Final

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Prescott Municipal Airport
(Ernest A. Love Field)

Prepared for:

Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Administration Building
6546 Crystal Lane

Prescott, Arizona 86301

Prepared by:

THE

Louis Berger Group, INC.
2345 E Thomas Road, Suite 220
Phoenix, Arizona 85016-7818

December 2010

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

FINAL

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
PRESCOTT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
(Ernest A. Love Field)

FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
City of Prescott – Airport Administration
6546 Crystal Lane
Prescott, Arizona 86301
Prepared by:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Phoenix, Arizona

December 2010

The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning grant from the FAA as provided
under the Airport Improvement Program. The contents of this report reflect the views of The Louis Berger
Group, Inc. and do not necessarily reflect the official view or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by
the FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any
development depicted therein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally
acceptable in accordance with public law.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Table of Contents
FINAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the Study ........................................................................................................... I-1
1.0 Chapter 1 – Baseline Conditions ........................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Introduction to Ernest A. Love Field ......................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Operational Activity................................................................................................... 1-7
1.3 Existing Facility Conditions .................................................................................... 1-13
1.4 Airspace, Approaches and Air Traffic Control ........................................................ 1-29
1.5 Environmental and Land Use Review ..................................................................... 1-41
1.6 Socio-Economic Conditions .................................................................................... 1-50
2.0 Chapter 2 – Aviation Demand Forecasts ........................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Socio-Economic Setting............................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 General Aviation Demand Forecast ........................................................................... 2-4
2.3 Commuter Enplanements and Operation ................................................................. 2-14
2.4 Instrument Operations Forecast ............................................................................... 2-25
2.5 Peaking Characteristics ............................................................................................ 2-25
2.6 Summary .................................................................................................................. 2-26
3.0 Chapter 3 – Facility Requirements .................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Airfield System Capacity ........................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Airside Facility Requirements ................................................................................... 3-7
3.3 Landside Facility Requirements .............................................................................. 3-15
3.4 Facility Requirements Summary.............................................................................. 3-27
4.0 Chapter 4 – Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Airfield Alternatives .................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Landside Alternatives .............................................................................................. 4-10
4.3 Airport Access ......................................................................................................... 4-17
4.4 Alternatives Evaluation ............................................................................................ 4-20
4.5 Recommended Development Concept and Summary ............................................. 4-22
5.0 Chapter 5 – Environmental Evaluation ............................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Environmental Evaluation ......................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Airport Noise Abatement Review ............................................................................ 5-12
5.3 Summary .................................................................................................................. 5-15
6.0 Chapter 6 – Capital Improvement Program ..................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Capital Improvement Plan ......................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Funding Sources......................................................................................................... 6-6
6.3 Summary and Implementation ................................................................................. 6-11

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

TOC - 1

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Table of Contents
FINAL

TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Airport Improvement Projects (1982-2006) ................................................................ 1-7
Table 1.2 PRC Historic Aviation Activity (1976-2007) .............................................................. 1-8
Table 1.3 Historic Itinerant vs. Local Operations (1996-2007) ................................................... 1-9
Table 1.5 PRC Based Aircraft (1996-2007) .............................................................................. 1-11
Table 1.6 Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Percentage (2007) ............................................................. 1-11
Table 1.7 PRC Flight Training Activity (2007) ......................................................................... 1-12
Table 1.8 PRC Runway Classification by ARC ........................................................................ 1-13
Table 1.9 Summary of Runway Characteristics ........................................................................ 1-14
Table 1.10 Summary of Taxiway Characteristics ...................................................................... 1-15
Table 1.11 Summary of Apron Characteristics.......................................................................... 1-15
Table 1.12 Summary of Runway Lighting Systems .................................................................. 1-20
Table 1.13 Airport Services ....................................................................................................... 1-24
Table 1.14 PRC Hangars Inventory ........................................................................................... 1-26
Table 1.15 PRC Weather Summary (1971-2000) ...................................................................... 1-28
Table 1.16 PRC Temperature Summary (1971-2000) ............................................................... 1-28
Table 1.17 Wind Analysis – Percent Coverage ......................................................................... 1-29
Table 1.18 General Approach Categories .................................................................................. 1-35
Table 1.19 PRC Approach Categories ....................................................................................... 1-35
Table 1.20 PRC Part 77 Surfaces ............................................................................................... 1-41
Table 1.21 Example Aircraft Types ........................................................................................... 1-46
Table 1.22 Calculation of Fleet Mix Percentages ...................................................................... 1-46
Table 1.23 Average Daily Operations ....................................................................................... 1-47
Table 1.24 Runway Use by Percentage – Existing Conditions ................................................. 1-48
Table 1.25 Revenues, Expenses, Net Income ............................................................................ 1-51
Table 1.26 Economic Impact ..................................................................................................... 1-51
Table 2.1 PRC Airport Service Area Socioeconomic Characteristics ......................................... 2-3
Table 2.2 Comparison with Other Area Airports......................................................................... 2-5
Table 2.3 Comparison of Based Aircraft Forecast....................................................................... 2-8
Table 2.4 PRC Historical Based Aircraft ..................................................................................... 2-8
Table 2.5 PRC Forecast Based Aircraft ....................................................................................... 2-9
Table 2.6 National GA Aircraft Fleet Projections ..................................................................... 2-10
Table 2.7 PRC GA Aircraft Fleet Projections ........................................................................... 2-10
Table 2.8 Historical Operations ................................................................................................. 2-11
Table 2.9 TAF GA Growth Rates .............................................................................................. 2-12
Table 2.10 GA Operations Forecast........................................................................................... 2-13
Table 2.11 GA Operations Forecast by Fleet Mix ..................................................................... 2-14
Table 2.12 Local and Itinerant GA Operations Forecast ........................................................... 2-14
Table 2.13 PRC Historical Enplanements ................................................................................. 2-17
Table 2.14 PRC Terminal Area Enplanement Forecast ............................................................. 2-18
Table 2.15 Population Growth Rate vs. Enplanements ............................................................. 2-19
Table 2.16 Trendline Forecast ................................................................................................... 2-19
Table 2.17 Unconstrained PRC Market Share ........................................................................... 2-20
Table 2.18 PRC Market Share Enplanement Forecast............................................................... 2-21
Table 2.19 Combined Growth Scenario..................................................................................... 2-21
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

TOC - 2

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Table of Contents
FINAL

Table 2.19 Enplanement Forecast Summary ............................................................................. 2-23
Table 2.20 PRC Commercial Operations Forecast .................................................................... 2-24
Table 2.21 PRC Annual Instrument Approach Forecast ........................................................... 2-25
Table 2.22 Peak Period Forecast ................................................................................................ 2-26
Table 2.23 Summary of Recommended Forecasts .................................................................... 2-26
Table 3.1 Airport Reference Codes ............................................................................................. 3-2
Table 3.2 Sample of Future PRC Design Aircraft ....................................................................... 3-4
Table 3.3 PRC Demand to Capacity Ratio .................................................................................. 3-5
Table 3.4 PRC Design Standards ................................................................................................. 3-6
Table 3.5 PRC All Weather Wind Coverage ............................................................................... 3-7
Table 3.6 PRC Runway Length Analysis .................................................................................... 3-8
Table 3.7 Airport Planning Manual Specifications for CRJ 700 ................................................. 3-9
Table 3.8 PRC Runway Design Separation and Safety Standards Compliance ........................ 3-10
Table 3.9 PRC Taxiway Design Separation and Safety Standards Compliance ....................... 3-10
Table 3.10 PRC Runway Safety Area Deficiencies................................................................... 3-11
Table 3.11 Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance .......................................................... 3-13
Table 3.12 Non-Precision Approach Requirements .................................................................. 3-14
Table 3.13 Precision Approach Requirements........................................................................... 3-14
Table 3.14 Based Aircraft Apron Parking Requirements .......................................................... 3-16
Table 3.15 Itinerant Aircraft Apron Parking Requirements ...................................................... 3-16
Table 3.16 Hangar Requirements by Aircraft Type................................................................... 3-17
Table 3.17 PRC Based and Itinerant Aircraft Hangar Requirements ........................................ 3-18
Table 3.18 Terminal Area Requirements ................................................................................... 3-19
Table 3.19 Terminal Apron Requirements ................................................................................ 3-20
Table 3.20 Terminal Area Passenger Vehicles Parking............................................................. 3-21
Table 3.21 Recommended FBO Building Area Requirements .................................................. 3-21
Table 3.22 Recommended GA Vehicular Parking Area Requirements .................................... 3-22
Table 3.23 Recommended Administration Parking Area Requirements ................................... 3-23
Table 3.24 Fuel Storage Requirements for PRC ........................................................................ 3-24
Table 3.25 Summary of Airport Facility Requirements ............................................................ 3-27
Table 4.1 Airport Alternatives Evaluation Analysis .................................................................. 4-21
Table 4.2 Preferred Airport Alternative ..................................................................................... 4-22
Table 5.1 Known NEPA Emphasis Required ............................................................................ 5-15
Table 6.1 Phase 1 (2010-2015) Project Costs .............................................................................. 6-3
Table 6.2 Phase 2 (2016-2020) Project Costs .............................................................................. 6-4
Table 6.3 Phase 3 (2021-2030) Project Costs .............................................................................. 6-5
Table 6.4 Airport Cash Flow Analysis ...................................................................................... 6-10

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

TOC - 3

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Table of Contents
FINAL

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Location Map.............................................................................................................. 1-3
Figure 1.2 Vicinity Map............................................................................................................... 1-4
Figure 1.3 Existing Airport Layout .............................................................................................. 1-5
Figure 1.4 PRC Airline Enplanements (1989-2007).................................................................. 1-10
Figure 1.5 PRC Historical Operations (1989-2007) .................................................................. 1-10
Figure 1.6 Fuel Sale Activity (1996-2007) ................................................................................ 1-12
Figure 1.7 Aircraft Parking Aprons ........................................................................................... 1-16
Figure 1.8 Pavement Condition Plan ......................................................................................... 1-17
Figure 1.9 Airspace Classifications ........................................................................................... 1-30
Figure 1.10 PRC Aeronautical Sectional ................................................................................... 1-32
Figure 1.11 Typical FAR Part 77 Surfaces ................................................................................ 1-34
Figures 1.12 to 1.14 Approach Plates ........................................................................................ 1-37
Figure 1.15 General Land Use at PRC....................................................................................... 1-44
Figure 1.16 Existing Noise Contours ......................................................................................... 1-49
Figure 3.1 Gate Parking Configuration ...................................................................................... 3-20
Figure 4.1 Airfield Alternative A................................................................................................. 4-5
Figure 4.2 Airfield Alternative B ................................................................................................. 4-7
Figure 4.3 Airfield Alternative C ................................................................................................. 4-9
Figure 4.4 Landside Alternative 1 ............................................................................................. 4-12
Figure 4.5 Landside Alternative 2 ............................................................................................. 4-14
Figure 4.6 Landside Alternative 3 ............................................................................................. 4-16
Figure 4.7 Airport Area Transportation Preferred Plan ............................................................. 4-18
Figure 4.7a Airport Area Transportation Plan (Detailed) .......................................................... 4-19
Figure 4.8 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................ 4-23

TABLE OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2.1 PRC Based Aircraft ................................................................................................... 2-9
Exhibit 2.2 PRC Total Aircraft Operations................................................................................ 2-13
Exhibit 2.3 PRC Passenger Enplanements................................................................................. 2-22
Exhibit 2.4 Enplanement Comparison ....................................................................................... 2-23

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Airport Layout Plan Set
Appendix 2 – Runway Length Analysis
Appendix 3 – Land Use Plan
Appendix 4 – Passenger Leakage Analysis
Appendix 5 – Lease Rates Analysis
Appendix 6 – Project Documentation
Appendix 7 – Environmental Letters
Appendix 8 – Glossary of Terms
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

TOC - 4

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Introduction to the Study
FINAL

Introduction to the Study
Updating an Airport Master Plan (AMP) is a standard industry practice. The need may be
developed based on some dramatic change at the airport, but as a “rule of thumb” the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) suggests that updates should be considered approximately every
five to ten years to maintain the currency of the data, the airport standards, and reassess airport
needs.
The airport master plan has basically two components; the Report which documents the
analytical process and the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), which serves as the graphic representation
for future development at the airport. It is the ALP which is approved by the FAA and the airport
sponsor, in this case the City of Prescott.
In the case of Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field), the last airport master plan
study was conducted in 1998, ten years ago. Therefore, the development of this AMP and ALP is
essential to establish an understanding of the future direction of the Airport.
This updated planning document will be used by the City of Prescott and FAA to direct
implementation of capital improvement projects at the Airport from the short term (5 year)
through the long term (20 year) planning period. In addition to meeting the needs of the airport
created by the projected demand it will determine the ability of Prescott Municipal Airport to
meet FAA design standards, which have changed since the last approved ALP and how best to
bring the facilities that do not meet those criteria up to standard.
Alternative use of the AMP is to serve as a guide for the City when reviewing private investment
at the Airport. Similarly it can be effective for the City of Prescott when reviewing land use
development around the Airport to ensure compatibility with FAA airspace requirements and the
environment.
The planning activity that was involved with this project was defined by a scope of work, which
followed the guidelines provided by the FAA Advisory Circular 150-5070-6B, Airport Master
Plans. The objectives of the study were to:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Create an effective coordination and communication process to ensure input from all affected
parties;
Prepare a comprehensive inventory of airport and environmental conditions;
Develop forecasts to assess the airport role and facility requirements;
Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the Airport’s ability to meet current FAA design
standards;
Conduct alternatives analysis to consider engineering, operational, environmental and
financial factors;
Identify the recommendations that result from the alternatives analysis; and
Prepare and approve a new Airport Layout Plan.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

I-1

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Introduction to the Study
FINAL

The first objective was achieved through the creation of a Project Advisory Committee (PAC)
that was established to discuss and provide comments on technical reports and recommendations
developed during the planning process. Membership of the PAC represented a broad range of
stakeholders, including airport users, local business, the community, and planning agencies.
Project Documentation of these meetings is included in the Appendix of this Report.
In addition to five (5) PAC meetings, Public Information Meetings (PIM) were held at three key
points in the process. The purpose of the PIM is to provide the general public with the
opportunity to learn about the study and provide input into the process. Notification of these
meetings was provided by publishing notices in local newspapers and the project website. Copies
of the presentations given at these meetings are included in Appendix B. Finally, an airport
website was created to provide project information including draft working papers, public
notices, and the scope of work.
This Airport Master Plan was prepared and is presented in the following Chapters:
Chapter 1 – Baseline Conditions
Chapter 2 – Airport Forecasts
Chapter 3 – Facility Requirements
Chapter 4 – Alternatives Analysis
Chapter 5 – Environmental Evaluation
Chapter 6 – Capital Improvement Plan
Appendices

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

I-2

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

1.0

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Baseline Conditions

This Chapter provides an overview, or inventory, of the City of Prescott’s Ernest A. Love Field
(PRC). It is a compilation of all pertinent data relative to the airport including airfield conditions,
operational activity, environmental conditions, and economic conditions.
For this Master Plan Update, data was collected from an array of sources. These include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Site visits conducted on November 15th and 16th, 2007;
Tenant and user surveys;
Airport operation counts and administration records;
Tower records and FAA 5010 forms;
PRC Airport Master Plan (January 1998);
Prescott Airport Economic Impact Study (May 2006); and
Other pertinent data and studies from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Arizona Department of Aviation (ADOT), Yavapai County, the City of Prescott and
surrounding towns.

This Chapter is categorized into the following sections:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Section 1 – Ernest Love Field;
Section 2 – Operational Activity;
Section 3 – Existing Facility Conditions;
Section 4 – Airspace, Approaches and Air Traffic Control;
Section 5 – Environmental Conditions; and
Section 6 – Socio-Economic Conditions.

The collected data and the subsequent analysis provided in this chapter will be utilized
throughout the master planning process to assess the current growth, forecast the future needs of
PRC Airport, provide recommendations to stimulate new traffic and economic growth, and
present an updated Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the Airport.
1.1

Introduction to Ernest Love Field

The airport serves both the commercial and multi-faceted general aviation needs for the area,
including the City of Prescott, Yavapai County and residents of the local Yavapai Reservation.
Additionally, PRC serves as the flight training base for Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
PRC is classified by the FAA as a Class II Commercial Service public use airport, and is owned
by the City of Prescott.
1.1.1 Airport Property and Vicinity
PRC is situated on approximately 760 acres of land located in the West-Central region of
Arizona in Yavapai County, and is centrally located approximately 7 miles between the City of
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-1

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Prescott, and the towns of Chino Valley and Prescott Valley. PRC’s current surveyed elevation
is 5,045 feet above Mean Sean Level (MSL).
PRC is accessible to I-40 via direct access from State Route 89. Access to I-17 from PRC is
available via SR 89A.
Figures 1.1, Location Map, 1.2, Vicinity Map, and 1.3 Airport Layout provide the location
and general layout of PRC.
1.1.2

Prescott Municipal Airport History

On July 4, 1926 the Yavapai County Chamber of Commerce celebrated the opening of an airstrip
built by volunteers and pilots at the site of Prescott Municipal Airport. In 1928 the first Cityowned hangar was built. In the same year on August 28th, the airport was renamed Ernest A.
Love Field in honor of Ernest A. Love, First Lieutenant, United States Army Air Service. First
Lieutenant Love was raised in Prescott and later served in World War I as an early Army
Aviator. Love was shot down near Verdun, France on September 16, 1918 and died of his
wounds shortly thereafter.
In 1934, aviation enthusiasts formed the Prescott Flying Club using an old boxcar as their
terminal. Until the late 1930s the airport was primarily used for civilian pilot training.
In 1940, the Work Program Administration paved two dirt intersecting runways, and by 1941 the
airport acreage had expanded to one square-mile with an operating budget of $2,000. The City of
Prescott assumed management of the airport in 1942. Subsequently, the City built a second
hangar, remodeled the airport, and added much-needed lighting.
By the end of 1943, three flight training schools were operating on the airport: Stinson Flying
Corporation, Monrovia Flying Service and Colbach Flying Service.
The Civil Aeronautic Administration (CAA), the precursor of the FAA, established a Flight
Service Station and an Air Traffic Control Tower at PRC in 1944. Additionally the U.S. Weather
Bureau began its tenure at the airport along with U.S. Navy cadet training.
Air service from Prescott to Phoenix was established in 1946 with the introduction of Arizona
Airways, and in the following years TWA, Frontier Airlines, Cochise Airlines and Bonanza
Airlines all have offered commercial air service.
In the 1950’s, several significant capital improvements took place: a 1,615 ft extension to
Runway 3-21; expansion of the terminal facility; construction of a new parallel taxiway; and
water system improvements.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-2

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

1-3

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

1-4

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

FIGURE 1.3 – EXISTING AIRPORT LAYOUT

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-5

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

In 1959, 13 aircraft were based at the airport, and by 1971 more than 100 aircraft were based at
PRC. In the 1970’s, several major improvements occurred at the airport:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Construction of a new Flight Service Station (FSS);
Construction of a new 6,400 square feet terminal facility;
Construction of Hangars A, B, C, and D;
Development of T-hangars and shaded aircraft parking;
Reconstruction of Runway 3-21;
Acquisition of additional land; and
Construction of additional apron space.

In the latter part of the 1970’s Medium Intensity Runway Lighting System (MIRLs), Medium
Intensity Taxiway Lighting (MITLs), and the Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASIs) were all
installed.
Another significant change at the airport was the establishment of flight instruction at PRC by
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) between 1977 and 1978, which continues to this
day.
In the 1980’s, an additional hangar was constructed and the U.S. Forest Service facility was
completed on Melville Road.
In the 1990’s, Runway 3L-21R was constructed, taxiway connectors were resurfaced, and the
MIRLs and Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) were installed. By 1995, 265 aircraft
were based at PRC and in 1999 airfield operations grew to more than 350,000.
By 2003, 17 hangars had been built, aircraft fuel sales exceeded one million gallons and plans
were made to facilitate additional growth.
1.1.3

Previous Airport Planning, Development and Improvements Review

Master plans were previously completed for PRC in 1986 and 1998. The last FAA approved
ALP on record for PRC is dated May 2000.
Other recent studies relevant to this Master Plan Update are:
ƒ

Prescott Municipal Airport Runway Safety Area Standards Evaluation (June, 2005);

ƒ

Ernest A. Love Field Pavement Management Report (January, 2007); and

ƒ

Prescott Airport Economic Impact Study (May, 2006).

Table 1.1 identifies the FAA funded improvements made at PRC between 1982 and 2006, the
years for which FAA Grant History data is available.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-6

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Table 1.1
Airport Improvement Projects (1982-2006)
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1987
1988
1989
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

Project Description

FAA
Funds
$169,785
$740,300
$729,075
$80,098
$369,532
$650,000

Land Acquisition for Approaches
Rehabilitate Aprons & Taxiway
Expansion of Runway & Aprons
Conduct Airport Master Plan Study
Improve Access Road
Construct New Apron, Terminal Building, & Taxiway
Acquire Security Equipment, Install Guidance Signs, Expand Apron,
Land Acquisition for Development, Acquisition of ARFF Equipment,
$904,956
Construct New Taxiway
Conduct Airport Master Plan Study
$49,916
Land Acquisition & Construct New Taxiway
$1,303,216
Construct New Runways & Taxiway, Land Acquisition for Development
$3,107,981
& Approaches
Construct New Runway & Taxiway, Improve Airport Drainage
$4,481,727
Rehabilitate Apron & Taxiway, Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance
$809,952
System
Rehabilitate Runway & Taxiway Lighting, Install Apron Lighting, &
$989,473
Construct Taxiway
Rehabilitate Runway & Land Acquisition for Approaches
$615,412
Expand Apron
$383,697
Rehabilitate Taxiway & Expand Apron
$467,887
Improve Runway Safety Area
$500,000
Acquire ARFF Equipment & Install Runway Vertical/Visual Guidance
$374,107
System
Improve Service Road & Improve Runway Safety Area
$1,585,250
Improve Access Road
$150,000
Conduct Environmental Study
$91,060
Install Perimeter Fencing & Improve Runway Safety Area
$748,805
Rehabilitate Taxiway Lighting & Improve Runway Safety Area
$872,114
Update Airport Master Plan Study
$185,000
Total: $20,356,343
Source: FAA Grant History

1.2

Operational Activity

This section provides an overview of historical and current aircraft activity at PRC. In the
forecast effort for this Master Plan Update, this information will be supplemented with other data
to develop projected airport activity for a twenty-year planning period. Data sources for this
section include City of Prescott records, FAA records, previous master planning efforts and other
studies, and discussions with local officials.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-7

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

The FAA distinguishes airport operations between local an itinerant and are further subdivided
as follows:
ƒ

Local Operations: Generally, operations occurring within sight of the airport or 20 nautical
miles; these are typically training operations. Local Operations are subdivided into two
classes:
o Civil: All operations other than military operations; and
o Military: All operations performed by the military (ANG, USMA, etc.).

ƒ

Itinerant Operations: All aircraft operations other than local operations. Itinerant
Operations are subdivided into three classes:
o Air Taxi: Scheduled and non-scheduled passenger service;
o General Aviation: Includes aircraft used for personal, recreational, or business
use; and
o Military: All operations performed by the military (Air National Guard, United
States Military Academy, etc.).

Tables 1.2 and 1.3 identify the total number of operations at PRC between 1976 and 2007 and
the percentage difference between itinerant and local operations.

Year
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986

Table 1.2
PRC Historic Aviation Activity (1976-2007)
Total
Total
Year
Year
Operations
Operations
58,700
1987
206,641
1998
58,644
1988
238,102
1999
131,480
1989
251,729
2000
178,076
1990
287,736
2001
229,326
1991
273,179
2002
240,260
1992
285,914
2003
237,326
1993
251,560
2004
216,230
1994
296,758
2005
216,230
1995
347,721
2006
6,605
1996
346,295
2007
163,964
1997
348,441

Total
Operations
335,392
354,844
329,862
317,521
337,362
310,360
299,481
236,230
227,541
231,285

Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Table 1.3
PRC Historic Percentage of Itinerant vs. Local Operations (1996-2007)
Itinerant
Percentage of
Local
Percentage of
Year
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
1996
114,366
33%
231,929
67%
1997
113,363
33%
235,078
67%
1998
114,597
34%
220,795
66%
1999
122,999
35%
231,845
65%
2000
117,476
36%
212,386
64%
2001
112,600
35%
204,921
65%
2002
111,091
33%
226,271
67%
2003
99,904
32%
210,456
68%
2004
104,724
35%
194,757
65%
2005
85,785
36%
150,445
64%
2006
84,529
37%
143,012
63%
2007
85,785
37%
145,500
63%
Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast

Over the last 10 years more than 60% of operations at PCR have been local, highlighting the
contribution of flight training operations to the airport.
Airline service is currently offered by Horizon Air and Great Lakes Airline, which operates
under the provisions of a Essential Air Service (EAS) contract. The EAS is a program operated
by the U.S. Department of Transportation that provides subsidies to airlines which agree to
provide service on historically non-profitable routes to rural areas. In order to qualify for the
EAS program, communities who want air service must submit a proposal package to USDOT,
and approved airlines can then bid on the contract.
Figure 1.4 provides a summary of airline enplanements, and Figure 1.5 provides a summary of
aviation activity at PRC from 1990 to 2007.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-9

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Thousands

Figure 1.4
PRC Airline Enplanements (1989 – 2007)
16
14
12

Enplanements

10
8
6
4
2
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Arizona Pacific Airways

Mesa Airline

Great Lakes

Source: FAA TAF & Airport Administration Records

Figure 1.5
PRC Historical Operations (1989 – 2007)

400

16

350

14

300

12

250

10

200

8

150

6

100

4

50

2

0

Enplanements

Operations

Figure 1.3.2 PRC Historical Operations

0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Number of Operations

Number of Enplanements

Source: FAA TAF &Airport Administration Records

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-10

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

1.2.1

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Based Aircraft

Based aircraft are defined as non-transient aircraft that either hangar or tie down at the airport.
These aircraft are one of the biggest factors in planning for future facility needs. The number of
based aircraft correlates to the operational demands they place on airport facilities such as
runways, taxiways, lighting and navigational/visual aids. Additionally, they directly relate to
ground facilities, such as hangar storage, fueling facilities, and aircraft service and repair needs.
Based aircraft data for PRC was collected from the FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and
FAA 5010 Form. Table 1.5 identifies the based aircraft for each aircraft category dating from
1976.

Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001

Table 1.5
PRC Based Aircraft (1996-2007)
Based
Year
Aircraft
258
2002
290
2003
290
2004
312
2005
312
2006
312
2007

Based
Aircraft
335
347
335
349
340
330

Source: FAA TAF & Airport Administration Records

Airport administration has indicated that in 2007 there were 337 people on a waiting list for noncommercial hangar space and shades and 34 for large hangar space at the airport. The first
waiting list consists of 104 people that currently occupy a hangar or a shade and would like to
upgrade to a newer or larger facility; 111 people that have requested to remain on the list but do
not have an immediate need for hangar space; and 122 are currently waiting for available hangar
space.
The current based aircraft fleet mix at PRC is identified in Table 1.6, as reported in the FAA
Form 5010. This fleet mix includes 300 single-engine aircraft, 26 twin-engine aircraft, 2 jets,
and 10 helicopters.
Table 1.6
Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Percentage (2007)
Aircraft
Number of
Percentage of
Type
Based Aircraft
Total Aircraft
Single Engine
277
85.2%
Twin Engine
23
7.1%
Jet
8
2.4%
Helicopters
16
5.0%
Ultra-Light
1
0.3%
Total
325
100%
Source: FAA Form 5010, July 23, 2008
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-11

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

1.2.2

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Flight Training Activity

Historically PRC has been intensively used for flight training operations. Today, flight training
operations account for more than 70% of daily operations. Table 1.7 provides a list of the current
flight training schools and other operational details.
Table 1.7
PRC Flight Training Activity (2007)
Number of
Number of Aircraft
School
Students
& Helicopters
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
600
30
Guidance Helicopters, Inc.
75
9
North-Aire Aviation, LLC.
100
11
Skyschool, Inc.
50
8
Source: FAA

1.2.3

Fuel Sale Activity

Fueling operations are currently conducted by Legend Aviation Fixed Base Operator (FBO).
Figure 1.6 provides a graphical summary of the annual fuel sale activity between 1996 and 2007
fiscal years.

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
96
/9
7
97
/9
8
98
/9
9
99
/0
0
00
/0
1
01
/0
2
02
/0
3
03
/0
4
04
/0
5
05
/0
6
06
/0
7

Thousands

Gallons

Figure 1.6
Fuel Sale Activity (1996-2007)

Fiscal Year
100LL

Jet A

Source: Airport Administration Records

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-12

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

1.3

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Existing Facility Conditions

A complete inventory of the airport facilities at PRC was conducted, including airfield pavement,
lighting and navigational aids (NAVAIDS); airport terminal and structures; airport access and
parking; airport equipment; and airspace and approaches.
The conditions reported here are based upon a review of airport plans, reports and discussions
with airport staff.
Basic guidelines for airport design are set forth in the FAA’s Advisory Circular (AC) 150/530013, Airport Design. Each airport can be classified based on the aircraft which it is designed to
serve using the Airport Reference Code (ARC). The ARC is established by two separate factors:
Approach Category which group aircraft based on approach speed; and Design Group which
group aircraft based on wingspan.
Aircraft approach categories are defined as follows:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

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; and
Category E: Speed 166 knots or more.

Airplane design groups are defined as follows:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet (with a subcategory for small aircraft);
Group II: 49 feet or more, but less than 79 feet;
Group III: 79 feet or more, but less than 118 feet;
Group IV: 118 feet or more, but less than 171 feet;
Group V: 171 feet or more, but less than 214 feet; and
Group VI: 214 feet or more, but less than 262 feet.

Operations at PRC are characterized mostly by single and twin-engine piston aircraft activity.
Table 1.8 identifies the ARC for each runway at PRC.
Table 1.8
PRC Runway Classification by ARC
3R-21L
3L-21R
Runway
C-III
B-I
ARC

12-30
B-II

Source: Airport Administration, FAA A/C 150/5300-13

As a part of this planning effort, the airport’s designation will be reassessed to ensure its
accuracy.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-13

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

1.3.1

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Airfield Pavement

PRC has three runways, designated as 12/30, 3R/21L and 3L/21R. Each runway is identified on
the existing ALP in Figure 1.2. Runways are numbered based on their magnetic heading, to the
nearest 10 degrees, and by removing the final “0”. For example, if an aircraft is on the end of the
runway labeled “12” facing the “30” end, the magnetic compass for that aircraft should read
120°. Therefore, the difference in runway numbers will always be 18, or 180°. For aviation
purposes, North is considered 360°, East is 90°, South is 180°, and West is 270°.
Table 1.9 summarizes the primary characteristics of each runway at PRC.

Length
Width
Material
Strength*
Lighting
Markings
Visual
Aids
RSA
RPZ
Approach
Slope

Table 1.9
Summary of Runway Characteristics
Runway 3L-21R
Runway 3R-21L
Runway 12-30
4,862
7,616
4,408
60
150
75
Asphalt
Asphalt
Asphalt
60,000 lbs. (S)
12,500 lbs. (S)
12,500 lbs. (S)
80,000 lbs. (D)
MIRL
MIRL
MIRL
Non-Precision /
Visual / Visual
Non-Precision / Visual
Precision
ILS (21L)
VORTAC
PAPI – 2
PAPI – 4 (Both)
PAPI – 2
(Both)
REIL
(Both)
5,342 x 120 ft.
9,616 x 500 ft.
5,008 x 150 ft.
250 x 1,000 x 450 ft.
500 x 1,700 x 1,010 ft.
250 x 1,000 x 450 ft.
20:1 / 20:1

34:1 / 50:1

34:1 / 20:1

Acronyms: MIRLS – Medium Intensity Runway Lighting System; REIL – Runway End Identification Lights; RSA
– Runway Safety Area; VASI – Visual Approach Slope Indicator; PAPI – Precision Approach Path Indicator;
ILS – Instrument Landing System
*Pavement strengths are expressed in Single (S), Dual (D), and/or Dual Tandem (DT) wheel loading capacity
Source: The Louis Berger Group, 1998 Airport Master Plan, & Airport Administration

The purpose of an airport’s taxiways system is to provide aircraft access to runways, ramps and
aprons. At PRC, taxiways are typically 40 to 50 feet wide, with the exception of Taxiway A,
which is 35 feet wide, and are equipped with either Light-Emitting Diode (LED) or Medium
Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITLS). Table 1.10 provides a detailed summary of the major
taxiways at PRC.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-14

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Dimensions
Type
Runway
Centerline
Separation
Material
Lighting

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Table 1.10
Summary of Taxiway Characteristics
A
C
D
F
25 x
40 x
50 x
40 x
5,100
6,500
7,500
1,300
Parallel
Parallel
Parallel
Parallel
to
to
to
to 12/30
3L/21R
3R/21L
3R/21L

E
40 x
1,300
Parallel
to 12/30

200 lf

325 lf

400 lf

200 lf

200 lf

AC
MITLS

AAC
MITLS

AC
LED

AC
LED/MITLS*

AC
Reflectors

Acronyms: MITLS – Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting System; AC – Asphalt Concrete; AAC –
Asphalt Overlay on AC; LED are installed only from F3 to Taxiway D
Source: The Louis Berger Group, 1998 Airport Master Plan, & Pavement Management Report (2006)

Aircraft aprons at PRC are accessed from the taxiways and are used for maneuvering, parking,
and servicing of aircraft. PRC has five airport apron areas. Two defined aprons are located
within the South Apron, with one in the North Apron, Apron-02 east on Runway 12 end, and
Apron-04 in the southern corner of the field. All aprons are shown in Figure 1.7 – PRC Apron
Map.
The aircraft aprons are of varied sizes, and are a combined 125,280 square yards in size. Two
additional aprons are privately owned. Table 1.11 provides additional apron inventory details.

South
Apron

Table 1.11
Summary of Apron Characteristics
Commercial
Terminal
West
Terminal
Ramp
Ramp
Apron

Dimensions 1,200x200 ft. 400x300 ft.
240,000 ft2
120,000 ft2
True Area
AC
AC
Material

300x300 ft.
90,000 ft2
AC

950x150 ft.
142,500 ft2
AC

North
Ramp

Clubhouse
Ramp

1,550x300 ft
495,000 ft2
AC

200x200 ft
40,000 ft2
AC

Source: The Louis Berger Group, 1998 Airport Master Plan, & Pavement Management Report (2006)

Pavement History and Condition Plan
Figure 1.8 – Pavement Condition provides a graphical representation the runways, taxiways,
and aprons at PRC. This figure also provides the pavement rating.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-15

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

FIGURE 1.7 – PRC APRONS

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-16

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

FIGURE 1.8 – PAVEMENT CONDITION

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-17

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Using the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system established by the FAA,
pavement ratings were established for the airside pavement at PRC. PASER uses visual
inspection to evaluate pavement surface conditions for four major categories of pavement surface
distress:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Surface defects: loss of pavement, loss of pavement grooving, or excess asphalt caused
by poor mix design;
Surface deformation: ruts, pavement distortion;
Cracks: includes but is not limited to thermal cracking, edge and joint cracks, and
alligator cracks; and
Patches and potholes: original surface repairs and pavement holes.

Based up on the results of the visual inspection, each pavement area is given a rating from 1-5,
which is further described as follows:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

1.3.2

Rating 5 – Excellent: No maintenance is required;
Rating 4 – Good: Minor routine maintenance, crack sealing as needed;
Rating 3 – Fair: Preservative treatments, crack sealing and surface treatment is necessary;
Rating 2 – Poor: Structural improvement and leveling is needed; and
Rating 1 – Failed: Reconstruction is necessary.
Utilities, NAVAIDS and Lighting

Utilities
The following is a summary of the utilities serving PRC. Information on utilities was obtained
from a review of airport files, on-site investigation, and discussions with airport personnel.
Electric Service
Electric power is provided to the airport from Arizona Public Service (APS) through a 69 kV
transmission line. Service to airport buildings are through underground cables from the utility
poles. The electrical vault, which controls the airfield lighting and houses the airport’s generator,
is located to the south corner of the field.
Water Service
The City of Prescott water service area is located within the Prescott Active Management Area
(AMA). The main water supply comes from six production wells that tap into the Little Chino
Sub-basin of the Prescott AMA, approximately 15 miles north of the Prescott City limits. Water
is transported into the City via three transmission lines, including a 36" high-pressure main. The
airport receives its water supply from an 8-inch water main. Approximately 460-3,100 gallons
per minute of water per day were produced in 2004 at the well field. The water meets all
applicable EPA standards.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-18

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Sanitary Sewer
Sewer service is provided by the City of Prescott. Sewage pipes that service the terminal and
hangar facilities flow into the City sewage system, which is then treated at the Wastewater
Treatment plant.
NAVAIDS
Navigational Aids, or NAVAIDS, are electronic facilities providing enroute or approach
guidance information. They are used by pilots to navigate to and from an airport. NAVAIDS are
generally used in concert with airport runway lighting and visual aids (such as approach lights,
VASI’s, etc.) which provide visual cues and orientation to the pilot.
PRC approaches are supported by four different kinds of NAVAIDS:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Localizer (LOC);
Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range (VOR);
Global Positioning System (GPS) approach (RNAV); and
ILS/DME.

This section describes the types of NAVAIDS available at PRC, with a summary of the
approaches provided later in the section.
Localizer (LOC)
A localizer provides horizontal alignment for approaches to R/W 21. Since a localizer alone
cannot provide vertical alignment data, it is typically installed in conjunction with a glide slope
(GS) to form an instrument landing system (ILS). That provides a precision approach. With the
support of GS, the R/W 21 approach at PRC is identified as a precision approach. The LOC is on
a frequency of 108.5 MHz and is identified by the Morse code of K-PRC.
Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range (VOR)
The VOR provide pilots with bearing and distance (VOR/DME) information to/from the station.
They are used to define a system of airways which helps pilots navigate from point to point. It
can also be used in non-precision approaches by the pilot flying to/from the station directly over
the airport. The VOR located about 1.5 nautical miles northwest of the airport provides guidance
for the non-precision approach to R/W 12.
Global Positioning System (GPS) Approach (RNAV)
Global Positioning System (GPS) is one of the more recent developments in air navigation
technology and is widely implemented. GPS works on a system of 24 satellites in orbit above the
earth. A receiver in the plane accepts signals from multiple satellites and calculates its position
and altitude based on the distance from each satellite. GPS technology (when not supported by

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-19

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

ground-based error correction stations) has been approved for enroute navigation and nonprecision approaches. GPS technology is available on R/W 12 and GPS/RNAV on R/W 21L.
Instrument Landing System (ILS)
Instrument Landing System (ILS) provides aircraft with precision vertical and horizontal
navigation guidance information during approach and landing. The localizer generates and
radiates signals to provide final approach azimuth navigation information to landing aircraft. The
antenna sends 90-HZ and 150-HZ signals that the aircraft instruments determine as left and right
of the centerline. The aircraft interprets the signal and displays them on the cockpit indicator
guiding the pilot until the runway is in sight. In a similar manner as the localizer (just turned 90
degrees on axis), the glide slope sends two frequencies that aircraft instruments determine as
above or below the desired glideslope. This is approximately three degrees to the horizon, which
gives the aircraft a descent of approximately 500 feet per minute. The ILS for precision approach
is available on R/W 21.
Lighting Systems
Lighting and visual aids are intended to help pilots when within site of the airport. This section
identifies the lighting and visual aids on airport property, and a complete list is provided in
Table 1.12.

Runway
3R
21L
3L
21R
12
30

Table 1.12
Summary of Runway Lighting Systems
PAPI (P2L)
PAPI (P4L)
REIL
MALSR
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO

MIRL
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

Source: FAA FSS, Airport Administration, Site Inspection

All three runways are equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL) outlining each
runway with white lights.
Runways 3R, 12, 21L and 30 are equipped with Runway End Identification Light Systems
(REIL) providing a circle guidance and visual identification of the end of the runway for landing
aircraft. The system consists of two omni-directional flashing light assemblies.
Runways 3R and 21L are equipped with identical 4-light unit Precision Approach Path Indicators
(PAPI) located to the left of each runway. Runways 3L, 21R, 12 and 30 are equipped with
identical 2-light unit Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) to the left of each runway.
PAPI primarily assist pilots by providing visual glide slope guidance in a non-precision approach
environment. Light combinations of red and white indicate when an aircraft is slightly high,

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-20

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

significantly high, slightly low and significantly low so that the pilot may adjust the approach
accordingly.
Runway 21L is equipped with Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway
Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR). It is a medium approach intensity lighting system (ALS)
installed in airport runway approach zones along the extended centerline of the runway. The
MALSR, consisting of a combination of threshold lamps, steady burning light bars and flashers,
provides visual information to pilots on runway alignment, height perception, role guidance, and
horizontal references for Category I weather conditions.
The airfield lights are activated by remote control by pilots “clicking” their microphone button to
the CTAF frequency for primary runway and on frequency 128.75 to activate Medium Intensity
Runway Lighting (MIRL) on Runway 12-30.
1.3.3

Prescott Municipal Airport Access and Parking

PRC is accessible via S.R. 89 at MacCurdy Drive. Airport traffic enters or exits the airport using
Airport Drive. This road is marked by the intersection of Mac Curdy Drive (U.S. 89) and Willow
Creek Road. Airport Drive becomes MacCurdy Drive, which leads to the terminal complex,
airport administration building and other airport-related business.
Ruger Road provides access to the North Ramp and Hangar users. The FSS, ATCT and ERAU
complexes can be accessed only by exiting S.R. 89A on Larry Caldwell Boulevard and
proceeding to Wilkinson Drive.
Identifying Airport signs are located on both highways and local roads. Airport signage should
be reviewed continually to assure that signs have not been taken down and that they are adequate
for locating the Airport.
Auto parking areas are located in front of and adjacent to the main terminal entrance. There are
110 parking spaces adjacent to the terminal, with four handicapped spaces next to the terminal
entrance.
1.3.4

Prescott Municipal Airport Terminal, Support and Service Facilities

This section describes the landside facilities at PRC. These facilities include the terminal
building complex, administrative building, fuel storage, Flight Service Station (FSS), Air Traffic
Control Tower (ATCT), Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Facility (ARFF), hangars, equipment
building, and other structures.
Terminal Building
The terminal building at PRC is a single level structure that was originally constructed in 1948
and expanded in 1957. Its current size is approximately 3,800 sq. ft. The terminal is located west
of the intersection between Runways 3R/21L and 12/30, and is accessible via MacCurdy Drive.
The main terminal building is used for commercial passenger traffic. Within the terminal is the
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-21

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) check point for luggage and passenger screening.
All general aviation traffic is directed to the General Aviation Terminal.
The terminal building is currently occupied by Mesa Airline, Skyway Restaurant, North-Aire,
Inc. and Hertz Rental Cars.

Terminal Building (Interior)

Terminal Building (Exterior)

Administration Building
The City of Prescott Airport Administrative building was constructed in 1973. The building is a
4,800 sq. ft. two-story structure, located west of the Terminal. The first floor is used by airport
administration, while the second remains leasable.

Administration Building
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-22

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Airport Services
Several businesses on the airport provide a range of services. These services include fixed wing
flight training, helicopter training, helicopter tours, air-taxi, aircraft maintenance and upholstery,
skydiving, and car rental. Business providing services at the airport are identified in Table 1.13.

Skyway Restaurant

North –Aire, Inc.

Embry‐Riddle Aeronautical University

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-23

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Table 1.13
Airport Services
Service Type
Charter, Flight Instruction,
& Rental

•
•
•
•

Business
Arizona Skyways Airlines
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Guidance Helicopters
North-Aire, Inc.

