Layout Plans (ALPs) to those portions of the ALP
that materially impact the safe and efficient operation of airports; the safety of people and property on
the ground adjacent to the airport; and the value of prior Federal investments to a significant extent. In
effect, this new guidance is intended to ease the process of gaining FAA approval of land releases.
3 This site is an existing Declaration of Environmental Use Restriction (DEUR) site that has already been paved. This project
repurposes that pavement as a holding bay.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-9
NORTH SIDE
The north side concept is depicted in Figure 5B. Features of the north side concept are described below.
FIGURE 5B – NORTH LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
Terminal Building | The alternatives analysis considered several options for development of the north
and south sides of the airfield. Of most importance was the location for a new terminal building that
would provide a larger and more modern facility for pilot and passenger amenities, as well as offices for
airport administration. As the focal point for landside facilities, the location of the terminal building in‐
fluences surrounding development that would cater to transient operators, such as fixed base operators
(FBOs) and specialized aviation service operators (SASOs). Consideration was given to locating the ter‐
minal building on the south side of the airfield adjacent to the primary runway, which is capable of ac‐
commodating larger aircraft; it was ultimately determined, however, that south‐side development is not
likely to occur for several years, and the additional supporting FBO/SASO activity has already been es‐
tablished on the north side. Therefore, a new 16,000 square foot (sf) terminal facility is planned to be
developed on the north side adjacent to the existing airport traffic control tower (ATCT). This site has
frontage to the terminal apron that makes it highly visible from the airfield and takes advantage of an
existing vehicle parking lot that is currently underutilized. Utility infrastructure is also already in place in
this site to accommodate a new terminal building.
Airport Operations/Maintenance | Airport maintenance equipment is currently housed in a hangar on
the old heliport site north of S. Airport Boulevard. It is the desire of airport management to relocate
maintenance facilities near the new terminal building to provide a consolidated airport administrative
complex. Being located adjacent to the new terminal would also eliminate the need for operations and
maintenance personnel to cross a public road and improve responsiveness to airfield issues. The planned
operations/maintenance facility is located immediately west of the new terminal building along the ter‐
minal apron.
Fuel Storage | The bulk of fuel storage capacity at CHD is provided by the airport’s FBO; however, the City
of Chandler has a 12,000‐gallon 100LL underground storage tank located adjacent to the existing mainte‐
nance/operations facility along S. Airport Boulevard. The self‐service distribution system for this tank is
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-10
located south of S. Airport Boulevard on the terminal apron. Underground storage tanks are susceptible to
leaking, which can create environmental hazards, so it is preferred to replace the underground tank with
an above ground tank that is equipped with spill containment. The plan includes eliminating the existing
underground tank and replacing it with an above ground fuel storage tank on the terminal apron adjacent
to the existing self‐service fuel distribution system.
Apron Expansion | There is currently approximately 235,854 square yards (sy) of apron pavement at CHD.
Additional apron capacity is needed over the course of the next 20 years to accommodate growth in based
aircraft, as well as spaces for transient operators. Much of the flight line on the north side has already been
developed with apron pavement or for hangars. The plan includes adding approximately 4,700 sy of new
pavement on an environmental site north of the existing terminal building adjacent to Hangar AG. The 1‐
acre environmental site was previously used as a dump site for construction debris sometime between
1949 and 1964. The City of Chandler has determined this site can be capped with asphalt and returned to
useable airport property. This new apron space provides new aircraft parking spaces and a site for a po‐
tential future aircraft wash rack. The taxilane access to this site allows for up to ADG II aircraft.
FBO/SASO Development | CHD’s current FBOs and SASOs are all located on the north side of the airfield.
The plan includes reserving vacant space and redeveloping the existing terminal area for new or expanded
FBO/SASO facilities and activities. The existing terminal facility and parking lot, along with an adjacent con‐
ventional hangar that is currently vacant, makes up an approximately 3.1‐acre redevelopment site that
could be developed with larger (10,000+ sf) conventional hangars and apron space. The proximity to the
new terminal site would also make this site convenient for servicing transient operators. An additional 15.5
acres of undeveloped property along Aviation Drive has been reserved for a large‐scale SASO or mainte‐
nance/repair/overhaul (MRO) operations. This parcel size provides for a future developer to construct any
type of facility needed for a major operation, including an aircraft manufacturer.
Executive Hangar Development | Executive hangars are typically conventional‐style hangars that provide
storage capacities larger than a typical T‐hangar, up to 10,000 sf. This style of hangar can accommodate a
single large aircraft or multiple small aircraft. The plan reserves approximately 4.3 acres for executive
hangar development, including associated taxilanes and vehicle access roads, north of the terminal on un‐
developed property along Aviation Drive.
Small Aircraft Facilities Development | Small aircraft makeup the bulk of the based aircraft and operations
at CHD. The type of facilities that cater to small aircraft are T‐hangars, shaded parking structures, and un‐
covered parking aprons. The plan reserves approximately 3.3 acres north of the north apron along Aviation
Drive for the development of new small aircraft facilities.
Non‐Aviation Development | The airport owns approximately 16.2 acres of property between S. Airport
Boulevard and the drainage canal north of the airport. This property was previously used as the airport’s
heliport, but since helicopter operations were relocated to the south side of the airport the site has been
used for the storage of airport maintenance equipment. Because this site is not accessible to the airfield,
it cannot be developed for aviation‐related uses. For this reason, the plan reserves this area for non‐avia‐
tion development to include compatible commercial or industrial developments. Approximately 11.4 acres
of this site is within a floodplain and would include development restrictions.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-11
Vehicle Access | The intersection of S. Curtis Way and E. Ryan Road is planned for a roundabout. It is
desired for the airport’s roadway network to be consistent with the surrounding Chandler Airpark, which
features several roundabouts. A secured pedestrian access gate is also planned at the apron area to
provide access to the apron area.
SOUTH SIDE
Planned south side development areas are depicted in Figure 5C.
FIGURE 5C – SOUTH LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
The south side of the airport is predominantly undeveloped with approximately 82 acres (excluding 10.7
acres of an environmental site) available for development. Helicopter operations associated with Quan‐
tum Helicopters are the primary activity on the south side. It is anticipated that once the north side
reaches a built‐out condition, new development will begin on the south side. A major barrier to devel‐
opment of the south side is a need for expanded utility infrastructure and vehicle access roads. The plan
also identifies extensions of Insight Way and S Cooper Road into the south side of the airport for vehicle
circulation. Once this infrastructure is in place, the plan reserves parcels for new FBO/SASO development
(19.5 acres); executive hangars (27.4 acres); and small aircraft facilities (24.4 acres). A dedicated fuel
storage facility will also be necessary on the south side to eliminate the need for fuel trucks to travel
from the north to fuel aircraft.
AIRPORT RECYCLING, REUSE, AND WASTE REDUCTION
REGULATORY GUIDELINES
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
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.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-12
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 applicable
State and local recycling laws, including the cost of a waste audit.”
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:
o The feasibility of solid waste recycling at the airport;
o Minimizing the generation of solid waste at the airport;
o Operation and maintenance requirements;
o A review of waste management contracts; and
o The potential for cost savings or the generation of revenue.
State of Arizona Solid Waste Management Plan
The Arizona Solid Waste Management Plan (1981)4 was adopted to promote environmentally sound
waste management. General goals of the waste management plan include:
Promote improved and environmentally sound methods of solid waste management and disposal;
Promote recovery and reuse of valuable material and energy resources from solid waste;
Provide policy and procedural guidance to state, substate, and local agencies in the proper man‐
agement of solid waste; and
Fulfill requirements of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and secure the state’s
continued eligibility for federal financial assistance.
Currently, there is no state law or regulation addressing solid waste management reduction thresholds.
However, other means such as education, outreach, voluntary recycling, and non‐profit organizations
have been employed to reduce the quantity of solid waste in Arizona.
SOLID WASTE
Typically, airport sponsors have purview over waste handling services in facilities it owns and operates,
such as the terminal building, city‐owned hangars, and maintenance facilities. Tenants of airport‐owned
buildings/hangars, or tenants that own their own facilities, are typically responsible for coordinating
their own waste handling services. While the focus of this plan is airport‐operated facilities, the airport
should work to incorporate facility‐wide strategies that create consistency in waste disposal mecha‐
nisms. This would ultimately result in the reduction of materials sent to the landfill.
4 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Solid Waste Management Plan (March 1981) (https://leg‐
acy.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/solid/)
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-13
For airports, waste can generally be divided into eight categories:5
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is more commonly known as trash or garbage consisting of every‐
day items that are used and then discarded, i.e. product packaging.
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, in‐
cluding concrete, wood, metals, drywall, carpet, plastic, pipe, cardboard, and salvaged building
components. C&D is also generally labeled as MSW.
Green Waste is a form of MSW yard waste consisting of tree, shrub and grass clippings, leaves,
weeds, small branches, seeds, and pods.
Food Waste includes unconsumed food products or waste generated and discarded during food
preparation and is also considered MSW.
Deplaned Waste is waste removed from passenger aircrafts. Deplaned waste includes bottles,
cans, mixed paper (newspapers, napkins, paper towels), plastic cups, service 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 triturator6 facility for pretreatment prior to
discharge in the sanitary sewage system. Due to the chemicals in lavatory waste, it can present
environmental and human health risks if mishandled. Caution must be taken to ensure lavatory
waste is not released 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 RCRA, as well as the regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regu‐
lations (CFR) Subtitle C, Parts 260 to 270. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) devel‐
oped less stringent regulations for certain hazardous waste, known as universal waste, described
in 40 CFR Part 237, The Universal Waste Rule.
As seen on Exhibit 5B, there are multiple areas where CHD potentially contributes to the waste stream,
including the terminal and pilot’s lounge, airfield, hangars, airport construction projects, and airport traf‐
fic control tower. To create a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling plan for the airport, all
potential inputs must be considered.
EXISTING SERVICES
Currently, waste management services for the airport are managed by the City of Chandler through a
franchise agreement with Republic Services. Three MSW dumpsters are located airside adjacent to the
municipal hangars, one dumpster is located landside adjacent to the terminal, and one more is by the
airport maintenance equipment storage facility. No information is available regarding the weight of
5 Recycling, Reuse and Waste Reduction at Airports, FAA (April 24, 2013)
6 A triturator facility turns lavatory waste into fine particulates for further processing.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-14
TERMINAL/PILOT’S LOUNGE
Employees
Pilots
Food Waste
Paper, Plastic
Aluminum Cans
Trash, Cardboard
AIRPORT
Source: Recycling, Reuse, and Waste Reduction at Airports, FAA (April 24, 2013)
HANGARS
Goods
Movements
Plastic
Wood
Vehicle Waste
(Tires & Fluids)
AIRPORT WASTE STREAMS for CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Employees
AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
Paper,
Trash,
Aluminum Cans
POTENTIAL INPUTS
POTENTIAL OUTPUTS
AIRPORT AREA
AIRFIELD
Aircraft
Operations
Runway Rubber
Green Waste
AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION
Construction
Re-Construction
Demolition
Reused Concrete
Reused Asphalt
Vehicle Waste
Soils, Building Materials
Wood, General Waste
Exhibit 5B
WASTE STREAMS
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-15
MSW hauled or the cost of service. Dumpsters are emptied weekly on Fridays. Currently, there is not a
designated individual or department onsite at the airport to oversee waste management for the facility.