Aircraft Repairs, Avionics,
& Service Support

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Arizona Air-Craftsman/Wing Nuts
Mile High Avionics
Nostalgaire
Prescott Aircraft
Prescott Aircraft Interiors
Powell Upholstery & Aircraft Interiors
Wing Waxers – Aircraft Dealing

Airline Service

• US Airways Express (Operated by Mesa Airlines)

Fixed Base Operator (FBO) •
•
Ground Transportation
•
•
•
Miscellaneous
•
•

Legend Aviation
Hertz (Airport Terminal)
Enterprise Rental Car (Airport Terminal)
Antelope Hills Golf Course
Arizona Aviation Supplies
Rittaire
Susie’s Skyway Restaurant

Source: Airport Administration

Fuel Storage Facility
The fuel farm is composed of four - 20,000 gallon above-ground fuel tanks. Two tanks are used
for Avgas and two for Jet-A fuel. Fuel is delivered approximately three times a week during
normal operations, and approximately seven times if there is a forest fire in the area.

Fuel Farm Pump Station

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Fuel Farm Storage Tanks

1-24

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Flight Service Station (FSS) Building and Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
FSS Building and ATCT are located on the east side of the field, and are accessible from
Wilkinson Drive. The tower was built in 1987 and is operated by FAA Air Traffic Controllers
from 6:00 am – 10:00 pm local time. The Flight Service Station was built in 1984.
Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Facility (ARFF)
The PRC ARFF is currently located south of the Runway 3R/21L and 12/30 intersection and it is
accessible from Club House Drive. Sections 315-319 of FAA Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 139 – Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers sets
forth both the ARFF index and the requirements that an airport with air carrier service must
meet, in terms of ARFF equipment, firefighting agents, and operational requirements. Presently,
PRC is categorized as Index A, which means that the primary air carrier aircraft that serves PRC
is less than 90 feet in length or aircraft of longer size with less than 5 daily operations.

Structural Vehicle

E‐One Titan ARFF Vehicle

Based upon Index A requirements, PRC is staffed with four firefighters, of which one is
constantly on standby to respond to both structural and airfield emergency response needs. The
facility is equipped with one E-One Titan ARFF vehicle and a structural vehicle.
Hangars and Shades
PRC offers a variety of hangar and shade areas suitable for aircraft parking and storage. Table
1.14 is a complete summary of all City operated hangars and shades.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-25

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Shade Parking

Type
T-Hangar
T-Hangar
T-Hangar
T-Hangar
T-Hangar
T-Hangar
T-Hangar
T-Hangar

Identifier
A
B
C
D
F
G
H
I

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

T‐Hangars

Table 1.14
PRC Hangars Inventory
Size (sq. ft.)
Type
954
T-Hangar
1,195
Box
985
T-Hangar
1,724
T-Hangar
985
T-Hangar
1,127
T-Hangar
1,036
Executive
1,036

Identifier
J
K
L
M
N
O
P

Size (sq. ft.
1,156
2,780
1,156
1,044
1,044
1,044
3,900

Source: Airport Administration Records

Other Structures
The perimeter fence is composed of several different types of fencing: chain-link, wire, and iron
bars. The chain-link fence is six feet tall supported by posts and topped with barbed wire.
Currently, the fence covers 70% of the entire perimeter. Approximately 1,500 ft adjacent to the
Antelope Hills Golf Course are secured with a three foot high iron bar fence and around R/W 30
the perimeter is secured by a 49 inch tall barbed wire fence or “cattle fence”.
Weather Conditions
Weather conditions can affect airfield capacity as well as volume of operations at the airport.
For airport planning purposes, weather conditions are classified as either VFR or IFR conditions.
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) occurs when cloud ceiling is at least 1,000 feet above ground level
(AGL) and visibility is at least three statue miles. IFR conditions occur when the cloud ceiling is
less than 1,000 feet AGL and visibility is less then three statue miles.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-26

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Climate Summary
As reported in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical
Memorandum NWS WR-274: Climate of Prescott, Arizona (2007), Prescott’s elevation of 5,200
feet assures a variety of weather including cool winters, warm summers, moderate humidity, and
considerable daily temperature changes.
The average date of the first and last freeze (32°F) annually generally falls in the spring around
May 16th (last freeze) and in the fall around October 10th (first freeze). The average annual
precipitation for Prescott is 19.19 inches. Summers (June, July, and August) in Prescott have an
average maximum temperature of 86.2°F. On average, only 37 days in the summer have
maximum temperatures of 90°F or higher. Summer minimum temperatures are cool, with low
temperatures mainly in the 50s.
The fall season averages a temperature range from 80°F during the early part of the season, 50°F
by the end of the season and minimum temperatures normally falling below freezing by the
middle of October.
Winter weather typically begins by November and becomes well entrenched by December, with
increasingly colder weather. By December, minimum temperatures are generally in the low 20s;
however, afternoon maximum temperatures still average in the 50s, due to the amount of
sunshine the station receives. Spring in Prescott is typically breezy and dry with little
precipitation occurring in May and early June.
There are two distinct periods of precipitation in Prescott. One occurs during the winter months
from November through April when the jet-stream is located over the state, allowing moist
Pacific storm systems to move over the area. The other distinct period is classified as the summer
rainy season, or summer monsoon, which usually occurs during July and August when most of
Arizona is subjected to widespread thunderstorm activity. These thunderstorms are extremely
varied in intensity and location and occur mainly between the hours of 12 p.m. and 8 p.m.
Tables 1.15 and 1.16 provide a climate summary for Prescott AZ.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-27

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Table 1.15
PRC Weather Summary (1971 – 2000)
Precipitation (in)
Snowfall (in)
Normal
Record Max
Normal
Record Max
1.58
7.79
4.1
53
1.87
10.59
4.6
37.50
1.91
7.11
5.7
34.20
0.76
6.90
1.5
9.80
0.64
2.35
0
6
0.40
2.46
0
0
2.87
8.80
0
0
3.28
10.51
0
0
2.07
10.02
0
0
1.28
7.82
0.20
5
1.25
8.68
1.40
21.30
1.28
6.96
2.70
46
19.19
39.47
20.40
97.4

Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual

Source: NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS WR-274

Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual

Table 1.16
PRC Temperature (°F) Summary (1971 – 2000)
Record
Normal
Normal
Normal
Max
Max
Avg
Min
73
50.9
37.1
23.3
77
54.2
39.9
25.6
81
57.9
43.8
29.7
87
65.2
50.2
35.2
97
73.8
58.3
42.8
103
84.6
67.9
51.2
105
88.3
73.4
58.5
102
85.7
71.4
57
98
80.8
65.5
50.1
92
71.4
55.3
39.1
83
59.6
44.1
28.5
78
51.6
37.5
23.3
105

Record
Min
-21
-12
2
11
20
25
34
32
26
13
-1
-9
-21

Source: NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS WR-274

Wind Rose
FAA Advisory Circular (A/C) 150/5300-13, Airport Design, states that an airport’s runways
should be oriented such that aircraft can take-off and land into the prevailing wind with minimal
crosswind exposure. The A/C also states that a single runway, or a runway system, should
provide 95% wind coverage. Thus, the goal is to achieve 95% coverage or better.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-28

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Wind coverage is calculated using a wind rose, which graphically depicts wind data collected
from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The wind rose is
essentially a compass rose with graduated concentric circles representing wind speed. Each box
in the wind rose represents a compass direction and, when filled, indicates the percentage of time
wind travels in that direction at that speed.
Since prevailing wind patterns do not usually change, this master planning effort will utilize the
existing wind data for PRC. The wind roses are computed based on the following three
categories:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Visual Flight Rules (VFR) – ceiling 1,000’ and visibility three miles
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) – ceiling less than 1,000’ and visibility less than
three miles
All Weather – VFR and IFR combined

Since aircraft characteristics and performance can vary, wind coverage data is presented for 14
and 17 knots. Table 1.17 presents the percent All Weather Wind Coverage for each runway
combined.
Table 1.17
Wind Analysis – Percent Coverage
Runway
Crosswind
Crosswind
Speed (14 Kts)
Speed (17 Kts)
3-21
96.35%
98.85%
12-30
92.30%
97.70%
Combined Coverage
99.20%
99.95%
Source: 1998 Master Plan and NOAA

Based on this wind data, and on the review of data provided by the National Climatic Data
Center, the current runway configuration at PRC provides enough wind coverage to meet the
FAA guideline of 95% all weather wind coverage. The VFR and IFR wind roses are depicted on
the Airport Layout Plan.
1.4

Airspace, Approaches and Air Traffic Control

PRC is located in the Phoenix Aeronautical Chart within the Albuquerque (NM) ARTCC area of
responsibility (128.5 MHz). Radar approach and departure controls are coordinated by the PRC
Airport Traffic Control Tower (125.3 MHz), which operates from 6:00 am – 10:00 pm, local
time. Ground communication is available on frequency 121.7 MHz.
Weather, NAVAID status, and other pertinent airport information are available through the
Prescott FSS on 122.4 MHz 122.2 MHz. The Airport operates as Class D airspace from 6:00 am
– 10:00 pm local time and Class E 10:00 pm – 6:00 am local time.
CTAF, ATIS and UNICOM communications are transmitted respectively on 125.3 MHz, 127.2
MHz and 122.95 MHz.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-29

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

1.4.1

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Prescott Municipal Airport Airspace Structure

United States airspace is structured into controlled and uncontrolled areas. Controlled airspace,
reclassified in 1993, is further delineated as Class A, B, C, D, or E. Uncontrolled airspace is
referred to as Class G. Each class of airspace classifications is described below and identified in
Figure 1.9.
Figure 1.9
Airspace Classifications

Source: FAA

Controlled Airspace
Class A airspace consists of that airspace from 18,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) up to
60,000 feet MSL over the contiguous 48 states and Alaska. Only IFR flights are permitted in the
Class A airspace, and aircraft must be equipped with an operable transponder – an electronic
device which provides aircraft identification and performance information (e.g. altitude).
Specific airspace around major U.S. airports is protected by Class B airspace. Class B airspace
typically extends from the ground to 10,000 feet above the elevation of the airport, and extends
from 15 to 30 nautical miles around an airport.
Airports which have operational air traffic control towers (ATCT), are serviced by a radar
approach control facility, and have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger
enplanements are protected by Class C airspace. This airspace generally extends from the

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-30

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation for a radius of 5 nautical miles around an airport,
and from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport to out to a radius of 10 nautical miles.
Airspace around any airport, at which a control tower is operating but without a designated Class
B or C airspace, is classified as Class D airspace. Class D airspace generally consists of the
airspace within a horizontal distance of 5 statute miles from the geographical center of an airport,
and extends from the surface up to an altitude of 2,500 feet above the elevation of the airport.
Class E airspace is the controlled airspace which is not designated as Class A, B, C, or D. No
special equipment is required to operate within Class E airspace.
Uncontrolled Airspace
Class G airspace is that portion of the airspace that has not been designated at Class A, B, C, D,
or E. No special equipment is required to operate within Class G airspace.
Victor Airways
The U.S. airspace below the Class A airspace is covered by a network of Victor airways, which
connect adjacent VOR navigational aids, and provide a system of “highways” for air
transportation. A VOR is a Very high Frequency Omni-directional Range, which provides lineof-sight magnetic compass bearing with an accuracy on the order of plus-minus one degree.
VOR airways are usually eight nautical miles wide and extended from an altitude of 1,200 feet
AGL up to the Floor of Class A airspace, 18,000 feet MLS. These airways are charted and
identified (i.e. V 12, V 105, V 562, V 257, V 12-264, V 253, V 105-257) on VFR sectional
Charts and IFR low-altitude enroute charts. The network of VOR’s is supplemented by lowerpowered Non-Directional-Beacons, which transmit low-frequency radio signals on which a pilot
can “home-in” on and fly directly to/from the station. The following Figure 1.10 depicts the
Prescott Aeronautical Section, with Victor vectors highlighted with a blue line.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-31

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Figure 1.10
PRC Aeronautical Sectional

Source: FAA

1.4.2

PRC Imaginary Surface (FAR 77) and Approach Categories

Regulations on the protection of an airport’s airspace are defined by Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Part 77 establishes a requirement for
anyone proposing to build a structure near an airport to report their intentions to FAA.
Additionally, it defines a series of standards used for determining obstructions to an airport’s
navigable airspace. This is accomplished through the establishment of a set of airport imaginary
surfaces, that if penetrated represent an obstruction to air navigation. In some instances they

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-32

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

may be also classified by FAA as a “hazard”. Airport imaginary surfaces consist of the following
elements:
ƒ

Primary Surface: This surface is longitudinally centered on each runway and extends 200
feet beyond each runway end (if the runway is paved). The elevation of the primary surface
of a given runway is the same as that of the nearest point on the runway centerline.

ƒ

Approach Surface: The approach surface is a trapezoidal-shaped surface that begins at the
primary surface of each runway end, upwards and outwards for a prescribed slope and
distance based on the type of approach (visual, non-precision, or precision).

ƒ

Transitional Surface: This surface is a plane with a 7:1 slope (horizontal to vertical) that
extends upwards, outwards, and at right angles from the primary and approach surfaces,
terminating at the airport horizontal surface.

ƒ

Horizontal Surface: This is a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport
elevation. This surface is defined by drawing semi-circles of a given radius from the ends of
the primary surfaces. The radius of the circle is determined by the type of approach serving
each runway end.

ƒ

Conical Surface: The conical surface is an enclosed plane that extends upward and outward
from the horizontal surface at a 20:1 slope.

Typical FAR Part 77 surfaces are shown in Figure 1.11 and defined later in this section.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-33

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Figure 1.11
Typical FAR Part 77 Surfaces

Source: FAA

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-34

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

All runway ends have an approach surface associated with them. This is an imaginary surface, as
previously described, which no obstacles should protrude. This provides a clear area to allow a
gradual descent to landing. There are three categories of approach surfaces: visual, non-precision
and precision. The slope of the approach surface is based on the category. Table 1.18 identifies
the slope of each approach category.
Table 1.18
Description
No instrument approach
Served by a non-precision instrument approach
(LOC, VOR, NDB, GPS, etc.)
Served by a precision instrument approach
(ILS, GPS, CAT I, etc.)

Category
Visual
Non-Precision
Precision

Slope
20:1
34:1
50:1

Acronyms: LOC – Localizer; VOR – VHF Omni-directional Range; NDB – Non-Directional Beacon ; GPS –
Global Positioning System; ILS – Instrument Landing System ; CATI – Category I
Source: FAA FAR Part 77

Prescott Municipal Airport Approaches
An instrument approach is used by a pilot who is on an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan,
providing guidance to an airport or to a specific runway during good, marginal, or bad weather
conditions. Instrument approaches utilize a specific NAVAID facility located on or off the
airport.
Instrument approaches are categorized as either a precision approach, providing horizontal and
vertical guidance; or a non-precision approach, giving horizontal guidance only. Instrument
approach procedures require that a pilot fly a specific descent profile. Upon reaching an
identified point, the pilot must have visual contact with the runway, or perform a missed
approach. The missed approach takes the pilot away from the airport to a point where the
approach may be initiated again. Each instrument approach has a ceiling and visibility limit,
referred to as minimums. If the reported weather conditions fall below the approach minimums,
the approach cannot be attempted. PRC currently has three visual, two non-precision and one
precision approaches. Table 1.19 identifies PRC approaches.

Runway
3L
21R
3R
21L
12
30

Table 1.19
PRC Approach Categories
Category
Visual
Visual
Non-Precision
Precision
Non-Precision
Visual

Slope
20:1
20:1
34:1
50:1
34:1
20:1

Source: FAA FAR Part 77 & FAA Form 5010: Airport Master Record

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-35

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

The current technology available on each runway is as follows:
ƒ

Runway 12 is equipped with VOR providing non-precision approaches;

ƒ

Runway 12 is equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS) for reroute navigation and
non-precision approaches;

ƒ

Runway 21L is equipped for precision approach with a ILS/DME on channel 22 (not
available when the tower is closed);

ƒ

Runway 21L is equipped for non-precision approach with a LOC on frequency 108.5; and

ƒ

Runway 21L is equipped with VOR/DME RNAV (GPS) for reroute navigation and CAT I
precision approaches.

These approaches are shown in Figures 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, and 1.15 on the following pages.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-36

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Figure 1.12
Runway 21L Approach Plate

Source: FAA
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-37

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Figure 1.13
Runway 21L Approach Plate

Source: FAA
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-38

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Figure 1.13
Runway 12 Approach Plate

Source: FAA
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-39

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Figure 1.14
Runway 12 Approach Plate

Source: FAA

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-40

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

1.4.3

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Airport Airspace Obstructions

The FAR Part 77 Surface for PRC is summarized in Table 1.20. These dimensions reflect the
runway approach categories previously described. Any change in the category approach
designated for a runway will change these dimensions.

Runway
Primary Surface Width
Approach Surface Length
Approach Surface Width
Approach Surface Slope
Horizontal Surface Radius

Table 1.20
PRC Part 77 Surfaces (Feet)
3L
21R
3R
500
500
1,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
1,500
1,500
3,500
20:1
20:1
34:1
5,000
5,000
10,000

21L
1,000
10,000
16,000
50:1
10,000

12
500
5,000
1,500
20:1
5,000

30
500
5,000
1,500
20:1
5,000

Source: FAA FAR Part 77& Airport Administration

1.5

Environmental and Land Use Review

This section provides an overview of the environmental conditions at PRC based the review of
existing documentation provided in the Previous Master Plan, in the Airport Specific Area Plan
(ASAP), in the City of Prescott General Land Use Plan and correspondence from federal, state
and local environmental agencies. It is a compilation of pertinent environmental information
relative to the airport, including physical setting, historical and cultural resources, and land use
requirements.
1.5.1 General Setting
A description of the general settings for PRC was previously given in Section 1.1 Figure 1.5.1
identifies the location of PRC on a U.S. geological Survey topographic map for Prescott
quadrangle.
Prescott climate is varied including cool winters, warm summers, moderate humidity, and
considerable diurnal temperature changes. The average date of the last occurrence of 32°F in the
spring is May 16 and that of the first 32°F temperature in the fall is October 10. The average
precipitation for Prescott is 19.19 inches. Summers in Prescott have an average maximum
temperature (average maximum for June, July and August) of 86.2°F (the all-time record high
is105°F). On average, only 37 days in the summer have maximum temperatures of 90°F or
higher. Summer minimum temperatures are with low temperatures mainly in the 50s.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census the population with in a 50 miles radius from the Airport was
177,135. The current estimate for 2007 is 211,935 which represent a 20% increase. The
population in the area is currently increasing and projected to reach 243,888 by 2012.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-41

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

1.5.2 Land Use
The area in which PRC is located is predominately dedicated to agriculture and ranching. The
2003 City of Prescott General Plan – Figure 1.15 – describes the area as mix of residential,
commercial, agricultural, and recreational areas. The City of Prescott Zoning Ordinance has
designated the Airport as Zone LI, Light Industrial, IT, Industrial Transition, and BG, Business
General, as adopted on the City of Prescott Land Development Code, Amended January 11,
2005. The airport includes a main terminal, hangar buildings, administration and additional
structures leased and used by the United States Forest Service, Embry-Riddle and various
aviation related business and services.
Section 2.2.4 - Airport, Heliport, Landing of Airplanes (Industrial Use Categories, Aviation and
Surface Transportation Facilities) of the City of Prescott Land Development Code (LDC) states
that: “Aviation uses shall be subject to the following standards (See also Airport Noise Overlay
District at Sec. 5.2):
A. Documentation shall be submitted to the City showing that the site complies with all
applicable state and federal requirements.
B. Setbacks, landscaping and fencing appropriate to the specific nature of the use proposed
shall be established during the review process.
C. The site shall be located within the boundaries of the airport property, or shall have
frontage on and access to a collector or arterial street, provided the authority with
jurisdiction over the subject road may approve alternative access.
D. All areas proposed for active use, including fuel storage areas, shall be fenced.
E. Proposed take off and landing facilities shall be sited with consideration of potential
impacts on residential areas”.
The Land use for the areas east and north of the airport are classified in the General Plan as
Commercial/Employment use for up to ½ mile followed by Recreational/Open Space.
The area east of the airport is classified as Commercial and it falls under the Commercial
Corridor Overlay (CCO). The purpose of the CCO as described in the LDC in Section 5.3 is to:
“Promote quality commercial, industrial, and multi-family development that is compatible with
surrounding natural areas and/or developed and developing residential neighborhoods. All new
development in the CCO District should:
A. Minimize the impacts of new commercial development on nearby neighborhoods;
B. Protect and enhance the character of highway and arterial corridors, which are mainly
defined by surrounding residential neighborhoods and scenic natural features;
C. Create pleasing places to view and experience through thoughtful building orientation,
parking
D. placement, pedestrian access, landscaping and screening
E. Integrate new development, functionally, internally and externally to the site and to
surrounding neighborhoods;
F. Preserve safe and logical access, and the carrying capacity of designated corridors;

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-42

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

G. Promote the provision of usable pedestrian areas, such as plazas with street furniture,
public art, and etc.; and
H. Ensure the provision of public services and facilities needed to accommodate planned
land uses and population densities, as well as vehicular-, pedestrian- and bike- access.”
The land use for the areas north and west is classified for Agriculture/Ranching. The area
southwest and south of the airport is zoned Residential Single Family, Low-Medium Density
Residential and Recreational Open Space. A traffic sensitive area along U.S. Highway 89 which
provides direct access to the airport terminal area is located in this area. The Antelope Golf
Resort and Community is located in this area.
The city of Prescott established a policy with regard to Open Space so that it may be: “Preserved
and managed in a manner consistent with low impact public use. Such lands can include scenic
vistas, floodplains, trail corridors, historically recognized wildlife corridors wildlife corridors,
farmlands, highly visible natural areas along arterial streets, and open space buffers at the
City's perimeter.” Furthermore, it states that: “Development within the preserved open space
will be limited to features that enhance and encourage ecotourism.”

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-43

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Figure 1.15
General Plan Land Use at PRC

Source: City of Prescott General Plan

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-44

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

1.5.3 Noise
Base Year Aircraft Operations and Noise Exposure
This section presents the aircraft operational parameters and associated exposure for flight
operation at PRC for the base year conditions. Runway and flight track utilization by time
period, and the aircraft flight profiles and noise data, respectively are presented next. Finally, the
section presents the modeled average daily flight operations by aircraft type defined in the
FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) and discusses the resulting noise exposure for the Base
Year conditions.
Annual Flight Operations
The data required to conduct aircraft noise analysis includes:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Aircraft operations by category (single engine, multiengine, jet, etc.);
Performance characteristics;
Flight paths and approach profiles; and
Time of day when operations occur.

The number of aircraft operations and aircraft types for operations at PRC were determined from
FAA’s 2007 operations summary and follow up discussions with Air Traffic Control Tower
(ATCT) staff.
Aircraft Fleet Mix
The FAA’s INM includes data on a wide range of aircraft models; however, it does not include
every type and model of aircraft. Thus, in some cases, it was necessary to identify an
“equivalent aircraft” that could be modeled with the INM. When this was required, an approved
equivalent aircraft was selected that generates equal or higher noise levels than the aircraft active
on the airport to ensure a conservative assessment of the noise profile generated by this aircraft.
The following table summarizes the aircraft types and their INM equivalent aircraft codes.
The fleet mix presented in Table 1.21, that is, the percent of daily activity by specific aircraft
models, was estimated using the information obtained from ATC staff by Berger.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-45

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Table 1.21
Example Aircraft Types Using PRA and INM Equivalents
Aircraft Type
INM Type
Cessna Skyhawk
Piper Archer
Piper Arrow
Diamond Star
Piper Seminole
Beechcraft 1900
Lockheed Hercules C130
P3A Orion
Robinson 22 Helicopter
Bell Jet Ranger 206L

CNA172
GASEPF
GASEPV
BEC400
BEC58P
DHC6
C130
P3A
H500D
B206L

Source: FAA Integrated Noise Model, Version 6.1

The following table displays the operations and fleet mix percentages for each type of aircraft
being modeled. The INM model code, number of daytime and nighttime operations and
respective percentages of each, and the combined number of operations and fleet mix distribution
are shown in Table 1.22.
Table 1.22
Calculation of Fleet Mix Percentages
Aircraft Type

No. Daily

Percent Daily

CNA172

173

17.78%

GASEPF

172

17.68%

GASEPV

172

17.68%

BEC400

172

17.68%

BEC58P

101

10.38%

DHC6

24

2.50%

C130

4

0.41%

P3A

4

0.41%

H500D

75

7.74%

B206L

75

7.74%

Note: Totals are rounded

Source: The Louis Berger Group

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-46

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

Daily Operations
The INM analyzes airport noise by considering airport activity over a 24-hour period. The
standard technique in noise contour development is to consider the annual average day. For this
study, the ATCT operation counts were obtained and the fiftieth percentile daily total
operations was used to as the annual average day. To determine the number of operations by
aircraft type, it was only necessary to multiply the daytime fleet mix percentage by the total
number of annual operations of 231,763, and then divide by 365 for the average daily count.
The following Table 1.23 summarizes the aircraft fleet mix and average daily operations data.
Due to the fact that INM models an annual average day, fractions of operations occur.
Table 1.23
Average Daily Operations (2007)
Aircraft
Types
CNA172
GASEPF
GASEPV
BEC58P
DHC6
P2V
P3A
H500D
B206L
Total

No.
Daily

Daytime
Ops

112.00
112.00
112.00
64.00
16.00
3.00
3.00
50.00
50.00

Night
Ops

Arr/Day

Arr/
Night

Dep/Day

Dep/Night

144.00
0.80
36.00
0.40
36.00
144.00
0.80
36.00
0.40
36.00
144.00
8.00
36.00
4.00
36.00
62.00
0.80
29.45
0.40
29.45
15.00
0.00
7.50
0.00
7.50
0.25
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.13
0.25
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.13
47.00
0.00
11.75
0.00
11.75
47.00
0.00
23.38
0.00
23.38
603.50
10.40
180.33
5.20
180.33
Source: PRC Airport Staff, ATCT Staff & The Louis Berger Group Observations

0.40
0.40
4.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.20

TGO’s
72.00
72.00
72.00
3.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.50
0.25
242.85

Aircraft Performance
The performance (arrival descent and departure climb profiles) and noise information for all of
the fixed-wing aircraft at the airport are provided in a database that is part of the INM. In the
model, touch-and-go altitudes for training flights were set at the traffic pattern altitudes
prescribed for the airport as indicated in the Airport Facility Directory. The traffic pattern
altitude for helicopters used in the model was imported to the INM from another FAA program,
the Helicopter Noise Model (HNM).
Flight Tracks and Runway Use
The arrival, departure, and touch-and-go flight tracks and traffic patterns for PRC were taken or
estimated from the discussions with airport personnel, ATCT personnel and Berger’s flight
observations.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-47

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

The runway utilization levels (i.e. the percent each runway is used for arrivals and departures)
adopted for the baseline 2007 Noise Exposure Map are displayed in the following Table 1.24.
These runway utilizations are derived from and adjusted according to information from airport
staff, ATCT staff and observed flight operations.
Table 1.24
Runway Use by Percentage – Existing Conditions
Runway Use by Percentage (Total Operations)
RY 3R

RY 3L

RY 21R

RY 21L

RY 12

RY 30

5%

5%

35%

35%

10%

10%

Source: PRC Airport Staff, ATCT Staff & The Louis Berger Group Observations

Base Year Average Daily Airport Contours
Using the operations information described above, DNL contours were generated for the 2007
Baseline Conditions at PRC. These contours are displayed on the following Figure 1.16 for
DNL levels of 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-48

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

1-49

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

1.5.4 Environmental Review
As identified in the previous Master Plan any new major improvement planned for the airport
will require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as
amended. Though the review of previous documentation the following environmental issues or
sensitive areas were identified and will require careful planning: Noise, Water Quality, Water of
the U.S., DOT Section 4f lands, Historic, Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural Recourses,
Biotic Communities, Threatened and Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna.
Water Quality. Several factors make water quality very sensitive issues in Prescott. In 1998 the
Prescott Active Management Area (AMA) was declared to no longer be in a state of “safe yield”,
prompting restriction and limitations for residential, commercial and agricultural use. Also
Granite Creek, an important component of the regional hydrology system is listed as impaired
water for dissolved oxygen and is monitored for E coli and mercury levels.
Water of the U.S. Granite Creek and Bottleneck Wash are listed as Water of the U.S. and any
project in their vicinity will require a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act. In addition
to protect underground waters from spill, leaks and other hazardous substances in the stormwater
systems, careful planning and design are necessary.
DOT Section 4f Lands. Section 4(f) land to the airport is the Antelope Hills Golf Course, owned
by the City of Prescott, adjacent to the south airport boundary; based on FAA Order 5050.4B all
future development alternatives must include all possible planning to minimize harm and the
disruption of normal activity to the land.
SHPO. The Arizona State Preservation Office advised that the airport property has not been
systematically surveyed, and recommended a cultural recourses specialist to inspect the project
area, and that should be reviewed pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, as implemented by 36 CFR Part 800.
Biotic Communities Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Arizona Game
and Fish is required since the riparian habitat within Granite Creek supports mule deer, havalina
and is prime pronghorn antelope habitat and several Special Status Species are reported within a
3 miles radius from the airport.
1.6

Socio-Economic Conditions

This section provides information regarding the economic contribution the airport provides to the
region. Airport financial data is provided to understand the current and most recent airport
finances. This is reviewed to understand the airport’s ability to undertake future capital
improvements and its continued day-to-day operation. Data on population, employment, and
income will be discussed in the forecast chapter of the master plan.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-50

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Baseline Conditions
FINAL

1.6.1 Airport Financial Data
The income statement for Prescott indicates that the airport derives revenue primarily from
building and hangar rentals, ground leases, fuels sales, concession revenues, such as car rental,
restaurant and other space rentals and non-operating revenues. The following table summarizes
the revenues, expenses and net income for the airport in the last five years.
Table 1.25
Revenues, Expenses, Net Income – Prescott Municipal Airport
Fiscal Year
Total Revenue
Total Expenses
Net Income (Loss)
2007
$2,304,458
$2,261,973
$42,485
2006
$3,272,112
$2,262,676
$1,009,436
2005
$2,626,719
$2,197,635
$429,084
2004
$2,988,262
$2,061,565
$926,697
2003
$1,962,762
$2,090,156
$(127,394)
Source: FAA AAS-400: CATS: Report 127 & Airport Administration

1.6.2 Airport Economic Impact
According to the 2006 Prescott Economic Impact Study, the total economic impact of the airport
on the local economy totals 7381 jobs at the airport, with total direct impact of $25,373,538. The
following summarize the impact PRC has in its local economy and surrounding communities,
based on the 2006 data reported in the Prescott Economic Impact Study.
Table 1.26
Economic Impact – Prescott Municipal Airport
Estimated amount
Total
$68,759,134
Direct
$25,373,538
Indirect
$10,815,480
Induced
$32,570,116
Source: 2006 Prescott Economic Airport Impact Study

1

Note: This figure does not reflect the current number of jobs at the Airport. In 2007 the Flight Service Station moved it operation to
an off airport location, and Great Lakes Aviation has been replaced by Mesa Air. In addition March 1, 2008 FBO operations were
transferred to a private FBO operator which created additional new jobs and Embry-Riddle reported to the Chamber of Commerce
the creation of more than 100 additional job since the study was prepared.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1-51

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

2.0

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Aviation Demand Forecasts

This chapter presents the forecasts of aviation demand at Prescott Municipal Airport - Ernest A.
Love Field (PRC). Aviation forecasts predict future aviation demands, and thus, the potential
need for future facilities. The forecasts were derived based on a review of historical trends,
market analysis, and other techniques including the application of professional judgment.
General Aviation is defined as that portion of aviation activity which encompasses all facets of
aviation except commercial airline and military operations. This activity constitutes the majority
of the aircraft activity at PRC. Consistent with airport planning practice, forecasts are presented
for 5-10 year intervals (i.e., short-, intermediate-, and long-term), beginning with year 2007.
Forecasts are shown for:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

General Aviation (GA) Based Aircraft;
GA Based Aircraft Fleet Mix;
GA Aircraft Operations (i.e., take-offs and landings);
Commercial Passenger Enplanements;
Commercial Service Operations;
Annual Instrument Approaches; and
Peaking Characteristics

2.1

Socio-Economic Setting

2.1.1

Regional Economic Considerations

The Prescott Municipal Airport is an active airport that serves two primary operating roles. First,
it accommodates the general aviation travel demands generated by aircraft owners located within
its Airport Service Area (ASA). These users typically operate piston and turboprop aircraft.
Second, it serves as a commercial service airport, which currently provides non-stop service to
Phoenix and Las Vegas.
In 2006, an Economic Impact Study (EIS)1 was conducted for the airport. It concluded that PRC
is a vital and needed contributor to the economy of the area. It cited the need to develop a
modern air terminal, more hangar space for private aircraft, and improved air carrier service.
Furthermore, it revealed that operation of PRC appears to be in line with similar airports around
the state when compared to the cost of fuel, hangar space, and other services.
The EIS strongly indicates that the PRC and its users, together with businesses that depend on
the airport for their viability, account for a Total Economic Impact of $68,759,134. That total is
derived by adding together the Direct Impact of approximately $25,373,538; an Indirect Impact
of $10,815,480; and an Induced Impact of $ 32,570,116.

1

Prescott Airport Economic Impact Study, William V. Cheeks and Associates – May 2006

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-1

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

2.1.2

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Airport Service Area

The Airport Service Area (ASA) of an airport is defined by its proximity to other airports
providing similar service to the flying public, rather than by any jurisdictional boundaries. PRC
is located in central Arizona and primarily serves the population centers of the communities of
the City of Prescott, Town of Prescott Valley and the Town of Chino Valley.
At the beginning months of 2008, PRC served as a base for 340 GA aircraft and enplaned over
4,000 passengers in 2007. Enplanement is defined as the total number of passengers boarding an
aircraft. The location of the aircraft owners and population helps to define the ASA for the
facility. Aircraft basing and the amount of enplaned passengers reflects consideration of such
factors as convenience in terms of access, facilities and services available, and aircraft operating
costs versus those associated with other airports.
The ASA for the purposes of this forecasting effort may be best identified as the Central Yavapai
Metropolitan Region. The state-designated metropolitan planning organization responsible for
coordinating transportation planning of local governments within this region is the Central
Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO). The CYMPO encompasses the
communities of Prescott, Prescott Valley, Chino Valley, Dewey-Humboldt, portions of Yavapai
County and the Yavapai-Prescott Nation. Socioeconomic data gathered from the CYMPO were
used to represent the characteristics of this ASA, and compared to Arizona and national statistics.
Principal indicators of the socioeconomic setting of the ASA, State of Arizona and the United
States are presented in Table 2.1.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-2

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Table 2.1
PRC Airport Service Area Socioeconomic Characteristics
Central Yavapai
Metropolitan
Arizona
United States
Region
Population
2000
65,490
2004
117,671
2007
124,477
2010
146,600*
2015
192,500*
2020
252,800*
2025
332,000*
2030
438,000
Average Annual Growth Rate
5.9%
Employment (% Distribution)
Agriculture
n/a
Mining, Construction
9.0
Manufacturing
4.0
Transportation/Utilities/Trade
13.0
Finance, Insurance, and Real
3.0
Estate
Services
58.0
Government
13.0
Total
100.0
Income (Effective Buying Income - 2006)
Median Household
$34,901
Households by Percent Dist.
<$25,000
29.78
$25,000 to $50,000
33.73
> $50,000
36.49
Total
100.0

5,130,632
5,868,004
6,163,869
6,637,381
7,495,238
8,456,448
9,531,537
10,712,397
2.2%

281,421,906
295,895,897
301,621,157*
308,935,581
322,365,787
335,804,546
349,439,199
363,584,435
.77%

n/a
9.6
7.0
19.6

2.8
5.5
9.4
17.5

6.9

5.6

41.6
15.6
100.0

44.6
14.6
100.0

$38,537

$48,201

22.3
45.6
32.1
100.0

22.3
42.7
35.0
100.0

Sources: US Department of Labor, US Census Bureau, Prescott Airport Economic Impact Study-May 2006
* Interpolated

Key features of Table 2.1 are:
1. Population growth rate in the ASA will be greater than that which will occur in Arizona
and the United States.
2. The economic base of the ASA is generally comparable to that in Arizona and the United
States with a higher proportion of jobs in Services sector at 58%.
3. The median household effective buying income, a measure of disposable income, in the
ASA is less than that of Arizona and the United States. However, the percentage of
households with effective buying income levels in excess of $50,000, a level that should
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-3

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

provide sufficient funds for discretionary purposes such as air transportation, illustrates a
slightly higher percentage than Arizona and the United States
2.2

General Aviation Demand Forecast

Factors that influence the demand for aviation activity at an airport include the socioeconomic
characteristics of the ASA, the level of service and facilities provided at the airport versus other
airports in the region, and its location with respect to demand generators for originating or
transient users and passengers.
First-class hangar facilities, combined with three runways (Runway 3R/21L measuring the
longest at 7,616 with ILS capabilities) and major maintenance services attract corporate aircraft
and aviation business to use PRC as an operations base. PRC also attracts local aircraft owners to
use the facility as a base. These factors, combined with previous capital improvements at PRC
and the socioeconomic characteristics of the ASA, suggest that the demand for aviation services
at the PRC is being sustained and has the potential for growth.
The population growth of the ASA and the continued diversification of the economy and
disposable income levels, support the continued reliance on PRC to provide air transportation
services. This is especially relevant when the economic centers are distant from one another or
involve excessive travel times to enable same-day ground transportation trips. General aviation
air travel supports this user demand. Longer passenger processing times associated with
scheduled airline travel and connections have contributed to the increased awareness and utility
of general aviation aircraft and the airports they utilize. As discussed in the general aviation
national trends, the advent of VLJs and the attractiveness of fractional ownership of business
aircraft, both in jet and turboprop families, further support this trend. Availability of land for the
construction of hangar facilities at PRC is a primary factor contributing to the continued
attraction of aircraft to the facility. Barring an economic scenario that suggests poor performance
in the dominant area businesses, both in the ASA and the Prescott municipal area, use of PRC is
likely to continue and experience increasing frequency.
From a facilities perspective, PRC is well maintained and offers certain advantages over other
area airports as highlighted in Table 2.2. PRC draws pilots and aircraft owners primarily from
areas to its north, west and south based on the addresses of aircraft owners. Potential users in
areas east of the Airport tend to operate from airports in the north area for reasons of
accessibility and available facilities. As determined in the Passenger Leakage Analysis
(Appendix A), PRC draws its commercial passengers primarily from Prescott, Prescott Valley,
Chino Valley, and Dewey-Humboldt.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-4

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Table 2.2
Comparison with Other Area Airports
Airport
Phoenix
Flagstaff
Goodyear
Deer Valley
Prescott
Show Low
Glendale
Kingman
Page
Payson
Sedona
Mesa
Chandler

Number of
Runways &
Longest
Length
3 – 11,489
1 – 8,800
1 – 8,500
2 – 8,208
3 – 7,550
2 – 7,200
1 – 7,150
2 – 6,827
2 – 5,950
1 – 5,500
1 – 5,129
2 – 5,101
2 – 4,870

Instrument
Approach
Capability

Fixed
Based
Operator

Operations

Based
Aircraft

Commercial
Passenger
Service

Yes – P
Yes – P
No
Yes – NPI
Yes – P
Yes – NPI
Yes – NPI
Yes – NPI
No
No
No
Yes – NPI
Yes – NPI

Major
Major
Major
Major
Major
Minor
Major
Major
Major
Minor
Minor
Major
Major

539,211i
36,837i
136,274i
378,763i
231,285i
34,014
132,735i
61,100
23,007
41,850
50,000
270,084i
223,800i

93
130
197
1,125
340
63
357
268
68
38
100
932
425

Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes*
Yes*
No
Yes*
Yes*
No
No
No
No

i

* Essential Air Service, ATCT Provided, P = Precision Instrument, NPI = Non Precision Instrument
Note: All airports have 100LL, Jet A, Hangars, and Tiedown capabilities
Source: FAA 5010 Records & Prescott Airport Economic Impact Study-May 2006

Of the other airports, only Phoenix Sky Harbor and Flagstaff have precision instrument approach
capabilities. Additionally, PRC has the seventh longest runway. Overall, the prospect for future
aviation activity at PRC is considered positive and should advance at rates comparable to those
expected nationally. Phoenix Sky Harbor, Show Low, Kingman, Flagstaff, and Page airports also
provide scheduled airline or commuter service.
2.2.1

Summary of Forecast Methodology

The forecasts were derived from a comparison to the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) in
addition to an assessment of the Leakage Analysis (Appendix A), survey activities of based
aircraft and aircraft operations (Appendix B), on-going and planned airport improvements, and
anticipated trends in the general aviation market and commercial passenger travel. These
findings are coupled with consideration of causal relationships as reflected in supply
(competition) and demand (population, employment and income) factors. This forecast approach
allows for differing projections of demand that could be anticipated at PRC. Initially, the
forecasts address two key projections – based aircraft and aircraft operations – from which a
series of derivative forecasts can be generated.
With the exception of enplaned passengers, the forecasts presented in this chapter will be
unconstrained. Meaning, any existing physical or policy constraints at PRC will not be taken into
consideration during the development of these forecast numbers. Chapter Four, Development
Alternatives, will address any physical and policy constraints and will identify a “constrained”
forecast, if warranted. However, the enplanement forecast will consider “what if” scenarios due
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-5

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

to ‘on-going’ plans to build a new larger terminal facility at PRC. The specific methodology for
each is documented in the sections below.
2.2.2

General Aviation Trends

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) publishes a national aviation forecast. The current
document that will be used as a source is FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2008–2025.
Included in this publication are forecasts for general aviation. The forecasts use the economic
performance of the United States as an indicator of future aviation industry growth.
The FAA forecasts the fleet and hours flown for single-engine piston aircraft, multi-engine
piston, turboprops, turbojets, rotorcraft (piston, turbine), sport, experiment and other (glider,
balloon). The FAA forecasts active aircraft (i.e. flies at least one hour during the year) not total
aircraft. As the demand for business jets has grown over the past several years, the current
forecast assumes that business use of general aviation aircraft will expand at a more rapid pace
than that for personal/sport use. The business/corporate side of general aviation should also
continue to benefit from a growing market for new Very Light Jets (VLJ). In addition, corporate
safety/security concerns for corporate staff, combined with increasing flight delays at some U.S.
airports have made fractional, corporate, and on-demand charter flights practical alternatives to
travel on commercial flights. Below, a list is provided summarizing key FAA forecast
components for general aviation through 2025.
ƒ

The active general aviation fleet is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.3
percent through the forecast period of 2025, growing from an estimated 225,007 in 2007
to 286,500 aircraft by 2025.

ƒ

The more expensive and sophisticated turbine-powered fleet (including rotorcraft) is
projected to grow at an average of 3.7 percent a year over the forecast period with the
turbine jet fleet increasing at 5.6 percent a year.

ƒ

The actual number of VLJ deliveries in 2007 fell short of FAA’s assumption in last years
forecast (143 vs. 350). However, the current forecast assumes that they will continue to
enter the active fleet at a rate of 400 to 500 aircraft a year, reaching 8,145 aircraft by
2025.

ƒ

The number of active piston-powered aircraft (including rotorcraft) is projected to
decrease from the 2006 total of 167,008 through 2008 and then increase gradually to
181,345 by 2025. Over the forecast period, the average annual increase in piston-powered
aircraft is 0.5 percent.

ƒ

Starting in 2005, a new category of aircraft (previously not included in the FAA's aircraft
registry counts) was created: "light sport" aircraft. At the end of 2006 a total of 1,273
aircraft were estimated to be in this category. The forecast assumes registration of 5,600
aircraft over a 5-year period beginning in 2005 including both newly built aircraft and
conversions from ultralight trainers. By 2025 a total of 14,700 light sport aircraft are
projected to be in the fleet.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-6

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

ƒ

The number of general aviation hours flown is projected to increase by 3.0 percent yearly
over the forecast period.

ƒ

The number of active general aviation pilots (excluding air transport pilots) is projected
to be 507,930 in 2025, an increase of almost 61,000 (up 0.7 percent yearly) over the
forecast period.