The airport engages in recycling services, also provided by Republic Services. The airport provides small
recycling containers inside the terminal lobby, flight planning room, and within individual airport admin‐
istration offices. Recyclables are collected weekly, and the most common recycled materials at the air‐
port include paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, and aluminum cans. All materials accepted for recycling
by Republic Services are depicted on Exhibit 5C.7
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Airports generally utilize either a centralized or a decentralized waste management system. The differ‐
ences between these two methods are described below and summarized in Exhibit 5D.
Centralized waste management system. With a centralized waste management system, the air‐
port provides receptables for the collection of waste, recyclables, or compostable materials and
contracts for the removal by a single local provider.8 The centralized waste management system
allows for more participation from airport tenants who may not be incentivized to recycle on
their own and can reduce the overall cost of service for all involved. A centralized strategy can
be inefficient for some airports as it requires more effort and oversight on the part of airport
management. However, the centralized system is advantageous in that is has less players in‐
volved in the overall management of the solid waste and recycling efforts, and allows greater
control by the city over the type, placement, and maintenance of dumpsters, thereby saving
space and eliminating the need for each tenant to have their own containers.
Decentralized waste management system. Under a decentralized waste management system,
the airport provides waste containers and contracts for the hauling of waste materials in airport‐
operated spaces only. Airport tenants, such as fixed‐base operators, retail shops, and other ten‐
ants manage the waste from their leased spaces with separate contracts, billing, and hauling
schedules. A decentralized waste management system can increase both the number of recep‐
tacles on airport property and the number of trips by a waste collection service provider, should
the collection schedule for the tenant differ from the airport.
Currently, the airport participates in a decentralized waste management system since airport tenants
are responsible to oversee their waste management. Airport tenants include fixed based operators,
specialty aviation service operators, the Hangar Café, and privately owned hangars. Airport staff should
actively engage tenants to create a centralized waste management system at the airport to streamline
waste management and recycling efforts at CHD.
7 Republic Services (https://www.republicservices.com/)
8 Airport Waste Management and Recycling Practices (2018) The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Airport Cooperative Research Program, Synthesis 92.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-16
MAGAZINES catalogs direct mail coupons STATIONERY notebooks
office paper shredded paper phone books paperback books
bottles PLASTIC COLA BOTTLES detergent bottles yogurt containers
PRESCRIPTION VIALS picnic cups milk jugs GLASS wine bottles
• Newspaper
• Phone books
• Envelopes
PAPER
• Aluminum beverage cans
• Food cans
• Scrap metal
ALUMINUM/METAL RECYLCING
• Ream wrappers
• File folders
• Poster board
CARDBOARD RECYCLING
• Water bottles
• Take-out containers
• Soda bottles
PLASTIC RECYCLING
Varies by location
GLASS RECYCLING
These items should never be mixed with regular recycling. Disposal requires special handling.
ITEMS REQUIRING SPECIAL HANDLING
• Beverage containers
• Glass food jars
Recycle Right
• Incandescent light bulbs
• Fluorescent tubes
• Computers & Electronics
• Needles or syringes
• Hazardous waste
• Toxic material containers
• Paint
• Yard waste (Green Waste)
NON-RECYCLABLE ITEMS
• Aerosol cans
• Aluminum foil
• Batteries
• Clothing
• Food waste
• Napkins
• Mirrors
• Ceramic
• Junk mail
• Brochures
• Magazines
• Frozen food boxes
• Cardboard boxes
• Milk Cartons
• Plastic bags
• Shredded paper
• Stickers/Address labels
• Tissue
• Styrofoam
• Paper towels
• Glass windows
• Pyrex
Source: Republic Services (2020)
ALLOWABLE RECYCLABLES
OTHER ITEMS
Exhibit 5C
ALLOWABLE RECYCLABLES
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-17
Components of a Decentralized Airport Waste Management System
Components of a Centralized Airport Waste Management System
Individual Aircraft
Airport Management
Airport Management
Airport
Tenants
Source: Natural Resources Defense Council, Trash Landings: How Airlines and Airports Can Clean Up Their Recycling Programs, December 2006.
1 Galleys typically manage their own waste even if an airport relies on a centralized system
Terminal
Terminal
Single waste removal and recycling contract with the airport management.
The cost is either factored into the airport lease fees, or billed separately, like a utility.
Airplanes
Restaurant
and FBOs
Janitorial
Service
Janitorial
Service
Waste and
Recycling
Receptacles
Waste and
Recycling Receptacles
Waste/
Recycling
Removal
Contracts
Waste/Recycling
Removal Contracts
Cabin
Cleaning
Service
Janitorial
Service
Individual
Aircraft
Cabin
Cleaning
Service
Waste and Recycling Receptacles
(each airline has its own)
Waste/Recycling Removal Contracts
(each airline has its own)
Galleys
Waste and Recycling
Receptacles
Waste/Recycling
Contracts 1
Galleys
Waste and Recycling
Receptacles
Waste/Recycling
Contracts 1
Restaurant
and FBOs
Janitorial
Service
Janitorial
Service
Shared Waste and Recycling Receptacles
Exhibit 5M
AIRPORT WASTE MANAGEMENT
Exhibit 5D
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-18
GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Solid Waste and Recycling Goals
While the airport may or may not expand the existing waste management system with additional land‐
side recycle dumpsters in other locations at the airport, there are other opportunities for improvement.
Table 5B outlines objectives that could help reduce waste generation and increase recycling efforts at
the airport. To increase the effectiveness of tracking progress at the airport, a baseline state of all sug‐
gested metrics should be established to provide a comparison over time.