ƒ

The number of private pilots is projected to increase an average of 0.2 percent a year over
the forecast period to total 220,550 in 2025.

2.2.3

General Aviation Based Aircraft Forecast

Post September 11, 2001 combined with a weakening economy has led to reductions in aviation
travel. However, the "hassle factor" associated with scheduled airline travel, especially for
frequent flyers, has stimulated additional interest in the general aviation industry. Corporate
travelers have realized the convenience and improved affordability of using chartered general
aviation aircraft or have joined fractional aircraft ownership programs. Fractional aircraft
ownership involves the purchase of a predetermined share of an aircraft, which is then
maintained and operated by a management company. These programs, initially involving
business jet aircraft, now offer participation in turboprop aircraft such as the Beechcraft King
Air. The ability of these aircraft to operate at airports located closer to the passengers' homes and
suburban office locations have contributed to the success of these programs. As the economy
improves, these positive forces are expected to return and stimulate the demand for this type of
general aviation activity. This expectation is mirrored in the national FAA forecasts of general
aviation activity presented in by the FAA in its "Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2008 – 2025”.
Contributing to this prospect for growth will be the introduction of lightweight, low noise, new
technology personal and corporate jet aircraft. An example is the Eclipse 500 twin-engine jet.
This aircraft has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 4,700 pounds and can transport 4
passengers and a crew of 2 some 1,600 nautical miles nonstop. The aircraft sells for a little over
$1 million. The twinjet aircraft is specifically designed to operate from general aviation airports
with runway lengths of at least 2,600 feet, thus making it attractive for use at most general
aviation airports.
Existing published forecasts specifically for PRC are included in the FAA Terminal Area
Forecast (TAF), the 1998 Airport Master Plan, and limited forecast in the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) State Aviation Needs Study 2000 (SANS 2000). Valid regional
forecasts are limited given that the Arizona State Aviation System Plan (SASP) is currently in
progress. All three existing forecasts were reviewed as a preliminary step in generating forecasts
for this Master Plan Update. Regional and local conditions (i.e., market share) were then
reviewed to evaluate the reliability of the forecasts. Table 2.3 provides existing based aircraft
forecasts for PRC. The based aircraft and operations forecast methodology and actual forecasts
for PRC are described thereafter.
As shown in Table 2.3, the FAA TAF and the SANS 2000 forecast have identical average annual
growth rates, while the 1998 Master Plan is slightly lower at 1.5%. To further compare, validate,
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-7

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

and make an informed decision on the appropriate average annual growth rate to use in
forecasting based aircraft through the planning period, historical data for based aircraft were
collected from several sources, which included the FAA, and provided in Table 2.4. From this
data, a trendline analysis2 for the period of time shown (1989 to 2006) was performed. The
correlation coefficient (R2) determined was 0.92, which is a good correlation coefficient. This
trendline analysis resulted in 595 aircraft in 2027, indicating a 2.6% average annual growth rate,
which is comparable to both the FAA TAF and the SANS 2000.
Table 2.3
Comparison of Based Aircraft Forecast
Airport-Specific
FAA TAF
1998 Master Plan
n/a
258
Forecast
x
312
280

Year
1995
2000
2005

x

X

Forecast

365

300
X
325
350
374
n/a
1.5%

323
x
360
401
446
n/a
2.3%

Forecast

2010
2015
2020
2025
Average Annual Growth

Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997

Regional
SANS (2000)
n/a
x
n/a

391
440
494
555
2.3%

Table 2.4
PRC Historical Based Aircraft
Based Aircraft
Year
Based Aircraft
197
1998
290
223
1999
312
194
2000
312
197
2001
312
199
2002
335
220
2003
347
218
2004
335
258
2005
349
290
2006
357

After reviewing the resulting average annual growth rates for both the comparable forecasts and
the trendline analysis, an average annual growth rate of 2.3% was selected for based aircraft
through the planning period. Although the FAA’s national projections of the active general
aviation fleet indicate a modest 1.3 percent growth rate through 2025, it is anticipated that PRC
2

Trendline analysis is a technique in taking historical data in effort to make predictions. Such analysis is also called
regression analysis. The analysis produces a R2 coefficient between 0 and 1. A trendline is more reliable when its R2
value is at or near 1.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

would experience more robust growth in terms of based aircraft due to the higher population
growth rate within the ASA, compared to the growth rate nationally (as illustrated in Table 2.1).
The resultant projection of based aircraft reflecting the selected growth rate of 2.3 percent is
presented in Table 2.5 and illustrated in Exhibit 2.1.
Table 2.5
PRC Forecast Based Aircraft
Year
Based Aircraft
2007
340
2012
380
2017
425
2027
535
Exhibit 2.1
PRC Based Aircraft
600
500
400
300
200
100

19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
20
09
20
11
20
13
20
15
20
17
20
19
20
21
20
23
20
25

19
95

19
93

19
91

19
89

0

Historic

2.2.4

Combined Forecast

Historic Trend

Market Share Analysis of Based Aircraft

A market share analysis was also evaluated for PRC to reinforce the based aircraft projections
provided in Section 2.2.3. The method used to determine market share was to develop a ratio of
based aircraft per 1,000/population in the ASA region (see Table 2.1). Based aircraft per 1,000/
population is expected to decrease throughout the planning period as the population within the
ASA increases at a greater growth rate than the number of based aircraft in the ASA. It is
anticipated that by the end of the planning period (2027) the ratio will be 1.5. As a result, the
projected based aircraft for the year 2027 is estimated to be 555, which is approximately 4
percent higher than the 2027 projection of 535 given in Table 2.7 (2.5% average annual growth
rate vs. 2.3% average annual growth rate).
Because the average annual growth rates are within two-tenths of each other, the projected based
aircraft of 535 is considered reliable, and will be used during the based aircraft fleet mix and
aircraft operations forecast.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-9

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

2.2.5

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Based Aircraft Fleet Mix

The projections of based aircraft fleet mix were developed by using the fleet mix percentages
located in Chapter 1, Table 1.6. However, the percentages were adjusted slightly to reflect the
national trend forecast favoring an increased growth toward larger aircraft in the active general
aviation fleet, notably those powered by turboprop and turbojet engines. In absolute numbers of
aircraft nationally, however, the smaller piston-powered active aircraft greatly exceed these
larger aircraft by a ratio of more than 10:1 today. Over time, this ratio may decrease to nearly
7:1. This growth rate projection through 2025 for each class of aircraft is presented in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6
National General Aviation Aircraft Fleet Projections
SingleMulti-Engine
Period
Engine
Turbojet Rotorcraft
Piston/Turboprop
Piston
2008 – 2025
0.5
4.6
5.6
4.70
Source: "Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2008 – 2025”

These same trends and characteristics can be expected at PRC. The resultant projection of based
aircraft fleet mix, reflecting a slight adjustment to the current fleet mix percentages using the
national growth rates, is presented in Table 2.7.
Table 2.7
PRC GA Aircraft Fleet Projections
Year

Single-Engine

Multi-Engine
Business Jets
Piston/Turboprop

Rotorcraft

Total

20071

301

26

3

10

340

Future

86.5%

8%

2%

3.5%

100%

2012
2017
2027

329
368
463

30
34
43

7
8
11

13
15
18

380
425
535

Source: Berger Calculations

2.2.6

1

/ Base Year

General Aviation Aircraft Operations Forecast

An aircraft operation is defined as any takeoff or landing performed by an aircraft. There are two
types of operations, local and itinerant. A local operation is a takeoff or landing performed by an
aircraft that will operate within the local traffic, generally within a 20 nautical mile radius.
Itinerant operations are all arrival and departures other than local. Usually, local operations are
comprised of training operations and itinerant operations are those aircraft with a specific
destination away from or to the airport. Typically, itinerant operations increase with business and

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-10

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

industry use of the airport since business aircraft are used primarily to move individual from one
location to another.
Aircraft operations were developed based on traffic counts provided by the FAA Air Traffic
Control, which operates between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. daily. The tower presents
this information by type of operation (local or itinerant). Year 1997 was the first year of
historical data used for this forecast effort total was 353,286 operations (takeoffs and landings).
Of these recorded operations, 237,916 were local and 115,370 were itinerant. This level of
activity, although accurate for the recording period, does not include or make allowance for
aircraft operations that occur when the tower is closed. Consequently, it was appropriate to make
an upward adjustment to the recorded tower activity data by 1% to account for this condition.
Table 2.8 presents the historical itinerant and local operations at PRC.
Table 2.8
Historical Operations
Year

Itinerant

1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

118,903
125,419
119,608
116,291
119,491
111,183
116,513
97,778
88,929
87,410
87,062
Avg.

% of Total
33%
35%
35%
37%
36%
32%
35%
35%
37%
37%
38%
35%

Local
237,916
228,056
220,432
203,746
211,833
231,196
217,017
177,805
150,236
149,292
142,563
Avg.

% of Total

Total +1%

67%
65%
65%
63%
64%
68%
65%
65%
63%
63%
62%
65%

356,819
353,475
340,040
323,237
328,746
342,379
333,530
275,583
239,165
236,702
229,625

Source: FAA ATC Source Data 1997-2007

Aircraft operations forecasts were developed by applying national growth rates and applying the
Operations Per Based Aircraft (OPBA) methodology. The operations at PRC did not correlate
well with any of the socioeconomic indicators; thus, regression analysis was not a useful
technique. Each of the forecasts is presented in the following sub-sections.
2.2.6.a

FAA National Growth Rates

The TAF provided growth rates for itinerant and local operations. The growth rates are based
upon national growth expected to occur and are shown in Table 2.9.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-11

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Table 2.9
TAF GA Growth Rates
Period

Itinerant Growth Rate

Local Growth Rate

2007-2012
2013-2017
2018-2022
2023-2027

1.3
0.9
0.7
0.6

1.3
1.7
1.0
0.9

Source: PRC TAF FY 2007-2025

These growth rates were applied to the 2007 local and itinerant operations and the results are
summarized in Table 2.10.
2.2.6.b

Operations Per Based Aircraft

The OPBA method is a ratio of operations per based aircraft. The OPBA ratio can be calculated
and then applied to the forecasted based aircraft to generate an operation forecast. The OPBA
ratio calculated for 2007 operations was 675. The OPBA ratio was applied to the forecast of
based aircraft in Table 2.5. The forecast of operations is summarized in Table 2.10.
2.2.6.c

Combined Forecast

The combined forecast was developed using parts of each forecast presented in the last two
sections. For itinerant operations, the national growth rate was used. For the based aircraft, a new
OPBA ratio was developed. The new OPBA was derived by taking the 2007 local operations and
the 2007 based aircraft. The resulting OPBA was 419. This OPBA was then applied to the
forecast of based aircraft to derive local operations. The forecast is summarized in Table 2.10.
2.2.6.d

GA Operations Forecast Analysis

As shown in Table 2.10, the different forecast methodologies generate a range of operations
scenarios. Analyzing the different forecasts, it was determined that the National Growth Rate
method provides a very conservative estimate of operations, at best. The OPBA method
generates a very high operations level. However, the OPBA is based on total local and itinerant
operations. Although the OPBA represents a ratio based upon actual operations at the airport, it
appears very optimistic. Given the knowledge of the region in previous discussions, it seems this
forecast would not be appropriate.
The preferred forecast is the combined forecast. This forecast combines the itinerant growth rates
from the National Growth Rates forecast with the OPBA generated specifically for the local
operations. This forecast provides a good estimate as it addresses a level of growth from itinerant
operations associated with the growth expected in the nation while addressing growth in the
based aircraft specific to PRC. Furthermore, the Combined Forecast comes within 10% of the
FAA TAF, which is within acceptable limits. Exhibit 2.2 illustrates both historical and forecasted
total aircraft operations.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-12

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Year
20071
2012
2017
2027

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Table 2.10
GA Operations Forecast
National Forecast
OPBA Forecast
229,625
229,625
242,518
256,500
260,035
286,875
282,772
361,125

Combined Forecast
229,625
249,664
272,663
325,084

Source: Berger Calculations 1/Base Year

Thousands

Exhibit 2.2
PRC Total Aircraft Operations
400

300

200

100

Historic

2.2.7

20
27

20
25

20
23

20
21

20
19

20
17

20
15

20
13

20
11

20
09

20
07

20
05

20
03

20
01

19
99

19
97

0

Combined Forecast

GA Operations Forecast by Fleet Mix

Future aircraft operations by fleet mix were projected on the basis of using the Combined GA
Operations Forecast (shown in Table 2.10) and applying the current fleet mix percentages
obtained from reviewing the 5010 Data Sheet and past INM Noise Model data inputs. The
current fleet mix operations, by percentages, are as follows:
•
•
•
•

Single Engine (SE):
Multi-Engine (ME):
Business Jet (BJ):
Rotorcraft (RC):

66%
16%
10%
8%

Subsequently, Table 2.11 depicts the GA operations forecast by fleet mix based upon the
combined forecast in Table 2.10 and the fleet mix percentages listed above.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-13

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Year
20071
2012
2017
2027

Table 2.11
GA Operations Forecast by Fleet Mix
SE
ME
BJ
RC
22,962
18,370
151,553
36,740
24,966
19,973
164,778
39,947
27,266
21,813
179,958
43,626
32,508
26,007
214,556
52,013

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Total
229,625
249,664
272,663
325,084

Source: Berger Calculations 1/Base Year, Ref: Table 2.10

2.2.8

Local and Itinerant Operations

As discussed earlier, Local operations are performed by aircraft that:
•
•
•

Operate in the local traffic pattern or within sight of an airport,
Are departing for or arriving from flight in a local practice area located within a
20-mile radius of the airport, or
Are conducting simulated instrument approaches or low pass at an airport.

Itinerant operations are all other operations. The average split at PRC between 1997 and 2007 is
65 percent local and 35 percent itinerant as shown in Table 2.8. Table 2.12 depicts the
local/itinerant split expected to occur at PRC through the planning period. The itinerant
percentages are anticipated to increase slightly over time as more business activity occurs.

Year
20071
2012
2017
2027

Table 2.12
Local and Itinerant GA Operations Forecast
Local Forecast
Itinerant Forecast
Total Forecast
149,256
80,369
229,625
157,288
92,376
249,664
169,051
103,612
272,663
195,050
130,034
325,084

Percent
65/35
63/37
62/38
60/40

Source: Berger Calculations 1/Base Year

2.3

Commuter Enplanements and Operations

This section provides the forecasts of commuter activity at PRC. The analysis was performed
using a three step process to develop the forecasts. First, the airline industry in general and
historical commuter activity at PRC was reviewed to identify previous levels of service and
trends. Second, an air service assessment was conducted, which addressed current use at the
airport, trends affecting air service at PRC, and their affects on future levels and activity. The
Passenger Leakage Analysis was utilized as well. Last, a series of alternate forecasts were
developed, based on historical data and future “what if” scenarios due to ‘on-going’ plans to
build a new larger terminal facility at PRC. The preferred forecast was then selected. The
following sections describe each step in detail, beginning with a short historical perspective of
the airline industry
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-14

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

2.3.1

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Airline Industry Trends

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) publishes a national aviation forecast. The current
document that will be used as a source is FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2008–2025.
Included in this publication are forecasts for commercial aviation. The forecasts use the
economic performance of the United States as an indicator of future aviation industry growth.
Commercial aviation was a study in contrasts in 2007. High jet fuel prices continued to plague
carriers throughout the world but demand remained robust. The global industry, including the
U.S., was able to record its first net profit since 2000. Airlines in the U.S. maintained capacity
discipline in domestic markets, increased their international flying, and raised fares modestly.
World airlines were not as affected by the high fuel prices because a relatively strong world
economy and a weakening dollar allowed international carriers to pass on increased fuel costs to
the traveling public through higher fares without dampening demand. In the U.S., higher load
factors and modestly higher fares resulted in the first profit for the industry since 2000.
The U.S. commercial aviation industry consists of 36 mainline air carriers that use large
passenger jets (over 90 seats) and 84 regional carriers that use smaller piston, turboprop, and
regional jet aircraft (up to 90 seats) to provide connecting passengers to the larger carriers.
Mainline and regional carriers provide both domestic and international passenger service
between the U.S. and foreign destinations, although regional carrier international service is
confined to border markets in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean.
Three distinct trends have occurred over the past several years that have helped shape today’s
U.S. commercial air carrier industry:
1. Major restructuring and shrinking by the mainline network carriers;
2. Rapid growth by low-cost carriers, particularly in nontraditional long-distance
transcontinental markets; and
3. Exceptional growth among regional carriers.
Below, a list is provided summarizing key FAA forecast components for commercial aviation
through 2025.
•

Domestic capacity growth in FY 2008 is projected to be 0.6 percent. Mainline carrier
capacity is forecast to rise just 0.3 percent following the 1.8 percent increase in 2007 as
network carriers continue to shrink and low-cost carriers temper their growth because of
continuing record high fuel prices.

•

Regional carrier capacity is forecast to grow 2.5 percent in FY 2008 as increasing
numbers of 70 and 90-seat regional jets enter service, while the number of smaller
regional jets (50 seats or less) shrinks.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-15

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

•

Domestic commercial carrier capacity growth quickens in 2009 to 3.3 percent as mainline
carriers grow 2.7 percent while regional carriers grow 7.8 percent.

•

For the entire forecast period (2008–2025), domestic capacity is projected to increase at
an average annual rate of 3.6 percent, slightly faster than economic growth, with mainline
carrier growth lower (3.2 percent) than the regional carriers (5.9 percent).
Following a 0.2 percent decline in 2006, passenger enplanement growth rebounded in
2007, up 3.1 percent. Passenger volume is expected to grow slowly in 2008 (up 1.0
percent) and speed up in 2009 (up 3.5 percent). During the entire forecast period,
domestic enplanements are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent
with mainline carriers growing slower than regional carriers (2.5 and 3.8 percent a year,
respectively).

•

2.3.2

Historical and Current Commercial Air Service at PRC

The air service at PRC has always been subsidized by the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) through the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. The EAS is a program operated by
the U.S. Department of Transportation that provides subsidies to airlines who agree to provide
service on historically non-profitable routes to rural areas, which were served by certified air
carriers before the 1979 Airline Deregulation Act. Under EAS contract, Public Law 100-223
states that the airline must provide:
(a) Service to a hub airport, defined as an FAA-designated medium- or large-hub airport;
(b) Service with no more than one intermediate stop to the hub;
(c) Service with aircraft having at least 15 passenger seats at communities that averaged
more than 11 passenger enplanements a day in any calendar year from 1976-1986;
(d) Under certain circumstances, service with pressurized aircraft; and
(e) Flights at reasonable times taking into account the needs of passengers with connecting
flights.
Mesa Airlines has provided continuous service since January 1989, with the exception of the
period between May 2005 and October 2007, during which the EAS contract was awarded to
Great Lakes Airlines. The number of passenger enplanement at PRC, as shown in Table 2.13,
overall has been declining since 1994, from a high of 14,000 enplanements3 per year to a low of
4,233 in 2007. The primary factors which account for the decline in enplanements were due to
the September 11th terrorist attacks and the two year period when Great Lakes Airline operated in
and out of Terminal 2 at Phoenix Sky Harbor (PHX). Passengers arriving in Terminal 2, and
connecting to flights departing out of Terminal 3 and 4, had to exit Terminal 2 and repeat the
check-in and screening process. Additionally, in some instances, passengers had to collect and
recheck their luggage. This had effectively limited the ability of the passenger to select
convenient connections, ultimately favoring ground transportation options to travel to PHX.
3

An enplanement is when a passenger boards an aircraft at the airport. Industry standards typically identify
enplanements as the measure of activity at an airport, as it is assumed that the individual that boards will also return
to the airport.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-16

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Table 2.13
PRC Historical Enplanements
Arizona Pacific
Mesa Airlines
Great Lakes
9,144
11,510
6,565
3,337
8,381
13,428
14,493
11,504
12,055
10,043
8,366
6,395
9,393
4,683
4,818
5,692
7,889
3,735
1,680
4,469
2,200
2,033

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Total
9,144
11,510
6,565
11,718
13,428
14,493
11,504
12,055
10,043
8,366
6,395
9,393
4,683
4,818
5,692
7,889
5,415
4,469
4,233

Source: PRC Airport Administration

In May of 2008, Mesa Airlines indefinitely suspended commercial airline service at PRC. The
cessation in operations was due to an increase in operating costs that can be attributed to the
current high fuel costs. Mesa Airline operated a fleet of Beechcraft 1900 aircraft (19 seat
configurations) out of PRC. Mesa Airline had offered flights to Phoenix arriving and departing
from PHX at Terminal 4.
Currently, in effort to continue the EAS program, Prescott provides commercial air service
through the operation of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Great Lakes). Service continues to be
provided with a 19-seat Beech 1900 aircraft. Great Lakes Airlines provides daily flights to and
from Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport (PHX) and Ontario, CA (ONT), through a code share
agreement with United Airlines.
Additionally, in partnership with Alaska Airlines, Horizon Air provides daily flights to and from
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). This service is offered on a Bombardier Q-400
turboprop aircraft, which has a capacity to seat up to 79 passengers. The flight from Prescott will
originate in Flagstaff. The early morning flight from Flagstaff will make a brief stop in Prescott
and then continue nonstop to Los Angeles. The return flight will take the opposite route in the
evening, stopping in Prescott before terminating in Flagstaff.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-17

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

2.3.3

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Enplanement Forecast

In this section, several alternative enplanement forecasts are derived, based on TAF historical
and forecast data, population, trends, and the Passenger Leakage Analysis (Appendix A). From
these alternatives, a recommended forecast was obtained and used to develop commercial
operations forecasts.
Three enplanement growth scenarios were defined. These scenarios will be used in development
and evaluation of the alternative forecast. These scenarios are:
•

Low Growth: In this scenario, passenger activity at PRC will grow very slowly.
Contributing factors to the low growth may include 1) no additional services provided
through the EAS program; and, 2) no improvements to the existing terminal building and
services offered. PRC will continue to be served by a single commuter airline, with
limited service to one or two destinations.

•

Moderate Growth: In this scenario, passenger activity at PRC will be more robust due to
regional population growth and increased air service demand. Airline service would
remain in the current terminal, but may include more than one commuter airline
providing air service to potentially more destinations.

•

High Growth: An aggressive campaign to increase passenger use is assumed in this
scenario. Increased efforts will be made to capture those passengers identified as
“leakage”. Two carriers would likely provide substantial service from PRC, possibly with
regional jet service from a new terminal facility.

The choice of scenario is discussed later in this section.
2.3.3.a

FAA Terminal Area Forecasts

The FAA’s TAF are airport-specific forecast based upon FAA Annual Forecasts. Thus, they are
“top-down” forecasts; that is, forecasts for an airport derived from national forecasts. A review
of the most current TAF for PRC (March 2007) show that the FAA slightly over estimates
current airport enplanements. Accordingly, the TAF growth rates were applied to actual PRC
enplanements (Table 2.13) to yield alternative forecasts. The TAF growth rate for PRC is about
0.8% annually over the planning period, virtually showing very little growth. Table 2.14
summarizes the adjusted TAF Enplanement Forecast.

Year
20071
2012
2017
20272

Table 2.14
PRC Terminal Area Enplanement Forecast
TAF Enplanements
Adjusted Enplanements
7,265
4,233
7,546
4,405
7,839
4,584
8,340
4,964

Source: TAF, FY 2007-2025

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1/

Base Year 2/Interpolated

2-18

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

2.3.3.b

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Population Growth Rate vs. Enplanement Model

The population growth rate model is predicated on a 5.9 percent average annual growth rate from
the 2007 total of 4,233 enplanements to 13,322 enplanements in the year 2027. This annual
growth rate is due to the anticipated population growth of the ASA for the same period (see
Table 2.1). Table 2.15 depicts the population growth rate model.
Table 2.15
Population Growth Rate vs. Enplanements
Year

Enplanements

2007
2012
2017
2027

4,233
5,638
7,509
13,322

Source: Berger Calculations, ref: Table 2.1

2.3.3.c

Trendline

A trendline forecast based upon historical enplanement data between 1989 and 2007 (Table 2.13)
resulted in a poor correlation (R2 = 0.29) and a downward trend in enplanements. This was
expected considering a relatively inconsistent and volatile enplanement pattern during the 1989
to 2007 period. Table 2.16 depicts the results from the trendline analysis the population growth
rate model.
Table 2.16
Trendline Forecast
Year

Enplanements

2007
2012
2017
2027

6,400
6,000
5,800
5,000

Source: Berger Calculations, ref: Table 2.13

2.3.3.d

Market Share Analysis

Another technique for assessing and forecasting enplanement growth is a market share analysis.
In this method, the historical enplanements at PRC are compared with the potential enplanements
within the ASA. The trend in market share is examined, and future market share is estimated.
Forecasts can then be developed based on future market share, and the ability for PRC to capture
their market share based upon the various scenarios (low, medium, and high) presented.
As identified in the Passenger Leakage Analysis (Appendix A) and in the 1999 Arizona Rural
Air Service Study, ADOT estimated that statewide enplanements per capita ratio was 3.10, lead
by Phoenix with a 3.76 ratio and Tucson with 2.18. It was then realized that the unconstrained
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-19

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

overall enplanement per capita rate for PRC was 0.87, concluding that Prescott could capture
approximately 40% of its total unconstrained demand. A 40 percent capture rate is believed to be
reasonable considering that all non regional and secondary airports are affected by passenger
leakage. Therefore, a 40 percent capture rate is feasible through the long term planning period.
Table 2.17 summarizes the unconstrained demand at 40 percent capture rate through the planning
period. It is important to note, that the enplanements shown in Table 2.15 are not the projected
forecast for PRC as they relate to this Master Plan; rather, it quantifies the potential market.
Actual capture rates of the PRC’s potential market will be applied later as they relate to the
various growth scenarios (low, medium, and high).

Year
2007
2012
2017
2027

Table 2.17
Unconstrained PRC Market Share
ASA Population Unconstrained Demand PRC ASA Market Share (40%)
124,477
108,544
43,418
163,614
142,671
57,068
215,056
187,528
75,011
371,546
323,988
129,595

Table 2.16 shows how PRC’s potential market share will steadily increase over the planning
period as the ASA population increases. In forecasting actual future enplanements for PRC, the
key question becomes whether or not the airport’s ability to capture the potential market share
will come to be realized.
For this analysis, the three scenarios defined earlier were applied and corresponding market share
capture rate estimates, as follows:
•

Low Growth: For this scenario, it is assumed that the market share will remain at its
current low levels (10 percent market share) and continue to lose passengers at it’s
current rate as described in the Passenger Leakage Analysis (Appendix A).

•

Moderate Growth: In this scenario, an increase in market share is assumed (to 18
percent) based on the average of the last 10 years, and factoring in an additional airline
providing more service options and destinations.

•

High Growth: This scenario uses an increased market share to account for improved
facilities and terminal gate capacity at PRC. A market share is assumed based on the
average of the last 17 years. A market share of 28 percent was used.

Forecasts for PRC were developed using these market share assumptions. Table 2.18 summarizes
the calculations.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-20

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Year
20071
2012
2017
2027

Table 2.18
PRC Market Share Enplanement Forecast
Low Growth
Medium Growth
High Growth
4,233
4,233
4,233
5,564
10,272
15,979
7,314
13,502
21,003
12,636
23,327
36,287

Source: Berger Calculations

2.3.3.e

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

1

/Base Year

Selected Enplanement Forecast

The Low Growth scenario does not appear to be reasonable and may be too pessimistic. With the
projected ASA population to increase at an Annual Growth Rate of 5.6% through the planning
period, it is expected that the enplanements would favor a more moderate growth. However,
consideration must be given to the potential of increasing PRC’s profile and market share by way
of the development of a new terminal facility and increased service options to multiple
destinations.
For the purposes of estimating the commuter operations forecast, a combined scenario will be
recommended and used. The combined scenario takes into account the three growth scenarios
and progresses the various captures rates through the planning period. The progression of the
capture rates, for the combined scenario, is intended to model the current service environment at
little or no growth with the expectation that PRC’s enplanements will progressively improve
through the planning period. Table 2.19, summarizes the combined scenario.
Table 2.19
Combined Growth Scenario

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Year

Combined Growth

2007
2012
2017
2027

4,233
7,262
12,459
36,673

2-21

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Exhibit 2.3, PRC Passenger Enplanements (1989-2027), illustrates the historical and forecasted
passenger’s enplanements at PRC based on the Combined Growth scenario.

Thousands

Exhibit 2.3
PRC Passenger Enplanements (1989-2027)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5

Historic

20
27

20
25

20
23

20
21

20
19

20
17

20
15

20
13

20
11

20
09

20
07

20
05

20
03

20
01

19
99

19
97

19
95

19
93

19
91

19
89

0

Combined Forecast

Exhibit 2.4, Enplanement Comparison, illustrates the Combined Growth scenario compared to
the low (10 percent), medium (18 percent), and high (28 percent) growth scenarios, as well as the
FAA TAF forecast and FAA TAF forecast plus 10 percent. As shown the Combined Growth
scenario begins to bypass the FAA TAF forecast in 2012 and the FAA TAF plus 10 percent in
2013. Both the national economy and airline industry will be major factors that influence the
combined enplanement forecast. Although the national, state, and local economies are slowing
down and the airline industry is struggling with increased fuel prices, it’s important to note that
the most stable portion of the airline industry has occurred in the regional/commuter air carrier
segment. As the economy begins to experience and upturn and the airlines begin to stabilize,
enplanement growth at PRC is expected to increase at a more aggressive rate in the mid to latter
parts of the planning period (i.e., 2014 through 2027).

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-22

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Exhibit 2.4
Enplanement Comparison
40
Com bined
35

TAF
TAF + 10%

Enplanements

30

18%
28%
10%

25

20

15

10

5

0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Year

2.3.3.f

Summary of Enplaned Forecast Analysis

Table 2.19 was developed in effort to summarize the enplanement forecast, as well as compare
the results to previous other studies providing PRC forecast information.
Table 2.19
Enplanement Forecast Summary
2007
2012
2017
FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF)
FAA TAF
7,265
7,546
7,839
FAA TAF Adjusted to Current Levels
4,233
4,405
4,584
Trendline
2
1989-2007 (R = 0.29)
6,400
6,000
5,800
Average Annual Growth Rate (Population Only)
ASA Population Growth (5.9%)
4,233
5,638
7,509
1
Market Share
4,233
5,564
7,314
• Low: 10% (current)
4,233
10,272
13,502
• Moderate: 18% (10 yr. avg.)
4,233
15,979
21,003
• High: 28% (27 yr. avg.)
4,233
7,262
12,459
• Combined
Other Studies
SANS 2000
15,1603
19,7643
26,4953
PRC Airport Master Plan 1998
24,5333
30,1093
36,7993
N/A – Not Available,

1

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2027
8,3403
4,964
5,000
13,322
12,636
23,327
36,287
36,673
N/A
N/A

See Table 2.18 and 2.19, 3 Extrapolated

2-23

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

2.3.4

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Commuter Operations Forecast

In addition to passenger enplanements, there are other factors which affect forecasts of airline
facilities. The number of commuter airline operations can be determined from the average ratio
of passenger enplanements forecasted per departure. This ratio is dependent upon the size of the
aircraft and the average percentage of seats that are filled for each departure. The percentage of
enplanements to available seats is called Load Factor (LF).
According to the FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2008–2025, the regional carrier
passenger fleet is forecast to increase by 6 aircraft in 2008. After 2008, the regional carrier fleet
is expected to increase by an average of 37 aircraft (1.2 percent) over the remaining years of the
forecast period, reaching 3,469 aircraft in 2025. The number of regional jets (90 seats or fewer)
at regional carriers is projected to grow from 1,803 in 2007 to 3,114 in 2025, an average annual
increase of 3.1 percent. All the growth in regional jets over the forecast period occurs in the
larger 70 and 90-seat aircraft. During the forecast period, more than 1,000 regional jets of 50 or
less seats are removed from the fleet. The turboprop/piston fleet, which is the aircraft currently
servicing PRC, is expected to decline from 1,033 in 2007 to 355 in 2025. Turboprop/piston
aircraft are expected to account for just 10.2 percent of the regional fleet in 2025, down from a
36.4 percent share in 2007. For this reason, the 30 seat turboprop and/or regional jet of 50 or less
seats are factored into PRC’s BRL equation.
The greater number of the larger 70 and 90-seat regional jets in the fleet coupled with 50-seat jet
retirements increases the national load factor to 81.6 percent in 2025. However, due to the
limited services offered through the EAS program, the LF at PRC has historically been lower
than the national average and, according to the Arizona SANS 2000, has been projected to
increase from 45 percent in 2007 to 50 percent in 2027.
Table 2.20 depicts the anticipated airline operations based upon various seating capacities of
commercial aircraft.
Table 2.20
PRC Commercial Operations Forecast
Seating Capacities
2007
2012
2017
= 19 (Beech 1900)
100%
= 30 Brasilia
100%
50%
= 50 (RJ)
50%
Total
100%
100%
100%
Average Seats, Enplanements, and Commercial Operations Forecasts
Average Seats per Departure
19
30
40
Load Factor
45%
46.5%
48%
Enplanements per Departure
8.55
13.95
19.2
Forecast Annual Enplanements
4,233
7,262
12,459
Annual Departures
495
521
649
Annual Commercial Operations
990
1,042
1,298

2027

100%
100%
50
50%
25
36,673
1,467
2,934

Source: Arizona SANS 2000 and Consultant Calculations

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-24

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

2.4

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Instrument Operations Forecast

Forecasts of Annual Instrument Approaches (AIA) provides guidance in determining an airport’s
requirements for navigational aid facilities. An instrument approach is defined as an approach to
an airport with the intent to land by an aircraft in accordance with an Instrument Flight Rule
(IFR) flight plan, when the visibility is less than three miles and/or the ceiling is at or below the
minimum initial approach altitude.
In determining the number of AIA’s conducted at PRC, the number of itinerant operations must
be reviewed. Utilizing all commuter operations and only itinerant general aviation operations, the
number of AIAs was estimated.
According to historical FAA TAF data for the last 10 years, actual instrument approaches were
approximately 2.4 percent of annual itinerant operations. The number of AIAs are expected to
increase slightly throughout the planning period as itinerant operations increase. Table 2.21
depicts the AIA forecast through the planning period.
Table 2.21
PRC Annual Instrument Approach Forecast
Operations
20071
2012
2017
Annual Itinerant
81,359
93,418
104,332
Operations
Annual Instrument
1,627
2,242
2,504
Approaches
Source: FAA TAF; Berger Forecast Tables 2.12 and 2.20

2.5

2027
132,968
3,191

1

/Base Year

Peaking Characteristics

Peak period forecast are required for airport capacity and facility analysis. Forecasts are required
for: Peak Month and Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) for enplanements and operations. Table
2.22 summarizes the results.
•

Enplanements: A review of monthly enplanement data over the last 5 years reveals that
commuter peak months are in October and in the range of 10 percent. The peak year over
the last five years was 2004. The peak month for 2004, which comprised about 10
percent, appears typical and will be used for planning purposes. The ADPM was
calculated by dividing the peak month level by 31.

•

Operations: As with enplanements, peak month operations over the last five years have
varied, but range between eight to ten percent of total operations. For consistency, the
2007 peak month of 10 percent for November will be used for forecast purposes.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2-25

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Enplanements:

Operations:

2.6

Aviation Demand Forecasts
FINAL

Table 2.22
Peak Period Forecast
20071
2012
Annual
4,233
7,262
Peak Month
794
726
ADPM
25
23
Annual
230,615
250,706
Peak Month
23,061
25,070
ADPM
744
809

2017
12,459
1,245
40
273,961
27,396
884

2027
36,673
3,667
118
328,018
32,801
1,058

Summary

The recommended forecasts for Prescott Municipal Airport are summarized below in Table 2.23.
The forecast as presented in this chapter will be used throughout the remainder of the master
planning effort. The next step in the Master Planning process is to assess the capacity of the
existing facilities, including a clear description of the design aircraft, and to determine what
facilities will be necessary to meet future aviation demand.
Table 2.23
Summary of Recommended Forecasts
Forecast
20071
2012
2017

2027

4,233

7,262

12,459

36,673

230,615

250,706

273,961

328,018

990

1,042

1,298

2,934

229,625
149,256
80,369
151,553
36,740
22,962
18,370
1,627

249,664
157,288
92,376
164,778
39,947
24,966
19,973
2,242

272,663
169,051
103,612
179,958
43,626
27,266
21,813
2,504

325,084
195,050
130,034
214,556
52,013
32,508
26,007
3,191

340
301
26
3
10

380
329
30
7
13

425
368
34
8
15

535
463
43
11
18

Passenger Enplanements
Annual Operations
•

Commuter

•

GA Operations
- Local
- Itinerant
- Single Engine
- Multi-Engine
- Business Jet
- Rotorcraft
Annual Instrument Approaches
Based Aircraft
• Single Engine
• Multi-Engine
• Business Jet
• Rotorcraft
Source: Berger Calculations

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

1

/Base Year

2-26

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

3.0

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Facility Requirements

Determining facility requirements is the next essential step in the airport master planning
process1. The purpose of this chapter, “Airport Facility Requirements” is to determine the needs
of the airport based on demand identified in Chapter 2 – Forecast of Demand.
To the reader the title implies these are the facilities “required” to maintain a viable and safe
airport. It is true that in an ideal world providing for the requirements to meet the projected
demand is a reasonable expectation. On the other hand, the physical and/or financial resources
available may not be allowed to fully develop under the circumstances. Nonetheless, before the
planning can take place to achieve what is feasible it is important to understand the ultimate
facility requirements scenario. To this end, this effort was conducted without consideration of
any constraints, that is, to understand the requirements under an ideal situation. The physical,
financial, and environmental impacts that may ultimately constrain the ability for achieving the
requirements are considered in the future Alternative Analysis and Implementation Working
Papers. For those areas that are determined to be inadequate, the Master Plan Update project will
identify the required facilities to meet the demand, and the alternative methods to provide the
necessary capacity. This Facility Requirements chapter compares the forecast to the latest airport
industry standards and FAA design guidance2.
The assessment of facility requirements includes the following major elements:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Airfield System Capacity, including Design Aircraft;
Airside Facility Requirements;
Landside Facility Requirements;
Airline Terminal Requirements;
Airport Access; and
Support Facilities.

Airport facility improvements are justified for several reasons:
•
•
•
•

To meet the existing or forecasted demand of the facility, in term of level of activity and
type of activity;
To meet FAA design standards or criteria, most related to enhancing airport safety;
To insure a well maintained facility; and
To enhance operational efficiency.

The results of the analysis in this chapter produce a list of the facility requirements needs which
are an integral part of the subsequent evaluation in Chapter 4 – Alternatives Analysis.

1

2

Reference: FAA Advisory Circular 150-5070-6B Airport Master Plans, July 29, 2005
Reference: FAA Advisory Circular 150-5300-13C Airport Design, March 2007

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-1

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

3.1 Airfield System Capacity
This section of the chapter will detail facility requirements for the Design Aircraft, Design
Standards, Wind Coverage, Runway Safety Areas, Pavement, Pavement Markings, Airport
Fencing and Runway Length.
3.1.1

Design Aircraft

The FAA uses the Airport Reference Code (ARC) to relate airport design criteria to operational
and physical characteristics of the aircraft currently using or projected to use the airport. The
critical aircraft is that aircraft with the most demanding (i.e. largest) critical dimensions and
highest approach speed that consistently (at least 500 operation per year) uses the airport. These
codes are summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1
Airport Reference Codes
Approach Category
A
B
C
D
E
Design Group
I
II
III
IV
V
VI

Minimum Speed
≤0
≤ 91
≤ 121
≤ 141
≤ 166
Minimum Wing Span (feet)
≤0
≤ 49
≤ 79
≤ 118
≤ 171
≤ 214

Maximum Speed (knots)
< 91
< 121
< 141
< 166
< N/A
Maximum Wing Span (feet)
< 49
< 79
< 118
< 171
< 214
262

Source: FAA AC 150-5300, Airport Design

The Airport Reference Code (ARC) for PRC is C-III. This indicates that aircraft with a
wingspan of less than 118 feet and approach speeds slower than 141 knots are able to operate in
safe conditions on Runway 3R- 21L. Runway 3R-21L has FAA dimensional standards to meet
C-III, Runway 3L-21R meets ARC B-I, and Runway 12-30 meets ARC B-II. As part of this
analysis the runway length meeting the critical aircraft requirements standards for Runway 3R21L are assessed.
The 2007 operations data showed that the majority of the fleet operating at PRC fell within
Category A and B and the forecast showed that this will be maintained in the future. Aircraft in
these categories varies from Group I to Group III. Additionally, more than 1% of the total
operations were attributed to aircraft in the C category, from Group I to Group III. At present, the
Q-400, a C-III aircraft, has been introduced to the PRC fleet mix, and is expected to conduct
more 1,460 operations per year. While the B-1900, a B-III aircraft, continues to conduct
thousands of operations at PRC. Additionally, at PRC the United States Forest Service (USFS)
Prescott Fire Center and Henry Y. H. Kim Aviation Facility continue to operate large aircraft
tankers during the fire season, such as the P-3 Orion and C-130. Although, the number of
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-2

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

operations conducted by the USFS fleet it is not sufficient to be considered the critical aircraft
(i.e., at least 500 annual operations), their presence supports the need to continue to plan and
maintain PRC as ARC C-III.
The 1997 Master Plan had identified the Boeing 737, a C-III aircraft, as the Design Aircraft for
PRC. As part the planning process the critical aircraft was re-evaluated to determine if another
aircraft more accurately addressed the aviation demand need of the airport.
While it is clear that PRC should continue to be an ARC C-III facility it important to identify the
critical aircraft that reflects the true aviation planning need of PRC.
The commercial forecast for PRC identified that the number commuter aircraft and regional jet
market will continue to grow in relation to the high growth of the population in the Prescott
Metropolitan Service Area (MSA) and so will the seating capacity and range of the commercial
flights offered at PRC.
Based upon the expectation that the B-1900 is soon expected to be replaced by more reliable and
efficient aircraft, and on current trends in the regional carrier market, it is anticipated that
regional jet will play a bigger role in PRC’s future (specifically in the 40-70 seat capacity
segment). In the Western region, the regional jet predominantly used in this category are the CRJ
200 and CRJ 700 currently operated by Mesa Airline, SkyWest, Delta Connections, Northwest
Airlines, Midwest Connect, ASA, Horizon Air and others. Table 3.2 illustrates a few examples
of the type of aircraft that will operate at PRC in the future.
After reviewing the demand forecast, the types of aircraft that currently use the airport and the
existing dimensional layout of features such as runways, taxiways, and safety areas, it was
determined that the ARC for PRC will remain C-III throughout the planning period. After
discussions with airport representatives and performing a runway length analysis (see Appendix
2), it was determined that the CRJ 700 is the most airfield demanding aircraft expected to operate
regularly in PRC. Therefore the critical design aircraft for Runway 3R-21L will be the CRJ 700
(ARC C-III). The runway requirement for this new critical aircraft will be evaluated.
Runway 3L-21R, as per the 1997 Master Plan will continue to be planned to meet ARC B-II
criteria and Runway 12-30 will remain as ARC B-II.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-3

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Example

3.1.2

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Table 3.2
Sample of Future PRC Design Aircraft
Aircraft Type

ARC

Q-400
Wingspan:92.25 ft
MTOW: 64,500 lbs
Approach Speed: 125 knot

B-III

CRJ 200
Wingspan:76.3 ft
MTOW: 47,450 lbs
Approach Speed: 130 knot

C-II

CRJ 700
Wingspan:85.04 ft
MTOW: 71,750 lbs
Approach Speed: 140 knot

C-III

ERJ 145
Wingspan: 65.9 ft
MTOW: 48,400 lbs
Approach Speed: 110 knot

C-II

Airfield Capacity Analysis

The airfield capacity analysis identifies potential capacity and delay issues associated with the
airfield infrastructure and projected demand levels. The level of aircraft activity that can be
accommodated at an airport is mainly a function of the runway configuration. The number,
length, and orientation of the runways are important factors in determining an airport’s
operational capacity. The analysis determines whether the airport’s existing runway/taxiway
system has the capacity to meet forecasted demand. The analysis of the runway and taxiway
system at PRC was based upon methodologies in FAA AC 150/5060-5 Airport Capacity and
Delay as well as utilizing the results of the analysis conducted in the Arizona State Aviation
Need Study (SANS 2000).
For PRC, the SANS 2000 identified 326,400 operations for their Annual Service Volume (ASV).
Since the airport configuration has not changed since the SANS was completed, this Master Plan
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-4

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

effort will utilize this ASV which is based on the current runway configuration, weighted hourly
capacity, ratio of annual demand to average daily demand during peak month, and the ratio of
average daily demand to average peak hour demand during the peak month.
As a result of the projected demand for this Master Plan effort, Table 3.3 presents the calculation
of the Demand to Capacity Ratio during the planning horizon 2007 through 2027:

Year
2007
2012
2017
2027

Table 3.3
PRC Demand to Capacity Ratio
Demand to
ASV
Operations
Capacity
Operations
Ratio
230,615
326,400
70.6%
Forecast
250,706
326,400
76.8%
276,961
326,400
84.8%
328,018
326,400
100.4%

The FAA utilizes a demand to capacity ratio of an airport’s estimated ASV of approximately
60% to determine when an airport may experience operational delays. When an airport
approaches this 60% target, plans should be conducted to increase an airport’s capacity. As is
shown in Table 3.3, PRC’s ratio is currently well above the 60% target throughout the planning
period and is expected to reach 100% by 2027, therefore airport capacity improvements are
recommended.
Improvements to the runways and taxiways are recommended to reduce the potential for runway
incursions; and therefore, may also have the effect of improving capacity.
3.1.3

Airport Design and Operational Safety Standards

The inventory assessment, demand forecast, and review of current design standards will
determine the runway and taxiway improvements needed. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13
entitled, Airport Design, sets forth recommended runway and taxiway design standards for all
airports. The design standards for the current and future airport facilities are set forth in Table 3.4
below. Included on this table are the existing conditions, the future runway dimensions for
design aircraft. Also included are the existing conditions and the dimensions that will be in effect
if the recommended improvements at the airport occur.
Also the airport must provide a safe operating environment for aircraft. The FAA establishes
protection areas around the runways to help ensure such an environment. These areas are:
•

Runway Safety Areas (RSA) – The RSA is a prepared surface that surrounds the runway
(and extends a specified distance beyond it) that is clear of obstructions. Keeping the RSA
clear helps minimize damage to aircraft in the event of an accident.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-5

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

•

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) – The RPZ is a trapezoidal area located off each runway
end. The RPZ should be clear of obstructions to the greatest extent possible, to enhance the
protection of people and property on the ground.

•

Object Free Area (OFA) – A ground area surrounding runways, taxiways and taxilanes
which is clear of objects except for those whose location is required by function.
Table 3.4
PRC Design Standards
FAA Design Category

Approach Category and Design Group End
Runway Width (ft)
Percentage Effective Gradient
Runway Shoulder Width (ft)
Runway Blast Pad Length (ft)
Runway Blast Pad Width (ft)
Runway Safety Area Width (ft)
Runway Safety Area - Distance Beyond Runway End (ft)
Runway Object Free Area Width (ft)
Runway Object Free Area – Distance Beyond Runway
End (ft)
Runway Obstacle Free Zone Width (ft)
Runway Centerline to Taxiway Centerline Distance (ft)
Runway Centerline to Nearest Parking Area
Taxiway Width (ft)
Taxiway Shoulder Width (ft)
Taxiway Safety Area Width (ft)
Taxiway Object Free Area Width (ft)
Taxiway Centerline to Fixed or Moveable Object (ft)
Taxiway Centerline to Parallel taxiway
Building Restriction line Setback3
3.1.4

Runway
3R -21L
C-III
150
0-1.5%
20
200
140
500
1,000
800

Runway
3L-21R
B-II
75
0-2%
10
150
95
150
300
500

Runway
12-30
B-II
75
0-2%
10
150
95
150
300
500

1,000

300

300

400
400
500
50
20
118
186
93
152
745

400
300
400
35
10
79
131
65.5
105
395

400
300
400
35
10
79
131
65.5
105
395

Wind Coverage

FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design, states that an airport’s runways
should be oriented such that aircraft can take-off and land into the prevailing wind with minimal
crosswind exposure. The AC also states that a single runway, or a runway system, should
provide 95% wind coverage. Thus, the goal at PRC is to achieve 95% coverage or better.
Wind coverage is calculated using a wind rose, which graphically depicts wind data collected
from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The wind rose is
essentially a compass rose with graduated concentric circles representing wind speed. Each box
3

The BRL setbacks are based on providing 7:1 transitional slope, RVZ and protected areas clearance over 35 feet.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-6

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

in the wind rose represents a compass direction and, when filled, indicates the percentage of time
wind travels in that direction at that speed.
Since prevailing wind patterns do not usually change, this effort will utilize the existing wind
data for PRC. The wind roses are computed based on the following three categories:
ƒ

Visual Flight Rules (VFR) – (ceiling 1,000’ and visibility 3 miles)

ƒ

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) – (ceiling less than 1,000’ and visibility less than 3 miles)

ƒ

All Weather – VFR and IFR combined

Since aircraft characteristics and performance can vary, wind coverage data is presented for both
13 and 16 knots. Table 3.5 presents the percent of all weather wind coverage at PRC for each
runway and combined. VFR conditions occur approximately ninety-eight (98) percent of the
time and IFR conditions two (2) percent.
Table 3.5
PRC All Weather Wind Coverage
Runway Identifier
13 Knots
16 Knots
3/21
98.03
99.57
12/30
94.19
98.23
Combined 3/21 and 12/30
99.91
99.99
Source: Data from national Climatic Data Center. Output provided
by FAA Airport Design Program, Standard Wind Analysis.

Based on this wind data, the current runway configuration at PRC provides enough wind
coverage to meet the FAA guideline of 95% all weather wind coverage.

3.2 Airside Facility Requirements
This section contains information regarding airside improvements that should be considered for
the entire airfield system at PRC. First, consideration was made as to the approximate runway
length for PRC based upon the existing and future role of the airport, runway and taxiway
standard compliance, followed by an analysis of the runway safety, protection and obstruction
surfaces.
3.2.1

Runway Length Requirements

The runway length required for an airport is based on standards presented in FAA AC 150/530013, PRC Aviation Demand Forecast, and FAA AC 150/5325-4A, Runway Length Requirements
for Airport Design. The recommended length for a primary runway at an airport is determined by
considering either the family of airplanes having similar performance characteristics, or a
specific aircraft requiring the longest runway.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-7

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

The FAA mandates that for aircraft with a Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) of less than
60,000 lbs, the recommended runway length is determined according to a family grouping of
airplanes. However, for regional jets like the CRJ 700, the runway length recommended is a
function of the most critical individual aircraft’s takeoff and landing operating weights, which
depends on wing flap settings, airport elevation and temperature, runway surface conditions (dry
or wet), and effective runway gradient.
The runway length recommended by the FAA is obtained by the two conditions: (1) weight
category of aircraft and (2) by performance charts provided or published by the aircraft
manufacturers (i.e., Canadair’s Airport Planning Manual). Both takeoff and landing runway
length requirements must be determined with applicable length adjustments in order to determine
the recommended runway length. The longest of the takeoff and landing runway length
requirements for the critical design aircraft under evaluation becomes the recommended runway
length. This design procedure must be applied to the information/performance charts (ref: FAR
150/5325-4b, par 402).
As part of the runway length analysis for PRC, the FAA Airport Design Computer Program 4.2D
and procedures outlined in FAA AC 150/5300-13 were used to calculate the Runway 3R-21L
length requirement for planning purposes. The program includes an aircraft fleet profile designed
to be representative of the small and large aircraft that comprise the general aviation aircraft fleet
in the United States. The runway length analysis was developed as part of a separate task and
details are included in Appendix 2.
Table 3.6 presents the required runway lengths for PRC based on the FAA Airport Design
Computer Program 4.2D.
Table 3.6
PRC Runway Length Analysis
Airport Input Data
Airport Elevation (MSL)
5,045
Mean daily temperature of the hottest month
90°
Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation
62’
Runway Length Recommended for Airport Design
Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots
450
Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots
1,200
Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats:
75 percent of these small airplanes...
4,640
95 percent of these small airplanes...
6,240
100 percent of these small airplanes...
6,410
Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats
6,410
Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less:
75 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load
7,300
75 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load
9,220
100 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load
11,400
11,620
100 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load
Source: FAA Airport Design Computer Program 4.2AD and FAA AC 150/5300-1.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

In addition to the FAA Program, the Airport Planning Manual for the CRJ 700 was reviewed and
its runway length requirements are summarized below in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7
Airport Planning Manual Specification for CRJ 700
Airport Input Data
Mean Temperature (Hottest Month)
90°F
Airport Elevation above MLS
5,045 ft
Maximum Difference in Centerline Elevation
62’
Aircraft Weight Data
Maximum Design Weight (landing)
67,000 lbs
Maximum Design Weight (takeoff)
75,000 lbs
Runway Length Recommended for Airport Design
Landing Runway Length (wet)
6,200’
Landing Runway Length (dry)
5,400’
Takeoff Runway Length
10,570’
Source: Canadair CRJ 200 Airport Planning Manual

Based upon the analysis performed, the existing primary Runway 3R-21L, currently 7,616 feet
long, should be extended 2,954 feet. Runway 3R has a displaced threshold of 790 feet, leaving a
landing distance of 9,780 feet. The feasibility of this runway extension and relative taxiway will
be analyzed in the Alternative Analysis Chapter.
Runway 3L-21R should also be expanded 1,428 feet and widened 15 feet to satisfy the runway
requirement of 100% of B-II fleet4. The feasibility of this runway extension and relative taxiway
will be analyzed in the Alternative Analysis Chapter.
Runway 12-30 currently satisfies the separation standards for B-II class aircraft. However, it
satisfies only the runway length requirement of 75% of the small aircraft fleet. At this time the
current runway length for the crosswind runway is sufficient to meet the PRC airfield
requirements.
3.2.2 Runway/Taxiway Design, Safety and Separation Standards
As discussed earlier, much of the infrastructure for the primary runway has been designed and
constructed to meet C-III standards. The existing runway and taxiway infrastructure and
separation requirements meet or exceed the required standards with only few exceptions. Tables
3.8 and 3.9 indicate which dimensional and separation criteria are met and which need
improvements for each runway and relative taxiway. All rehabilitations and new construction
will be designed to at least the required standards.

4

FAA AC 150/5325-4B par 205 states that for airport above 3,000 feet, 100% of fleet chart must be used when
determining runway length requirements.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-9

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Table 3.8
PRC Runway Design, Separation and Safety Standards Compliance

Runway
Category

3R

Approach Category and Design Group End
Runway Width (ft)
Percentage Effective Gradient
Runway Safety Area Width (ft)
Runway Safety Area - Distance Beyond Runway End
(ft)
Runway Object Free Area Width (ft)
Runway Object Free Area – Distance Beyond
Runway End (ft)
Runway Obstacle Free Zone Width (ft)
Runway Obstacle Free Zone – Distance Beyond
Runway End (ft)
Runway Centerline to Taxiway Centerline Distance
(ft)
Runway Centerline to Nearest Parking Area
Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design

C-III
Yes
Yes
Yes

C-III
Yes
Yes
Yes

B-II
No
Yes
No

B-II
No
Yes
No

B-II
Yes
Yes
Yes

B-II
Yes
Yes
Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No
No

21L
3L 21R
12
Meets Planned Standards

No
No

No
Yes

No
Yes

No
No

30

No
No

Based upon the above separation standards, Runway 3R-21L does not satisfy all criteria.
Runway 3L-21R currently does not meet ARC B-II standards. Additionally, Runway 12-30 does
not satisfy all criteria. The feasibility of implementing airfield improvements required to meet
the design standards will be explored in the Alternatives Analysis Chapter.
Table 3.9
PRC Taxiway Design, Separation and Safety Standards Compliance
Taxiway
A
B
C
D
E
F
H
Category
Meets Planned Standards
Design Standard
B-II B-II C-III C-III B-II B-II C-III
Taxiway Width (ft)
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Taxiway Safety Area Width (ft)
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Taxiway Object Free Area Width (ft)
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Taxiway Centerline to Fixed or Moveable
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Object (ft)
Taxiway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design

With regard to the taxiway system, all standards were found to be satisfactory for Taxiway
width, Safety Area width, and Object Free Area width. The previous Master Plan identified the
need for high speed taxiway exits and connectors for capacity enhancements which will be
explored in the Alternatives Analysis Chapter.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-10

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

3.2.3

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Runway /Taxiway Pavement Conditions, Marking and Lighting

Both Runway and Taxiway Pavement Conditions were found overall to be in good condition and
well maintained under the ADOT Pavement Preservation Program. The load bearing capacity of
the airfield was found sufficient to meet current and future demand. However, special
consideration will be given to the feasibility to increase the pavement strength on the primary
runway to 175 thousand pounds with dual tandem in the Alternatives Analysis Chapter.
Taxiway lighting was found insufficient in most of the taxiway system, especially for Taxiway E
and H, which is inadequately equipped with reflectors. Taxiway F and D have been already
partially equipped with LED lighting through an FAA pilot program. Due to the high volume of
student operations and less experienced pilots, the use of LED taxiway lighting throughout the
airfield and enhanced pavement markings are deemed necessary to increase airfield safety. The
feasibility of implementing these safety enhancements will be explored in the Alternative
Analysis Chapter.
3.2.4

Runway Safety Areas, Object Free Areas, and Runway Protection Zones

The Runway Safety Area (RSA) is a prepared surface that is clear of obstructions, structures,
roads and parking areas. However, FAA equipment is permitted on frangible mounts (if required
by function). The 2005 PRC Runway Safety Area Standards Evaluation Report identified several
deficiencies summarized in Table 3.10.

Runway
ARC
Approach
Runway End
RSA Width (ft)
RSA Length Beyond
Runway End (ft)

Table 3.10
PRC Runway Safety Area Deficiencies
Existing Conditions
3R-21L
3L-21R
12-30
C-III
B-II
B-II
Non-Precision/
NonVisual/Visual
Precision
Precision/Visual
3R
21L
3L
21R
12
30
4
4
500
500
120
120
150
150
5881

1000

802

2404

2203

300

1

Intersection with localizer antenna, perimeter fence at 640 ft, Club House Dr. at 650 ft and Golf Course
Intersecting with rising terrain with a six percent slope
3
Declining terrain and intersecting with perimeter fence
4
Existing dimensions are base on ARC B-I standards.
2

The current RSA dimensions for Runway 3L-21R will need to be re-designed to meet the ARC
B-II standards.
Additionally, the Object Free Area (OFA) should be clear of objects except for whose location is
required by function. The OFA for Runway 3L-21R, Runway 3R and Runway 12 are found to be
deficient due to terrain, fencing and other infrangibly non navigational objects.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-11

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

The Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) should be clear of obstructions to the greatest extent
possible, to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The FAA recommends
that the RPZ be kept clear by purchasing the property within it, or by acquiring avigation
easements. All RPZs are within airport property or the Airport Sponsor has acquired the
appropriate avigation easements.
The Alternatives Analysis will evaluate the improvements required to meet all RSA, OFA, and
RPZ standards.
3.2.5

NAVAID, Visual Aids, and Instrument Approaches

Airport navigational aids, or NAVAIDS, provide electronic navigational assistance to aircraft for
approaches to an airport. NAVAIDS are either, visual approach aids or instrument approach
aids. The types of approaches available at an airport are based on the NAVAIDS that are
provided.
Instrument approaches are generally designed such that an aircraft, in poor weather conditions,
by means of a radio, Global Positioning System (GPS), or an internal navigation system and with
no assistance from air traffic control, can navigate to and land safely at an airport. Approach
procedures are classified into various categories to include a precision approach, precision
Approach Procedure with Vertical guidance (APV) and non-precision approaches. A precision
approach is an instrument approach that provides the pilot with both lateral and vertical guidance
information. An APV approach is an instrument approach that provides the pilot both course and
vertical path guidance information, but does not conform to ILS system performance standards.
A non-precision approach provides the pilot with course information only. By moving towards
greater levels of precision and approach lighting, an airport can improve the margin of safety for
the pilot under adverse weather conditions.
Several types of precision instrument approach technologies are available to airports. They
include systems such as an Instrument Landing System (ILS), Microwave Landing System
(MLS), GPS (with vertical navigation via Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)/Local Area
Augmentation System (LAAS)). APV approach technologies include the WAAS based Localizer
Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV), Lateral Navigation/Vertical Navigation
(LNAV/VNAV) and Barometric Vertical Navigation (Baro-VNAV) approaches. Non-precision
approach technologies include the VHF Omni-directional Radio Range (VOR), Non-Directional
Beacon (NDB), Localizer (LOC), LDA Simplified Directional Facility (SDF) or Radio
Navigation (RNAV). All of these types of technologies have allowed the FAA to design a variety
of approach procedures to help ensure the safety of aircraft during various phases of flight and
poor weather conditions.
FAA funding for a new NAVAID and approach procedure is based upon demonstrating the
associated need, practicality, safety benefits, and expected aviation activity at the airport. In
developing a new approach procedure, the FAA considers the accuracy of the navigational aid,
penetrations to the Part 77/TERPS airspace surfaces, an airport’s landing surface (runway length,
lighting, markings, design criteria, etc.), and other factors as outlined in the FAA’s Advisory
Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. It is important to note that the FAA indicates a

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-12

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

significant reduction in minima (i.e., ¼ mile reduction in visibility and/or 50 foot reduction in
decision altitude or minimum descent altitude) would constitute a new approach procedure.
GPS and other GPS augmented technology (e.g., WAAS/LAAS) can ultimately provide the
airport with the capability of establishing new instrument approaches at minimal cost since there
is not a requirement for the installation and maintenance of costly ground-based transmission
equipment. To accommodate these type approaches, the airport landing surface must meet
specific standards as outlined in FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design. The FAA requires that
the airport must have a minimum runway length of 3,200 feet, but states that airports having
runways as short as 2,400 feet could support an instrument approach if the lowest Height Above
Threshold (HAT) is based on clearing a 200-foot obstacle within the final approach segment.
The following tables indicate the necessary HAT, runway length, runway markings, approach
lighting, and design criteria required to implement a new instrument approach.
A more precise approach system usually results in lower operating minimums. Essentially, lower
operating minimums are achieved by increasing precision of the navigational system.
Tables 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13 summarize NAVAID requirements for various approaches as
described above. They are based on guidance contained in 150/5300-13, Airport Design, and
F.A.A. Order 7031.2C, Airway Planning Standards Number One-Terminal Air Navigation
Facilities and Air Traffic Control Services.
Table 3.11
Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance – Approach Requirements
<3/4-statute
<1-statute
>1-statute
Visibility Minimums
1-statute mile
mile
mile
mile
Height Above Touchdown
250
300
350
400
(ft)
20:1 clear or penetrations
TERPS Paragraph 251
34:1 clear
20:1 clear
lighted for night minimums (see
AC 70/7460-1)
Precision Object Free Zone
Required
Recommended
Airport Layout Plan
Must be on approved ALP
4,200 ft.
3,200 ft.
Minimum Runway Length
3,200 ft.
paved
paved
Runway Marking
Non-precision
Non-precision
Runway Edge Lights
HIRL/MIRL
MIRL/LIRL
Parallel Taxiway
Required
Required
Required –
Approach Lights
Recommended
ODALS/MALS,SSALS
Runway Design Standard
APV OFZ Required
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Chg 10, Airport Design, 9/29/06.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-13

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Table 3.12
Non-Precision Approach Requirements
Visibility Minimums

<3/4-statute
mile

<1-statute
mile

1-statute
mile

>1-statute
mile

Circling

Height Above
Touchdown (ft)

300

340

400

450

Varies

TERPS Paragraph 251

34:1 clear

Airport Layout Plan
Minimum Runway
Length
Runway Marking
Runway Edge Lights

20:1 clear or penetrations lighted for night
minimums (see AC 70/7460-1)
Required
Recommended
4,200 ft.
3,200 ft.
3,200 ft.
paved
paved
Precision
Non-precision
Visual (Basic)
MIRL/LIRL
HIRL/MIRL
MIRL/LIRL
(Required only
20:1 clear

for night minima)

Parallel Taxiway
Approach Lights

Runway Design
Standard

Required
Recommended
Required –
MALSR,
Recommended
ODALS/
SSALR, or
ODALS/MALS, SSALS,
Not Required
MALS,
ALSF
SALS
SSALS,
Required
SALS
< ¾-statute
mile
> ¾-statute mile approach visibility
Not Required
approach
minimums
visibility

Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Chg 10, Airport Design, 9/29/06.

Table 3.13
Precision Approach Requirements
Visibility Minimums
Height Above Touchdown (ft)
TERPS Paragraph 251
Precision Obstacle Free Zone
(POFZ) 200’x’800’
Airport Layout Plan
Minimum Runway Length
Runway Marking
Holding Position Signs &
Markings
Runway Edge Lights
Parallel Taxiway
Approach Lights
Runway Design Standard

<3/4-statute mile

<1-statute mile
200

34:1 clear

20:1 clear

Required

Not Required
Required
4,200 ft. paved

Precision

Non-precision

Precision

Non-precision

HIRL/MIRL
Required
MALSR, SSALR, or ALSF
Recommended
Required
<¾-statute mile approach
> ¾-statute mile approach visibility
visibility
minimums

Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Chg 12, Airport Design, 1/3/08.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-14

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

PRC offers precision and non-precision approaches through the use of an Instrument Landing
System (ILS/DME) and GPS on Runway 21L and VOR/GPS on Runway 12. Based upon the
current operations at PRC, the instrument landing equipment is sufficient to meet current
demand. The FAA is currently investigating the feasibility of installing an instrument approach
to Runway 3R. Additionally, in the future, as operations increase, providing VOR/GPS
capability to Runway 21R could be necessary as well as Runway End Identification Lights
(REILs). This recommendation will be evaluated as part of the Alternatives Analysis.

3.3 Landside Facility Requirements
This analysis examines landside facility support components. It will estimate the facility demand
and compare it with existing facilities to determine future needs for:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

3.3.1

Apron and Hangar Space Requirements
Passenger Terminal Building
GA Terminal Building
Support Facility and Utilities
Apron and Hangar Space Requirements

The analysis of this section assesses the adequacy of these facilities as compared with projected
demand. Requirements for GA and corporate aviation rely on many different factors. The
requirements in this section rely on the aviation demand forecast numbers from Chapter 2 of this
Master Plan. This section will estimate the facility demand and compare it with existing facilities
to determine the requirements for:
•
•
•

Based Aircraft Parking Apron space;
Itinerant Aircraft Apron space; and
Aircraft Hangar space.

Aircraft Apron Parking Requirements
Apron requirements were developed for based and itinerant aircraft at PRC. Currently, the
aprons are divided into nine areas.
The apron area requirements shown in this section were developed according to the
recommendations given in FAA AC 5300-13, Airport Design. Consideration must be made to
the overall apron requirements for aircraft parking, taxilanes, adjacent taxiways, proximity to
buildings and fueling areas. The apron layout should be designed to accommodate all aircraft
using the airport, including turbo-prop and jet aircraft. A planning criterion of 2,700 square- feet
(300 SY) per based aircraft and 3,240 square-feet (360 SY) per transient aircraft was used, which
includes aircraft taxilanes.
For planning purposes, 25 percent of the based aircraft, adjusted for ERAU and other
commercial apron, will be used to determine the parking apron requirements specifically for
based aircraft.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-15

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

The aircraft apron parking requirements for based and itinerant aircraft are calculated in the
Tables 3.14 and 3.15 respectively. These numbers are derived by using the combined growth
forecast scenario (Scenario 2) in order to determine potential facilities required to meet projected
demand.
Table 3.14
Based Aircraft Apron Parking Requirements
Based Aircraft
Planning Year
2007
2012
2017
2027
Single-Engine
301
329
368
463
Twin-Engine
26
30
34
43
Jet-Engine
3
7
8
11
Helicopters
10
13
15
18
Required No. Positions
78
87
97
122
Required Area (ft2)
210,600
234,900
261,900
329,400
5
2
Existing Area (ft )
195,000
195,000
195,000
195,000
Surplus/(Need) (ft2)
(15,600)
(39,900)
(66,900) (134,400)
Currently there is no need for additional apron space for based aircraft as the North Ramp is
more than 495,000 ft2. However, more than 300,000 ft2 of the North Ramp has been currently
planned to be converted into box hangars, shades, a self fuel and wash rack. Based on future
demand and the current waiting list there will be a need for additional tie-down apronspace in the
5-year planning horizon.
To derive the itinerant aircraft apron parking requirements, the Average Day of the Peak Month
was used. November was determined to be the peak month, averaging 10.2% of the annual
operations. This percentage was applied to the existing and future operations numbers and then
divided by 31 to represent an Average Peak Day. Based on a split between historical local and
itinerant operations data, Itinerant Peak Day operations were assumed to be 37% of the peak
operations. It was then assumed that approximately 47% of the Peak Day Itinerant traffic will
need apron parking and 2% hangar parking.
Table 3.15
Itinerant Aircraft Apron Parking Requirements
Requirements
Average Peak Day Itinerant
Operations
Average Peak Day Itinerant Aircraft
Required Itinerant Apron (ft2)
Existing Area6 (ft2)
Surplus/(Need) (ft2)
5
6

Planning Years
2007

2012

2017

2027

266

305

342

430

142
460,080
240,000
(220,080)

149
482,760
240,000
(242,760)

163
528,120
240,000
(288,120)

194
628,560
240,000
(388,560)

North Ramp remaining area.
South Apron/Transient Ramp. The new FBO apron to be completed in January 2009 was not included.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-16

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Currently only a portion of the South apron is available to itinerant aircraft. Based on current
forecast there is an immediate need for additional apron space.
The feasibility of developing additional apron and its location will be considered in the
Alternative Analysis Chapter. These aircraft apron requirements will be used when considering
future hangar development.
Hangar Space Requirements
Hangar requirements for PRC depend upon the number of based aircraft, type of aircraft, and
owner preference. Thus, hangar demand was based on the results of the based aircraft forecast,
operational activity, a survey of on-airport aircraft owners, and planning estimates for hangar
area requirements.
The trend in general aviation aircraft (single or multi-engine) is toward more sophisticated and
consequently, more expensive aircraft. Therefore, many aircraft owners prefer enclosed hangar
space to outside tie-downs.
Hangar space requirements by aircraft type can be found in Table 3.16 below.

Aircraft Type
Single Engine
Multi-Engine

Table 3.16
Hangar Requirements by Aircraft Type
% of Aircraft to
SF per
Require Hangar
T-Hangar
Aircraft
Space
1,200
70%
90%
1,800
80%
75%

Turbojet
Helicopter

3,500
3,500

100%
100%

0%
0%

Conventional
Hangar
10%
25%
100%
100%

Using the results of the based aircraft forecast, user survey, hangar waiting list, combined with
experience at other airports, the number of aircraft that will use hangars was estimated. It is
assumed that larger higher value aircraft are more likely to be stored in a hangar, as well as 80%
of the based multi-engine aircraft fleet. The results were then adjusted to account for the strong
demand of hangar space from approximately 200 people that have been placed on a waiting list
and are not occupying a hangar at PRC at this time.
Determining the needs for itinerant aircraft storage can be difficult at most airports, since
conditions can vary drastically from one airport to the next. It is hard to establish a realistic
relationship between itinerant operations and the need for hangar space. Considering an IFR fleet
mix established for PRC that includes high priced sophisticated aircraft, along with weather
conditions, requirements for hangar storage throughout the forecast period were estimated and
provide 38,500 square feet of itinerant storage by 2027 (as shown in Table 3.17).

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-17

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Additionally, 10% of the total conventional hangar storage area was estimated for service and
maintenance needs, which could include an area dedicated for aircraft washing. The feasibility of
dedicating an area of apron for aircraft washing and service will be evaluated in the Alternative
Analysis Chapter.
Table 3.17 shows the requirements of T-Hangar, Conventional Hangar, as it relates to the
forecast based and itinerant aircraft numbers.
Table 3.17
PRC Based and Itinerant Aircraft Hangar Requirements
Requirements

Planning Years
2007
196
15
3
10

2012
215
17
7
13

2017
240
19
8
15

2027
301
24
11
18

Total T-Hagar positions
T-hangars/shade (ft2)
Existing T-Hagar positions
Surplus/(Need) (ft2)

187
224,400
175
(14,400)

206
247,200
175
(37,200)

230
276,000
175
(66,000)

289
346,800
175
(136,800)

Total Conventional Positions
Conventional (ft2)
Existing Conventional Positions
Surplus/(Need) (ft2)

13
45,500
N/A
(45,500)

20
70,000
N/A
(70,000)

23
80,500
N/A
(52,500)

29
101,500
N/A
(101,500)

Itinerant Hangar Positions
Itinerant Hangar Requirements# (ft2)
Existing Itinerant Hangar Positions
Surplus/(Need) (ft2)
Aircraft Maintenance (ft2)

7
24,500
N/A
(24,500)
7,000

8
28,000
N/A
(28,000)
9,800

9
31,500
N/A
(31,500)
11,200

11
38,500
N/A
(38,500)
14,000

Single Engine *
Multi-Engine *
Turbojet *
Helicopter *

*
#

Excluding ERAU
Itinerant aircraft can be accommodated in Conventional hangars

3.3.2

Commercial Terminal Building

The existing commercial terminal building as identified in the Baseline Conditions chapter has
exceeded its normal life cycle, and while it has undergone several remodels and recent additions
the need for a new terminal facility is undisputed. The following terminal space requirements
shown in Table 3.18 are grouped in general classification and include items like food and
beverages, restrooms, circulations, hold rooms and others that are typically listed in a terminal
area study. These requirements for the various terminal areas were determined according to FAA
A/C 150/5360-9, and 150/5660-13. Three scenarios were developed based on airline activity
levels of operation rather than planning horizon years, and are based on current and forecasted
airline operations and fleet mix. All calculations are based on 76% peak hour load factor. The
numbers reported in the following table, for each category, represent total square feet needed.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-18

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Table 3.18
Terminal Area Requirements
Terminal Areas

Planning Scenarios
2007-2012 1
86
172

2013-2017 2
130
260

2018-2027 3
153
306

Ticketing Lobby & Queue Area
Public Lobby
Public Circulation
Baggage Claim Area and Circulation
Restrooms
Total – Non Sterile Space

1,000
800
1,600
1,000
500
4,900

2,200
1,300
2,600
1,800
1,000
8,900

3,000
1,700
3,500
2,400
1,500
12,100

Hold Rooms & Circulation
Restrooms
Security Screening Area and Offices
Airline Operations and Offices
Baggage Make-up
Total – Sterile Space

2,900
500
3,000
1,000
1,000
8,400

4,300
800
3,200
1,200
1,800
11,300

5,000
1,000
3,500
1,400
2,400
13,300

Rental Car Counter and Office
Restaurant / Food and Beverage
Gift Shop
Other Lease Space
Total Concession Tenant Space

600
1,600
600
600
3,400

600
1,800
600
950
3,950

800
2,500
600
1200
5,100

Mechanical Rooms and Support Space

1,670

2,415

3,050

Airport Staff Office
Minimum Total Area

300
18,370

300
26,565

500
33,550

Design Peak Hour Enplanements
Peak Hour Passengers

Note: All figures represent square feet unless otherwise noted.
All figures are based on 76% peak hour load factor.
1
Fleet Mix Assumption: Two B1900 and One Q400
2
Fleet Mix Assumption: One B1900, One CRJ and One Q400
3
Fleet Mix Assumption: Two Q400 and One CRJ
Source: FAA A/C 150/5360-9, Planning and Design Guidelines for Airport terminal Facilities;
FAA 50/5660-13, Planning and Design of Airport terminal Facilities at Facilities at Non-Hub Locations.

Terminal Area Apron
The terminal gate types and apron requirements relate to the wing spans and fuselage lengths of
the aircraft which they accommodate and the type of gate operations used. The gate requirements
are based on the current and expected fleet mix and activity at PRC type A gates with taxi-in and
taxi-out procedures. The aircraft using this gate type are those found in Airplane Design Group
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-19

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

III, wing span between 79 feet (24 m) and 118 feet (36 m). With taxi-in and taxi-out operations
aircraft use their own power to taxi into the gate positions and out. Although this type of
operation it is less costly operationally, it requires much more apron area and permits a lower
number of gates. A fleet mix composed by Dash 8 400 series (Q-400) and Regional Jet (CRG200) was used to calculate the apron requirements for the terminal. The dimensions, shown in
Figure 1 – Gate Parking Configuration, of the terminal apron where calculated based on
standards found in FAA AC 150/5390-9 in a linear configuration, with parking gates at a 57
degree angle. The minimum terminal apron requirements are summarized in Table 3.19.
Table 3.19
Terminal Apron Requirements
Terminal Apron Needs
Planning Scenarios
2007-2012
2013-2017
2018-2027
Number of Gates
3
3
3
2
Terminal Apron Minimum Dimensions (ft )
362x223
418x223
430x223
Terminal Apron Area (ft2)*
80,726
93,214
95,890
Figure 1
Gate Parking Configuration

Terminal Area Vehicular Parking
Adequate parking should be provided in proximity of the terminal building. At PRC parking
should include short-term, long–term as well as parking for concessions and TSA’s employees,
rental cars and return spaces and a few space reserved for airport administration and maintenance
vehicles. Table 3.20 presents the terminal parking requirement based on the current enplanement
forecast and standards listed in FAA AC 150-5360-13 Planning and Design of Airport terminal
Facilities at Facilities at Non-Hub Locations. The figures below are calculated using
approximately 400 sf2, including lanes, per parked automobile.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-20

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Table 3.20
Terminal Area Passenger Vehicles Parking
Terminal Vehicles Parking Needs
Planning Scenarios
2007-2012 2013-2017 2018-2027
Short Term Parking Positions
20
33
44
Long Term Parking Positions
62
100
133
Concessions
8
8
12
Restaurant Patrons
16
18
25
TSA
5
5
7
Rental Car
12
12
20
Administration and Maintenance
3
3
4
Total Number of Positions
126
178
245
Total Parking Area (ft2)
50,400
71,200
98,000
3.3.3

General Aviation Terminal Building

The primary users of PRC are general aviation pilots. Therefore, it is appropriate to account for
the facility requirement needs to accommodate them. A general aviation terminal building
typically accommodates administrative offices, management offices, fix based operator offices, a
pilot’s lounge, flight planning area, meeting facilities, food services, restrooms and other various
spaces. The FAA has developed methods of estimating general aviation terminal requirements.
The method, found in FAA A/C 150/5300-13, Airport Design, relates peak period activity to the
size of functional area within the building. The GA space requirements were based on providing
75 square-feet per design peak hour pilot/passenger.
The peak hour pilot/passenger was determined by adjusting the average peak hour operation to
account for flight school operations that use independent facilities and by calculating an average
of 2.5, 2.8 and 3.0 pilot/passenger for the respective 2012, 2017 and 2027 planning horizons as
depicted in Table 3.21.
Table 3.21
Recommended Fixed Based Operator Building Area Requirements
FBO Building Needs
Planning Years
2007
2012
2017
Avg. Peak Hour Operations
112
122
133
Peak Hour Pilot/Passengers
90
98
118
Terminal Building Area
3,800
7,350
7,875
3.3.4

2027
159
153
9,600

Access Road and General Aviation Parking

Access Road
A description of the current airport roadway and parking areas is provided in Chapter One. As
noted in Chapter One, PRC can be accessed via State Route 89. Access is fairly direct and
current signage is sufficient. However, as the surrounding communities grow it will be necessary
to enhance signage.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-21

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

On-going concurrent transportation studies are evaluating capacity enhancement alternatives of
State Route 89, the realignment of Ruger Road, and Willow Creek Road. Additionally the City
of Prescott has recently begun an Airport Area Transportation Plan. Some of the alternatives will
have a direct impact to the airport access. As part of the Alternative Analysis Chapter access
improvements and the realignment of Ruger Road, which could ultimately provide direct access
to the Terminal Area, will be examined.
General Aviation Parking
Based upon the previously discussed peak hour pilot/passenger, the number of based aircraft and
transient operations, Table 3.22 lists the requirements for the GA vehicular parking area. The
area was calculated on the assumption that one space will be required per peak hour
pilot/passenger and that 20% of the based aircraft will require one parking position at any given
time. Space requirement are calculated based on FAA AC 150/5360-13 and assume 400 (ft2) per
parking position and includes circulation lanes.
Based on conversations with Airport staff the current parking availability is very limited and has
become a concern of many airport commercial tenants as well as for the airport administration.
The sites available for additional parking will be identified during the Alternatives Analysis
Chapter.
Table 3.22
Recommended GA Vehicular Parking Area Requirements
GA Parking Needs
Planning Years
2007
2012
2017
Peak Hour Pilot/Passengers
90
98
118
Based Aircraft Positions
68
76
85
Total Parking Positions
158
174
203
Parking Area (ft2)
63,200
69,600
81,200
3.3.5

2027
153
107
260
104,000

Support Facility Requirements and Utilities

The following section presents an analysis of the facility space requirements for PRC support
facilities based upon current growth trend and forecast. This analysis includes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Airport Administration;
Fuel Storage;
Federal Facilities (ATCT);
Airport Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF);
Aircraft Maintenance and Storage;
Airport Utilities;
Airport Fencing; and
Perimeter Road.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-22

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Airport Administration
The Airport Administration is located on the south-west side of the airfield and within a two
story building. The overall condition of the building is fair and the office space on the first floor
has been recently remodeled to accommodate additional administration and maintenance staff.
However, the current facility will not be sufficient to support the staffing need of PRC for the
next 20 years.
To properly accommodate the needs of the Airport Administration a facility of 5,950 square-feet
is the minimum requirement. This facility will accommodate up to 20 employees and will
include 6 offices, data storage, break and file/copy room, conference room and restrooms. The
feasibility of building, possibly relocating, and combining a new Administration facility with the
Maintenance facility will be reviewed in the Alternatives Analysis Chapter.
Airport Administration Parking
Table 3.23 lists the parking requirements based on anticipated staffing levels and additional
spaces for visitors, handicap and deliveries. Space requirement are calculated based on FAA AC
150/5360-13 and assume 400 (ft2) per parking position and includes circulation lanes.
Table 3.23
Recommended Administration Parking Area Requirements
Administration Parking Needs
Planning Years
2007
2012
2017
Administration Parking Pos.
14
16
20
2
Parking Area (ft )
5,600
6,400
8,000

2027
28
11,200

Fuel Storage Facility
There are four - 20,000 gallon above-ground fuel tanks. Two tanks contain Avgas (100LL) and
two contain Jet-A fuel. Fuel is delivered approximately three times a week during normal
operations, and approximately seven times if there is a forest fire in the area. These tanks are
now operated by the current FBO.
Typically, fuel storage requirements are based on the average forecasted number of operations
and a fuel ratio estimated by analyzing fuel flowage data and by dividing the annual
consumption by the estimated annual operations. This results in the estimated average fuel
consumption per operation. Table 3.24 shows the aviation fuel requirements for PRC based
upon the forecast and the last five-year fuel sales which equals to 4.35 gallons of fuel per
operation.
Requirements needed for the fuel farms are to maintain compliance CFR 14 Part 139, NFPA 407
code and with the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Regulation that states “Underground fuel
storage tanks installed before December 31, 1988 must be modified or replaced to ensure
corrosion, overfill and spill prevention by December 22, 1998”. PRC has met these requirements
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-23

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

by removing the underground tanks and by installing 4 above ground tanks.
Table 3.24
Fuel Storage Requirements for PRC
Requirement
Planning Year
2007
2012
2017
Operations
230,615
250,706
273,961
ADPM Operation
744
809
884
ADPM Fuel in Gallons
2,843
3,091
3,377
2 Weeks Fuel Storage Reserve
42,638
46,363
50,661
Existing Tanks Volume
80,000
80,000
80,000
Additional Fuel Storage Need
(20,000)
(20,000)
(20,000)

2027
328,018
1,058
4,042
60,632
80,000
(40,000)

ADPM = Average Day, Peak Month

Although calculations cannot be made that compute an average amount of fuel sold per
operation, fuel sales data show that the current fuel capacity at PRC is sufficient to accommodate
the number of forecasted operations throughout the planning period, if the current fuel delivery
schedule is maintained. Additionally, self-fueling is common at several airports in the region.
PRC based aircraft owners have expressed that having a self-fueling station at the airport would
be beneficial. The feasibility of this will be considered in the Alternative Analysis Chapter.
Air Traffic Control Tower/Facilities (ATCT)
Since the need of improving the airfield and extending Runway 3R-21L has been identified and
the fact that current line-of-sight issues that have prompted the installation of close circuit
cameras at the end of Runway 3L-21R and 3R-21L, there is the need to further evaluate the
relocation of the ATCT or possibly increase the height tower at its current location. The
feasibility of this will be considered in the Alternative Analysis Chapter.
Airport Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) Equipment and Garage
PRC currently meets the Airport Rescue and Fire (ARFF) Index A Part 139 requirements. Under
this requirement, PRC should have at least one vehicle with 500 pounds of sodium- based dry
chemical, halon 1211 or 450 pounds of potassium-based dry chemical and water with a
commensurate quantity of AFFF to total 100 gallons for simultaneous dry chemical and AFF
application.
The airport has one Part 139 Index B compliant ARFF vehicle stored in at the fire station and
one structural vehicle located at the south side of the airfield. The current facility meets the
minimum requirements mandated by the FAA. However, FAA CFR 14 Part 139.317 states that:
“Within 3 minutes from the time of the alarm, at least one required aircraft rescue and
firefighting vehicle must reach the midpoint of the farthest runway serving air carrier aircraft
from its assigned post or reach any other specified point of comparable distance on the
movement area that is available to air carriers, and begin application of extinguishing agent”.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-24

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Currently PRC ARFF barely meets the response time requirement. The extension of the primary
runway will move the midpoint further away and the ARFF vehicle will not be able to reach it
under 3 minutes. The relocation of the ARFF station closer to the midpoint of the primary
runway is recommended. In the Alternatives Analysis Chapter it will be identified as an area of
25,000 ft2 able to accommodate a new ARFF facility (Index B), apron and employee parking
providing a more efficient airfield response.
Airport Maintenance Equipment Storage
Currently most airport maintenance equipment is stored in a hangar adjacent to the Commercial
Terminal Building. Due to its current location and space constraints, some of the equipment can
not be stored and is parked outside nearby resulting in poor functionality. Additionally, the
current facility lacks working space, offices, and common space (i.e., break room) for the
maintenance staff.
Due to its current location and the recently developed plans for a new Commercial Terminal
Building, Maintenance Building will be “boxed-in” with limited space for expansions and
reduced access to the airfield. It is recommended that the maintenance facility be upgraded and
relocated to an area that grants easier access to the airfield and out of sight of passengers. It is
anticipated that a facility of 11,250 ft2 should suffice the needs of the airport maintenance staff.
The facility would include three (3) large vehicles bays and one (1) small vehicle bay, parts
storage room, workshop room, lockers room, conference/training room, and restrooms. The
feasibility of relocating the Maintenance Building and combining it with the Administration
facility will be considered in the Alternatives Analysis Chapter.
Airport Utilities
As noted in Chapter 1, PRC has access to all appropriate utility services. These services would
be readily available and adequate to support any future building constructed to meet future
airport demands.
Airport Fencing
During the Airport Inventory inspection it was noted that a large section of the airport fence
consisted of inadequate barbed-wired cattle fencing around the end of Runway 30, as well as an
approximate 240 foot open gap in the perimeter fence next to the Embry-Riddle apron and the
Wolfberg parking lot.
To satisfy Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requirements the open gap has since
been enclosed with compliant chain-link fence (six feet tall supported by posts and topped with
barbed wire). It is recommended to replace the cattle fence with the same type of compliant
fencing. The feasibility of replacing the fence and any additional fencing improvements, with
regards to new land acquisitions, will be considered in the Alternatives Analysis Chapter.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-25

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Perimeter Road
During the initial site visit it was noticed that the airfield lacks a complete perimeter road within
the perimeter fence. Frequently, airport staff are required to utilize taxiways to reach areas
located to the north of the airfield, and to cross active runways, increasing the risk for incursions
accidents. Additionally, the lack of a proper and complete perimeter makes it difficult to
frequently inspect, and to maintain, the security fence for damages or breaches caused by
wildlife. While it is recommended to separate, or minimize, vehicular traffic from aircraft
movement areas, the feasibility of completing the airport perimeter road will be examined in the
Alternatives Analysis Chapter.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-26

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

3.4 Facilities Requirement Summary
The following Table 3.25 and bulleted list summarizes the requirements, above existing
conditions, to be addressed as part of the Alternatives Analysis Chapter of this master plan effort.
Table 3.25
Summary of Airport Facility Requirements
Identified Needs
Planning Years
2007
2012
2017
Based Aircraft Apron Parking Positions
78
87
97
2
Based Aircraft Apron Parking Area (ft )
210,600 234,900 261,900

2027
122
329,400

Itinerant Aircraft Apron Parking Positions
Required Itinerant Apron (ft2)

142
220,080

149
242,760

163
288,120

194
388,560

Total T-Hangar positions
T-Hangars/shade (ft2)
Total Conventional Positions
Conventional (ft2)
Itinerant Hangar Requirements (ft2)
Aircraft Maintenance (ft2)

187
14,400
13
45,500
24,500
7,000

206
37,200
20
70,000
28,000
9,800

230
66,000
23
80,500
31,500
11,200

289
136,800
29
101,500
38,500
14,000

FBO GA Building Area
GA Parking Positions
GA Parking Area (ft2)

3,800
158
63,200

7,350
174
69,600

7,875
203
81,200

9,600
260
104,000

Administration building (ft2)
Administration Parking Pos.
Parking Area (ft2)

5,950
14
5,600

Identified Needs
Commercial Terminal (ft )
Terminal Apron Area (ft2)
Commercial Terminal Parking Area (ft2)

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

20
8,000

28
11,200

11,250

Airport Maintenance Equipment Storage

2

16
6,400

Planning Scenarios
2007-2012
18,370
57,980
50,400

2013-2017
26,565
70,468
71,200

2018-2027
33,550
95,890
98,000

3-27

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Facility Requirements
FINAL

Additional items to be analyzed in the Alternative Analysis include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Administration Building relocation;
Airport Access, roadway realignment;
Airport Maintenance building relocation siting;
Approach Lighting System to Runway 12 and 3R;
ARFF building relocation siting;
Commercial Terminal siting;
Conventional Hangar siting and development;
Expansion and development of new aprons;
FBO/GA building siting and development;
High speed taxiway exits;
Itinerant Ramp relocation and expansions;
Land acquisition;
Lengthening of Runway 3L-21R;
Lengthening of Runway 3R-21L;
Lengthening of Taxiway A, C and D;
Lighting improvements for taxiway E;
Perimeter Fencing improvements;
Perimeter Road;
Runway 3L-21R widening;
Runway Protection Zone Issues for Runway 3R and 3L; and
T-Hangar and shades relocation.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3-28

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

4.0 Alternatives Analysis
In this chapter, the physical arrangement of future airport facilities is determined through an
analysis of alternative airport layouts. The purpose of the analysis is to identify how projected
facility requirements can be developed and accommodated on airport. The result of this process
is a “preferred” conceptual alternative, which will serve as the basis to prepare the Airport
Layout Plan.
Prescott Municipal Airport’s (PRC) proximity to Prescott, Prescott Valley and Chino, makes the
airport very convenient to private aircraft owners and local travelers. Maximizing the airport to
accommodate the growth of general aviation, and commercial service, will help increase the
economic benefit of the airport for not only the local area, but for the surrounding communities.
It will also enhance safety of the airport by implementing projects which meet current FAA
Design Standards presented in the previous chapter. At the same time, PRC is located near
existing and planned residential areas, and it is acknowledged that additional development could
impact these areas. Thus, the alternatives analysis must balance environmental effects, financial
feasibility, and operational impacts to the airport, its users, and the surrounding communities.
The Alternatives Analysis was completed for both airfield and landside facilities. The airfield
analysis, in Section 4.2, focuses on runway requirements, taxiways and navigational aids.
Section 4.3 discusses the landside alternatives, which include aircraft apron, conventional
hangars, T-hangars, Airport Rescue and Firefighting Facility (ARFF), Air Traffic Control Tower
(ATCT), and other support facilities. Airport access and automobile parking are discussed in
Section 4.4.
Thus, this chapter includes the following components:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

4.1

Airfield Alternatives
Landside Alternatives
Recommended Development Concept

Airfield Alternatives

The Facility Requirements (Chapter 3, Section 3.2) identified a number of potential facility
improvements within the airfield area of PRC that could enhance airport safety and utility. These
potential improvements are:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Extend the primary runway (Runway 3R-21L) with relative taxiways;
Extend the utility runway (Runway 3L-21R) with the relative taxiways;
Runway separation and safety area improvements;
Taxiway exists and connectors improvements;
Taxiway lighting; and
NAVAID.