TABLE 5B
Waste Management and Recycling Goals
Chandler Municipal Airport
Goals
Objectives
Reduce amount of solid
waste generated
Switch to online bill pay to eliminate monthly paper bills
Conduct a waste audit to identify most common types of waste
Eliminate purchase of items that are not recyclable (i.e. Styrofoam, plastic bags)
Reuse of materials
or equipment
Reuse grass clippings as mulch
Offer reusable dishes to employees
Recycle cardboard boxes for storage
Increase amount
of materials recycled
Promote the expansion of recycling services to all areas of the airport
Improve waste and recycling tracking and data management
Incorporate recycling requirements and/or recommendations into tenant lease agreements
Expand recycling marketing and promotion efforts throughout public areas
Require contractors to implement strategies to reduce, reuse & recycle construction & dem‐
olition waste
Source: Coffman Associates, Inc.
Recommendations
To maximize waste reduction and increase recycling efforts at the airport, the following recommenda‐
tions are made:
Assign the responsibility of waste management to a dedicated individual(s). Having one person
or a group of people oversee and manage solid waste and recycling at the airport will create
efficient and cost saving solutions to solid waste management. People dedicated to this opera‐
tional aspect of the airport will have a familiarity of processes and will help identify areas of im‐
provement and cost‐cutting measures.
Audit the current waste management system. The continuation of an effective program re‐
quires accurate data of current waste and recycling rates. There are several ways an airport can
gain insight into their waste stream, such as requesting weights from the hauler, tracking the
volume, or reviewing the bills. But managing the waste system first starts with a waste audit. A
waste audit is an analysis of the types of waste produced and is the most comprehensive and
intensive way to assess waste stream composition, opportunities for waste reduction, and cap‐
ture of recyclables. A waste audit should include the following actions:
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-19
o Examination of records
Waste hauling and disposal records and contracts
Supply and equipment invoices
Other waste management costs (commodity rebates, container costs, etc.)
Track waste from the point of origin
Establishes a baseline for metrics
o Facility walk‐through conducted by the airport
Qualitative waste information to determine major waste components and waste‐
generating processes
Identify the locations of the airport that generate waste
Identify what type of waste is generated by the airport to determine what can be
reduced, reused, or recycled
Understanding waste pickup and hauling practices
o Waste sort
Provides quantitative data on total airport waste generation
Allows problem solving design/enhancing the recycling program for the airport
Create a tracking and reporting system. Continuing to track the solid waste that is generated will
allow the airport to identify areas where a significant amount of waste is generated and will help
the airport estimate annual waste volumes. Understanding the cyclical nature of waste generation
will allow the airport to estimate costs and identify areas of improvement. Since the airport en‐
gages in recycling services, the airport can track recycling rates and waste quantities to identify cost
saving measures that are currently unidentified simply based on the lack of quantitative data.
Reduce waste through controlled purchasing practices. The airport can control the amount of
waste generated by prioritizing the purchase of items or supplies that are reusable, recyclable,
compostable, or made from recycled materials.
Enhance the existing recycling program at the airport. To guarantee the airport continues to re‐
duce the amount of waste hauled to the landfill, materials that cannot be reused or avoided should
be recycled, if possible. The city should review internal procedures to ensure there are no unac‐
ceptable 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 component of a consistent, effective recycling program. CHD should actively
work with Republic Services to ensure waste and recycling containers are right sized to the existing
operation, as well as be on a collection schedule that picks up only when the containers are full.
Provide ongoing tenant education. It is crucial to encourage tenant participation to assure buy‐
in of the airport’s recycling efforts. To ensure recycling is part of the airport’s everyday business,
airport administration can provide training and educational to support personnel, tenants, and
others who conduct business at the airport. In‐person meetings with airport tenants could 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.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-20
Create a centralized waste management system at the airport. The airport should actively en‐
gage tenants to create a centralized waste management system at the airport to streamline
waste management and recycling efforts at CHD.
Incorporate an airport‐wide waste reduction strategic plan. Designing an airport‐wide waste
reduction strategic plan will create consistency in waste deposal mechanisms, ultimately result‐
ing in the reduction of materials sent to the landfill.
ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
An analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with proposed airport projects is an essential
consideration in the master plan process. The primary purpose of this discussion is to review the rec‐
ommended airport development concept plan and associated capital program at the airport to deter‐
mine whether projects identified in the master plan could, individually or collectively, significantly im‐
pact existing environmental resources. The information contained in this section was obtained from
previous studies, official internet websites, and analysis by the consultant.
Construction of any and all improvements depicted on the recommended airport development concept
plan will require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended.
This includes privately funded projects and those projects receiving federal funding. For projects not
categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, com‐
pliance with NEPA is generally satisfied through the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA).
In instances where significant environmental impacts are expected, as determined by the FAA, an Envi‐
ronmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be required. While this portion of the master plan is not designed
to satisfy the NEPA requirements, 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 responsible for determining the level of environmental documentation re‐
quired for airport actions.
The environmental inventory included in Chapter One provides baseline information about the airport
environs. This section provides an overview of potential impacts to existing resources that could result
from implementation of the planned improvements outlined in the recommended airport development
concept plan.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Table 5C summarizes potential environmental concerns associated with implementation of the recom‐
mended master plan development concept for CHD. Analysis under NEPA includes direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts. Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (see
40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 1508.8(a)). Examples of direct impacts include:
• Construction of a facility or runway in a wetland which results in the loss of a portion of the
wetland; or
• Construction of a facility that adversely affects the visual character of a neighborhood.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-21
Indirect impacts are those impacts caused by the action but are later in time or farther removed in dis‐
tance but are still reasonably foreseeable (see 40 CFR § 1508.8(b)). Indirect impacts may include growth‐
inducing impacts and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population
density or growth rate, and related impacts on air and water and other natural systems, including eco‐
systems (see 40 CFR § 1508.8(b)).
Cumulative impacts are those that take into consideration the environmental impact of past, present,
and future actions. Cumulative impacts will vary based on the project type, geographic location, poten‐
tial to impact resources, and other factors, such as the current condition of potentially affected impact
categories.