The feasibility of these options is analyzed in this section.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-1

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

4.1.1

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

Airport Development Constraints

Before developing an alternative concept, it is necessary to determine where such development
could reasonably occur on the airport. The existing airport site is constrained by physical features
and existing development. The constraints should be noted at the outset of the analysis, and those
which effectively limit future development should be noted.
Constraints to airfield development:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
4.1.2

Antelope Gold Club, residential community, and State Route 89 to the West of PRC
property;
Existing development on both sides of Runway12-30 and a cemetery ground;
Existing development south of Runway 3R-21L;
Existing and planned development north of Runway 3L-21R;
Bottleneck Wash to the north, affluent to Granite Creek to the East;
Down sloping terrain toward Granite Creek with at 1.3% slope grade;
Lack of adequate roadway access to the east of the airfield; and
Land privately owned to the east of abandoned railroad tracks.
Airfield Alternative Development Assumptions

In developing the alternatives for this analysis, several assumptions were made. These
assumptions are based on information gathered during the development of previous chapters,
including the Aviation Demand Forecast and the analysis presented in Chapter 3:
ƒ

The alternative will meet appropriate FAA design criteria. These standards are presented
in Chapter 3. As noted in that chapter, the primary runway is designed as Category C-III,
and it is appropriate to maintain it as such, thus the proposed runway extension and
taxiway will be designed to meet C-III standards.

ƒ

The alternative will meet appropriate FAA Runway Safety Area (RSA) standards. As
noted in Chapter 3, multiple deviations from standards were identified.

ƒ

The alternative should provide clear Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Surfaces.
The FAR Par 77 surfaces are imaginary surfaces designated to protect the airport’s
airspace. The two surfaces of concern in this analysis are the Primary and Transitional
surfaces. The Primary surface is a rectangular surface around the runway having a 1,000
foot width for Runway 3R-21L and 500 foot width for Runway 3L-21R, and extending
200 feet beyond each runway end. The primary surface is at the same elevation as the
runway.
The Transitional surface extends upwards and outwards, at a 7:1 slope, from the edge of
the primary surface of the runway. Objects penetration these surfaces are considered
obstructions and should be removed, if possible. These surfaces were used in this analysis

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-2

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

to insure that there are no penetrations to Part 77 surfaces that include airport buildings,
adjacent roads and aircraft parking areas.
4.1.3

Airfield Alternatives

Airfield infrastructure (e.g., runways, taxiways, safety areas) is generally the first consideration
in developing airport alternatives because of their primary role in supporting and directing
aircraft movements. Airfield development also tends to dominate airport land use; therefore,
selection of an airfield concept will usually affect the amount and location of other types of land
uses.
Runways and taxiways must be designed to safely and efficiently assist the flow of aircraft to
and from the landside facilities. The primary considerations in airfield development are the
runway orientation, operational capacity and runway length. Various airfield development
alternatives were identified to satisfy the facility requirements presented in Chapter 3. The
airfield alternatives focus on providing RSA improvements, additional runway length, taxiway
efficiencies, and improving operations and safety. The airfield alternatives (A, B, and C) under
consideration are illustrated on Figures 4.1 through 4.3.
A.

Airfield Alternative A: As illustrated in Figure 4.1, this alternative addresses all the
items listed at the beginning of this section according to design standards, constraints,
and feasibility.
•

Runway Length: As stated in Chapter 3, a primary Runway 3R-21L
extension would provide commercial users the required infrastructure to
expand and begin regional jet service. A runway length up to 10,570 feet
would be ideal. However, any extension that would increase the runway
length above the 9,300 feet could allow jet operation with some operational
restrictions (see Runway Length Analysis White Paper). Additional runway
length was also examined for parallel Runway 3L-21R. The parallel runway
is currently 4,846 feet in length. Based on the examination in the previous
chapter, it would appear that approximately 6,200 feet of runway length
would be needed to adequately accommodate the fleet mix anticipated to
utilize this runway. In addition, this runway should be widened to 75 feet in
width in order to accommodate the existing and forecast aircraft fleet mix.

•

Runway Safety Areas (RSA): Alternative A addresses all non-standard RSA
issues for the approach end of Runway 3R, Runway 3L, and 12. The nonstandard RSA issues for Runway 3R and 12 are accomplished by
implementing a runway shift by 940 feet and 150 feet respectively. Runway
3L’s RSA has a non-standard positive slope (i.e., hump), which would be cut
and graded to RSA standard.

•

Taxiways: Additional capacity and efficiency is always improved with the
addition of strategically placed taxiways. The two parallel runways are
already equipped with parallel taxiways, which is one of the most efficient

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-3

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

means of increasing capacity. Alternative A continues to provide the parallel
taxiways with the proposed runway extensions. Another means of increasing
capacity is to construct additional taxiway exits in key locations. Based upon
criteria established in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, up to
eight new high-speed taxiway exits on the primary runway would provide
additional airfield capacity. In addition, the extension of the partial parallel
taxiway leading to and from the approach end of Runway 12 would also
enhance the airport's overall operational capacity.
•

Runway Protections Zones & Land Acquisition: In Alternative A, the
following estimated land acquisitions would be required by the City in order
to provide adequate control over the area encompassed by the Runway
Protection Zones (RPZ):
Runway 12 RPZ
Runway 30 RPZ
Runway 21L and 21R RPZs
Estimated Total

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

3.8 acres
1.4 acres
168 acres
173.2 acres

4-4

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

B.

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

Airfield Alternative B: As illustrated in Figure 4.2, this alternative also addresses all
the items listed at the beginning of this section according to design standards, constraints,
and feasibility.
•

Runway Length: Runway extensions for Runway 3R-21L and Runway 3L21R would also be provided in Alternative B, with runway lengths up to
10,570 feet and 6,200 feet respectively.

•

Runway Safety Areas (RSA): Alternative B addresses all non-standard RSA
issues for the approach end of Runway 3R and Runway 12 in slightly
different ways than Alternative A. The non-standard RSA issues for Runway
3R would continue to be accomplished by implementing a runway shift by
345 feet (not 940 feet as suggested in Alt. A). Runway 12’s RSA would
become standard by filling and grading the approach end of Runway 12 and
relocating the airport service road and Ruger Road. Like Alternative A,
Runway 3L’s RSA would be cut and graded to RSA standard.

•

Taxiways: The proposed taxiway layout would remain as described and
illustrated in Alternative A

•

Runway Protections Zones & Land Acquisition: In Alternative B, the
following estimated land acquisitions would be required by the City in order
to provide adequate control over the area encompassed by the Runway
Protection Zones (RPZ):
Runway 12 RPZ
Runway 3R RPZ
Runway 21L and 21R RPZs
Estimated Total

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4.0 acres
1.0 acres
138 acres
143.0 acres

4-6

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

C.

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

Airfield Alternative C: As illustrated in Figure 4.3, this alternative also addresses all
the items listed at the beginning of this section according to design standards, constraints,
and feasibility.
•

Runway Length: Runway extensions for Runway 3R-21L and Runway 3L21R would also be provided in Alternative C, with runway lengths up to
10,570 feet and 6,200 feet respectively.

•

Runway Safety Areas (RSA): Alternative C addresses all non-standard RSA
issues for the approach end of Runway 3R and 12 by installing Engineered
Material Arresting Systems (EMAS) at each end. EMAS is an acceptable
means of bringing safety areas into compliance, given that the benefits out
way the costs of improving the safety areas by other methods (i.e.,
Alternatives A and B). Runway 3L’s RSA would be cut and graded to RSA
standard.

•

Taxiways: The proposed taxiway layout would remain as described and
illustrated in Alternative A and B.

•

Runway Protections Zones & Land Acquisition: In Alternative C, the
following estimated land acquisitions would be required by the City in order
to provide adequate control over the area encompassed by the Runway
Protection Zones (RPZ):

Runway 12 RPZ
Runway 21L and 21R RPZs
Estimated Total

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4.0 acres
118.0 acres
122.0 acres

4-8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

4.2

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

Landside Alternatives

The Facility Requirements (Chapter 3, Section 3.3) identified a number of potential facility
improvements within the landside area of PRC that could enhance the level of service provided
to general aviation users, passengers, and others. These potential improvements focused on seven
areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Commercial Terminal Building;
Apron Areas;
Hangars and Fixed Based Operator (FBO) Facility;
Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility relocation;
Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) relocation;
Conventional and T-Hangars; and
Land acquisition.

Each of these area where developed in three (3) different alternatives. The alternatives where
based on space requirement identified in Chapter 3, FAA 150/5300-13, Airport Design
Standards, and operational efficiency. Airport access issues are addressed in Section 4.4.
4.2.1

Landside Alternative 1

Commercial Terminal Building: As shown in Figure 4.4, Landside Alternative 1 redevelops
the existing terminal area. This includes constructing a new commercial service terminal
building that incorporates the functions of the existing terminal building and provides for
expansion capabilities. The existing site would be reconfigured to accommodate the ultimate
terminal building, additional auto parking, ground access and rental car parking.
Airport Administration & Maintenance Facility: Adjacent to the new terminal facility would
be a new airport administration/maintenance facility (located specifically at the current airport
administration location).
Fixed Based Operator (FBO): An FBO type development is shown in the area south of the
runway intersections, along Club House Drive. This development area includes a 12,000 SF
conventional hangar, 25,000 SY of apron area, and adjacent auto parking. A realignment of Club
House drive would be required.
Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT): The ATCT is currently located on the east side of the field
and accessible from Wilkinson Drive. The tower was built in 1987 and is operated by FAA Air
Traffic Controllers. Due to the height of the current tower and the well documented obstructed
views of various critical areas of the airfield, an alternative location is to be considered.
Alternative 1 centrally locates the ATCT on the east side off Melville Drive.
Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting Facility: The ARFF facility is currently located south of the
Runway 3R/21L and 12/30 intersection and it is accessible from Club House Drive. In effort to
meet the FAA FAR Part 139 Index-A emergency response requirements on the airfield, a new
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-10

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

more central location is desired. This alternative places the ARFF facility at midfield on the east
side off Melville Drive and adjacent to the proposed ATCT location.
Conventional & T-Hangars: The PRC requirements for conventional and T-hangar space were
estimated from industry planning standards and through discussions with airport tenants and
management. The analysis identified a current deficit of 12 T-hangar bays, which is anticipated
to increase to 114 by 2027. Likewise, conventional hangar space is incorporated into each
development scenario to satisfy the current deficit of 45,000sf and 101,500sf through 2027. To
satisfy the facility requirements, several development locations and configurations were
identified and illustrated on Figures 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6. As multiple layouts could be
recommended, they are referred to as options instead of alternatives.
Land Acquisition: Approximately 160-acres of land are proposed to be acquired to allow for
future airport expansion and development.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-11

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

4.2.2

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

Landside Alternative 2

Commercial Terminal Building: As shown in Figure 4.5, Landside Alternative 2 centrally
locates the commercial terminal building with respect to the airfield on the east side of Runway
3R-21L. An available lot next to the USFS was identified as a potential site. While the site can
accommodate the terminal and all other support facilities, the major constraint identified is
access.
Airport Administration & Maintenance Facility: Like Alternative 1, this alternative places the
administration & maintenance facility adjacent and just south of the new commercial terminal
facility.
Fixed Based Operator (FBO): Similar to Alternative 1, the FBO development is shown in the
area south of the runway intersections, along Club House Drive. However, the proposed aprons
and auto parking are configured differently.
Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT): In this scenario, the ATCT would remain at its current
location and reconstructed at a higher elevation in effort to facilitate a more complete line-ofsight of the entire airfield.
Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting Facility: Alternative 2 also centrally locates the ARFF
facility; however, its location would be on the west side and in proximity to the approach end of
Runway 3L near the general aviation apron.
Land Acquisition: Approximately 160-acres of land are proposed to be acquired to allow for
future airport expansion and development.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-13

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

4.2.3 Landside Alternative 3
Commercial Terminal Building: As shown in Figure 4.6, Landside Alternative 3 redevelops
the existing terminal area (not unlike Alternative 1). This also includes constructing a new
commercial service terminal building that incorporates the functions of the existing terminal
building and provides for expansion capabilities. For this alternative, the commercial terminal
building is shown approximately in the same location as presented in the previously prepared
terminal design plans. The major constraint identified related to the limited space available for
aircraft movement.
Airport Administration & Maintenance Facility: Unlike Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 3
separates the new commercial terminal building and the airport administration facilities. As such,
under this scenario the facility would be located adjacent to the redeveloped FBO area off Club
House Drive.
Fixed Based Operator (FBO): Once again, the FBO type development is shown in the area
south of the runway intersections, along Club House Drive. This development area includes a
12,000 SF conventional hangar, 25,000 SY of apron area, and adjacent auto parking.
Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT): Similar to Alternative 1, this alternative centrally locates
the ATCT east of Runway 3R-21L, but further back and east of Mellville Drive on land not
currently owned by the Airport.
Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting Facility: This alternative places the ARFF facility at
midfield on the east side off Melville Drive, but further north than the proposed location
presented in Alternative 1.
Land Acquisition: Approximately 160-acres of land are proposed to be acquired to allow for
future airport expansion and development.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-15

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

4.3

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

Airport Access

The recommended 2030 airport roadway network was presented in the April 2009 Draft Final
Airport Area Transportation Plan. Based on the results of the plan and the travel demand model
and the more detailed subarea studies, the projected layout is presented in Figure 4.7 on a
broader scale and Figure 4.7a, which identifies specific lanes changes. Overall, the land uses
surrounding the airport are anticipated to generate significant travel demands as they develop
over the next 20 years. In order to adequately meet these demands, existing roadways in the area
will need to be improved and new roadways will need to be constructed. The following major
roadway improvements are recommended, as per documented in the Draft Final City of PrescottAirport Area Transportation Plan, to meet the anticipated future growth in the study area:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Widen SR 89A to 6 lanes
Realign Willow Creek Road north of SR 89A as a four-lane minor arterial
Widen SR 89 to four lanes between SR 89A and Willow Creek Road
Widen SR 89 to six lanes north of Willow Creek Road
Widen Larry Caldwell Drive to four lanes north of SR 89A as adjacent development
occurs
Construct a new high speed limited access facility north-south near the Great Western
section line and east-west near the Road 5
South alignment with free flow connections to SR 89A
Construct a new east-west minor arterial one mile north of SR 89A between Larry
Caldwell Drive and Viewpoint Drive
Construct a new north-south roadway providing access from Road 5 South to the
airport
Extend Glassford Hill Road north of SR 89A
Extend Granite Dells Parkway north of SR 89A
Extend Ruger Road realignment as a four-lane collector roadway west of SR 89 to
serve the West Airport GPA area
Extend MacCurdy Road as a 4-lane collector roadway west of SR 89 to serve the
West Airport GPA area

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-17

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

Figure 4.7 – Airport Area Transportation Preferred Plan

Airport Loop Rd..

Airport Blvd.

89A

Source: April 2009 Draft Final Airport Area Transportation Plan

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-18

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

Figure 4.7a – Airport Area Transportation Plan (Detailed)

Source: April 2009 Draft Final Airport Area Transportation Plan

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-19

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

4.4

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

Alternatives Evaluation

The final issue to consider prior to alternative development is the creation of evaluation factors
for the analysis. For this study, these factors were developed to ensure that the selected
alternative was consistent with the role of Prescott Municipal Airport as follows:
•

Airport Utility and Efficiency: The preferred alternative should provide the maximum
possible utility and efficiency. By doing so, the Airport will achieve a key aspect of the
airport’ role, which is to develop and maintain facilities that meet the needs of its users
and surrounding community. The appropriate runway length is a key factor in achieving
this goal. Additionally, the overall configuration of the airport should be designed for
maximum operational efficiency.

•

Airport and Community Safety: This criterion is derived from the need to focus on
safety for both airport users and local citizens. To accomplish this, the preferred
alternative should meet all current FAA design standards, as defined by AC 150/5300-13,
Airport Design; which incorporate the results of years of research conducted by the FAA
on aircraft operating characteristics and accidents.

•

Environmental Impacts: The best alternative will maintain or improve the Airport’s
effort to be a good neighbor. Thus, the preferred alternative will have minimal negative
(and potentially positive) impacts to the community and the environment surrounding the
airport. Factors such as potential noise impacts, land use compatibility, and other
environmental issues will be broadly considered as part of this criterion. A more detailed
environmental assessment will be completed in the next chapter.

•

Estimated Cost: the relative cost of the alternatives will be a consideration in the
evaluation.

4.4.1

Evaluation

To address the airfield need of PRC, several alternatives were presented, and thus an evaluation
analysis is prudent in effort to formulate the best and most efficient preferred alternative concept.
The following alternatives will be evaluated as listed below and analyzed in Table 4.1:
•

No- Build- Status Quo: The No-Build – Status Quo Alternative is a baseline case that is
used to compare the existing facilities to the other alternatives. Since no development
takes place, there are no changes to the existing facilities and any design standards which
currently do not fully conform.

•

Airfield Alternatives A, B, and C

•

Landside Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-20

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Alternatives

No-Build

Airfield Alt. A

Airfield Alt. B

Airfield Alt. C

Alternatives
Landside Alt. 1

Landside Alt. 2

Landside Alt. 3

Table 4.1 - Airport Alternatives Evaluation Analysis
Airport Utility &
Airport &
Environmental
Efficiency
Community Safety
Impacts1
No improvements
to the RSAs,
No improvement or
None
missed opportunity
impacts to utility
on economic
and/or efficiency
benefits
Yes
RSA’s Improved to
Increased Noise
standard and 173Footprint, Land
acres of land
Use Impacts,
required for
Yes
and Temporary
acquisition for RPZ
Construction
protection as a
Impacts
result of runway
extensions
Yes
RSA’s Improved to
Increased Noise
standard and 143Footprint, Land
acres of land
Use Impacts,
required for
Yes
and Temporary
acquisition for RPZ
Construction
protection as a
Impacts
result of runway
extensions
Yes
RSA’s Improved to
Increased Noise
standard and 122Footprint, Land
acres of land
Use Impacts,
required for
Yes
and Temporary
acquisition for RPZ
Construction
protection as a
Impacts
result of runway
extensions
Airport Utility &
Airport &
Environmental
Efficiency
Community Safety
Impacts1
Potential
Yes
Not Applicable
increase in light
emissions.
Potential
Yes
Not Applicable
increase in light
emissions.
Potential
Yes
Not Applicable
increase in light
emissions.

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

Cost Estimates
(000)
$200
(annual pavement
maintenance &
upkeep)

$175,740

$173,510

$176,000

Cost Estimates
(000)
$74,065

$74,065

$74,065

1

An environmental overview is provided in Chapter 5. Prior to any development, a biological survey should be conducted to
evaluate the types of native vegetation to be disturbed by the proposed development and to determine whether any impacts to the
referenced species in Chapter 5 would be anticipated.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-21

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

4.5

Alternatives Analysis
FINAL

Recommended Development Concept & Summary

This chapter has attempted to outline alternative solutions to the key development issues at PRC.
Those key issues involved a runway extension, the location of the commercial terminal facilities,
the redevelopment of the general aviation area, and the adequacy of ground access to the
landside facilities.
Overall, a combination of Airfield Alternative A and B, along with Landside Alternative 1
appears to be the consensus towards the preferred alternative, with several modifications. Table
4.2 provides a summary of the preferred alternatives recommendation projects along with an
estimated cost, which are also illustrated in Figure 4.8:
Table 4.2
Preferred Airport Alternative
Primary Airport Projects
Estimated Cost
1. Provide a 3,365 foot extension to Runway 3R-21L
$13,400,000
2. Provide a 1,354 foot extension to Runway 3L-21R with 15 feet of
$7,320,000
additional width
3. Make standard all non-standard RSA for Runway 12-30 and Runway
3L-21R (RSA for Runway 3R-21L is corrected via the runway
$1,370,000
extension and shift provided in item #1 cost)
4. Taxiway extensions with 15’ shoulders (Taxiways A, C, D, F, and H)
$26,770,000
5. Highspeed taxiways off Runway 3R-21L
$4,050,000
6. Construct a new combined use commercial terminal building within the
$13,300,000
existing terminal area footprint
7. Relocate and construct a new ATCT
$12,300,000
8. Relocate and centralize the ARFF facility
$3,950,000
9. Construct a new Airport Administration/Maintenance facility
$5,570,000
10. Redevelop the existing general aviation areas (aprons and hangars)
$14,380,000
11. Install self-service fueling station
$20,000
12. Acquire land for runway extension and RPZ protection (145 acres)
$10,875,000
13. Acquire land for future east side airport development (138 acres)
$10,350,000
14. Design/construct airport perimeter road (58,470 s.y.)
$3,320,000
15. Install/relocate perimeter fence
$300,000
16. Environmental Assessment
$250,000
17. Provide ground access improvements
To Be Determined
Estimated Total
$127,525,000
Based upon these development recommendations, all of the "unconstrained" forecast could be
accommodated. In an effort to move forward, preliminary recommended airside and landside
concepts have been proposed to the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and the public. Pending
review of the preferred alternative and input from the PAC, as well as the public, the Capital
Improvement Plan (Chapter 6) will present a refinement of this basic development concept into a
final plan with recommendations and timing for the overall development program.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

4-22

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

5.0

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

Environmental Evaluation

In the last chapter, a preferred airport development plan for the Airport was developed. This plan
identified projects for airport improvements to meet anticipated demand throughout the planning
period. The elements of the proposed development plan displayed on the Airport Layout Plan
(ALP) include the following major projects:
Airside:
ƒ Runway Extensions
ƒ Runway Safety Area Improvements
ƒ Taxiway System Improvements
ƒ General Aviation Redevelopment
Landside:
ƒ Passenger Terminal
ƒ Land Acquisition

5.1

Environmental Evaluation

Any major improvements at the Prescott Municipal Airport require compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Compliance with NEPA is usually satisfied by
preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This
chapter of the Master Plan is not designed to satisfy NEPA, it provides a preliminary review of
environmental factors to be considered in a subsequent environmental analysis such as an EA or
EIS. This chapter serves as a compilation of pertinent environmental data relative to the Airport,
including physical setting, noise, water resources, ecology, air quality, hazardous materials, and
historical and cultural resource categories as defined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6A,
Airport Master Plans, and FAA Order 5050.4B, Airport Environmental Handbook. This Section
will review the NEPA environmental categories that would be thoroughly evaluated in an EA or
EIS.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-1

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

5.1.1

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

Noise Impacts

The Master Plan developed baseline noise contours for the Airport that are presented in Chapter
1 – Baseline Conditions and can be found in Section 1.5.3 and Figure 1.16. A runway extension
will modify these noise contours and the follow-on Environmental Analysis should analyze the
noise impacts associated with the Phase I projects to be considered for implementation.
In accordance with the compatible land use analysis, the results should look to identify any
incompatible land uses in accordance with FAA regulations and guidelines.
5.1.2

Compatible Land Use

The Master Plan process developed a Land Use Plan that is included as an Appendix to this
document. The follow-on environmental process should use the information developed in this
document to further analyze compatible land use as it relates to the proposed Phase I airport
development projects.
This review should also be coordinated with the EA’s noise analysis to be used as a guide to
determine potential incompatible land uses in the vicinity of the Prescott Municipal Airport.
5.1.3

Social Impacts

The proposed projects will require land acquisition of currently undeveloped property and will
not require relocation of homes or businesses, or other associated impacts on the community
(any noise impacts are evaluated under that category). Nor will the project adversely or
differentially affect any group on the basis of ethnicity or race, income, or age.
Overall the social impacts of the projects are expected to be positive. According to the Master
Plan, there will be a Phase I investment of approximately $53.4 million to implement the projects
and that will result directly in employment related to design, construction and construction
support.
The projects are anticipated to be funded in part with the FAA Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) grants. Since the FAA distributes these grant monies based on a number of factors such as
the type of project (with safety standards receiving the highest priority) and type of service
(commercial, general aviation), it is anticipated that the projects described here will most likely
take place over a number of years as funding becomes available. As a result, any perceived
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-2

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

construction related impacts will be spread over several years rather then being condensed into
one or two construction seasons.
The development on the Airport has no known direct off-airport impacts. In addition, there are
no known areas of minority and low-income residents in the Airport vicinity. This should be
confirmed during the follow-on environmental analysis, but as stated, the principles of
environmental justice are not triggered here.
5.1.4

Induced Socioeconomic Impacts

Induced socioeconomic impacts are those impacts that are generally associated with large airport
development projects that cause secondary impacts to the communities surrounding the airport.
These impacts include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Increases in public service demands;
Shifts in patterns of population movement and growth; and/or
Changes in business and economic activity to the extent influenced by airport
development.

The proposed projects would not significantly change the operational characteristics of the
Airport. As such, these projects will not result in a substantial change in local business and
economic activity, or public service demands. Although airport activity is anticipated to naturally
grow over the next twenty years, the projects are primarily designed to enhance the safety and
operational service limitations of the existing facilities.
Due to the nature of the projects, population movement and growth would not be affected. The
proposed projects should have no adverse impact on the local and regional labor and housing
markets. There is a sufficient supply of local construction laborers to fulfill the demand for
construction employees.
The proposed projects would likely induce positive economic impacts for the surrounding
communities. Local suppliers will likely see an increase in services and materials related to
diesel and gasoline, hardware, food service, and lodging. The airport, with the proposed projects
implemented would likely attract additional users and enhance the communities economic base.
The socioeconomic impacts associated with the Master Plan projects are expected to be positive.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-3

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

5.1.5

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

Air Quality

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines ambient air in Code of Federal
Regulations 40, Part 50, as “that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the
general public has access”. In compliance with the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 1977 and
1990 Amendments (CAAA), the EPA has promulgated ambient air quality standards and
regulations. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were enacted for the
protection of the public health and welfare, allowing for an adequate margin of safety. To date,
the EPA has established NAAQS for six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM10), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb).
There are two types of standards: primary and secondary. Primary standards are designed to
protect sensitive segments of the population from adverse health effects, with an adequate
margin of safety, which may result from exposure to criteria pollutants. Secondary standards are
designed to protect human health and welfare and, therefore, in some cases, are more stringent
than the primary standards. Human welfare is considered to include the natural environment
(vegetation) and the manmade environment (physical structures). Areas that are below the
standards are in “attainment,” while those that equal or exceed the standards are in “nonattainment.” All of City of Prescott is an attainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard.
The region surrounding PRC is largely rural and agricultural. There are no obvious air pollution
emission sources located in proximity to the Airport with non-point air pollution from
automobile and airplane exhaust most likely the main source of air pollution emissions in the
area. It is not anticipated that these emissions are of a level that warrants concern.
Given that Prescott Municipal Airport is a general aviation airport with more than 180,000
annual general aviation operations through the forecast period, in accordance with FAA Order
5050.4B, Airport Environmental Handbook (Section 47.e.(5)(c)1a), an air quality assessment for
long term impacts is required for proposed projects that will increase these passenger and
operations numbers.
5.1.6

Water Quality

Potential water quality impacts associated with airport expansion projects include increased
surface runoff among others. Implementation of the Phase I airport improvements will increase
impervious surfaces at the Airport increasing both the airside and landside stormwater runoff.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-4

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

Recommendations in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10 Standards for Specifying
Construction of Airports, Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation
Control should be incorporated in project specifications.
Further, surface and underground water around the Airport are part of the Prescott Active
Management Areas (AMA). Surface water in the vicinity includes Bottleneck Wash, to the north
parallel to Runway 3L-21R, and Granite Creek to the south. Bottleneck Wash is usually a dry
wash collecting water runoff from the hills to the north of the Airport, while Granite Creek has a
larger role in the drainage of the area and its flow is partially regulated by Goldwater Reservoirs
on Bannon Creek and by Willow Creek and Watson Reservoirs. Due to the limited surface water
supply, most of its supply is drawn from deep wells into the Big Chino sub-basin of the Verde
Basin. According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources and Prescott AMA,
groundwater resources are overdrawn and the City of Prescott is actively engaged in water
conservation and monitoring to reach a safe yield in water supply. The City of Prescott has
proven the physical availability of up to 11,200 acre-feet per year of groundwater withdrawal
within the Prescott AMA has the legal right to import up to 14,000 acre-feet per year from the
Big Chino sub-basin.
All applicable regulations, requirements, and procedures should be applied including:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
5.1.7

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit
Preparation of a Notice of Intent
Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Construction Best Management Practices
Army Corps of Engineers Permits
Requirements of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands

Surface and underground water around the Airport are part of the Prescott Active Management
Areas (AMA). Surface water in the vicinity includes Bottleneck Wash, to the north parallel to
Runway 3L-21R, and Granite Creek to the south. Bottleneck Wash is usually a dry wash
collecting water runoff from the hills to the north of the Airport, while Granite Creek has a larger
role in the drainage of the area and its flow is partially regulated by Goldwater Reservoirs on
Bannon Creek and by Willow Creek and Watson Reservoirs. Due to the limited surface water
supply, most of its supply is drawn from deep wells into the Big Chino sub-basin of the Verde
Basin. According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources and Prescott AMA,
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-5

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

groundwater resources are overdrawn and the City of Prescott is actively engaged in water
conservation and monitoring to reach a safe yield in water supply. The City of Prescott has
proven the physical availability of up to 11,200 acre-feet per year of groundwater withdrawal
within the Prescott AMA has the legal right to import up to 14,000 acre-feet per year from the
Big Chino sub-basin.
Granite Creek is listed as an impaired water for dissolved oxygen. Also data shows there may be
future concerns regarding E coli and mercury levels. Any future activities near Granite Creek
could not contribute to further any pollutants.
The proposed airport development activity may require a Department of the Army permit issued
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 404 permit is required for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into the “waters of the United States,” including adjacent wetlands.
Examples of activities requiring a permit are placing bank protection, temporary or permanent
stock-piling of excavated material, grading roads, grading (including vegetative clearing
operations) that involves the filling of low areas or leveling of land, constructing wiers or
diversion dikes, constructing approach fills, and discharging dredged or fill material as part of
any other activity.
Prior to any development activities, the Airport should request a jurisdictional delineation from
the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers for the development area including the future
proposed airport property. This delineation would identify any waters of the U.S., including
wetlands and intermittent streams, under jurisdiction of this agency.
(See Department of the Army agency coordination letter in the Appendix of this Master Plan).
5.1.8

Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (Section 106),
requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to evaluate potential effects on properties
listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) prior to
an undertaking. An undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part
under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including, among other things,
processes requiring a Federal permit, license, or approval. In this case, the undertaking is the
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan. Potential effects associated with improvements
proposed in this Master Plan may include those resulting from ground disturbance, construction,
or subsequent operation of the Airport.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-6

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

Historic properties are cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the National Register.
Historic properties represent things, structures, places, or archaeological sites that can be either
Native American or Euro-American in origin. In most cases, cultural resources less than 50 years
old are not considered eligible for the National Register. Cultural resources also have to have
enough internal contextual integrity to be considered historic properties. For example,
dilapidated structures or heavily disturbed archaeological sites may not have enough contextual
integrity to be considered eligible.
Section 106 also requires that the FAA seek concurrence with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) on any finding involving effects or no effects to historic properties, and allow
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) an opportunity to comment on any
finding of effects to historic properties. If Native American properties have been identified,
Section 106 also requires that the FAA consult with interested Indian tribes that might attach
religious or cultural significance to such properties.
The follow-on environmental analysis of the proposed Phase I improvements should utilize a
qualified cultural resources specialist to inspect the project area(s) to determine the presence or
absence of cultural resources. (See agency coordination letters in the Appendix of this Master
Plan).
5.1.9

DOT 4(f) Lands

PRC is located within an area of mixed commercial, residential and agriculture land use. There
are many parks and recreational areas in the City of Prescott. There are no parks within the
immediate vicinity of Prescott Municipal Airport with the exception of the golf resort south of
the airport property.
5.1.10 Threatened or Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) believes that no endangered or threatened
species or critical habitat will be affected by this project; nor is the proposed development likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species or adversely modify any proposed
critical habitat.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) accessed current records and indicates that
there is no presence of special status species in the project vicinity (3-mile radius).
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-7

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

The follow-on environmental analysis should further coordinate with USFWS and AGFD
regarding the specific plans of the Phase I projects to be environmentally evaluated. (See
USFWS and AGFD agency coordination letters in the Appendix of this Master Plan).
5.1.11 Floodplains
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance Rate Maps
(2001) for the City of Prescott, the Airport is outside of a mapped floodplain as “Zone A” which
is related to Granite Creek.
According to the City of Prescott Land Development Code section 6.6 : “all developments within
FEMA-delineated floodplain boundaries shall adhere to the Floodplain Regulations of the
Prescott City Code, Title XIII. All drainage shall be designed by an Arizona licensed
Professional Engineer following the City of Prescott Drainage Criteria Manual.”
All Phase I of the follow-on environmental analysis should consult the information provided in
the Yavapai County letter provided in the Appendix of this Master Plan as well as further
coordination with the City of Prescott’s Floodplain Administrator.
5.1.12 Coastal Zone Management Program
FAA Order 5050.4B requires that Federal actions be consistent with the objectives and purposes
of approved State coastal zone management programs, if in effect. Arizona is not is not a costal
state and is not subjected to the requirements of Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act to develop
coastal zone management programs.
5.1.13 Coastal Barriers
The Coastal Barriers Act of 1982 does not apply to Arizona, and to Prescott Municipal Airport.
5.1.14 Wild and Scenic Rivers
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 as amended) protects rivers designated for their
wild and scenic values from activities which may adversely impact those values. The only
designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in Arizona is the Verde River, about 30 miles northeast of
Prescott Municipal Airport.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

5.1.15 Farmland
Soil types beneath the Airport were mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service (now known as the Natural Resources Conservation Service), as described
in Section 1.5.4, primary natural soil types at Prescott Municipal Airport are Lonti and Lynx
soils.
Farmland is broken into the following categories by the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act:
prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. Prime farmland is
defined by NRCS as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics
for producing feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses. The
majority of land on the Airport and within a 2-mile radius of the Airport is not a prime land
suitable farmland. The predominant non-hydric soils, on and adjacent to the Airport, are not
considered suitable farmland soils. These soils have severe limitations that make them generally
unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or
wildlife habitat, and the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is
maintained.
The soils on the Airport are not protected under the Federal Farmland Protection Act, and it is
not necessary to contact the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for
completion of a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form. (See NRCA agency coordination
letter in the Appendix of this Master Plan).
5.1.16 Energy Supply and Natural Resources
The use of energy to support the proposed projects would largely involve the use of additional
fuels in construction and demolition machinery, as well as small increase in energy demand
through the use of additional electricity to power runway and taxiway lighting as well as the
buildings and hangars proposed. The proposed Airport development projects do not require use
of unusual materials in short supply; therefore, energy supplies and natural resources are not
significantly affected by the proposed program.
5.1.17 Light Emissions
With the exception of the lighting (edge and approach) to support the runway and taxiway
extensions, there are no significant changes to airport lighting associated with the preferred
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-9

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

alternative. In the development of the landside projects, special care should be taken to ensure
that light emissions do not impact adjacent properties through design specifications, including
downward facing lights where appropriate.
The follow-on environmental assessment should review the final location of all lighting
associated with Phase I projects.
5.1.18 Solid Waste Impact
Waste disposal during project implementation should be managed separately from normal airport
solid waste management operations. The preferred development alternative will not significantly
increase long term solid waste volumes; therefore, solid wastes are not expected to be affected by
the proposed airport improvement program.
Wastes generated during the proposed projects should be managed on an individual basis.
Demolition debris will be managed in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations and
opportunities for recycling of these materials should be explored.
5.1.19 Construction Impacts
Potential impacts from construction and demolition equipment and activity may include noise
and dust at the project sites and during delivery of equipment through local streets, creation of
borrow pits and disposal of spoil, air pollution, and water pollution from erosion. These potential
impacts, some of which were addressed in preceding sections on noise, air quality, and water
quality, are expected to be short-term and temporary and largely limited to the areas of the
project sites (with the exception of equipment transport to the site).
With regard to concerns about air and water quality resulting from the operation of construction
equipment, the provisions of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370 10 Standards for Specifying
Construction of Airports, Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation
Control should be incorporated in project specifications.
5.1.20 Environmental Permitting in Arizona
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Established by the Arizona
Legislature in 1986 regulates activities that may affect the State’s natural resources and
environment through multiple permitting programs, as well as other environmental policies. The
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-10

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

Federal and local governments also regulate activities that can affect the environment. Some of
the permits that may be required for various potential projects as described in an FAA Advisory
Circular for airport master planning (FAA, 2005) include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

ƒ

Clean Water Act, Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit;
Air Quality Permit for on-site batch plants or other construction-related activities;
Local government construction permits;
Growth Management Permits;
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service opinions, or
State Wildlife and Game Commission permits, if protected and endangered species could
be impacted; and
Clean Water Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits.

Many airport-related capital projects require Federal, State, or local environmental permits. A
summary of some of the potential permitting requirements is provided here:
Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) Permit Program. As described in
the Arizona Administrative Code at 18 A.A.C. 9, Art 9 all facilities that discharge pollutants
from any point source into waters of the United States are required to obtain or seek coverage
under an AZPDES permit.
Construction General Permit (AZG2003-001). The CGP authorizes stormwater discharges from
large and small construction-related activities where those discharges have a potential to enter
surface waters of the United States or a storm drain system. It includes ephemeral washes,
intermittent streams, playas, and wetlands. To be covered by the CGP, applicants must submit a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Stormwater Coordinator at ADEQ.
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for construction activities
covered by the permit. The SWPPP shall identify potential sources of pollutants that may
reasonably be expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges associated with the
construction activity. In addition, the SWPPP shall describe and ensure the implementation of
best management practices to be used to reduce or eliminate the pollutants in the storm water
discharge at the site and assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the RIPDES permit.
Upon completion of projects completed under the AZPDES permit, the airport’s Facility SWPPP
for Industrial Activities shall be amended to reflect the changes/alterations resulting from the
construction activities.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-11

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

An Aquifer Protection Permit, or APP, may be required for discharges of pollutants either
directly to an aquifer or to the land surface or the vadose zone (the area between an aquifer and
the land surface) in such a manner that there is a reasonable probability that the pollutant will
reach an aquifer. A.R.S. §§ 49-241 through 49-252, and A.A.C. R18-9-101 through R18-9-403
Class II Permits. Class II permits are issued to sources that do not qualify for Class I permits and
that meet the requirements of “A.A.C. Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 302(B)(2)” Such sources
include: Sources that have the potential to emit significant quantities of regulated air pollutants
as defined in “A.A.C. Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 101(104)(a)”. It may be required from the
AZPDES division of Air Quality to address temporary siting and emissions from a temporary
batch asphalt plant should one be necessary for potential airport projects.