TABLE 5C
Summary of Potential Environmental Concerns
Chandler Municipal Airport
FAA ORDER 1050.1F
SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD/FACTORS TO CONSIDER
POTENTIAL CONCERN
AIR QUALITY
Threshold: The action would cause pollutant concentrations
to exceed one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), as established by the United States (U.S.)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air
Act, for any of the time periods analyzed, or to increase the
frequency or severity of any such existing violations.
Potential Impact. The projected increase in operations over
the 20‐year planning horizon of the recommended airport de‐
velopment concept plan (Exhibit 5A) will likely result in addi‐
tional emissions. Maricopa County is currently designated as
a nonattainment area for ozone (O3) and coarse particulate
matter (PM10). Maricopa County was previously a nonattain‐
ment area for carbon monoxide (CO); however, was desig‐
nated as a maintenance area in 2005. Prior to the start of air‐
port construction activities outlined on the recommended air‐
port development concept plan, an air quality analysis during
the NEPA process to determine whether O3, PM10, and CO
emissions exceed de minimis thresholds established by the
NAAQS may be required.
Prior to the start of construction activities, the contractor will
be required to obtain a dust control permit from the Mari‐
copa County Air Quality Department. Condition of permit ap‐
proval will require best management practices (BMPs) to
control construction‐related fugitive dust relating to con‐
struction equipment and earth moving activities, the primary
source of PM10.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Threshold: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 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 species or
would result in the destruction or adverse modification of fed‐
erally designated critical habitat.
FAA has not established a significance threshold 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 habi‐
tats;
For federally listed species
No Impact. The USFWS Information for Planning and Consul‐
tation (IPaC) report identified three threatened or endan‐
gered avian species: California least tern (endangered), the
yellow‐billed cuckoo (threatened), and the Yuma clapper rail
(endangered) that should be considered when evaluating de‐
velopment in the area.
As noted in Chapter One, these avian species prefer coastal
or riparian nesting habitat. The airport is free from these
habitat types and are unlikely to nest at the airport.
Designed Critical Habitat
No Impact. Critical habitat has not been identified within the
vicinity of the airport.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-22
Substantial loss, reduction, degradation, disturbance, or
fragmentation of native species’ habitats or their popu‐
lations; or
Adverse impacts on a species’ reproductive rates, non‐
natural mortality, or ability to sustain the minimum pop‐
ulation levels required for population maintenance.
Non‐Listed Species
Potential Impact. Non‐listed species of concern include
those protected by the MBTA and the BGEPA. There are
presently five non‐listed species of concern that could be im‐
pacted by activities at the airport. Habitat to support breed‐
ing for this species may be near the airport, therefore, the
potential for impacts to migratory birds should be evaluated
on a project‐specific basis. To ensure that nest sites for the
birds listed on the MBTA or BGEPA are not present at the
start of airport activities, pre‐construction nesting surveys
may be required prior to the implementation of projects out‐
lined in the master plan.
CLIMATE
FAA has not established a significance threshold for Climate; re‐
fer to FAA Order 1050.1F’s, Desk Reference, for the most up‐to‐
date methodology for examining impacts associated with cli‐
mate change.
Potential Impact. An increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emis‐
sions could occur over the 20‐year planning horizon of the
recommended airport development concept plan. A project‐
specific analysis may be required per the FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, based on
the parameters of the individual projects.
COASTAL RESOURCES
FAA has not established a significant threshold for Coastal Re‐
sources.
No Impact. The airport is not located within a coastal zone.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT, SECTION 4(F)
Threshold: The action involves more than a minimal physical
use of a Section 4(f) resource or constitutes a “constructive
use” based on an FAA determination that the aviation project
would substantially impair the Section 4(f) resource. Re‐
sources that are protected by Section 4(f) are publicly owned
land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and wa‐
terfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance; and
publicly or privately owned land from an historic site of na‐
tional, state, or local significance. Substantial impairment oc‐
curs when the activities, features, or attributes of the re‐
source that contribute to its significance or enjoyment are
substantially diminished.
Potential Impact. Initial assessments should be made to de‐
termine whether physical (temporary or permanent) or con‐
structive use of this Section 4(f) resource applies.
The Chandler Paseo Trail is located along the western bound‐
ary of the airport. Proposed non‐aviation development along
the southwestern boundary of the airport, will be adjacent to
the trail, and could potentially affect this resource. Coordi‐
nation with the City of Chandler may be needed to determine
any necessary temporary closures to the trail or avoidance
measures as needed, which could result in a temporary con‐
structive use during construction activities.
The Railroad Steam Wrecking Crane and Tool Car, which is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places list and is a
protected resource under Section 4(f), is located approxi‐
mately one mile from the airport. If necessary, the FAA will
consider several types of impacts to historical properties.
The Section 4(f) compliance process involves the preparation
of a Section 4(f) statement by the airport, which evaluates
other feasible alternatives.
Planned airport projects present potential constructive use
of other Section 4(f) properties identified in Chapter One in
Table 1N. The proposed expansion to Runway 4R‐22L out‐
lined in the recommended airport development concept plan
can affect Tumbleweed Park or Reflections Park (both lo‐
cated northeast of the airport) as the protected runway area
and an altered air traffic pattern may result from runway im‐
provements.
The responsible FAA official will be required to consult with
all appropriate Federal, state, and local officials having
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-23
jurisdiction over the affected Section 4(f) properties to deter‐
mine whether project‐related impacts will substantially im‐
pair the resource. Consultation will occur as part of the NEPA
process as specific projects are initiated.
FARMLANDS
Threshold: The total combined score on Form AD‐1006, Farm‐
land Conversion Impact Rating,” ranges between 200 and 260.
(Form AD‐1006 is used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] to assess im‐
pacts under the Farmland Protection Policy Act [FPPA].)
FPPA applies when airport activities meet the following condi‐
tions:
Federal funds are involved;
The action involves the potential for the irreversible con‐
version of important farmlands to non‐agricultural uses.
Important farmlands include pastureland, cropland, and
forest considered to be prime, unique, or statewide or
locally important land; or
None of the exemptions to FPPA apply. These exemp‐
tions include:
o
When land is not considered “farmland” under
FPPA; such as land already developed or already ir‐
reversibly converted. These instances include when
land is designated as an urban area by the U.S. Cen‐
sus Bureau or the existing footprint includes rights‐
of‐way.
o
When land is already committed to urban develop‐
ment.
o
When land is committed to water storage.
o
The construction of non‐farm structures necessary
to support farming operations.
o
The construction/land development for national de‐
fense purposes.
No Impact. The whole of the airport is classified as either
“prime farmland if irrigated” or “prime farmland if irrigated
and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded
during the growing season” by the NRCS, identified on Exhibit
1J. However, according to the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Cen‐
sus9, the airport is located in a non‐urbanized area. Addition‐
ally, the airport is not currently used for agricultural purposes
or irrigated for agricultural uses; therefore, FPPA will not ap‐
ply to airport activities proposed on the recommended air‐
port development concept plan.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SOLID WASTE, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
FAA has not established a significance threshold for Hazardous
Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention. However,
factors to consider are if an action would have the potential to:
Violate applicable federal, state, tribal, or local laws or
regulations regarding hazardous materials and/or solid
waste management;
Involve a contaminated site;
Produce an appreciably different quantity or type of haz‐
ardous waste;
Generate an appreciably different quantity or type of
solid waste or use a different method of collection or dis‐
posal and/or would exceed local capacity; or
Adversely affect human health and the environment.
Potential Impact. The airport has a self‐serve fuel island
along South (S.) Airport Boulevard and provides opportunity
for aircraft maintenance activities that could involve fossil
fuels or other types of hazardous materials or wastes. These
operations are regulated and monitored by the appropriate
regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. EPA and the Arizona De‐
partment of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
Currently, the tanks for this fuel island are underground
(USTs) and located west of S. Airport Boulevard, while aircraft
fueling occurs east of S. Airport Boulevard. The airport de‐
velopment concept plan recommends the USTs to be perma‐
nently removed and the fuel island will utilize above ground
storage tanks (ASTs) adjacent to fueling activities. Removal
of the USTs will require the airport to obtain a Noncorrective
Action UST Permanent Closure Program certificate through
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
9 U.S. Census Bureau Urbanized Area Maps (https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/)
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-24
The recommended airport development concept plan pro‐
posed the relocation of the 100LL fuel island to a site adja‐
cent to South (S.) Airport Boulevard and a new fuel island
southeast of Runway 4R‐22L. The owner(s) of the ASTs are
required to be permitted through the Arizona Department of
Fire, Building, and Life Safety.
The recommended airport development concept plan does
not include land uses that would produce an appreciably dif‐
ferent quantity or type of hazardous waste. However, should
this type of land use be proposed, further NEPA review
and/or permitting would be required. There are no known
hazardous materials or waste contamination sites currently
on airport property.
There will be no impact to Superfund or brownfields sites
since they are not within five miles of the airport.
HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
FAA has not established a significance threshold for Historical,
Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources. Factors
to consider are if an action would result in a finding of “adverse
effect” through the Section 106 process. However, an adverse
effect finding does not automatically trigger preparation of an
EIS (i.e., a significant impact).
No Impact. As identified in Chapter One, one historic re‐
source, the Railroad Steam Wrecking Crane and Tool Car, is
located less than one mile from the airport. However, it is
unlikely airport activities will impact this structure because
the crane is located west of South McQueen Street, within
the Arizona Railway Museum located at the west end of Tum‐
bleweed Park approximately one mile west. Due to this sep‐
aration, it is unlikely the crane will be affected by airport de‐
velopment activities.
All other historic resources identified in Chapter One are lo‐
cated more than one mile from the airport and will not be
affected by airport development activities.
LAND USE
FAA has not established a significance threshold for Land Use.
There are also no specific independent factors to consider. The
determination that significant impacts exist is normally de‐
pendent on the significance of other impacts.
No Impact. One historic resource is located west of the air‐
port; however, it is located west of South McQueen Street,
which is approximately one mile from the airport. Due to this
distance, it is unlikely to be impacted by airport activities.
Single‐family residential, a noise‐sensitive land use, is pre‐
sent south of East Queen Creek Road, less than 0.5 mile from
the Executive Hangar Development Reserve area identified
on Exhibit 5A.
NATURAL RESOURCE AND ENERGY SUPPLY
FAA has not established a significance threshold for Natural Re‐
sources and Energy Supply. However, factors to consider are if
an action would have the potential to cause demand to exceed
available or future supplies of these resources.
Potential Impact. Planned development projects at the air‐
port could increase demands on energy utilities, water sup‐
plies and treatment, and other natural resources during con‐
struction; however, impacts are not anticipated to be long‐
term. Should long‐term impacts be a concern, coordination
with service providers is recommended.
NOISE AND NOISE‐SENSITIVE LAND USE
Threshold: The action would increase noise by Day‐Night Av‐
erage Sound Level (DNL) 1.5 decibel (dB) or more for a noise‐
sensitive area that is exposed 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.
Potential Impact. Exhibit 5E depicts both 2019 and 2040
noise contours. In both existing and future conditions, the
65 DNL contour extends off airport property at the north,
east, and south end of the airport. To both scenarios, the 65
DNL contour is anticipated to encompass commercial or in‐
dustrial land uses but is not anticipated to affect any residen‐
tial structures.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-25
Another factor to consider is that special consideration needs
to be given to the evaluation of the significance of noise im‐
pacts 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 relevant to the
value, significance, and enjoyment of the area in question.
SOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS
Socioeconomic
FAA has not established a significance threshold for Socioeco‐
nomics. However, factors to consider are if an action would
have the potential to:
induce substantial economic growth in an area, either di‐
rectly or indirectly (e.g., through establishing projects in
an undeveloped area);
disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an estab‐
lished community;
cause extensive relocation when sufficient replacement
housing is unavailable;
cause extensive relocation of community businesses that
would cause severe economic hardship for affected com‐
munities;
disrupt local traffic patterns and substantially reduce the
levels of service of roads serving the airport and its sur‐
rounding communities; or
produce a substantial change in the community tax base.
Potential Impact. The proposed development plan for the
airport could potentially encourage economic growth for the
City of Chandler and surrounding communities. Results in‐
clude new construction jobs, new jobs for the airport and
other commercial uses, new housing, and increase the local
tax base.
The proposed concept plan does not include any recommen‐
dations to acquire residences or relocate businesses.
New commercial development could change the level of ser‐
vice to roads leading to and within the airport, such as along
East Queen Creek Road and S. Airport Boulevard. 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 im‐
pacted or mitigation measures are addressed. In the short‐
term during construction, there would be temporary disrup‐
tions to surface traffic patterns.
Environmental Justice
FAA has not established a significance threshold for Environ‐
mental Justice. However, factors to consider are if an action
would have the potential to lead to a disproportionately high
and adverse impact to an environmental justice population
(i.e., a low‐income or minority population), due to:
Significant impacts in other environmental impact cate‐
gories; or
Impacts on the physical or natural environment that af‐
fect an environmental justice population in a way that
FAA determines is unique to the environmental justice
population and significant to that population.
Potential Impact. Both low‐income and minority popula‐
tions have been identified in the vicinity of the airport.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, Federal Action to Address Envi‐
ronmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income
Populations, and the accompanying Presidential Memoran‐
dum, and Order DOT 5610.2, Environmental Justice, require
the FAA to provide for meaningful public involvement for mi‐
nority and low‐income populations, as well as analysis that
identifies and addresses potential impacts on these popula‐
tions that may be disproportionately high and adverse. Envi‐
ronmental justice impacts may be avoided or minimized
through early and consistent communication with the public
and allowing ample time for public consideration.
If disproportionately high or adverse impacts are noted, mit‐
igation and enhancement measures and offsetting benefits
can be taken into consideration.
Children’s Health and Safety Risks
FAA has not established a significance threshold for Children’s
Environmental Health and Safety Risks. However, factors to
consider are whether an action will have the potential to lead
to a disproportionate health or safety risk to children.
Potential Impact. Per E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, federal agencies
are directed to identify and assess environmental health and
safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. These
risks include those that are attributable to products or sub‐
stances that a child is likely to encounter or ingest, such as air,
food, drinking water, recreational waters, soil, or products to
which they may be exposed. Within a close vicinity of the
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-26
Exhibit 5E
NOISE CONTOURS
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
E Yeager Dr
E Yeager Dr
E Queen Creek Rd
S McQueen Rd
S McQueen Rd
S McQueen Rd
S McQueen Rd
E Queen Creek Rd
E Queen Creek Rd
E Yeager Dr
E Yeager Dr
Germann Road
Germann Road
Germann Road
Germann Road
E Quee
E Que
H
H
0
1,000
SCALE IN FEET
Photo: Woolpert 11/2019
LEGEND
Existing Airport Property Line
Existing Avigation Easement
65-69 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)
70-74 DNL
75+ DNL
Helipad
Ultimate Pavement
H
Runway 4R-22L 4,870’ x 75’
Runway 4R-22L 4,870’ x 75’
Runway 4L-22R 4,401’ x 75’
Runway 4L-22R 4,401’ x 75’
Runway 4L-22R 4,401’ x 75’
Runway 4L-22R 4,401’ x 75’
( 5,550’ x 75’ Ultimate)
Runway 4R-22L 4,870’ x 75’ ( 5,550’ x 75’ Ultimate)
Runway 4R-22L 4,870’ x 75’ ( 5,550’ x 75’ Ultimate)
2040 Noise Contours
2019 Noise Contours
This page intentionally left blank
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-28
airport, seven schools have been identified (the location of
these schools are labeled on Exhibit 1J in the Environmental
Inventory). BMPs should be implemented to decrease envi‐
ronmental health risks to children.
During construction of the projects outlined in the recom‐
mended concept plan, appropriate measures should be
taken to prevent access by unauthorized persons to con‐
struction project areas.
VISUAL EFFECTS
Light Emissions
The FAA has not established a significant threshold for light
emissions. However, a factor to consider is the degree to which
an action would have the potential to:
Create annoyance or interfere with normal activities
from light emissions; and
Affect the visual character of the area due to the light
emissions, including the importance, uniqueness, and
aesthetic value of the affected visual resource.
Potential Impact. New lighting associated with the recom‐
mended airport development concept plan would remain on
the airfield and other developed portions of the airport. Pro‐
posed lighting would most likely be associated with new de‐
velopment, such as wall pack lighting on new hangars and
edge lighting for relocated taxiways.
Visual Resources/Visual Character
FAA has not established a significance threshold for Visual Re‐
sources/Visual Character. However, a factor to consider is the
extent an action would have on the potential to:
Affect the nature of the visual character of the area, in‐
cluding the importance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value
of the affected visual resources;
Contrast with the visual resources and/or visual charac‐
ter in the study area; and
Block or obstruct the views of the visual resources, in‐
cluding whether these resources would still be viewable
from other locations.
Potential Impact. The development proposed in the recom‐
mended concept plan could change the overall visual charac‐
ter of the airport with additional roads and structures
planned on‐site. New development could change the char‐
acter of the area, contrasting with the visual character from
the nearby mountains.
Potential effects could be minimized by preserving as much
natural vegetation as possible and integrating development
into existing natural surroundings.