5.2

Airport Noise Abatement Review

In review of the Airport’s noise abatement procedures, the existing plan was reviewed. The
following information is taken directly from the Airport’s website and is provided for context.
“Until recently, the airport was located away from the population centers of Prescott,
Prescott Valley and Chino Valley. As the population of the tri-city area continues to grow,
moving residential development closer to the airport, the natural buffer zone that once
protected the airport is gradually disappearing. Adding to the aviation activity in our area
is the weather. The abundance of clear skies in the Arizona area has fostered a worldwide
reputation for excellent flying conditions. So the same reason that so many people decide to
locate in the tri-city area has brought about a high level of aviation activity.

Much of the traffic comes from flight training activities conducted by Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University and other flight schools. Other activity includes personal aviation,
scheduled airline service, corporate & business aviation, and the military. The community
benefits of these activities include medical flights, search & rescue flights, law
enforcement, fire bomber operations during the summer months, air tours to the Grand
Canyon, etc.

The Prescott Municipal Airport is an integral part of the local, regional and national air
transportation system providing essential aviation services. Regional population and
economic growth are anticipated to increase all segments of aviation at the airport.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-12

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

In an effort to help minimize the potential impact upon the airport from residential
encroachment and to allow for the development of the surrounding areas, the Airport and
the City of Prescott initiated an Airport Study Area Plan (ASAP). For further area
information you may wish to contact the City’s Planning Services office at 928-777-1207
and/or check the Arizona Department of Real Estate website.

For further information relating to the noise abatement policies of the airport, please feel
free to contact airport management at 928-777-1114.
Noise Abatement Policies
The procedures described below are designed to minimize aircraft noise disturbance to
homes near the Prescott Airport. Your compliance with our noise abatement procedures is
extremely important in maintaining goodwill between the airport and the surrounding
communities. These procedures as Voluntary - No noise abatement procedure should
compromise safety. Please take a few moments to become familiar with the procedures, and
keep this sheet in your flight case for future reference. Thank you for your cooperation and
support.
Traffic Pattern Altitudes
Small Single-Engine & Multiengine Airplanes
(maximum
certificated
takeoff
weight
less
than
1,000 Feet Above Ground Level (AGL) – ALL RUNWAYS
Turbojet & Large Multiengine Airplanes
(maximum
certificated
takeoff
weight
over
1,500 Feet Above Ground Level (AGL) – ALL RUNWAYS

12,500

12,500

lbs.)

lbs.)

The airport currently has the following noise abatement policies in place:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Runway 21L is designated “calm wind” runway.
When Runway 21L is in use – Maintain runway heading until crossing Highway 89.
When Runway 30 is in use – Left traffic for aircraft in closed traffic.
When Runway 12 is in use – Right traffic for aircraft in closed traffic.
Departure from Runways 12, 30 and 03R will be discouraged during the following
times:
o Monday through Friday prior to 7:00 a.m.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-13

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

Weekends and holidays prior to 8:00 a.m
Piston aircraft operators are requested to use AOPA “Noise Awareness Steps”
Turbine/Jet aircraft operators are requested to use NBAA “Noise Abatement
Program” procedures or comparable procedures of aircraft manufacturer.
Helicopter operators are requested to use HAI “Recommended Noise Abatement
Measures”
o

6.
7.
8.

Complaints
To register an official aircraft complaint with the airport please call 928-777-1150 and
leave the following information:
•
•
•

•

Your name, address and telephone number
The date and time of the occurrence
A brief description of the event including: Nature of complaint (noise, low flying,
traffic, safety, etc.); Aircraft type (propeller, jet, helicopter); Aircraft description
(color, number of engines, high wing/low wing, etc.); Type of operation (takeoff,
landing, overflight, aerobatics, etc.)
Please indicate if you would like a staff member to return your call

Management staff is available to respond to complaints during normal business hours
Monday through Friday, however, Airport Operations staff will investigate complaints
received after normal business hours and weekends with airport traffic control tower staff
and pass that information to Management for follow-up. Complaints that contain vulgar or
threatening language will not be acted upon.”

These noise abatement procedures are adequate for the activity levels that are currently
experienced at the Airport. In conjunction with the noise impact analysis to be conducted as part
of the Environmental Assessment and after implementation of the proposed projects, these
procedures should continue to be reviewed and updated on a periodic basis.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

5-14

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

5.3

Environmental Evaluation
FINAL

Summary

The basis of this environmental review was to provide input into the required NEPA process
through the subsequent planned Environmental Assessment. During this EA process, each NEPA
impact category will be thoroughly analyzed to assess all impacts and determine any required
mitigation efforts to offset the potential impacts that are identified.
The EA process will also provide an additional opportunity for engaging the input of public
interests through coordination, consultation and public information meetings. At a minimum,
subsequent environmental analyses and planning should place emphasis on the NEPA impact
categories indicated in Table 5-1 with regard to the capital projects identified in this Master Plan.
Of course all impact categories must be considered in environmental planning, but the Master
Planning process has identified specific categories that may require greater documentation
efforts than others.

Environmental Assessment

x

Acquire land for runway extension and RPZ protection (145 acres)

x

x

x

Non-standard RSA corrections for Runway 12-30 and Runway 3L-21R

x

x

Construct a new Commercial Terminal Building within the existing terminal area footprint

x

x

x

Environmental Permitting in Arizona

Construction Impacts

Solid Waste Impact

Light Emissions

Energy Supply and Natural
Resources

Farmland

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Coastal Barriers

Coastal Zone Management Program

Floodplains

Threatened or Endangered Species
of Flora and Fauna

DOT 4(f) Lands

Historic, Architectural, Archaeological,
and Cultural Resources

Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands

Water Quality

Air Quality

Induced Socioeconomic Impacts

Social Impacts

Compatible Land Use

Noise Impacts

Table 5-1
Known NEPA Emphasis Required

x
x
x

Relocate and centralize the ARFF facility
Runway Extension - 3,365 foot extension to 3R-21L

x

x

Taxiway Extensions with 15’ shoulders (Taxiways A, C, D, F, and H)

x

x

x

x

x

x

Redevelop the existing general aviation areas (aprons and hangars)
Highspeed taxiways off Runway 3R-21L
Acquire land for future east side airport development (138 acres)

x

x

Design/construct airport perimeter road (58,470 s.y.)
Install/relocate perimeter fence
Construct a new Airport Administration/Maintenance facility
Runway Extension - 1,354 foot extension to 3L-21R with 15 feet widening

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Relocate and construct a new ATCT
Install self-service fueling station
Provide ground access improvements

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

x

x

5-15

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

6.0

Capital Improvement Program
FINAL

Capital Improvement Program

The Capital Improvement Program addresses the phased scheduling of projects identified in this
Master Plan and their financial implications on the resources of the Airport and the City of
Prescott. The phased Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) presented in this chapter estimates the
costs of each project and identifies the potential sources of funding from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), and from other
sources. The development shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) is demand based and subject
to available funding limitations. The CIP will be realistic and essential to airport maintenance
and safety, and the longer term developments will be pursued as aviation demand warrants.
There is no guarantee of if/when projects will be undertaken.
Final implementation of the recommendations made in this Chapter is subject to appropriate
environmental evaluation and final approval by FAA, ADOT, and other regulations.

6.1

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

The Capital Improvement Program provides a schedule of development for the proposed projects
identified in this master plan. The schedule is based on a twenty year planning period and
separated into three phases:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Phase 1 (2010 – 2015)
Phase 2 (2016 – 2020)
Phase 3 (2021 – 2030)

The Phase 1 projects identified in the Master Plan constitutes what is commonly referred to as
the Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) by FAA. The Phase 2 projects are those more
appropriately identified for inclusion in the FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport System
(NPIAS). The 10-year outlook in the NPIAS report to Congress develops national airport needs
on a broader scale. Finally, the last phase of development is a general range of projects for the 10
to 20-year period and obviously much more speculative. Both the Phase 2 and Phase 3 projects
provide the Airport and FAA with an outlook of future needs, but as they move into the near
term horizon they need to be re-assessed as demand changes or funding sources are better
defined.
Order-of-magnitude engineering costs were developed for each of the master plan projects. The
FAA will fund eligible projects, as defined under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Such
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

6-1

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Capital Improvement Program
FINAL

projects include pavements, lighting, utilities, airport roadways, and some types of airport
vehicles. Projects that are ineligible can include conventional hangars and t-hangars, and
facilities run for profit. The projects are usually completed with either the Sponsor’s funding or
from funds from a private operator such as a Fixed Base Operator (FBO), Aviation Services
Operator or local pilot’s association.
There are some exceptions to the above. The FAA will partially participate in the development of
terminals and Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facilities. For terminals, the FAA
participates only for public areas. Areas that are revenue producing are borne by the Airport.
It should be noted that the CIP is based on the assumption that the Airport’s activity will grow
consistent with the forecasts derived in this Master Plan, and that the facilities will be developed
when required to meet demand. If actual activity does not meet forecast demand, the
implementation of the project schedule should be modified as necessary.
The cost estimates associated with the Master Plan projects reflect allowances for Sponsor
administration (2%), engineering/design (8% up to 12%), contingencies (15%), and construction
management (12%). In addition, project costs will be required to be escalated to account for
future inflation in Phase 2 and Phase 3 projects using the United States Consumer Price Index
ratio for any given year. On average the CPI inflation has increased by 4 percent annually.
Airport development projects that meet the FAA's discretionary funds eligibility requirements
could receive up to 91.06 percent of the project cost from the AIP. Table 6.1 through Table 6.3
provides the 20-year ACIP for Prescott Municipal Airport, organized into the following three
phases:
•
•
•

6.1.1

Phase 1 (0 to 5 years)
Phase 2 (6 to 10 years)
Phase 3 (11 to 20 years).

Phase 1 Development (2010 – 2015)

Phase 1 development consists of the following capital projects:
1-A:
1-B:
1-C:
1-D:
1-E:
1-F:

Environmental Assessment (EA)
Acquire land for runway extensions and RPZ protection (145 acres)
Non-standard RSA corrections for Runway 12-30 and Runway 3L-21R
Construct a new Commercial Terminal Building
Relocate and centralize the ARFF facility
Runway 3R-21L extension (Phase 1 extension to 9,300 feet)

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

6-2

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

1-G:
1-H:
1-I:
1-J:
1-K:
1-L:
1-M:

Capital Improvement Program
FINAL

Taxiway ‘D’ extension with 15 foot shoulder
Taxiway ‘C’ extension with 15 foot shoulder
Taxiway ‘F’ realignment
General aviation area: 122,000 s.f. apron (bottleneck area)
General aviation area: 60 T-hangars (includes pads and taxilanes)
General aviation area: 1 conventional hangar (bottleneck area)
Install self-service fuel station (bottle neck area)
Table 6.1
Phase 1 (2010 – 2015) Project Cost

Project
1-A: EA

Cost
FAA
ADOT
Airport
Other
$ 250,000
$227,650
$11,175
$11,175

1-B: Land Acquisition -145 acres total
-Runway 21L & 21R RPZs (138 acres)

$10,350,000

$9,424,710

$462,645

$462,645

- Runway 30 RPZ (1.4 acres)

$105,000

$95,613

$4,693

$4,694

-Runway 12 RPZ (5.6 acres)

$420,000

$383,452

$18,274

$18,274

$2,795,000

$2,545,127

$124,936

$124,937

$220,000

$200,332

$9,834

$9,834

$13,300,000

$9,975,000

$1,189,020

$2,135,980

1-E: ARFF Facility

$3,950,000

$3,596,870

$353,130

$353,130

1-F: RWY 3R-21L Partial Extension

$5,595,000

$5,094,807

$250,096

$250,097

1-G: Taxiway ‘D’ Extension (partial)

$4,129,000

$3,759,868

$184,566

$184,566

1-H: Taxiway ‘C’ Extension (partial)

$3,654,000

$3,327,332

$163,334

$163,334

1-I: Taxiway ‘F’ Realignment

$2,647,000

$2,410,358

$118,321

$118,321

1-J: 122,000 s.f. apron

$1,650,000

$1,502,490

$73,755

$73,755

1-K: 60 T-hangars

$1,800,000

$1,800,000

1-L: 1 Conventional Hangar

$7,500,000

$7,500,000

$20,000

$20,000

1-C: Non-Standard RSAs
-Runway 12-30 Shift (150 feet) & Add
Shoulders
-Runway 3L RSA Grading
1-D: Commercial Terminal Bldg.

1-M: Self service fuel station
Total – Phase 1:

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

$58,385,000

$42,543,609

$2,963,779

$3,910,742

$9,320,000

6-3

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

6.1.2

Capital Improvement Program
FINAL

Phase 2 Development (2016 – 2020)

Phase 2 development consists of the following capital projects:
2-A:
2-B:
2-C:
2-D:
2-E:
2-F:
2-G:
2-H:
2-I:
2-J:
2-K:

Runway 3R-21L extension (Phase 2 to 10,570 feet)
Taxiway ‘C’ extension
Taxiway ‘D’ extension
Highspeed taxiways of Runway 3L-21R
Acquire land for future east side airport development (138 acres)
Design/construct airport perimeter road (58,470s.y.)
Install/relocate perimeter fence
Construct a new Airport Administration/Maintenance facility
General aviation area: 224,000 s.f. apron (adjacent to Taxiway F extension) rehab
General aviation area: 36 T-hangars (includes taxilanes) construct
General aviation area: 1 conventional hangar (bottleneck area) construct
Table 6.2
Phase 2 (2016 – 2020) Project Costs

Project

Cost

FAA

ADOT

Airport

Other

2-A: Runway 3R-21L extension

$7,805,000

$7,107,233

$348,883

$348,884

2-B: Taxiway C extension

$4,939,000

$4,497,453

$220,773

$220,774

2-C: Taxiway D extension

$5,581,000

$5,082,058

$249,471

$249,471

2-D: Highspeed taxiways

$4,050,000

$3,687,930

$181,035

$181,035

2-E: Acquire land (east side)

$10,350,000

$9,424,710

$462,645

$462,645

2-F: Airport perimeter road

$3,320,000

$3,023,192

$148,404

$148,404

$300,000

$273,180

$13,410

$13,410

2-H: Admin./maintenance facility

$5,570,000

$5,072,042

$248,979

$248,979

2-I: 224,000 s.f. apron

$2,447,000

$2,228,238

$109,381

$109,381

2-J: 36 T-hangars

$1,080,000

$1,080,000

2-K: 1 Conventional hangar

$7,500,000

$7,500,000

2-G: Perimeter fence

Total – Phase 2:

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

$52,942,000

$40,396,036

$1,982,981

$1,982,983

$8,580,000

6-4

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

6.1.3

Capital Improvement Program
FINAL

Phase 3 Development (2021 – 2030)

Phase 3 development consists of the following capital projects:
3-A:
3-B:
3-C:
3-D:
3-E:
3-F:
3-G:

Runway 3L-21R extension/widening (1,354’ additional length & 15’ add’l width)
Taxiway ‘A’ extension
Taxiway ‘H’ extension
Relocate and construct a new Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
General aviation area: 147,000 s.f. additional (adjacent to Club House Road)
construct
General aviation area: 1 conventional hangar w/apron (adjacent to Embry Riddle)
construct
General aviation area: 48 additional T-hangars (bottleneck area) construct
Table 6.3
Phase 3 (2021 – 2030) Project Costs

Project
3-A: Runway 3L-21R extension

Cost
FAA
ADOT
Airport
Other
$7,260,000
$6,610,956
$324,522
$324,522

3-B: Taxiway A extension

$3,727,000

$3,393,806

$166,597

$166,597

3-C: Taxiway H extension

$ 4,188,000

$3,813,592

$187,204

$187,204

3-D: ATCT construction

$12,332,000

$11,229,519

$551,241

$551,241

3-E: 247,000 s.f. aprons

$3,216,000

$2,928,489

$143,756

$143,756

3-F: 1 conventional hangar w/ apron

$4,455,000

$4,455,000

3-G: 48 T-hangars (bottleneck)

$2,400,000

$2,400,000

Total – Phase 3:

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

$37,578,000

$27,976,362

$1,373,320

$1,373,320

$6,855,000

6-5

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

6.2

Capital Improvement Program
FINAL

Funding Sources

There are various sources of funding available to airports. Specifically, Prescott Municipal
Airport has the following available:
ƒ

ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

FAA Airport Improvement Program
o Entitlement Funds
o Discretionary Funds
FAA Facilities and Equipment
Passenger Facility Charge Program
Arizona Aviation Fund
State Airport Loan Program
Local Funding

FAA Airport Improvement Program – The legislation that currently authorizes the FAA to
issue Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants for airport eligible projects expired September
30, 2007. The FAA has been operating on continuing resolutions since 2007 and the FAA
reauthorization legislation is currently being debated in Congress and it is too speculative to
determine the outcome of the new legislation that will ultimately be passed by Congress and
approved by the President. For the purpose of this Chapter it is assumed that the existing AIP
requirements and funding sources will continue.
AIP monies are distributed to airports in two ways: in the form of entitlements (based upon
actual levels of passenger enplanements), and through discretionary grants. The City is currently
eligible for both discretionary and entitlement grants and it is anticipated that will continue
throughout the planning period. In Arizona, airport development projects that meet the FAA's
discretionary funds eligibility requirements, could receive up to 91.06 percent of the project cost
from the AIP.
•

AIP Entitlement Funds – The AIP provides entitlement grants for eligible
commercial and general aviation airports. Funding for commercial service airports is
based on a formula using the airport’s passenger enplanements reported two calendar
years prior to the current grant year. Specifically, commercial service airports are
given entitlement funding based on a graduated method developed by the FAA that
equates to a lower per enplanement entitlement for an airport as the total enplanement
level increases. This process is used to offset funding disparity, to the extent possible,
resulting from the vastly different levels of enplanements that occur at US airports,
from less than 10,000 enplanements per year at small airports, such as Prescott, to

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

6-6

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Capital Improvement Program
FINAL

tens of millions of enplanements at major hub airports. AIP provides eligible primary
commercial service airports (those with at least 10,000 annual enplanements) with a
minimum amount of $1,000,000 per year.
The FAA evaluates airport grant requests using a published priority ranking system
that is weighted toward safety, airfield pavement and airfield capacity projects,
although other non-airfield projects such as terminal buildings and main
access/entrance roads, are also eligible. Within the entitlement amount granted, up to
95% (as opposed to the up to 91.06% associated with the Discretionary program
below) of eligible project costs are funded, with the remaining 5% provided from
other non-Federal, local airport sources. Prescott Municipal Airport will be eligible to
receive AIP commercial service entitlement grants if commercial passenger service is
sustained.
•

AIP Discretionary Funds – Additional funds from the discretionary apportionments
under the AIP are desirable. The primary feature of AIP discretionary funds that must
be recognized is that these funds are distributed on a priority basis. These priorities
are established on a national basis following criteria established by the FAA. Since
the AIP program funds up to 91.06 percent of eligible projects, it is essential to most
public airport development programs. As a result, the airport will be competing with
other airports in Arizona, the FAA Western Pacific Region, as well as the remainder
of the country for discretionary funds. Whereas entitlement monies are guaranteed on
an annual basis, discretionary funds are not assured.

•

FAA Facilities and Equipment – Within the FAA's budget appropriation, funding is
available in the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Fund to purchase navigational aids
and air safety-related technical equipment for use at commercial service airports in
the national airport system. F&E funds are provided on a discretionary basis by the
FAA.

•

Passenger Facility Charges – The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program allows
the collection of PFC fees up to $4.50 for every enplaned passenger at commercial
airports controlled by public agencies. Airports use these fees to fund FAA-approved
projects that enhance safety, security, or capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier
competition. If this program is implemented at an Airport, the FAA provides a
formula that reduces the AIP entitlement funding.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

6-7

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

•

Capital Improvement Program
FINAL

Arizona Aviation Fund – Another source of funds available for airports in the State
of Arizona 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. These funds have the dual
objective of maximizing the effective use of the Fund's dollars for Arizona airport
improvements, while attracting maximum federal AIP funds.
The Transportation Policy Board establishes the policies for distribution of these
State dollars. Projects are considered within the priorities established for each of four
airport categories: Commercial Service and Reliever Airports, airports in the Primary
system, airports in the Secondary system and special projects. Prescott Municipal
Airport is currently considered a Commercial Service facility. The City can obtain
one half (up to 4.47 percent) of the local share from the aviation fund for eligible
federal AIP projects or 90 percent on state-local projects. Given the current state of
the economy and the Arizona state budget shortfalls, the future of this program is
unknown. Recent state activity swept monies for this program into the general fund.
State Airport Loan Program – The Arizona Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division (ADOT) has an Airport Loan Program. This program
establishes the enhancement and utilization of the State funds. It is designed to be a
flexible funding mechanism to assist eligible airport projects. Eligible airport related
projects include runways, taxiways, aircraft parking aprons, hangars, fuel storage
facilities, terminal buildings, utility services, land acquisition, planning studies, and
preparation of plans and specifications for airport construction projects. Some
projects, which are not currently eligible for state funding, would be considered under
the loan program if the project would enhance the airport's ability to be selfsufficient. Given the current state of the economy and the Arizona state budget
shortfalls, the future of this program is also unknown.
There are three ways in which the loan funds can be used: Grant Advance, Matching
Funds, or Revenue Generating Projects.
ƒ

Grant Advance: these funds are provided when the airport can
demonstrate the ability to accelerate the development and construction of a
multi phase project. The project(s) must be compatible with the Airport
Master Plan and included in the ADOT 5-year Airport Development
Program.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

6-8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

•

Capital Improvement Program
FINAL

ƒ

Matching Funds: these funds are provided to meet the local matching
fund requirement for securing federal airport improvement grants or other
federal or state grants.

ƒ

Revenue Generating: these funds are provided for airport related
construction projects that are not eligible for funding under another
program. Although the Loan Program is an option for receiving funding,
the availability of funds through this program is subject to the aviation
revenue generated in the State.

Local Funding – The City will need to consider other sources of funding for
obtaining the local share of its capital improvement projects. In addition to the
revenues derived from airport operations, several other methods are available for
financing the local share of airport development costs. The more common methods
involve debt financing which amortize the debt over the useful life of the project or a
specified period. Methods of financing available to the City are discussed below.
ƒ

Third Party Financing: Many airports use private, third-party financing
for planned, revenue producing improvements that will be primarily used
by private business or other organizations. Such projects are not ordinarily
eligible for federal funding, although limited elements could be (i.e.
taxiways, aprons, etc.). Projects of this kind typically include aircraft
hangars, FBO facilities, fuel storage, air cargo facilities, exclusive aircraft
parking aprons, industrial development areas, non-aviation commercial
areas, and various other revenue producing projects.

ƒ

Revenue Bonds: Revenue Bonds are retired solely from the revenue of a
particular project or from the operating income of the issuing agency, such
as the City. Generally, they fall outside statutory limitations on public
indebtedness and, in many cases, do not require voter approval. Because
of the limitations on other public bonds, airport sponsors are increasingly
turning to revenue bonds whenever possible. Revenue Bonds, however,
normally carry a higher rate of interest because they lack the security of
tax supported General Obligation (GO) bonds issued by other government
bodies. Revenue Bonds are more suited to airports that have sufficient
cash flow and income to retire the debt in a reasonable time period.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

6-9

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

ƒ

Capital Improvement Program
FINAL

Airport Operating Fund: It is assumed that airport revenues over and
above that utilized to cover airport operating and maintenance expenses
will be the primary source of the “local” capital improvement dollars.
Table 6.4 presents the summary of the cash flow analysis for the airport
through the planning period. The intent of the cash flow analysis is to
examine the airport's financial structure and the ability of the Airport Fund
to contribute to future airport capital needs.
Table 6.4
Airport Cash Flow Analysis

Actual
Budget
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
2009
2010
Revenues $
1,313,240 $
1,502,347
Expenses $
1,487,332 $
1,501,898
Income (Loss) $
(174,092) $
449

Fiscal Years
2011-2015
$
1,580,621
$
1,566,829
$
13,792

Annual Averages
Fiscal Years
2016-2020
$
1,781,724
$
1,766,431
$
15,293

Fiscal Years
2021-2030
$
2,120,807
$
2,083,026
$
37,781

Source: Data from the City of Prescott; Projections calculated by the Airport and The Louis Berger Group.

The information presented in Table 6.4 above is not intended to provide a
detailed analysis or business plan for the Airport. Information was
obtained from the most recent fiscal year as well as the Airport’s projected
five year budget to determine expected revenues and expenses of the
Airport. There are various items that can change an Airport’s revenue
stream like new development/leases, as well as unexpected expenses as
buildings age, such as the terminal building. A Master Plan provides a
snapshot in time.
This table presents the annual average of expected revenues and expenses
considering a conservative approach to both, utilizing average annual
growth rates of less than 3 percent.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

6-10

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Capital Improvement Program
FINAL

6.3 Summary and Implementation
A list of capital improvement projects has been assembled from the facility requirements
documentation previously presented in Chapter 3. The project list must be coordinated with the
Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawing set and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that is
continuously updated by PRC Airport Management, ADOT, and the FAA.
The total Capital Improvement Program for Prescott Municipal Airport, as discussed in this
Master Plan, is approximately $146 million. With such a large program, the planning process
requires the City of Prescott to consistently monitor the progress of the airport in terms of total
enplanements, total aircraft operations, total based aircraft, and overall aviation activity. Analysis
of aircraft demand is critical to the exact timing and need for new airport facilities. The
information obtained from this continuous monitoring process will provide the data necessary to
determine if the development schedule should be accelerated or decelerated.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

6-11

APPENDIX 2

Runway Length Analysis
Prescott Municipal Airport

May 11, 2009
Version 2 (draft)

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1-1

Section 1 – Purpose & Need ...................................................................................................... 1-2

Section 2 – Design Standards .................................................................................................... 1-3

Section 3 – Methodology & Assumptions ................................................................................ 1-4

Section 4 – PRC Runway Length Determination.................................................................... 1-7

Section 5 – Summary & Conclusions ..................................................................................... 1-12

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 – T.O.C.

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

INTRODUCTION
In addition to examining airside facility requirements as part of the Facility Requirement section
of the current Master Plan Update, Berger has developed this technical White Paper to address
the Purpose and Need for the Prescott Municipal Airport (PRC) proposed Runway 3R-21L
extension. The following Runway Length Analysis was prepared to determine the runway length
requirement for the regional air carrier passenger service, United States Forest Service
Firefighting aircraft operations and general aviation for Runway 3R-21L at PRC.
The proposed Runway 3R-21L extension was initially planned in the 1997 Airport Master Plan.
In addition to the current airfield characteristics, design standards, current and future operational
and safety requirements, Berger has examined all the information gathered from the previous
Master Plan, the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed runway extension, and
the Prescott Municipal Airport Runway Safety Area Standards Evaluation (2005).
PRC is a Class I, Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 139 certified airport assisted by federal
airport improvement grants. Under FAA Order 5190.6A, Airport Compliance Requirements it is
required that the airport is safely and properly maintained and operated in a manner which
protects the public interests and as stated in Order 5190.6A paragraph 4-17j “any facility
developed with grants funds must be constructed to the then current applicable FAA design
standards”. Therefore all applicable requirements and directives reported in the following
documents have been applied on the Runway 3R-21L length analysis:
4 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B - Runway Length Requirements for Airport
Design;
4 FAA AC 150/5300-13
4 FAA Order 5090.3C - Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS); and
4 Aircraft manufacturer’s characteristics manuals and charts.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-1

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

SECTION 1 – PURPOSE & NEED

Runway 3R-21L is PRC’s primary runway. The runway is surfaced with asphalt, and is 7,616
feet long and 150 feet wide. The primary purpose of the Runway 3R-21L improvements
identified in this Runway Length Analysis is to provide a safe operating environment for the
range of aircraft that regularly utilize PRC, and to those that are expected to use the airport in the
future.

The Forecast in the current Master Plan Update (2009) indicates that the PRC Airport Service
Area (ASA) can support the demand for additional air service to new markets. The PRC
Passenger Leakage Study and the new Arizona State Airports System Plan (SASP) have
anticipated a robust potential demand of air service to other markets mostly due to the rapid
population growth in the airport ASA. Various populations’ forecast suggests that this growth
will continue over the next 20 years.

Historically, PRC has not been served by regional jets due to its runway length limitations. In
turn, this has effectively stunted the airport’s marketing and air service development efforts. As
the more modern regional jets (RJs) enter the market to replace older equipment, PRC will need
to provide additional runway length to provide adequate air service to its community.
Additionally, the runway extension is needed because PRC, a Commercial Service Airport in the
NPIAS, is only able to accommodate less than 75 percent of the large aircraft fleet (more than
60,000 lbs) at 60 percent useful load, while a reliever airport for other commercial service
airports should be able to accommodate 75% of large aircraft at 90% useful load.

Furthermore, safety concerns have been voiced with regards to the operations of the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS). During the fire season, which spans through the hottest months in Arizona, the
USFS utilizes the Lockheed P-3 Orion and Lockheed C-130. A longer runway will provide for
the additional pavement necessary in case of an aborted take-off.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-2

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

SECTION 2 – DESIGN STANDARDS
Guidelines for airport design standards are set forth in the FAA’s Advisory Circular (AC)
150/5300-13, Airport Design. Each airport can be classified based upon the aircraft which it is
designed to serve using the Airport Reference Code (ARC). The ARC is established by two
separate factors: Approach Category (which group aircraft based on approach speed) and Design
Group (which group aircraft based on wingspan).

Aircraft approach categories are defined as follows:
ƒ

Category A: Speed less than 91 knots;

ƒ

Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots;

ƒ

Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots;

ƒ

Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots; and

ƒ

Category E: Speed 166 knots or more.

Airplane design groups are defined as follows:
ƒ

Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet (with a subcategory for small aircraft);

ƒ

Group II: 49 feet or more, but less than 79 feet;

ƒ

Group III: 79 feet or more, but less than 118 feet;

ƒ

Group IV: 118 feet or more, but less than 171 feet;

ƒ

Group V: 171 feet or more, but less than 214 feet; and

ƒ

Group VI: 214 feet or more, but less than 262 feet.

PRC’S Runway 3R-21L is currently designated as C-III.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-3

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

SECTION 3 - METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS
To determine the required runway length for PRC’s primary runway the procedure detailed in
FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, provides guidelines
for airport designers and planners to determine recommended runway lengths for new runways
or extensions to existing runways. This AC makes the following recommendations: “When the
Max Take-Off Weight (MTOW) of listed aircraft is over 60,000 pounds, the recommended
runway length is determined according to individual aircraft. The design objective for the main
primary runway is to determine a recommended runway length that serves all aircraft without
operational weight restrictions. The design objective for the length of crosswind runways for
scheduled transport service is to equal 100% of the primary runway.”
With regards to airport dimensional standards, FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), states that “Airport dimensional standards
(such as runway length and width, separation standards, surface gradients, etc.) should be
selected which are appropriate for the critical aircraft that will make substantial use of the
airport in the planning period. Substantial use means either 500 or more annual itinerant
operations, or scheduled commercial service. The critical aircraft may be a single aircraft or a
composite of the most demanding characteristics of several aircraft.”
The other factors to be considered include critical aircraft approach speed, maximum certificated
takeoff weight, useful load and length of haul, the airport’s field elevation above mean sea level
(MSL), density altitude, the mean daily maximum temperature at the airfield, and typical runway
surface conditions, such as wet and slippery.

The required departure runway length can be defined as the longest of the following three
distances:
4 Accelerate-Takeoff Distance—The total distance needed for the aircraft to accelerate to
the critical takeoff speed (V1), takeoff, and climb to an altitude of 35 feet above the
ground, with one engine failing when the aircraft reaches V1;

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-4

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

4 Accelerate-Stop Distance - The distance needed for the aircraft to accelerate to V1 and
then brake to a full stop; and
4 All-Engine Takeoff Distance - 115 percent of the distance needed for the aircraft to
accelerate to V1, takeoff, and climb to an altitude of 35 feet above the ground with all
engines operating normally.

Based on these definitions, it can be noted that as the critical takeoff speed is increased, the
accelerate-takeoff distance decreases while the accelerate-stop distance increases. The
methodology described in FAA AC 150/5325-4A provides for the “balanced field length”
runway design, or the runway length at which the tradeoff between the reduced acceleratetakeoff distances approximately equals the increased accelerate-stop distance.

PCR primary Runway 3R-21L is at 5,045’ MSL. Therefore, density altitude was factored in the
determination of the runway length.

Density altitude is pressure altitude corrected for

nonstandard temperature and at which the density of the International Standard Atmosphere
(ISA) is the same as the density of the air being evaluated. The temperature at ISA is 15°C (or
59°F).

Typically increased density altitude, during period of high temperature, decreases

operational performances of both propeller and jet engine aircrafts. Such loss in performance
requires longer takeoff distances and faster ground speeds during landings, in turn resulting in
longer runway length requirements.

At PRC, the average maximum daily temperature in the hottest month of July is 90°F. As shown
in Figure 1 the density altitude for PRC at 90°F is approximately 8,000 feet. Wind speed was
assumed to be zero. The flap setting configuration was assumed to be optimal. The runway
gradient was assumed to be the same of the existing runway condition at 0.96%. The procedure
assumes that there are no obstructions that would preclude the use of the full length of the
runway.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-5

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

Figure 1:

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-6

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

SECTION 4 – PRC RUNWAY LENGTH DETERMINATION

Following FAA guidelines in AC150/5325-4B, a five step procedure was used to determine the
recommended length for the critical design airplane.

Step #1: Identify the Critical Design Aircraft or Category

The 2007 operations data shows that the majority of the fleet operating at PRC fell within
Category A and B, with forecasts showing that this will be maintained in the future. Aircraft in
these categories varies from Group I to Group III. Additionally more than 1% of the total
operation was attributed to aircraft in the C category, from Group I to Group III. At present, the
Q-400 (a C-III aircraft) has been introduced to the PRC fleet mix, and is expected to conduct
more than 1,400 operations per year. While the B-1900, a B-III aircraft, continues to conduct
thousands of operations at PRC. Additionally, at PRC the USFS Prescott Fire Center and Henry
Y. H. Kim Aviation Facility continue to operate large aircraft tankers during the fire season, such
as the P-3 Orin and C-130. Although, the number of operations conducted by the USFS fleet is
not sufficient to be considered the critical aircraft (i.e., 500 annual operations or more), their
presence supports the need to continue to plan and maintain PRC as ARC C-III.

The 1997 Master Plan had identified the Boeing 737, a C-III aircraft, as the Design Aircraft for
PRC. As part the planning process, this aircraft was re-evaluated to determine if possibly another
aircraft more accurately depicts the design standard requirement at the airport. While it is clear
that PRC should continue to be an ARC C-III facility, it is important to identify the critical
aircraft that reflects the true aviation planning need of PRC.

The commercial forecast for the PRC market identified that the RJ utilization will be introduced
and continue to grow in relation to the high growth of the population in the Prescott Metropolitan
Service Area (MSA). Additionally, seating capacity and range of the commercial flight service
offered at PRC will increase.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-7

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

Based upon the expectation that the B-1900 is soon expected to be replaced by more reliable and
efficient aircraft in addition to current increasing trends in the regional carrier market, it is
anticipated that RJ will play a bigger role in PRC’s future (specifically in the 40-70 seat capacity
segment). In the Western Region, the RJs predominantly used in this category are the CRJ-200
and CRJ-700, which are currently operated by Mesa Airlines, SkyWest, Delta Connections,
Northwest Airlines, Midwest Connect, ASA, Horizon Air and others. Table 1 illustrates a few
examples of the type of aircraft that are expected to operate at PRC in the future.

Example

Table 1 - Sample of Future PRC Design Aircraft
Aircraft Type
ARC

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Q-400
Wingspan:92.25 ft
MTOW: 64,500 lbs
Approach Speed: 125 knot

B-III

CRJ-200
Wingspan:76.3 ft
MTOW: 47,450 lbs
Approach Speed: 130 knot

C-II

CRJ-700
Wingspan:85.04 ft
MTOW: 71,750 lbs
Approach Speed: 140 knot

C-III

ERJ-145
Wingspan: 65.9 ft
MTOW: 48,400 lbs
Approach Speed: 110 knot

C-II

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-8

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

Step #2: Identify the Aircraft That Will Require the Longest Runway Lengths at
Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight.

Typically, the standard FAA process is to break down the potential range of aircraft design
identified in Step #1 into relevant weight groups or categories:

1) MTOW of 12,500 pounds or less;
2) MTOW Over 12,500 pounds, but less than 60,000 pounds;
3) MTOW of 60,000 pounds or Regional Jets.

Regional Jets, regardless of their MTOW, are assigned to the 60,000 pound or more weight
category. Although a number of RJs have a MTOW less than 60,000 pounds (27,200 kg), the
exception acknowledges the long range capability of the RJs and the necessity to offer these
operators the flexibility to interchange RJ models according to passenger demand without
suffering operating weight restrictions. When the MTOW of listed aircraft is over 60,000 pounds
(27,200 kg), the recommended runway length is determined according to the individual aircraft.
Therefore, given that the majority of the aircraft indentified in Step #1 are RJs, the recommended
runway length for PRC will be determined according to individual aircraft.

Step #3: Determine the Method That Will be Used for Establishing the Recommended
Runway Length

Based upon the information contained in Step #2, the standard FAA design approach for RJs and
those aircraft with a MTOW of more than 60,000 pounds (27,200 kg) was used. Therefore, PRC
Runway 3R-21L calculations are based upon:

1. The performance charts published by airplane manufacturers (i.e., Airport Planning
Manuals); or
2. By contacting the airplane manufacturer; and/or
3. By contacting the air carriers for the information.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-9

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

Both takeoff and landing runway length requirements were determined with applicable lengthadjustments in order to determine the recommended runway length. The longest of the takeoff
and landing runway length requirements for the critical design aircraft under evaluation then
becomes the recommended runway length.

The first two options and the FAA Airport Design Computer Program 4.2D were used to
calculate the Runway 3R-21L length requirement for planning purposes. The program includes
an aircraft fleet profile designed to be representative of the small and large aircraft that comprise
the general aviation aircraft fleet in the United States. The results are summarized in Table 2 and
Table 3.

Table 2 presents the required runway lengths for PRC based upon the FAA Airport Design
Computer Program 4.2D.
Table 2 - PRC Runway Length Analysis
Airport Input Data
Airport Elevation (MSL)
Mean daily temperature of the hottest month
Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation
Runway Length Recommended for Airport Design
Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots
Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots
Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats:
75 percent of these small airplanes...
95 percent of these small airplanes...
100 percent of these small airplanes...
Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats
Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less:
75 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load
75 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load
100 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load
100 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load

5,045’
90°
62’
450’
1,200’
4,640’
6,240’
6,410’
6,410’
7,300’
9,220’
11,400’
11,620’

Source: FAA Airport Design Computer Program 4.2D and FAA AC 150/5300-1.

In addition to the FAA Program, the Airport Planning Manual for the CRJ-200, CRJ-700 and
ERJ-145 was obtained. Additionally, the manufacturer Bombardier Inc. was contacted to validate

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-10

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

the initial calculation and to use their simulation programs to run performance scenarios based on
PRC environmental conditions. The results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 - Operational Characteristics
Aircraft Type and Engine
MTOW
Runway Length
Max Range at Max Payload
CRJ 200
47,450 lbs
8,700 feet
550 nm
CRJ 700 (CF34-8C1)
71,750 lbs
9,950 feet
1,434 nm
ERJ 145 (A1/1)
48,400 lbs
8,200 feet
900 nm
Step #4: Select the Recommended Runway Length
The recommended runway length is selected by reviewing the operational characteristics
identified in Step #3. FAA AC150/5325-4B established that the longest runway length required
at MTOW should become the recommended runway length. As shown in Table 3, at MTOW, the
CRJ-700 requires a runway length of 9,950 feet at hot and dry conditions.

Step #5: Apply Any Necessary Adjustment to the Obtained Runway Length

The final step provides for adjustment to the obtained runway length based upon local
circumstances. This includes any adjustments due to centerline elevation differences. FAA AC
150/5325-4B recommends increasing the runway length an additional 10 feet for each foot of
centerline elevation difference. By maintaining the current runway gradient of 0.96%, the
runway will have a difference of 62 feet in centerline elevation. Therefore, an additional 620 feet
should be added to the length identified in Step #4 totaling a runway length of 10,570 feet.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-11

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Runway Length Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 2

SECTION 5 – SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

Based on the five step runway length analysis, the operationally preferred runway length for
Runway 3R-21L is 10,570 feet. This result will be incorporated in the Facility & Standards
Analysis and in the Alternative Analysis with regards to airfield improvement and land
acquisitions.

It should be noted that the EA for the proposed runway extension will determine if such an
extension will result in adverse impact to the natural and social resources surrounding the airport.
The EA will determine whether it will be necessary to adjust the proposed length with respect to
the Purpose and Need of the proposed improvement.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

May 11, 2009 - Page 1-12

APPENDIX 3

Land Use Plan
Prescott Municipal Airport

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of the Airport Land Use Plan is to provide a review of the current land use
and to develop guidelines for the future land use at and surrounding Prescott Municipal Airport
(PRC). The guidelines are formulated in agreement with the need of maintaining the viability of
PRC (a.k.a., Earnest A. Love Field), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines, industry
standards with regards to noise and safety and same land use planning’s goals and objectives
stipulated in the Prescott General Plan and Airport Specific Area Plan (ASAP).
This document is intended as a tool to assist City Officials and Airport Management in the
evaluation and creation of adequate and compatible airport land uses, which will guarantee the
future viability of PRC and foster the economic development of nearby communities. This
document supplements, but does not replace the current ASAP.
As a tool to determine the appropriate land use around the airport, the use of specific Airport
Impact Zones is introduced. The Airport Impact Zones (AIZ) are widely adopted and
recommended by the FAA to protect airports from encroaching non-compatible land uses.
Furthermore, specific focus is given to the parcels identified in the ASAP as “Ranching Holding
Designation” west of the airport. For those parcel, this plan indicates a variety of compatible land
uses that gives the adjacent land owner the opportunity to develop their lands according to
market demands and economic value.
The following criterion was used as guidelines during the preparation of this Airport Land Use
Plan:
4

Minimize the number of people exposed to frequent and/or high levels of airport noise or
high cumulative noise levels of which airport noise is one component by identifying
typical land uses that are particularly sensitive to noise;

4

Preserve the airport airspace to minimize the risk of potential aircraft accidents in the
vicinity of the Airport by avoiding the development of land uses and land use conditions,
which pose hazards to aircraft in flight;

4

Provide sufficient information to prospective airport area land users on the activity at the
Airport with its associated noise and safety impacts allowing them to make an informed
decision as to whether or not they wish to live and/or work in the Airport area; and

4

Adhere to the goals and objectives stipulated in the Prescott General Plan and Airport
Specific Area Plan (ASAP) and follow FAA land use requirements and guidelines.

The study is based on the review of relevant planning and zoning documents including:
4

City of Prescott General Plan ;

4

Airport Specific Area Plan (ASAP);

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 1-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

4

City of Prescott land use and zoning ordinances;

4

Airport noise contours maps;

4

FAA Airport Land Use Compatibility Guide;

4

FAA 14 CFR Part 150;

4

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5020-1

4

California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook;

4

Washington state Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook; and

4

Related other FAA Advisory Circulars.