WATER RESOURCES
Wetlands
Threshold: The action would:
1. Adversely affect a wetland’s function to protect the quality
or quantity of municipal water supplies, including surface
waters and sole source and other aquifers;
2. Substantially alter the hydrology needed to sustain the af‐
fected wetland system’s values 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 cul‐
tural, recreational, and scientific resources or property im‐
portant to the public);
4. Adversely affect the maintenance of natural systems sup‐
porting wildlife and fish habitat or economically important
timber, food, or fiber resources of the affected or sur‐
rounding wetlands;
5. Promote development of secondary activities or services
that would cause the circumstances listed above to occur;
or
6. Be inconsistent with applicable state wetland strategies.
Potential Impact. There is an engineered canals/drainage
way (Consolidated Canal) identified as a wetland adjacent to
airport boundary and proposed development, although this
information is based on aerial photography interpretation
from undated aerial photography. Field surveys and wetland
delineations may be required to determine the presence or
absence of wetlands in project areas.
Removal or relocation of wetlands may require a Section 404
permit under the Clean Water Act, which regulates the dis‐
charge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States, including wetlands.
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-29
Floodplains
Threshold: The action would cause notable adverse impacts
on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Natural and ben‐
eficial floodplain values are defined in Paragraph 4.k of DOT
Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection.
Potential Impact. A 100‐year floodplain associated with the
Consolidated Canal was identified by FEMA on airport prop‐
erty (depicted in Chapter One on Exhibit 1J). E.O. 11988,
Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid, to
the extent possible, the long‐ and short‐term adverse impacts
associated with the occupancy and modification of 100‐year
floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain
development where there is a practicable alternative.
The proposed recommended airport development concept
plan proposes the extension of Taxiway B and new non‐avia‐
tion development along S. Airport Boulevard within the 100‐
year floodplain (Exhibit 5A). According to Maricopa County,
the airport may be required to obtain a Floodplain Use Permit
for any development or site improvements in a floodplain
identified on the Official Floodplain Map. The Floodplain Man‐
ager shall review and approve this permit, if the development
complies with the regulations set forth by the county.
Per E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management, and Department of
Transportation Order (DOT) 5650.2, Floodplain Management
and Protection, agencies are required to provide the public an
opportunity for early public review of any plan or proposal en‐
croaching into a floodplain.
Surface Waters
Threshold: The action would:
1. Exceed water quality standards established by federal,
state, local, and tribal regulatory agencies; or
2. Contaminate public drinking water supply such that public
health may be adversely affected.
Factors to consider are when a project would have the potential
to:
adversely affect natural and beneficial water resource val‐
ues to a degree that substantially diminishes or destroys
such values;
adversely affect surface waters such that the beneficial
uses and values of such waters are appreciably diminished
or can no longer be maintained and such impairment can‐
not be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated; or
present difficulties based on water quality impact when
obtaining a permit or authorization.
Potential Impact. The airport manages airport stormwater
discharges with an Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (AZPDES) issued and regulated by the ADEQ. Im‐
provements to the airport will require a revised permit to be
issued addressing operational and structural source controls,
treatment best management practices (BMPs), and sediment
and erosion control.
An AZPDES General Construction permit would be required
for all projects involving ground disturbance over one acre.
FAA’s Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370‐10G, Standards for
Specifying Construction of Airports, Item P‐156, Temporary
Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion and Siltation Control
should also be implemented during construction projects at
the airport.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
FAA has not established a significance threshold for Wild and
Scenic Rivers. Factors to consider are when an action would
have an adverse impact on the values for which a river was des‐
ignated (or considered for designation) through:
Destroying or altering a river’s free‐flowing nature;
A direct and adverse effect on the values for which a river
was designated (or under study for designation);
Introducing a visual, audible, or other type of intrusion
that is out of character with the river or would alter out‐
standing features of the river’s setting;
No Impact. The nearest designated Wild and Scenic River,
the Verde River, is located approximately 60 miles from the
airport. The closest river on the NRI is a segment of the
Arnett/Telegraph Creeks, which is located approximately 36
miles east of the airport.
The recommended airport projects will not have adverse ef‐
fects on these river’s outstanding remarkable values (i.e.,
scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, and history).
Recommended Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-30
Causing the river’s water quality to deteriorate;
Allowing the transfer or sale of property interests with‐
out restrictions needed to protect the river or the river
corridor; or
Any of the above impacts preventing a river on the Na‐
tionwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) or a Section 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).
Groundwater
Threshold: The action would:
1. Exceed groundwater quality standards established by fed‐
eral, state, local, and tribal regulatory agencies: or
2. Contaminate an aquifer used for public water supply such
that public health may be adversely affected.
Factors to consider are when a project would have the potential
to:
Adversely affect natural and beneficial groundwater val‐
ues to a degree that substantially diminishes or destroys
such values;
Adversely affect groundwater quantities such that the
beneficial uses and values of such groundwater are appre‐
ciably diminished or can no longer be maintained and such
impairment cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated;
or
Present difficulties based on water quality impacts when
obtaining a permit or authorization.
No Impact. Proposed projects outlined on the recommend
concept plan will not substantially change the amount of wa‐
ter used by the airport. Additionally, the airport property
does not serve as a significant source of groundwater re‐
charge and is not located near a sole source aquifer.
Source: Coffman Associates, Inc analysis
SUMMARY
This chapter has been prepared to help the City of Chandler make decisions on the future growth and
development of CHD by describing narratively and graphically the Recommended Master Plan Concept.
It details environmental and land use conditions that must be taken into consideration when implement‐
ing 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
comments from the PAC, City of Chandler, and public.
Flexibility will be very important to future development at the airport, as activity may not occur as pre‐
dicted. The Recommended Master Plan Concept provides stakeholders with a general guide that, if fol‐
lowed, can maintain the airport’s long‐term viability, and allow it to continue to provide air transporta‐
tion 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 Master
Plan Concept | DRAFT FINAL
5-31