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

The following Land Use Plan is organized in the following sections:
Section 1

Coverage Area;

Section 2

Definition of Sensitive Land Uses;

Section 3

Inventory of Existing Condition;

Section 4

Airport Safety Impact Zones;

Section 5

Airport Impact Zones Impact on Future Development; and

Section 6

Ranching (Holding Designation) Parcels.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 2-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

SECTION 1

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

COVERAGE AREA

Geographic Coverage
The Airport Land Use Plan encompasses a geographic area defined by a combination of factors
that include the ultimate runway layout, as per the 1997 Airport Master Plan, as well as the
application of Airport Impact Zones and by current noise contours. The Airport Land Use Impact
Zones Boundaries encompasses approximately 17 square miles.
Noise contours are determined by using the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Integrated
Noise Model (INM). This land use plan has defined the 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL), at the capacity of the airfield, as a noise standard; however, do to the rural nature
of the area the 55 db CNEL is also shown for information purposes. CNEL measurements are a
weighted average of sound levels gathered throughout a 24-hour period. This is essentially a
measure of ambient noise. Different weighting factors apply to day, evening, and nighttime
periods. This recognizes that community members are most sensitive to noise in late night hours
and are more sensitive during evening hours than in daytime hours. CNEL depends not only on
the noise level of individual approaches, but also on the number of approaches during the
measurement period.
Airport Setting
Prescott Municipal Airport (PRC) is situated on approximately 760 acres and located in the
West-Central Region of Arizona in Yavapai County, Sections 24 and 25, Township 15 North,
Range 2 West, and Section 19, Township 15 North, Range 1 West.
Highway 89 is adjacent to and west of the airport property, and approximately 2,300 feet from
the threshold of Runway 3R-21L; and Highway 89A is directly south of Runway 12-30.
In 2007, PRC recorded 231,285 operations on three active runways, two of which are parallel
runways, Runway 3L-21R and Runway 3R-21L. The other is a crosswind runway, Runway 1230 (see Table 1.9: Summary of Runway Characteristics of 2008 Airport Master Plan).
City of Prescott General Plan, Airport Specific Area Plan and Zoning Ordinances
PRC and the surrounding area are identified in the General Plan as an economic engine for the
City of Prescott and the region. To assure the protection of the Airport’s economic vitality, the
City adopted the Airport Specific Area Plan (ASAP). The ASAP focuses on the land use in a
planning area approximately 50 square-miles around the Airport, and is mostly undeveloped and
devoted to cattle ranching. According to the General Plan, the Town of Prescott Valley and
Yavapai County have each voluntarily accepted ASAP as the basis of their future land use
decisions for lands near the Airport, but within their jurisdictions and planning areas. The ASAP
provides specific land use and zoning guidance. Additionally, it identifies issues caused by
existing and planned developments and the potential issues that may rise when the designation of
the lands to the west of the Airport will change from the current “Ranching” designation.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 3-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

Furthermore, boundary agreements between the City of Prescott and the Town of Prescott Valley
and the Town of Chino Valley have set the stage for a large annexation, encompassing
approximately 11,000 acres of land east and south of PRC. This annexation has the potential for
both major residential and commercial development over the next 20 years. Currently, one of the
largest areas set aside for industrial uses is near the Airport.
One goal of the General Plan is to keep Prescott competitive in the regional marketplace and to
attract higher paying jobs by creating additional commercial and industrial areas through the
anticipated annexation of the large area east of the Airport.
Both the General Plan and the ASAP emphasizes the need to expand the opportunities for
appropriate commercial, industrial land use and zoning in proximity to the Airport, and to protect
the Airport from encroachment of incompatible land uses through enforcement of land use
designations, policies, and zoning designations. The current plan designated the land near the
Airport for manufacturing and industrial uses, as well as other intense commercial operation.
However, subdivisions, both within the City and in unincorporated areas, are already being
planned and built near the Airport.
Specific land use and zoning ordinance are found in the City of Prescott Land Development
Code (LDC). LDC Article 2 specifies permitted land use per zoning categories, and the
establishment of overlay corridors, such as the Airport Noise Overlay, which is further discussed
in LDC Article 5.
The land use categories and designation found in the LDC as well as in the General Plan are used
and referred in this Land Use Plan.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 4-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

SECTION 2

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

DEFINITIONS OF SENSITIVE LAND USES

The FAA 14 CFR Part 150 defines criteria to indentify the sensitivity to noise pollution of the
major land use categories in an effort to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on nearby
communities and to prevent the non-compatible development of such lands. The following
section contains a broad description of extremely sensitive, moderately sensitive, and non
sensitive land uses.
Extremely Sensitive Land Uses
Extreme Sensitive Land Uses are defined as land areas for which the receptor’s, customary or
anticipated, activities may be disrupted to a significant degree by aviation noise impacts in
excess of 65 DNL, for which sufficient mitigation to ensure compatibility with current or future
airport operations is not feasible.
The following land uses categories are typically considered extremely sensitive receptors:
4 Low density residential areas, other than mobile home and transient lodging, where there
is an expectation of a quiet surrounding and where it is difficult to provide sufficient
noise mitigation to achieve outdoor and indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR).
4 Outdoor theatres, amphitheaters, and public assembly areas;
4 Campgrounds (with overnight sleeping facilities);
4 Schools, libraries, where measures to achieve outdoor and indoor NLR cannot be
incorporated; and
4 Medical facilities, such as hospitals and nursing homes, assisted living facilities, where
measures to achieve outdoor and indoor NLR cannot be incorporated.
Moderately Sensitive Land Uses
Moderately Sensitive Land Uses are land areas for which the receptor’s, customary or
anticipated, activities may be disrupted to a significant degree by aviation noise impacts in
excess of 70 DNL, for which sufficient mitigation to ensure compatibility with current or future
airport operations is feasible by the incorporation of special design features and construction
techniques. Also, activities associated with the land use are confined exclusively or almost
exclusively to indoor areas.
The following land uses categories are typically considered moderately sensitive receptors:
4 Schools and libraries;
4 Medical facilities, such as hospitals and nursing homes, assisted living facilities;
4 Mortuaries and funeral parlors;
4 Churches, auditoriums and concert halls;
4 Governmental services;
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 5-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

4 Offices, business and professional services;
4 Wholesale and retails;
4 Hotels and motels;
4 Indoor theatres, music halls, meeting halls, and other indoor public assembly facilities;
4 Studios - radio, television, recording, rehearsal, and performance facilities;
4 Schools and day care centers (excluding aviation related); and
4 Museums (excluding aviation related).
Non Sensitive Land Use
Non Sensitive Land Uses are land areas for which the receptor, customary or anticipated,
activities are not disrupted by aviation noise impacts.
The following land use categories are typically considered non-sensitive receptors:
4 Mining, fishing and resources production and extraction;
4 Transportation facilities: railroad, rapid rail transit, street railway transportation, motor
vehicle transportation, aircraft transportation, highway and street right-of-way; and
4 Agriculture (except livestock).
Land use compatibility with regards to noise exposure is summarized in Table 3 - FAA Land Use
Compatibility with Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 6-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

Table 3
FAA Land Use Compatibility with Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels
Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level in
Decibels

LAND USE

< 65

65-70

70-75

75-80

80-85

> 85

Residential
Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings
Mobile home parks
Transient lodgings

Y
Y
Y

N(1)
N
N(1)

N(1)
N
N(1)

N
N
N(1)

N
N
N

N
N
N

Public Use
Schools
Hospitals and nursing homes
Churches, auditoria, and concert halls
Government services
Transportation
Parking

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

N(1)
25
25
Y
Y
Y

N(1)
30
30
25
Y(2)
Y(2)

N
N
N
30
Y(3)
Y(3)

N
N
N
N
Y(4)
Y(4)

N
N
N
N
Y(4)
N

Commercial Use
Offices, business and professional
Wholesale and retail – building materials, hardware, and farm equipment
Retail trade – general
Utilities
Communications

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

25
Y(2)
25
Y(2)
25

30
Y(3)
30
Y(3)
30

N
Y(4)
N
Y(4)
N

N
N
N
N
N

Manufacturing and Production
Manufacturing, general
Photographic and optical
Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry
Livestock farming and breeding
Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y(6)
Y(6)
Y

Y(2)
25
Y(7)
Y(7)
Y

Y(3)
30
Y(8)
N
Y

Y(4)
N
Y(8)
N
Y

N
N
Y(8)
N
Y

Recreational
Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports
Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters
Nature exhibits and zoos
Amusements, parks, resorts, and camps
Golf courses, riding stables, and water recreation

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y(5)
N
Y
Y
Y

Y(5)
N
N
Y
25

N
N
N
N
30

N
N
N
N
N

N
N
N
N
N

Numbers in parentheses refer to notes.
* The designations contained in this table do not constitute a Federal determination that any use of land covered by the program is acceptable or unacceptable
under Federal, state, or local law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and
specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute Federally determined land uses for those
determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise-compatible land uses.
KEY TO TABLE A-1
SLUCM = Standard Land-Use Coding Manual.
Y (YES) = Land Use and related structures compatible without restrictions.
N (No) = Land Use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.
NLR = Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure.
25, 30, or 35 = Land Use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 dB must be incorporated into design and construction of structures.
NOTES FOR TABLE A-1
(1) Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor-to-indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at
least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to
provide an NLR of 20 dB; thus the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation
and closed windows year-round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. (2) Measures to achieve NLR 25 dB must be
incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise
level is low. (3) Measures to achieve NLR 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received,
office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. (4) Measures to achieve NLR 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction
of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. (5) Land-use compatible
provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.
(6) Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. (7) Residential buildings require an NLR of 30.
(8) Residential buildings not permitted.
Source: FAA 14 CRF Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 7-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

SECTION 3

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITION

The following section provides an overview of the current land use designations adopted by the
City of Prescott’s General Plan and their application in the current planning study area.
Land Use Designations
The following definitions directly relate to the designations used on the General Plan (ratified in
May 2004), its Land Use Map, and other additional land uses.
Government/Institutional
This designation denotes areas dedicated for public or semi-public uses which may include
government centers, police and fire substations, schools, libraries, community centers, water
plants, wastewater treatment plants, as well as college or university campuses and related uses
and activities, including student dormitories. In general these areas are not intended for
residential uses other than student housing.
Recreation/Open Space
This designation denotes areas that are to be precluded from development except for active and
passive public recreational facilities or natural preserves. Open space areas are intended to be left
in a natural state due to topographic, drainage, vegetative, and landform constraints or the need
to provide buffers between incompatible land uses or to protect viewsheds.
Agricultural/Ranching
The Agricultural/Ranching designation denotes areas intended to remain in agricultural or
ranching production over the long-term. However, these areas are anticipated to transition to
other land uses over time. Agricultural/Ranching land may allow residential development of up
to one dwelling unit per acre depending upon zoning classification. Public service demands are
not anticipated to be as great as in residential designations. No commercial or industrial
development is anticipated.
Commercial/Recreation
The Commercial/Recreation designation is intended to allow a mix of retail commercial uses, but
with an emphasis on recreation related uses such as resorts, campgrounds, equestrian facilities,
lodges, hotels/motels, RV parks, fishing camps and swimming pools. This category may also
include civic and office uses. Residential uses are not anticipated with this designation.
Mixed-Use
Mixed-Use areas are generally located at an existing or anticipated circulation nexus and/or
placed between higher intensity uses and adjoining residential land uses. The Mixed-Use
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 8-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

designation is intended to be compatible with the surrounding area while providing a mix of
commercial, employment, public and residential uses. It is anticipated that these areas will
support neighborhood oriented commercial uses and may include master-planned and developed
mixed communities intended to replicate the traditional downtown mixture of commercial and
residential uses of all density categories. Residential uses are permitted, but subject to density
and buffering standards set out by the overlying zoning districts.
Commercial
The Commercial designation denotes typical community or regional commercial uses. Intended
uses include office, retail, service, civic, lodges, health related and other similar uses as
permitted by the appropriate zoning designations. Residential uses of all density categories are
permitted, but subject to density and buffering standards set out by the overlying zoning districts.
Commercial/Employment
The Commercial/Employment designation refers to areas where professional offices, tourism,
recreation, service uses, warehousing, and light industrial uses are generally appropriate. This
use requires appropriate buffering considerations from adjoining residential areas. The specific
allowable uses are determined based upon the zoning of each particular site and will consider
adjacent land uses, traffic impacts and the intensity of any proposed development. Residential
uses are not anticipated in this designation.
Industrial
The Industrial designation is intended to include manufacturing, fabrication and processing of
durable goods, wholesaling, warehousing, and distributing, printing and publishing and freight
terminals. This category may also include civic and office uses. Residential uses are not
anticipated in this designation.
Residential
In the General Plan the Residential designation includes three (3) sub-categories: Very Low
Density Residential (<1 DU/AC), Low-Medium Density Residential (1-7 DU/AC), and MediumHigh Density Residential (8-32 DU/AC).
4 Very Low Density Residential (<1 DU/AC). The Very Low Density Residential category
is intended for large-lot single-family housing in a rural setting. Development in these
areas will consist mainly of detached single-family homes on 2-acre minimum sized lots
or larger. The basic character of development is rural, with most natural features of the
land retained. Typically, keeping of horses or other livestock is permitted, possibly in
association with pre-existing and ongoing farming or ranching. Public services demands
are not as great as in higher density, more urban development. No commercial or
industrial development is anticipated.
4 Low-Medium Density Residential (1-7 DU/AC). The Low-Medium Density Residential
category is intended for predominantly single-family detached residential development.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 9-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

Residential densities of up to seven dwelling units per acre are typical of this category. In
general these areas are quiet residential single-family neighborhoods but in some areas a
mix of single-family, duplexes and townhouses would also be appropriate. This
designation may also include such supporting land uses as neighborhood shops and
services, parks and recreation areas, religious institutions, and schools. A full range of
urban services and infrastructure is required. The Low-Medium Density Residential
category would also allow residential development as described for the Very Low
Density Residential category.
4 Medium-High Density Residential (8-32 DU/AC).
The Medium-High Density
Residential category may include duplexes, manufactured and modular homes,
apartments, town homes, and other forms of attached or detached housing on smaller lots.
The density range for this category is 8 to 32 dwelling units per acre. This category may
also include such supporting land uses as neighborhood shops and services, parks and
recreation areas, religious institutions, and schools. A full range of urban services and
infrastructure is required. The Medium-High Density Residential category would also
allow residential development as described for the Low-Medium Density and Very Low
Density Residential categories.
Resources Extraction
The Resources Extraction designation is intended to include mining and quarrying activities of
material such as sand, gravel, fill dirt and other varied minerals. This category may also include
civic and office uses. Residential uses are not anticipated in this designation.
Vacant
The Vacant designation includes all Arizona State and Bureau of Land Managements vacant
lands, as well as parcels purposely designated as vacant by the City of Prescott or by the Yavapai
County.
Inventory of Existing Land Use
Existing land uses, whether or not such uses are compatible with the Airport, are described
below.
A land use is considered to be “existing” if substantial construction investments, by the
landowner, make it infeasible for the property to be used for anything other than its current or
proposed use; or if the land use physically exists. Existing land uses that are “incompatible”
based on the Land Use Plan and the matrix will be considered “non-conforming” uses.
The area surrounding PRC is predominately dedicated to agriculture and ranching. The 2003
City of Prescott General Plan describes the area as mix of residential, commercial, agricultural,
and recreational areas. The City of Prescott Zoning Ordinance has designated the Airport as
Zone Light Industrial (LI), Industrial Transition (IT), and Business General (BG), as adopted in
the City of Prescott Land Development Code, amended January 11, 2005. The Airport includes a
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 10-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

main terminal, hangar buildings, administration and additional structures leased and used by the
United States Forest Service, Embry-Riddle and various aviation related businesses and services.
The land use for the areas east and north of the Airport are classified in the General Plan as
Commercial/Employment use for up to ½ mile followed by Recreational/Open Space.
The area east of the Airport is classified as Commercial and it falls under the Commercial
Corridor Overlay (CCO).
The land use for the areas to the north and to the west of the Airport is classified for
Agriculture/Ranching. The area southwest and south of the airport is zoned Residential Single
Family, Low-Medium Density Residential and Recreational Open Space. Located in this area is
a traffic sensitive area along U.S. Highway 89, which provides direct access to the Airport’s
terminal area. Additionally, this area includes the Antelope Golf Resort and Community.
Figure 1.1 – Airport Land Use Plan Existing Conditions – illustrates the current land uses within
the planning area. The designations listed in the legend represent the major land use categories
adopted in the General Plan.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 11-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

SECTION 4

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

AIRPORT IMPACT ZONES

The ASAP identified an official Airport Influence Area as the primary and only method of
airport protection. It extends three to five miles from the runway intersection based on the length
and activity level of each of runway, creating a one mile wide approach/departure corridor where
residential use is not generally allowed.
This methodology was adopted by the City of Prescott, Yavapai County and Town of Prescott
Valley, to further identify the proper land use for the properties directly and potentially affected
by airport operations, in addition to the noise contours.
As per current Federal Administration Aviation (FAA) guideline standards, Airport Impact
Zones (AIZ) are identified for each runway in use at PRC. AIZs are widely adopted by airports
nationwide, and adopted by states as a standard to limit the damages caused by an aviation
accident, to protect the viability of the airport, and to limit the impact of noise on residential
areas (see Figure 1.2 – Airport Impact Zones; and Figure 1.3 – Airport Impact Zone and 55 & 65
DNL Contours).

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 12-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

The following section describes each Airport Impact Zone and provides their dimensions based
on each runway configuration.
Airport Impact Zone 1 – Runway Protection Zone
The Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the extended
runway centerline. It extends from 200 feet beyond the end of the area usable for takeoff and
landing. The narrower end of each RPZ is the closest to the runway end. The most critical
segment of flight occurs within the RPZ. In this zone aircraft are the most vulnerable and the risk
of accident is very high.
Airport Impact Zone 2 – Inner Safety Zone
The Inner Safety Zone is rectangular in shape and centered about the extended runway centerline
extending from the wider edge of the RPZ. The Inner Safety Zone together with the RPZ
encompasses 30% to 50% of all near-airport accident sites.
Airport Impact Zone 3 – Inner Turning Zone
The Inner Turning is conical in shape which is encompassed by a 30 degree angle to either side
of the extended runway centerline, and a radius of 5,000 feet. Its vertex is situated on the runway
centerline 200 feet off the runway end. It encompasses location where especially general aviation
aircraft are turning from their final approach legs of the standard traffic pattern and are
descending from pattern altitudes, as well as the area where departing aircraft normally complete
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 13-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

their transition from takeoff power and flap setting to a climb mode and have begun turning to
their en route heading.
Airport Impact Zone 4 – Outer Safety Zone
The Outer Safety Zone is rectangular in shape and centered about the extended runway
centerline. It extends from the outer edge of the Inner Safety Zone. At airports with high-activity
levels, like PRC, it encompasses the areas used by approaching aircraft at an altitude typically
less that traffic patterns, also it is applicable to airports with straight-in instrument approach
procedures.
Airport Impact Zone 5 – Sideline Safety Zone
The Sideline Safety Zone is rectangular in shape and centered on the runway centerline. It is
defined by a 1,000 foot centerline offset on each side of the runway that connects the Inner
Turning Zone on each end of the runway. While this zone is typically within airport boundaries,
and it is not overflow, it is designed to mitigate the damages that could be caused by an aircraft
losing directional control on takeoff.
Airport Impact Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern Zone
The Traffic Patter Zone is defined by an area 5,000 feet wide, centered on the runway centerline,
extending from the Sideline Safety Zone to the edges of the Outer Safety Zone. It encompasses
all other portions of regular traffic patterns and pattern entry routes. While the risk of an accident
within this zone is low, potential consequences can be severe.
Table 4 provides dimensions for each AIZ according to each runway configuration.
Table 4
Airport Impact Zones Dimensions
Airport Impact Zones

Runway 12-30

Runway 3R-21L

Runway 3L-21R

Zone 1

250 ft x 1,700 ft x 500

500 ft x 2,500 ft x 875 ft

500 ft x 2,500 ft x 875 ft

Zone 2

2,800 ft x 1,000 ft

2,500 ft x 1,000 ft

2,500 ft x 1,000 ft

Zone 3

60° Sector, x 4,500 ft
Radius

60° Sector, x 5,000 ft
Radius

60° Sector, x 5,000 ft
Radius

Zone 4

3,000 ft x 1,000 ft

5,000 ft x 1,000 ft

5,000 ft x 1,000 ft

Zone 5

1,000 ft wide

1,000 ft wide

1,000 ft wide

Zone 6

5,000 ft wide

5,000 ft wide

5,000 ft wide

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 14-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

SECTION 5

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

AIZ IMPACTS ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

The following section presents the Land Use Airport Compatibility Matrix, which was created
based on current Federal and State guidance and regulations. The references used to define the
criteria and used to compile this matrix are the following:
4 Arizona ARS Title 28 – Chapter 25 Article 7: Airport Zoning and Regulations;
4 FAA Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook;
4 FAA 14 CFR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning;
4 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook; and
4 Washington State Airport Land Use Compatibility Program.
Land use identified as “Compatible” are not considered to present a significant risk to the safety
of persons on the ground or to persons in aircraft overflying the land, and the anticipated aircraft
noise or frequent aircraft overflight is considered to be acceptable by FAA, State and local
standards and regulations.
Land uses identified as “Non-Compatible” are considered to present a significant risk to the
safety of person on the ground or to persons in aircraft overflying the land, and/or the anticipated
aircraft noise or frequent aircraft overflight is considered not to be acceptable by FAA, State and
local standards and regulations.
Typically the level of risk is correlated with population density, where higher densities pose a
higher statistical risk to the safety of persons in the event of an accident. Therefore, land use with
high population densities are discouraged in the vicinity of the airport. Table 5: Recommended
Land Use Densities and Open Space presents the maximum recommended density for each of
the Airport Impact Zones.
Based on the criteria mentioned above, Table 6: Land Use Airport Compatibility Matrix, is
proposed to the City of Prescott as recommended land uses for the parcels within each AIZ from
the airport compatibility prospective. Land use groups are identified as being “compatible” or
“non-compatible”. Compatible land uses are designated by the letter “Y”; while non-compatible
land uses are designated by the letter “N”.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 15-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

Table 5
Recommended Land Use Densities and Open Space
Airport Impact
Zones

Maximum
Recommended Land
Use Density
(persons/acre)

Maximum Recommended
Single Acre Land Use
Density
(persons/acre)

Minimum
Recommended Percent
Open Space
(% gross area)

Zone 1

0

0

100

Zone 2

20

40

30

Zone 3

60

120

25

Zone 4

40

120

20

Zone 5

150

450

10

Zone 6

150

450

10

Table 6
Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Impact Zones Land Use Compatibility Matrix

LAND USE

Zone
1#

Zone
2#

Zone
3#

Zone
4#

Zone
5#

Zone
6#

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N
Y
N
N
N
N

Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

AGRICULTURE/RANCHING
Crop production including dry and irrigated farming
Truck Farming, Specialty Crops, Orchards, Vineyards, Landscape
Nurseries, Greenhouses
Crop Processing & Packaging, Wineries
Pasture and Rangeland Grazing
Hogs, Dairies, Bee Keeping
Commercial Poultry
Fish Farms, Game Preserves
Feed Lots, Stockyards, Sales Yards
Animal Hospital, Veterinary Clinic, Kennels, Pet Boarding, Equestrian
Facilities, Exotic Animals
Roadside Stands, Farmers Markets
COMMERCIAL
Aircraft Fuel, Aircraft Sales and Aircraft Repairs, Flying Schools
Vehicles and Parts Sales, Building Materials, Food and Beverage Sales
Shopping Centers
Banks
Gasoline Service Stations
Restaurant and Food Take-Out, General Retail Stores, Tasting Rooms
Convention Centers
Fuel Dealers, Fuel Storage
Mini-Storage
Warehouse, Wholesale and Distributing
Petroleum and Chemical Products – Bulk Storage
COMMERCIAL/EMPLOYEMENT
Office Buildings, Public Buildings, Research Laboratories
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Page 16-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan
Appliance and Equipment Repair, Car Wash
Personal Services, Health Clinics
Recycling
Vehicle Storage and Parking
Taxi Stands, Bus Stations/Terminals
Truck Terminals

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3
N
N
N
N
N
N

Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N
N
N
N
N

N
Y
N
N
N

Y
Y
Y
Y
N

Y
Y
Y
Y
N

Y
Y
Y
Y
N

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

N
N
N
N
N
N

N
N
Y
Y
Y
N

N
N
Y
Y
Y
N

N
N
Y
Y
Y
N

N
N
Y
Y
Y
N

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N

N
N

N
N

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N
N
N
N
N

N
N
N
N
Y

N
N
N
N
Y

Y*
Y*
Y*
Y*
Y*

Y*
Y*
Y*
Y*
Y*

Y*
Y*
Y*
Y*
Y*

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

COMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL
Arcades, Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Dance and Pool Halls, Card
Rooms, Gyms, Health Spas, Indoor Theaters and Auditoriums
Outdoor Theaters, Amusement Parks, Carnivals, Fairs
Golf Courses, Tennis Courts
Swimming Pools, Water Slides
Hotels and Motels,
RV Parks

GOVERNAMENTAL/INSTITUTIONAL (PUBLIC & QUASI-PUBLIC)
All Schools, Hospitals, Correctional Facilities
Libraries, Day Care Centers, Social Clubs/Lodges, Churches
Athletic Fields
Cemeteries – People or Pets
Public Utility Facilities (except Electric Plants)
Electric Power Plants and overhead transmission lines
INDUSTRIAL
Indoor Processes
Outdoor Fabrication Yards
RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE
Parks, Playgrounds, Picnic Areas
RESIDENTIAL

†#

Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential, Mobile Home Parks
Group Homes, Convalescent Facilities, Nursing Homes
Secondary Residence (1,200 square feet or less)
Caretaker Unit (1,200 square feet or less)
RESOURCE EXTRACTION
Mining – Sand, Gravel, Fill Dirt
†

All residential development occurring within the Airport Impact Zones shall be clustered as far away from the airport as
possible.

*Residential development within the Airport Impact Zones 4, 5 and 6 outside of the 55 DNL line is permissible
#

Avigation easements ensuring the right of flight and noise generation over every parcel and property within the Airport Impact
Zone will be granted at no cost to the City by the property owners. All development in the Airport Impact Zone is to be sound
insulated to a 45dnl rating or lower. All development must comply with 14 CFR Part77 reporting requirements and no
development will penetrate an established 14 CFR Part 77 surface of the Prescott Municipal Airport as exists or may exist in the
future.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 17-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

SECTION 6

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

RANCHING (HOLDING DESIGNATION) PARCELS

This section addresses the special concerns of the City of Prescott with regards to the future land
use designation of the parcels of land located to the west of the Airport, which will be annexed to
the City of Prescott.
Currently, the land use designation of the parcels west of the airport is “Ranching”. Based on the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Matrix previously presented, Table 7: Land Use Compatibility
for Future Development of Ranching (Holding Designated) Parcels identifies for each parcels,
within the planning area, which land use designation will create the condition for highest
economic development, while satisfying the airport’s compatibility’s criteria.
The land use for all the other parcels outside the planning area will follow the land use criteria
established by the City of Prescott as specified in the General Plan and other City of Prescott
zoning ordinances.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 18-19

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Land Use Plan
APPENDIX 3

Table 7
Land Use Compatibility for Future Development of Ranching (Holding Designated) Parcels

Parcel No.

Airport
Impact
Zones*

Agriculture
Ranching*

Commercial*

Commercial
Employment*

Commercial
Recreational*

Governmental
Institutional*

Industrial *

Recreational
Open Space*

Residential#

Resource
Extraction*

13-102-01-001-02-0

4,6

Y

Y2

Y 13

Y8

Y 9,10,11

Y

Y

Y

N

N

7

Y

9,10,11

N

Y

Y

N

Y

8

Y

9,10,11

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

8

Y

9,10,11

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

13-102-01-002-01-4
13-102-01-002-02-3
13-102-01-002-02-3
13-102-01-213-14-4
13-102-01-213-14-4
13-102-04-001-01-0
13-102-04-010-01-6
13-102-04-001-02-9
13-102-04-001-02-9
13-102-04-010-02-5
13-102-05-324-08-4
13-102-05-324-10-9

2,3,6
4,6
4,6
6
6
2,3,4
3,6
3,6
3,4
6
4,6
3,4,6

Y

1

Y
Y

Y

Y

2

Y

2

Y

Y

Y
Y

1

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

2,3,4

Y
Y

2,3,4

Y

2

Y

2

Y

2

Y
Y

2

Y

2

Y

5,6, 13

Y

13

Y

13

Y

13

Y

Y

13

Y

Y

5,6, 13

Y

13

Y

13

Y

13

Y

13

Y

13

Y

13

N

7

Y

8

Y

8

Y

8

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

9,10,11

N

Y

Y

N

Y

9,10,11

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

9,10,11

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

9,10,11

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

9,10,11

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

9,10,11

Y

Y

Y

N

Y
Y

8

Y

8

* The land use compatibility for the above listed parcels is determined by applying criteria based on the most restrictive airport impact zones, regardless of size of actual land impacted by the
specific zone.
Exceptions:
1. Commercial Poultry;
7. Golf Courses and. Tennis Courts;
2. Shopping Centers;
8. RV Park;
3. Restaurant and Food Take-out, General Retail Stores, Tasting Rooms;
9. All Schools, Hospitals, Correctional Facilities;
10. Libraries, Day Care Centers, Social Clubs/Lodges, Churches;
4. Convention Centers
5. Office Buildings, Public Buildings, Research Laboratories;
11. Electric Power Plant.
6. Personal Service Health Clinics;
#

Residential development subject to compliance with Table 6 Airport Impact Zones Land Use Compatibility Matrix.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 19-19

APPENDIX 4

Passenger Leakage Analysis
Prescott Municipal Airport

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Table of Contents

Section 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................................1

Section 2 – Background .................................................................................................................2

Section 3 – Historical Airport Activity.........................................................................................3

Section 4 – Airport Service Area ..................................................................................................8

Section 5 – Socioeconomics & Demographics of ASA ..............................................................12

Section 6 – Comparable ASA......................................................................................................14

Section 7 – Common Passenger Leakage Modes ......................................................................17

Section 8 – Surveys.......................................................................................................................18

Section 9 – Analysis of Findings .................................................................................................21

Section 10 – Summary of Findings .............................................................................................24

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

T.O.C.

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND
The City of Prescott requested the Louis Berger Group, Inc. to develop a Passenger Leakage
Analysis for the Prescott Municipal Airport – Ernest A. Love Field (PRC) as part of the Airport
Master Plan Update.
The City initiated this Passenger Leakage Study in order to: a) identify the volume of passenger
generated in the Prescott area; b) to quantify the number of passengers lost to other airports; and
c) to identify which alternative transportation modes are used by travelers to begin their air
travel.
This analysis was prepared in correlation with the passenger Forecast Analysis for the Prescott
Master Plan Update. The primary objectives include:

A.

Provide a quantifiable estimate of the unconstrained demand for air travel in the
airport catchment area;

B.

Estimate the current passenger leakage from Prescott Municipal Airport (PRC)
towards other airports;

C.

Provide supporting socio-economic data;

D.

Provide enplaned passenger, and airline service data;

E.

Identify and describe the airport service area; and

F.

Identify and describe comparable airport service area.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 1 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION
For this study, the term “passenger leakage” defines the passengers that choose ground
transportation modes to reach their destination or other distant airports.
The majority of the current of air travel demand in PRC is generated by passengers traveling to
Phoenix for business or connecting at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) to
another flight. In the last ten years PRC has experienced high enplanement volatility, suggesting
that the population in the Prescott area perceives the use of personal vehicle and shuttle services
to reach PHX and other airports as a competitive alternative to air travel from PRC.
Three methodologies are used to estimate the unconstrained and potential passenger demand of
air service at PRC. The first method is based upon population estimates and estimated
enplanement per capita ratios. The second method estimates passenger demand based upon
comparisons with other airports. The last method considers data from three surveys, which are:
a) Phoenix Sky Harbor O’Neil’s Passenger Intercept Survey, b) 2005 Phoenix Sky Harbor
Survey, and c) Business Surveys.
Data from an array of sources was collected to support this study. The following list is a sample
of the data reviewed:
•

Historical airport and regional data, including airport operations, number of
enplanements/deplanements passenger data;

•

USDOT O&D data;

•

Airline charges;

•

Airport shuttle van service data, including ridership estimates, destination, schedule
and cost;

•

Catchment area population and demographics figures;

•

Comparable airports in the southwest; and,

•

Survey data.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 2 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Additionally, other previous studies that have examined PRC passenger leakage were reviewed.
These studies include:
•

Arizona Rural Air Service Study, Arizona DOT 1999;

•

Arizona State Aviation Need Study, 2000;

•

Intercity public transportation services: an assessment of the I-10, I-17, and I-19
corridors in Arizona, ADOT 2006;

•

Regional Transit Need Study, CYMPO 2006

•

Metropolitan Transportation Plan, CYMPO 2006

This study is categorized in the following sections:
• Historical Airport Activity;
• Airport Service Area;
• Socioeconomics & Demographics of ASA
• Comparable Airport Service Areas;
• Common Passenger Leakage Modes;
• Surveys;
• Analysis of Findings; and
• Summary of Findings.

SECTION 3 - HISTORICAL AIRPORT ACTIVITY
Prescott Municipal Airport – Ernest A. Love Field is situated on approximately 760 acres of land
located in Yavapai County, in the West-Central region of Arizona. Centrally located
approximately eight to ten miles between the City of Prescott, and the towns of Chino Valley and
Prescott Valley, PRC’s current surveyed elevation is 5,045 feet above Mean Sean Level (MSL).

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 3 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Interstate 40 is accessible from PRC through US Highway 89 northbound on Mac Curdy Drive.
Interstate 17 is accessible from PRC through US Highway 69 eastbound.
Prescott Municipal Airport was inaugurated on July 4, 1926, and renamed Ernest A. Love Field
in 1928. The airport is classified by the FAA Class I commercial service public use airport, and
is owned by the City of Prescott. The airport serves both the commercial and multi-faceted
general aviation needs of the area, including the City of Prescott, Yavapai County and residents
of the local Yavapai Reservation.
The terminal building at PRC is a single level structure that was originally constructed in 1948
and expanded in 1957. Its current size is approximately 3,800 sq. ft. The terminal is located west
of the intersection between Runways 3R/21L and 12/30, and is accessible via Mac Curdy Drive.
The main terminal building is used for commercial passenger traffic. Within the terminal is the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) check point for luggage and passenger screening.
Currently, the air service is subsidized by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
through the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. The EAS is a program operated by the U.S.
DOT that provides subsidies to airlines who agree to provide service on historically nonprofitable routes to rural areas, which were served by certified air carriers before the 1979
Airline Deregulation Act. Under EAS contract, Public Law 100-223 states that the airline must
provide:
(a)

Service to a hub airport, defined as an FAA-designated medium- or large-hub
airport;

(b)

Service with no more than one intermediate stop to the hub;

(c)

Service with aircraft having at least 15 passenger seats at communities that
averaged more than 11 passenger enplanements a day in any calendar year from
1976-1986;

(d)

Under certain circumstances, service with pressurized aircraft; and

(e)

Flights at reasonable times taking into account the needs of passengers with
connecting flights.

In order to qualify for the EAS program, the City of Prescott submitted a proposal package to
USDOT, and upon approval, the airlines were then permitted to bid on the contract. To maintain

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 4 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

the subsidy however, the average subsidy per passenger for the community must not exceed
$200.
Under the program, airline service is currently offered by Mesa Airlines, which has provided
continuous service since January 1989, with the exception of the period between May 2005 and
October 2007, during which the EAS contract was awarded to Great Lakes Airlines.
The number of passenger enplanements at PRC, as shown in Figure 3.1, has been declining
since 1994, from a high of 14,000 enplanements per year to a low of 4,233 in 2007. Several
factors can be accounted for this decline in enplanements, which are further detailed in the 2008
Master Plan Update.

However, the level of aviation activity and general aviation (GA)

operations has remained overall stable with only a slight decline in recent years. This is mainly
due to higher fuel and operating costs. Figure 3.2 provides a summary of aviation activity at
PRC from 1990 to 2007.
Figure 3.1

Thousands

PRC Airline Enplanements (1989 – 2007)
16
14

Enplanements

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Arizona Pacific Airways

Mesa Airline

Great Lakes

Source: Airport Administration Records

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 5 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Operations

Enplanements

Figure 3.2
PRC Historical Operations (1989 – 2007)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year
Number of Operations

Number of Enplanements

Source: FAA TAF & Airport Administration Records

As previously mentioned, Mesa Airlines is currently the only commercial airline operator at
PRC, which operates under the US Airways Express logo. The partnership with US Airways
provides code-sharing and direct connection to the US Airways domestic and international route
system. Mesa Airlines offers flights to PHX arriving and departing from Terminal 4 and to Las
Vegas McCarran International (LAS). Responses gathered during a recent Business Survey
suggests that the opportunity to arrive and connect to flights in Terminal 4, occupied by US
Airways and Southwest, is perceived to be more advantageous by passengers in Prescott.
Indicating that in the two year period (2005-2007) Great Lakes Airline was operating in and out
of Terminal 2, and therefore, the number of enplanements dropped rapidly. By arriving in
Terminal 2, all connecting passengers to flights departing from Terminal 3 and 4 had to exit the
terminal and repeat the check-in and screening process, and in some instances collect and
recheck their luggage. This had effectively limited the ability of the passenger to select
convenient connections, ultimately favoring ground transportation options to reach PHX.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 6 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

However, despite the improvements, business traveler’s main concerns with the service provided
at PRC are the reliability problems of Mesa Airline equipment. The majority stated that they
have been turned away by Mesa because of the lack of sufficient seating and/or equipment
failures. During those occurrences, Mesa Airlines had to reroute passenger on ground shuttles to
PHX.
Currently, Mesa Airline operates in Prescott with a fleet of Beechcraft 1900, in a 19 seats
configuration. The average flight time between Prescott and Phoenix is 40 minutes, compared to
1 hour and 45 minutes of driving time*. Generally, the airlines fare structure is very complex and
it is subject to continuous changes in response to the market demands. However, base airfare cost
between PRC and PHX currently varies between $79 with advance purchase each way and $99
plus tax. It was noted when connecting at PHX for some destination the average lowest airfare
increased only $42 in average, and for some other cases decreased $32 on average. Table 3.1
presents a summary of the average and lowest airfare cost, with 14-days advance purchase, for a
one-way direct flight from PHX to its top five most popular destinations: Denver, Los Angeles,
Chicago, San Diego and Dallas Forth Worth, compared to a one-way direct flight from Prescott
with one connection in Phoenix.
The average airfare for those city pairs was computed by the US Department of Transportation
(USDOT) by averaging the cost of sold tickets for the selected city pairs, and it included
Southwest Airline’s tickets sales. Because Southwest does not have inter-airline agreement with
other airlines, it was not included in the computation of the average airfare cost from/to Prescott.

*

Travel time on I-17 from Prescott to Phoenix varies significantly. The 2007 ADOT I-17 Alternative Study points out that travel demand south of
Anthem currently exceeds capacity, mountainous terrain and high truck volumes currently cause substantial delay from trucks slowing on grades,
crashes often close I-17 resulting in long, unpredictable delays, no practical alternates exist for I-17 traffic from Flagstaff and Phoenix, and
ultimately, travel delay and unreliability disrupts other transportation modes such as airports.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 7 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Table 3.1 – Average Airfare
Destination

Average Airfare From
PHX

PRC

Lowest (PRC)

Denver , CO (DEN)

$157

$222

$141

Los Angeles, CA (LAX)

$80

$150

$127

Chicago, IL (ORD)

$141

$235

$205

San Diego CA, (SAN)

$79

$131

$108

Dallas Forth Worth, TX
(DFW)

$237

$209

$185

Source: USDOT and web airfares sale sites

Table 3.2 provides the current PRC flight schedule:
Table 3.2 – PRC Flight Schedule
Departure

Arrival

Departure Time Arrival Time

Frequency

Prescott (PRC)

Phoenix (PHX)

8:30 AM

9:10 AM

Daily

Prescott (PRC)

Phoenix (PHX)

6:42 PM

7:22 PM

Sunday - Friday

Phoenix (PHX)

Prescott (PRC)

9:45 AM

10:25 AM

Sunday - Friday

Phoenix (PHX)

Prescott (PRC)

2:10 PM

2:50 PM

Saturday Only

Phoenix (PHX)

Prescott (PRC)

8:55 PM

9:35 PM

Sunday - Friday

Prescott (PRC)

Las Vegas (LAS)

10:35 AM

11:00 AM

Sunday - Friday

Las Vegas, (LAS)

Prescott (PRC)

4:02 PM

6:27 PM

Sunday - Friday

Source: Airport Administration

SECTION 4 - AIRPORT SERVICE AREA
Generally the Airport Service Area (ASA) refers to the airport passenger’s catchment area. The
ASA is defined by the surrounding communities’ accessibility to the airport in terms of travel
time by means of ground transportation. In 1999, The Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) in the Arizona Rural Air Service Study (SASP) defined the Prescott Municipal Airport
theoretical market service area and an actual market service area.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 8 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

The SASP acknowledged that on average, commercial service passengers are willing to travel
120-minutes to a major hub airport that can provide frequent direct national and international
flights and 60-minutes to an airport with regional commuter service with a major hub airport.
Based on 60-minute driving times, the SASP identified that PRC theoretical service area would
include an area spanning from Wickenburg to Williams and Camp Verde – Figure 4.1
(theoretical service area). It was noted that actual diving times can vary, based upon weather,
traffic, and terrain characteristics.
The SASP defined the actual market service area from the collection of information gathered
through a travel agent survey, travel agent ticket logs, and passenger surveys. The actual market
service area was found to be much smaller than the theoretical service area. PRC was found to
attract passenger from only from Prescott and nearby community including Prescott Valley and
Chino Valley. This finding reduced the ASA to a 20-miles radius from Prescott Municipal
Airport. Several communities that fell within the PRC theoretical service area were attributed to
the Flagstaff actual service area with the premise that Flagstaff had a higher level of service than
Prescott – Figure 4.2 (actual service area)
PRC’s actual ASA in the SASP is found to be consistent with the definition of airport service
areas provided in the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS criteria
states that the airport system should be extensive, providing as many people as possible with
convenient access to air transportation, typically not more than 20-miles travel to the nearest
NPIAS airport.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 9 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Figure 4.1
Theoretical Service Area

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 10 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Figure 4.2
Actual Service Area

Therefore, for the purpose of this study, the Prescott Municipal ASA boundaries are set by a 20miles travel distance radius from the airport, in line with NPIAS criteria and SASP findings.
Based upon the above definition of the Prescott ASA will include the following incorporated
communities and zip codes, as shown in Table 4.1:
Table 4.1 – Communities & Zip Codes
City

Zip Code

Prescott

86301; 86302; 86303; 86304; 86313; 86314

Prescott Valley

86612; 86314

Chino Valley

86326

Dewey-Humboldt

86314; 86327; 86329

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 11 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Some unincorporated residential areas of Yavapai County on the south and northwest side of
Prescott as well west of Chino Valley are included in the ASA.

SECTION 5 – SOCIOECONOMICS & DEMOGRAPHICS OF ASA
To understand the air service needs in Prescott and to estimate the level of demand, it is useful to
explore the characteristics of the communities served by PRC. To estimate demand for air
service the following demographical characteristics have been reviewed: a) population, b)
density, c) employment, d) taxable sales and e) income.
5.1 - Population
Prescott is identified by the US Census Bureau as a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), defined
by the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a “geographic entity…for use by
Federal statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics”. According
to the 2007 Census Bureau estimate, more than 208,000 people live in the Prescott MSA.
According to the Department of Economic Security (DES) 2007 population estimates, it is
estimated that about 60% of the MSA population, 124,477 people live within the 20 miles ASA
radius, with the highest population density in
the City of Prescott. The recent rapid growth

Table 5.1

of the region as prompted the Central

ASA Population Estimates

Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization

City

(CYMPO) Long Range Transportation to

2007

2030

Chino Valley

13,098

30000

forecast the population within the tri-city

Dewey – Humboldt

4,434

88000

area (Prescott, Prescott Valley and Chino) to

Prescott

43,217

102,000

Prescott Valley

38,357

30,000

Unincorporated

25,371

188,000

Total

124,477

438,000

be

approximately

438,000

by

2030,

representing a 5.6% overall annual growth
rate in the ASA. Table 5.1 shows the
population distribution in the entire ASA.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 12 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

5.2 - Taxable Sales
As shown in Table 5.2, taxable sales are a strong indicator of economic activity in a region. A
high level of taxable sales indicates the existence of potential demand for air service. In 2006
$2.3 billion in total taxable sales were reported in the ASA of which 1.5 billion were spent in
Prescott alone. Knowing that Prescott has an
estimated population of about 43,217, its

Table 5.2

taxable sales per capita is equal to $32,455,
which is about 30% higher than Phoenix,
with $22,587 and 36% higher than Yuma

2006 ASA Taxable Sales (million)
Chino Valley

184.6

Dewey – Humboldt

37.8

with $20,600 taxable sales per capita. The

Prescott

1,500

overall taxable sale per capita in the ASA is

Prescott Valley

586.4

†

3% higher Phoenix with $23,300 . The high

Unincorporated areas

Not available

taxable sales highlights the role of Prescott

Total

2,300

Phoenix

34,400

Yuma

1,900

as an economic drive for the area and that it
benefits from tourist spending and from
people that travel to Prescott on a regular
basis for every day needs.
5.3 - Employment Statistics
It is estimated, based on AZ Department of Economic Security data, that in 2007 the total labor
force in the Prescott metropolitan area was over 40,500 with an average 3.2% unemployment
rate.
The region employment spectrum is diverse, encompassing different industries and sectors such
as education, medical, manufacturing, retail and tourism. A large number of employers are
located in city of Prescott, including the Yavapai Regional Medical Center, Yavapai Community
College, Embry-Riddle University, Veteran Administration Medical Center, Wal-Mart, Frontier
Village and Prescott Gateway Mall, Prescott Municipal Airport and related services, several
manufacturing companies and governmental offices. Other employers in the area are the casinos,
resorts, various school districts, USPS, and retail stores.
†

Taxable sales and population numbers for unincorporated areas were not included in the computation of the ASA taxable sale per capita.
However it is expected that they contributed in the taxable sales totals of Prescott and other incorporated communities.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 13 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

5.4 – ASA Income Statistics
The Population Trend Report prepared for the City of Prescott by ABC Demographic
Consultants estimates 50,802 households in 2007 are within a 20-mile radius of the Prescott
Municipal Airport. The estimated average household income for 2007 was estimated at $56,153,
the median income was estimated at $41,348 and the per capita income was estimated at
$26,434. Additionally, the report estimated in 2007 41% of the population was between the ages
of 20 and 54 years old, while 21.4% of the population was estimated to be above 65 years old.
The median age of 43.4 years and an average age of 42.76 years. Table 5.3 depicts the ASA
income distribution.
Table 5.3
ASA Income Distribution
$250,000 or more

2.54%

$150,000 to $249.999

2.50%

$100,000 to $149,999

7.80%

$75,000 to $99,999

9.22%

$50,000 to $74,999

18.23%

$35,000 to $49,999

18.75%

$25,000 to $34,999

14.36%

$15,000 to $24,999

14.31%

Under $14,999

12.29%

SECTION 6 – COMPARABLE ASA
It is commonly estimated that the annual passenger enplanements demand is strongly correlated
to the size of the population that it serves. However, individual markets vary from one another.
The regional distribution of air service demand is heavily influenced by low cost carries, routes
availability, flights frequency and hub and spoke systems.

The market characteristics and enplanements of four communities and airports in the southwest
were reviewed to estimate the market potential of PRC. The selection process was based upon
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 14 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

factors such as a) geographical location, b) proximity to a major hub, c) population in the
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), d) level of service, and e) enplanements.
a) Geographical Location: The selection of the airports was limited to the south-western
region of the United States to maintain analogous population and geographical
characteristics.
b) Proximity to a Major Hub: Since PRC market share is affected by PHX, only airports
that are directly affected by major hubs were selected.
c) Population in the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA): The MSA is designed to
provide a nationally consistent set of standards for collecting, tabulating and publishing
federal statistic for geographic areas in the United States. Prescott MSA population was
estimated to be about 208,000 with a density estimated to be about 1200 people per
square mile; hence only cities with a population density similar to Prescott MSA were
selected. Population and population density in the area Metropolitan Statistical Area were
obtained from the US Census Bureau
d) Level of Service: Only airport with more than one commercial air carrier options were
selected.
e) Enplanements: Only airport with average capture rate above 35%, reflecting 50,000 or
more enplanements were selected.
Based on the criteria mentioned above, the airports in the following cities were selected: St.
George, Utah; Redding, California; Yuma, Arizona; and Abilene, Texas. Overall, these cities
have similar statistic characteristics. Table 6.1 provides a summary of their enplanements per
capita ratios.

Table 6.1
Enplanement per Capita
SGU – St. George, Utah
RDD – Redding, California
YUM – Yuma, Arizona
ABI – Abilene, Texas
Average

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

0.42
0.37
0.36
0.71
0.46

Page 15 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Table 6.2 presents a snapshot of pertinent information of the selected cities.
Table 6.2
SGU – St. George, Utah
Enplanements

53,663

Destinations

Nearest Major Hub

LAS

MSA Population

Distance in Miles

131

Population Density

Daily Flights
Airlines

Up to 20
United Express
Sky West

Taxable Sales
Household Median Income

LAX, SLC
126,000
771
1.8 Billion
49,000

RDD – Redding, California
Enplanements

66,695

Destinations

Nearest Major Hub

SMF

MSA Population

Distance in Miles

148

Population Density

Daily Flights
Airlines

Up to 22
United Express
Horizon Air

Taxable Sales
Household Median Income

SFO, LAX,
PDX
180,000
1383
2.1 billion
$41,682

YUM – Yuma, Arizona
Enplanements

67,684

Destinations

Nearest Major Hub

PHX

MSA Population

Distance in Miles

188

Population Density

Daily Flights
Airlines

Up to 14
United Express, Delta
Sky West, US Airways

Taxable Sales
Household Median Income

PHX, LAX,
SLC
185,000
880
1.9 billion
35,374

ABI – Abilene, Texas
Enplanements

88,327

Destinations

Nearest Major Hub

DFW

MSA Population

Distance in Miles
Daily Flights
Airlines

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

175
Up to 10
American Eagle
Continental express

Population Density
Taxable Sales
Household Median Income

IAH, DFW
124,000
1100
2.1 billion
39,821

Page 16 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

SECTION 7 – COMMON PASSENGER LEAKAGE MODES
Prescott’s proximity to other airports such as Flagstaff Pulliam Municipal Airport and Phoenix
Sky Harbor (PHX), a major hub, makes ground transportation options (e.g., personal vehicles,
shuttle vans, taxis and limos) via interstate I-17 attractive. The use of personal vehicles is very
common. According to the CYMPO Regional Transit Need Study, more than 2% of the Prescott
tri-city area workforce commutes daily to Phoenix. I-17 offers direct connections to the Phoenix
freeway loop system and to the PHX Airport. Taxi services from Prescott to PHX, while
available, are limited by regulations imposed at by Sky Harbor. Others like limousine or door-todoor services are also available by reservation only, their prices range from $49 to $75/hour or
$40 to $125 one-way.
Another popular mode of transportation dedicated mainly to transfer passenger from the tri-city
area directly to PHX are shuttle vans. Nationwide operators have been seizing on the opportunity
to transport passengers from rural and outlying area directly to major hubs. According to the
CYMPO Regional Transit Need Study, six private companies offer service between the Central
Yavapai region and Phoenix Sky Harbor, of which three offer daily trips with scheduled and oncall with pick-ups at private residences. However, two companies control the majority of the
market share of this flourishing business, Prescott Transit Authority and Shuttle-U. Combined,
they provide 32 daily round trips between Prescott and PHX with prices starting at $21 one-way
up to $56 round trip. Both operate commercial Ford minivans and lift-equipped shuttle vans,
with a capacity respectively of 8 and 12 passengers. The maximum daily capacity for Prescott
Transit is 128 and 180 for Shuttle U. Combined, they have the potential to serve 308 passengers
per- day or 112,420 passengers per year. Table 7.1 provides their current schedule and fare
structure.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 17 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Table 7.1 – Passenger Shuttle Fare Structures
Prescott Transit Authority
Departures from
Prescott
4:00am
5:00am
6:00am
7:00am
8:00am
9:00am
10:00am
11:00am

Departures from
Phoenix

12:00pm
1:00pm
2:00pm
3:00pm
4:00pm
5:00pm
6:00pm
8:00pm

6:30am
7:30am
8:30am
9:30am
10:30am
11:30am
12:30pm
1:30pm

Purchase Type

2:30pm
3:30pm
4:30pm
5:30pm
6:30pm
7:30pm
8:30pm
10:30pm

Regular
At Sky Harbor Airport
Child 4-15
Child under 4
Advance Purchase 20 trip
Advance Purchase 10 trip
Advance Purchase 6 trip

One-Way
Cost

Round
Trip

$29.95
$32
$18.95
Free
$21
$22
$23

$49.95
n/a
$29.95
Free
$42
$44
$46

Shuttle U
Departures from
Prescott
4:00am
5:00am
6:00am
7:00am
8:00am
9:00am
10:00am
11:00am

12:00pm
1:00pm
2:00pm
3:00pm
4:00pm
5:00pm
6:00pm
8:00pm

Departures from
Prescott Valley
4:20am
5:20am
6:20am
7:20am
8:20am
9:20am
10:20am
11:20am

12:20pm
1:20pm
2:20pm
3:20pm
4:20pm
5:20pm
6:20pm
7:20pm

Departures from
Phoenix
7:30am
8:30am
9:30am
10:30am
11:30am
12:30pm
1:30pm
2:30pm

3:30pm
4:30pm
5:30pm
6:30pm
7:30pm
8:30pm
10:30pm

Purchase Type

Regular
Child 4-15
Child under 3
Frequent Rider

OneWay
Cost
$34
$18
Free
$22

Round
Trip
$56
$30
Free
$44

SECTION 8 - SURVEYS
In the effort to estimate the potential passenger demand in the Prescott Airport Service Area, the
data from two passenger’s surveys and one business survey was reviewed.
8.1 - O’Neil’s Passenger Intercept Survey
To understand their market composition, Phoenix Sky Harbor conducts a quarterly passenger
intercept survey on a random sample of 750 passengers. As part of the survey, demographic data
and ZIP codes of origin are collected. The results are sorted based upon the ZIP Code of origin.
ZIP Codes starting with 85 and 86 are commonly used for Arizona. The surveys conducted in the
third and fourth quarter of 2007 revealed that 47.1% of the sample had a home address in the

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 18 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Mountain-West region (AZ, NM, NV, UT, CO, ID, WY) and 3% of the sample originated from
Prescott in the 863XX zip code area (see Table 8.1).

Table 8.1
2007 3rd & 4th Qt O’Neil Passenger Survey
City and Communities

% of traffic

Phoenix

9.9%

East Valley Communities

14.1%

West Valley Communities

6.4%

Tucson

1.6%

Northern Arizona

1.4%

Prescott

3%

Other

10.7

Total

47.1%

The second survey reviewed is the 2005 Phoenix O&D Passenger Survey, which aimed to collect
demographic data, purpose of travel and other airport pertinent information. As part of the
demographic data ZIP codes of the participant passengers were also collected (see Table 8.2).
The survey was administered to departing passengers only.
The results showed that 2.83% of the sample was composed of residents in the Prescott MSA,
which includes Sedona, and 1.69% was composed just of residents of the Prescott ASA. In 2005,
Sky Harbor reported 24.7 million O&D passengers.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 19 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Table 8.2
2005 Phoenix Passenger Survey – ZIP Codes
86301

Prescott

Yavapai

86303

Prescott

Yavapai

86305

Prescott

Yavapai

86314

Prescott Valley

Yavapai

86322

Camp Verde

Yavapai

86323

Chino Valley

Yavapai

86324

Clarkdale

Yavapai

86325

Cornville

Yavapai

86327

Dewey

Yavapai

The third survey was conducted by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., as part of the Prescott
Municipal Airport Master Plan. The survey was aimed to local business that benefits or may
benefit from additional air service in Prescott, to understand their business travel preferences.
While the results of the survey did not produce any demand estimates, valuable information
about quality of existing service and passenger’s preference were recorded. The survey showed
that the majority of the business travel would use PRC more for their travel needs if quality and
consistency of the current air service is improved. Until then, many prefer using personal, rental
vehicles or shuttles to satisfy their travel need.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 20 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

SECTION 9 – ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
Passenger leakage is very common in small communities, especially in communities where local
air service is viewed by potential customers as not attractive. The same can be said for medium
size airports when located within driving distance from a major hub airport.
When large segments of the population are on a fixed income, the demand for airfare is elastic
(i.e., sensitive to price change). The choice of using the local airport or drive to a larger one is
determined by the lowest overall cost. Prescott has a large number of retirees with 20 percent of
its population above 65 years of age, which typically will opt for the cheapest travel solution. In
addition, Prescott is approximately 105 miles north of Phoenix Sky Harbor, which is one of the
busiest major hubs in the nation, with hundreds of daily direct flight and destination. PHX is also
home to US Airways, and Southwest Airline has a heavy presence. Southwest Airline is known
for its low cost fare and for the so called “Southwest Effect”, where competing airlines lower
their fares on markets served by Southwest; consequently passengers are willing to drive
considerably more to reach an airport served by Southwest.
Nevertheless, when comparing airfares from Prescott to the top five PHX city pairs, it was found
that average airfares increased less than the cost of the connection between PRC and PHX. In
some instances some travel sites quoted lower prices from PRC than from PHX. This shows that
the complexity of the airfare system, and the frequent changes, in response to demand and
competitors, makes it very difficult to grasp the airfare structure from/to PRC.
At this time, with more than 32 daily round trips, and a daily capacity of 308 passengers, shuttle
van companies have been identified to be PRC’s primary competitor. For this study, we were
unable to obtain ridership data, nevertheless all documentation and research indicates that
morning departure from Prescott are typically full and so returns in the afternoon from PHX,
mimicking airline departure and arrival peaking characteristics. Shuttle companies often advise
to call and reserve in advance. Therefore, it was believed appropriate to develop three ridership
scenarios. As shown in Table 9.1, Low, Likely, and High ridership scenarios depict the yearly
passenger loads of the shuttle companies.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 21 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

Based upon the above estimates,
shuttle

companies

have

likely

achieved a demand capture rate of
about
demand,

70%
while

of

unconstrained
the

Table 9.1

airport

is

Yearly Shuttle Passenger Load Scenarios
Low

Likely

High

56,100 – 61,800

73,000 - 78,700

89,850 – 95,550

currently capturing less than 6%, with the remaining 24% still likely to choose to personally
drive directly to Phoenix or elsewhere.
In the 1999 Arizona Rural Air Service Study, ADOT estimated that statewide enplanements per
capita ration was 3.10, lead by Phoenix with a 3.76 ratio and Tucson with 2.18. It was then
concluded that the unconstrained overall enplanement per capita rate for the 13 study airports
was equal to 2.06 and for Prescott 0.87, estimating that Prescott could capture approximately
40% of its total unconstrained demand.
Knowing that demographic characteristic in the areas have not significantly changed in the last
ten years, it is reasonable to believe that the same ratio of enplanement per capita is still valid. As
previously described, the population of the Prescott Municipal Airport Service Area was
estimated at 124,477, applying the same enplanement per capita ratio calculated in the Arizona
Rural Air Service Study the total unconstrained enplanement demand would be 108,295 per year.
Applying the 40% capture rate calculated in the SASP to the total unconstrained demand,
Prescott could capture 43,318. The 40% capture rate is believed to be reasonable considering that
all non regional and secondary airports are affected by passenger leakage. The 2000 Arizona
State Aviation Need Study (SANS) pointed out that even lager markets lose 40-50% of their
passengers.
Comparing Prescott to the selected comparable airports and MSA, it was noted that Prescott has
similar taxable sales and a higher median income than three of the four in the MSA. The average
enplanement per capita was found to be equal to 0.46 of the total MSA population. Prescott MSA
is larger than any of the 4 MSA reviewed, with an estimated population of about 208,000.
Applying their average enplanement per capita, Prescott could draw up to 95,680 enplanements
per year from its MSA and 57,260 enplanements from the 20-miles radius ASA. This estimated
capture rate is 6% higher than the capture rate in the SASP.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 22 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

The third estimate comes from the survey results of the Sky Harbor passenger’s intercepts
surveys and the Prescott Municipal Airport Business survey. The quarterly Passenger Intercept
Survey, while not intended specifically for O&D passenger traffic tell us that 3% of the random
sample, which capture all passenger traffic, both O&D and connecting, originated in the Prescott
area. The second survey, the 2005 Passenger Survey tells us that 2.83% of the sample, which
was composed only by O&D departing passenger, originated from the Prescott MSA and 1.69%
from the Prescott Airport Service Area previously identified.

Considering that in 2007 Sky Harbor served more than 40 million passengers, it is estimated that
more than 152,000 enplanements were from passenger living in the Prescott MSA, with a rate of
enplanements per capita of 1.36, still below the national average of 1.53, and below the State
average of 3.87.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 23 of 24

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Passenger Leakage Analysis
APPENDIX 4

SECTION 10 – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Finding the precise number of passengers that choose not to use PRC is very difficult and
elusive. The shuttle van companies are careful not to divulge their ridership numbers. Possibly
the only way to find exactly how many passengers begins their air travel in a different airport
would be to access each airline reservation systems, a task very difficult to accomplish.

Based upon the review of previous studies, available information, comparables and surveys data,
Table 10.1 shows the following estimates for unconstrained and potential demand of air service.
In 2007, PRC reported approximately 4,000 enplanements, which shows that currently the
airport is experiencing between a 90.7% to 93.4% passenger leakage of its potential demand to
primary airports.
Table 10.1
Summary of Findings
Estimation Methods
SASP
Comparable ASA
Survey
Average

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Unconstrained Demand
108,295
95,680
152,000
118,658

Potential Demand
43,318
57,260
60,800
53,792

Leakage
90.7%
93.0%
93.4%
92.5%

Page 24 of 24

APPENDIX 5

Lease Rates Analysis
Prescott Municipal Airport

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ..............................................................................................................1

Section 1 – Airport Market Profile.........................................................................1

Section 2 – Comparable Airports ...........................................................................3

Section 3 – Summary of Key Findings ...................................................................6

Section 4 – Observations and Recommendations .................................................7

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

TOC

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this White Paper is to determine if Prescott Municipal Airport’s (PRC) current
lease rates and policy are competitively established and adequate. This White Paper reviews
existing airport lease rates and compares results of a lease rates and structures survey of similar
airports to that of PRC. It identifies PRC’s overall market position, ascertains the adequacy of
the airport’s leasing structure and policy, and recommends where improvements may need to be
considered.
The key objective of this White Paper is to analyze lease rates at comparable airports. This
analysis provides a “snap shot” of airport lease rates from similar airports. It allows PRC to
gauge it’s existing lease rates and provides assistance with the establishment of future rates
within the context of the airport’s market environment. It should be stated that a lease rates
analysis does not supplement a property appraisal for specific lease negotiations.
The goals set forth for this analysis were accomplished through the following steps:
ƒ

Obtain and review existing leases from the City through meetings with City and Airport
staff to identify current lease issues, concerns and needs;

ƒ

Establish a reasonable list of comparable airports to be researched for this effort. Lease
rates for similar services and operations at similar airports was collected to achieve this
goal; and

ƒ

Through market research and historical data collection, identify potential changes to
current lease rates, landing fees and the use of lease inflators and their applicability, as
well as a review of other techniques commonly used in the industry.

This White Paper is categorized into the following sections:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Section 1 – Airport Market Profile
Section 2 – Comparable Airports
Section 3 – Summary of Key Findings
Section 4 – Observations and Recommendations

SECTION 1 – AIRPORT MARKET PROFILE
PRC is a general aviation airport located in Yavapai County, and is centrally located
approximately 8 to 10 miles between the City of Prescott, the towns of Chino Valley and
Prescott Valley. The airport is owned and operated by the City of Prescott.
PRC is situated on approximately 760 acres of land. The airport serves both the commercial and
multi-faceted general aviation needs for the area, including the City of Prescott, Yavapai County
and residents of the local Yavapai Reservation. Additionally, PRC serves as the flight training
base for Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU).

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 1

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

There are currently 350 aircraft based at PRC including 300 single engine aircraft, 26 twin
engine aircraft, 3 jets, 10 helicopters, and one ultra-light aircraft.
There are several businesses located at the Airport. The following table identifies each type of
service provided at the Airport and the name of the businesses that provide those services.
Table 1
PRC Airport Businesses
Business

Service Type

Charter, Flight Instruction, &
Rental

ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Air Grand Canyon
Arizona Skyways Airlines
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Guidance Helicopters
North-Aire, Inc.
Sky School

Aircraft Repairs, Avionics, &
Service Support

ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Arizona Air-Craftsman/Wing Nuts
Mile High Avionics
Nostalgaire
Prescott Aircraft
Prescott Aircraft Interiors
Powell Upholstery & Aircraft Interiors
Wing Waxers – Aircraft Dealing

Airline Service

ƒ

US Airways Express (Operated by Mesa Airlines)

Fixed Base Operator (FBO)

ƒ

Legend Aviation1

Ground Transportation

ƒ

Hertz (Airport Terminal)

Miscellaneous

ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Antelope Hills Golf Course
Arizona Aviation Supplies
Rittaire
Susie’s Skyway Restaurant

Source: Draft PRC Airport Master Plan (2008)

These businesses are housed in several facilities at the Airport, including the Commercial
Terminal Building, General Aviation Terminal Building, and various other buildings on Airport
property.

1

Legend Aviation has recently become the Airport’s FBO. Prior to Legend providing these services, the City of Prescott provided FBO services
at PRC

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 2

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

SECTION 2 – COMPARABLE AIRPORTS
To collect and review lease rates for similar services and operations at comparable airports to
PRC, criteria were developed to determine a list of potential comparable airports. The following
broad criteria were used to develop the long list of potential comparable airports:
ƒ

Location of the airport, with preference given to those airports within the State of
Arizona, southwest region, and a competitor of PRC;

ƒ

Similar size and scope in terms of acreage, runway length, use, ownership, and type; and

ƒ

Similar type of activity: training, ATCT, based aircraft level, Part 139 certification.
Table 2
Airports Considered for Comparison

Airport
Prescott
Flagstaff Pulliam
Grand Canyon
Kingman
Laughlin
Lake Havasu
Sedona
Glendale
Cottonwood
Bagdad
Phoenix-Mesa Gateway
Show Low
Page
Yuma
Williams (H A Clark Memorial)
Daytona Beach Int’l (FL)
Nashua (NH)
St. Louis Dwnt Airport (IL)

Acres
760
795
859
4,200
650
646
220
720
210
91
3,020
691
536
3,100
303
1,800
400
940

Ownshp/
Use Type
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Gv/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu
Pu/Pu

Airport
Type
CS-Primary
CS-Primary
CS-Primary
CS-Other
CS-Primary
CS-Primary
GA-Public
GA-Reliever
GA-Public
GA-Public
CS-Other
CS-Other
CS-Primary
CS-Primary
GA-Public
CS-Primary
GA-Public
GA-Public

Longest
Runway
7,550’
8,800’
8,999’
6,827’
7,520’
8,001’
5,129’
7,150’
4,250’
4,575’
10,401
7,200’
5,950’
13,300’
5,992’
10,500’
5,501’
6,997’

Part
139
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No

# of
Based
A/C
318
130
9
268
61
288
100
357
49
5
94
63
68
167
16
204
432
268

ATCT
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

EAS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No

Comp
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No

Sources: FAA 5010 Airport Master Records dated 12/20/2007; USDOT EAS Determinations.
Abbreviations: Pu = Public; CS = Commercial Service; GA = General Aviation; A/C = Aircraft; ATCT = Air Traffic Control Tower; EAS = Essential Air
Service; Comp = Comparable Airport.

Based upon the criteria identified above and review of the data in the table, the comparable
airports selected for review are shaded blue in the table above. While the airports selected are not
necessarily comparable across all criteria categories, the nine (9) airports selected provide a
diverse cross representation of activity at PRC and provide the best results for this analysis.
Each airport was contacted to collect relevant lease information in Spring, 2008. The airports
were provided with a matrix designed to gather information in ten (10) areas of interest with
respect to leases, fees, investments, lease clauses, inflators, and any additional information that
the airport could provide that would assist with the analysis.
The result of this information collection effort for each comparable airport is provided in Table 3
on the following page.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 3

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

Table 3
Comparable Airport Lease Information
Airport

Prescott

Land Lease
(sq. ft.)

$0.09 to 0.30

“Wholesale”
Hangar Rental
Rate (sq. ft.)

“Retail”
Hangar
Rental Rate
(sq. ft.)

Office Rent

% of Gross
Receipts

Fuel
Flowage
Fee (gal)

Required
Investment

Length of Leases
and Reversion
Clause

Inflator
Used/Time

$0.09/SF - $0.16/SF

$0.22/SF $0.40/SF

$10.00 $24.85

1.5% of gross
income
20% of gross
snack mach.

AvGas:
$0.25 - 0.10
JetA:
$0.35 - 0.10

varies

25 yr term

CPI

10% increase
each 4 YR
period

Cottonwood

$0.42

$5.28

N/A

None

N/A

$0.05

None

25 yr initial term
w/15 yr option.
Reverts to airport at
end of 25 yr

Daytona
Beach

7%- 10% of
appraisal

No DAB owned
Hangars

--

% of appraisal

None

$0.07

n/a

20-30 yrs

Appraisal every
5 yrs

Glendale

$0.1375
to
$0.2291

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Annual CPI

$0.28 - $0.95

$300 - $400/month
Shade ports:
$155/month

CPI every other
year

Annual CPI

Lake Havasu

N/A

$30.00

10% monthly

$0.09

Case-by-case

35 years with a 10 yr
option
Subleases are a right
of redemption
Buildings revert to
the airport

None

$0.035

None

15 yr initial term with
2 – 5 yr extension for
a 25 yr total lease

Page

$0.34

N/A

N/A

$2.78/SF for
upstairs
terminal
$5.56/SF for
downstairs
terminal

PhoenixMesa
Gateway

$0.50

$10.50

$15.50

$23.00

5% concessionaire
agreements only

$0.11

In minimum
standards

Main
Terminal $5.00
Terminal
Annex - $3.00

2.5% of gross for
all commercial
leases

Self fueling
$0.20

1 month’s rent

Approx
$33.00

None

$0.10

As required by
minimum
standards

Sedona

$0.48

$2.50

Show Low

$.3085 for all
leases, com.
operators pay a
monthly fee

9,000 sq ft hgr =
$6,000 month
3-8,100 sq ft hgrs =
$3,500 month

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

n/a

30 yr plus two five yr
options, then reverts
back to airport
20 yr initial with 2 yr
options
All land reverts back
to the City unless
optioned
Private hangars are 25
yrs w/10-yr option.
Com. leases max of
10 yrs.

CPI every
3 years

CPI every
3 years

Annual CPI

Page 4

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

Other general observations include:
Cottonwood
The FBO is the only commercial hangar rental. It is referred to as wholesale because it’s very
basic. The airport also has T-hangars for storage at $250.00/mo. ($0.217/SF/MO).
Flagstaff
The airport was not available to participate.
Glendale
Non-Premium Space:
With Infrastructure: $0.1718/SF
Without Infrastructure: $.0.1375/SF
Premium Space:
With Infrastructure: $0.2291/SF
Without Infrastructure: $0.1948/SF
Sedona
There are currently are 40 people on the waiting list for hangar space. That waiting list is broken
down into 20% who currently use tie-downs and 80% people moving in from out of state. Thangars are anticipated to be built in 3-5 years, once a water issue is resolved. There are
currently 105 based aircraft: 2 small jets, 5 twins, and the remainder are single engine aircraft.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 5

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

SECTION 3 – SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
Based upon the information gathered from the comparable airports listed in Table 3, the ranges
and approaches for each lease area category considered by the comparable airports in their
leasing policies are identified below and compared to rates at PRC.
Table 4
Summary of Key Findings
Lease Area

Range of Comparables

PRC

Land Lease

$0.13 to $0.50 s.f.
or 7% to 10% of
appraised value

$0.09 to $0.30 s.f.

Wholesale Hangar
Rental

$2.50 to $10.50 s.f.

$0.09 to $0.16 s.f.

Retail Hangar Rental

$15.50 s.f.

$0.22 to $0.40 s.f.

Office Rent

$2.78 to $33.00 per square
foot or percent of
appraised value

$10.00 to $24.85 s.f.

Percentage of Gross
Receipts

2.5% to 10%

1.5 to 20.0%

Fuel Flowage Fee

$0.035 to $0.20

$0.10 to $0.35
(sliding scale)

Required Investment

Varies;
minimum standards; or
1 month’s rent

Varies

Length of Lease

15 to 35 year initial terms
and offer option years

25 year term

Inflator

Appraisal or
various term CPI

CPI

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 6

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

SECTION 4 – OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PRC has many activities and existing policies in place related to property leasing. These
activities are incorporated into this lease analysis as they relate to the information obtained from
the comparable airports and the recommendations of this effort. Observations and
recommendations for PRC regarding this lease rates analysis include the following areas:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Leasing, including the recent lease contracts with Legend Aviation;
Use of Property Appraisals; and
Airport Minimum Standards.

The following discussion provides leasing observations and recommendations, the use of
property appraisals for lease rate setting, along with general industry considerations to develop
and implement Airport Minimum Standards for PRC as they relate to providing a “level playing
field” for businesses looking to conduct commercial aeronautical activity at the Airport.
Leasing
While some variation exists at each airport, PRC is within the range of findings in most of the
comparable areas considered in this analysis. As an example, a summary of the recent lease
contracts signed with Legend Aviation was incorporated to this effort also. These include:
ƒ

Prescott Aviation Land, LLC. (Legend Aviation): Contract 2008-067
Ground Lease for 7.17 acres; $0.30 s. f.; 25 year term; CPI

ƒ

Prescott Aviation Fuel, LLC. (Legend Aviation); Contract 2008-179
Ground Lease 1 (existing) for 1.02 acres; $0.30 s. f.; 25 year term; CPI
Ground Lease 2 (expansion) for 0.25 acres; $0.09 s. f.; 25 year term; CPI
Fuel Flowage 100LL (Year 1 – $0.25 to Year 4+ – $0.10)
Fuel Flowage Jet-A (Year 1 – $0.35 to Year 5+ – $0.10)
Fuel Flowage ERAU (Year 1 – $0.12)

Table 5 on the next page identifies leasing observations and recommendations for PRC based
upon the identified areas from the comparable airports and general industry practices.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 7

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

Table 5
Leasing Observations and Recommendations
Lease Area

Observation

Recommendation

Land Lease

Within range, PRC may be
low compared to nearby
other airports

Utilize Appraisal

Wholesale Hangar
Rental

Low

Investigate cause of low
rates, utilize appraisal

Retail Hangar Rental

Low

Investigate cause of low
rates, utilize appraisal

Office Rent

Within range

Continue as-is; Utilize
Appraisal

Percentage of Gross
Receipts

Within range

Look to maximize this
method of revenue
collection

Fuel Flowage Fee

High compared to nearby
other airports

Investigate cause of high
fee

Required Investment

Within range

Continue as-is, incorporate
into rate setting based on
size of investment

Length of Lease

Within range

Continue as-is

Inflator

Within range

Utilize CPI and/or
Appraisal

PRC should continue its existing leasing policies and maximize revenues by implementing the
use of airport property appraisals, minimum standards, and appropriate lease rates review from
time-to-time. Developing effective airport lease agreements provides airport users with the
services required while allowing the Airport to operate in a more financially self-sufficient
manner. The recent leases with Legend Aviation indicate that the Airport is already
implementing the observations and recommendations identified in this effort and confirms this
activity.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 8

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

Property Appraisals
Berger has facilitated the development of property appraisals at numerous airports to aide in the
setting of market rental rates for various airport tenants including Fixed Base Operators (FBO’s),
corporate tenants, and others. The following are some of the activities undertaken in developing
an appraisal report. This list is not meant to be comprehensive as each appraisal will be
customized to the unique property.
ƒ

Physically inspect the subject property and improvements;

ƒ

Review various technical data, site plans and any other pertinent structural information
available with regard to land and improvements on the subject property;

ƒ

Examine various documents pertaining to the subject property and review general data
relating to the airport itself and the general aviation environment which surrounds the
subject property's immediate area;

ƒ

Research and analyze the market for airport real estate in the vicinity of the subject
property, and interview various real estate, airport and aviation personnel regarding
current market conditions, current pricing practices and the specific costs relating to the
subject property and its position within the market place;

ƒ

Evaluate the subject property for specific physical items of wear and tear, depreciation,
and valuate the competitive position of the subject within the specific local market for
related properties;

ƒ

Uncover and confirm pertinent market data with relation to the sale and/or lease of
relevant comparable property which are similar to and are useful in estimating a value for
the subject; and

ƒ

Engage in a methodical and systematic analysis of all the data collected and place it
within proper context for related properties in order to develop an estimate of market
value for the subject property.

The overall purpose of an appraisal is to estimate the Market Rental Rate in Fee Simple as of a
given date. The value derived for the property, and the information which is used as part of the
appraisal methodology, is employed as a basis for a rental rate to be paid in connection with
ground rental rates charged by the airport owner, (i.e., the City of Prescott).
PRC’s current initiative soliciting for Airport Property Appraisal Services (RFQ# 08AIR0430) is
inline with the recommendations of this report.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 9

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

Airport Minimum Standards
Airport Minimum Standards are a mechanism that provides an airport the ability to lease
facilities and deliver aeronautical services in a fair and equitable manner. While no examples of
unfair and inequitable commercial operating practices have been found at PRC as part of this
analysis, there are numerous examples that occur at various airports due to the lack of having
established and enforceable Airport Minimum Standards in place. The fundamental concept for
implementing and enforcing Minimum Standards is to assure that all commercial operators are
treated equally by the airport proprietor with no one entity having more favorable business terms
than another. In addition to providing for this “level playing field,” Minimum Standards also
help an airport proprietor to assure that operations are being conducted in a safe and efficient
manner and that the services being offered to the general public meet the airport owner’s, users’,
and the general public’s expectations.
Below are two example scenarios that demonstrate the need to implement, maintain and enforce
Airport Minimum Standards.
ƒ

Scenario 1 – FBO Service Provider versus Independent Mechanic: As a privilege of
providing FBO services, Example Airport requires their FBO to provide a full suite of
services to the public including fuel sales, line services; aircraft maintenance; flight training;
and charter services. As a condition of its lease arrangement with the Airport, the FBO is
required to assure that airport users have the services needed to maintain their aircraft at the
Airport. For maintenance specifically, this FBO is required to employ three full-time, FAA
certified mechanics, provide services Monday through Friday from 8AM to 5PM, and be able
to provide emergency services during non-regular service hours. In addition, they are also
required to maintain a designated portion of their on-airport facility for aircraft maintenance
along with meeting insurance requirements established by the Airport.
An independent mechanic is operating at the same Airport out of a truck in the FBO parking
lot. The mechanic may or may not be certified, does not carry the required insurance, and
does not pay rent or fees associated with the privileges of doing business at the Airport. In
addition, the reliability and availability of services to the public is questionable given the
nature of the operation.
It is clear how this scenario, which is not too uncommon, creates an unfair competitive
practice that can weaken the financial viability of the FBO tenant. Further, the independent
mechanic may be operating on the airport without the proper training and insurance, among
other issues.

ƒ

Scenario 2 – Aircraft Self-Fueling: At public use airports that receive federal funding from
the FAA, the FAA asserts that the airport proprietor has an obligation to permit an aircraft
owner to self-fuel their aircraft with their own fuel. This does not mean that the owner can
fuel any aircraft other than their own, and it does not mean that the owner of an aircraft who
wishes to fuel their own aircraft should have any less of an obligation to adhere to the
policies set forth by the airport with regard to safety, location, training, storage, handling,

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 10

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

environmental permitting, insurance, or other reasonable requirements that are established in
the interest of the public.
As such, in today’s operating environment, the typical small aircraft owner finds it both
impractical and too expensive to meet necessary operational and safety criteria in order to be
permitted to self-fuel. Where the issue more typically comes into play however, is with
regard to corporate aircraft operators who wish to self-fuel.
In this scenario, a corporate aircraft owner purchases fuel from a fuel supplier, stores the fuel
in its own facilities, and maintains equipment to safely transfer the fuel into their own aircraft
and in accordance with all airport policies and procedures concerning fueling. As such, the
practice would fall within the FAA’s criteria for self-fueling and must be permitted by the
airport proprietor. However, once the aircraft owner uses their fuel, or fuel equipment to fuel
any other aircraft that are not owned directly and used exclusively by them, they are not
covered by FAA policy and are subject to the same regulatory and administrative
requirements to store, sell and dispense fuel as an FBO would be, including paying the
airport a fee for the privilege of providing such services whether or not the corporate entity
argues it is providing such services gratuitously.
These two scenarios demonstrate a couple examples where the development and adoption of
Minimum Standards come into play at an airport. In more extreme cases, the circumstances
allowing unfair competition to develop, or allowing one operator to have more favorable
business terms than another, can ultimately leave some airports without legitimate, safe and
reliable services for the public.
FAA Grant Assurances (Obligations) – When developing Minimum Standards, FAA Grant
Assurances must be considered. FAA Grant Assurances are obligations imposed on an
airport sponsor when funds are accepted from the FAA to complete a project for the airport.
These obligations, or assurances, require the airport sponsors to maintain and operate their
facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with 39 separate assurances. Those that
relate to Airport Minimum Standards include:
ƒ
ƒ

Grant Assurance 22. Economic Nondiscrimination.
Grant Assurance 23. Exclusive Rights.

FAA Advisory Circular Guidance – The Minimum Standards development process takes
into account guidance provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This
guidance is prepared by the FAA to ensure that airport sponsors who receive FAA grant
funding for capital improvements at airports continue to meet their grant assurances which
includes running the airport in a fair and equitable manner without granting a tenant an
exclusive right to provide a service. The recently updated FAA advisory circular guidance
includes:
ƒ

Exclusive Rights at Federally Obligated Airports
Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5190-6, Released January 4, 2007

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 11

Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan

ƒ

Lease Rates Analysis White Paper
APPENDIX 5

Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities
Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5190-7, Released August 8, 2006

The information provided in these two guidance documents should be used during the
development of the Airport Minimum Standards process to assure consistency with FAA
policies and recommendations.
From the information gathered as part of this Lease Rates Analysis, it is understood that PRC is
currently in the process of approving Airport Minimum Operating Standards pending City
Council approval. The City is encouraged to move forward and approve these Minimum
Operating Standards and to periodically review and update them to assure that they are inline
with the business goals and objectives of the Airport. Included in any update process, PRC is
encouraged to involve the existing tenants/stakeholders of the Airport who these standards apply
to get their “buy-in” on any proposed changes. Building an Administrative Record of this
involvement helps to reduce FAA Part 16 formal complaints on unfair airport business practices.
Summary
Utilizing the observations and recommendations presented above will allow PRC to further
refine its general airport business practices with regard to providing a fair and equitable platform
for businesses to conduct activity, while providing the users of the Airport with a high level of
safe, efficient and secure aviation services. In summary, these activities include:
1. Leases – Maximize the Airport’s revenue through effective airport lease agreements.
2. Property Appraisals – Follow through with the selection of a firm for airport property
appraisals and utilize accordingly.
3. Airport Minimum Standards – Approve, adopt and maintain Airport Minimum
Standards.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 12

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Project Documentation
APPENDIX 6

APPENDIX 6 – PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
The contents of Appendix 6 include the following materials:
ƒ PAC Meeting #1 Minutes – February 27, 2008
ƒ PAC Meeting #2 Minutes – June 25, 2008
ƒ PAC Meeting #3 Minutes – September 29, 2008
ƒ PAC Meeting #4 Minutes – December 17, 2008
ƒ PAC Meeting #5 Minutes – July 22, 2009
ƒ PIM Meeting #1 Presentation – September 29, 2008
ƒ PIM Meeting #2 Presentation – January 21, 2009
ƒ PIM Meeting #3 Presentation – July 22, 2009

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 1 of 1

City of Prescott
Ernest A. Love Field

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #1

City of Prescott – Ernest A. Love Field
Airport Master Plan
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
February 27, 2008
I. Introduction: David Sperling with Louis Berger began Planning Advisory
Committee Meeting #1 on Wednesday, February 27 at approximately 2:11 PM
with opening comments and introductions of the various group represented in the
meeting. Each individual present introduced themselves and who they were
representing (please see attached attendance sheet).
II. Review of Master Plan Scope of Work: A detailed Scope of Work was provided
to each Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Member within their Master Plan
workbook.
• Task 1: Project Initiation and Coordination: Project Coordination will
continue throughout the project and include: Planning Advisory
Committee (PAC), Public Information Meetings, Local Office and City
Council Meetings, Project Website, Mailings and other Outreach.
Meeting schedule for the project is as follows:

 Meeting #1 – Project Kickoff

 Meeting #2 – PAC Meeting

 Meeting #3 – Public Information Meeting

 Meeting #4 – PAC Meeting

 Meeting #5 – Project Status Report

 Meeting #6 – PAC Meeting

 Meeting #7 – Public Information Meeting

 Meeting #8 – PAC Meeting

 Meeting #9 – Public Information Meeting

 Meeting #10 – Task Results Review

 Meeting #11 – Exhibit “A” Discussion

 Meeting #12 – Exhibit “A” Discussion with FAA/ADOT

 Meeting #13 – Exhibit “A” Discussion with FAA/ADOT

 Meeting #14 – Task Results Review

 Meeting #15 – PAC Meeting

 Meeting #16 – Public Information Meeting

 Meeting #17 – Prescott City Council Meeting
•

Task 2: Grant Administration: Administration services provided for
grants associated with the Master Plan Update including development of a
comprehensive file for the life of the grants for the Airport’s records.

•

Task 3: Baseline Conditions: Airport Inventory including Airport
Facilities and Activity, Environmental and Land Use and Noise.

•

Task 4: Forecasts of Demand: Estimation of future aircraft activity for a
twenty year period, in five, ten an twenty year increments.
February 27, 2008
Page 1

City of Prescott
Ernest A. Love Field

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #1

•

Task 5: Facility & Standards Analysis: A facilities assessment to
determine if the capacity of the existing airport facilities can meet the
forecasted demand. If not, facility requirements necessary to meet that
demand will be identified.

•

Task 6: Land Use Planning: Review and develop a land use plan that is
satisfactory to both Prescott Municipal Airport (PRC) and the City of
Prescott.
Q Craig McConnell with the City of Prescott Public Works asked
when an updated schedule would be provided. They City of
Prescott would like to expedite the Land Use Planning portion of
the Master Plan Project due to other upcoming city projects
which are contingent on that portion of the Master Plan.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger stated a revised schedule
would be provided by the end of the week.

•

Task 7: Alternatives Analysis: Development of potential alternatives in
consultation with PRC, FAA, ADOT and the PAC.

•

Task 8: Airport Master Plan Environmental Review: Provision of a
general assessment of the environmental effects of the preferred
alternative and define the potential extent of future environmental analyses
and regulatory issues that will be required to implement the airfield
improvements shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

•

Task 9: Airport Layout Plan: Development of an Airport Layout Plan
(ALP) that can be accepted by PRC, submitted to the FAA for approval
and used as a guide for all future airport development.

•

Task 10: Action Plan: Development of a Capital Improvement Plan and a
Financial Plan.

•

Task 11: Project Documentation: Submittal of various working papers
and support documentation to PRC throughout the course of the project.

•

OPTIONAL TASKS: First proposed as “Optional Tasks”, the following
are now included in the consultants contracted Scope of Work.
o OT 1: Passenger Leakage Analysis: Estimation of the extent of
passenger leakage that is occurring from PRC. This task is
anticipated to be completed as part of the forecasting effort (Task
4).

February 27, 2008
Page 2

City of Prescott
Ernest A. Love Field

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #1

o OT 2: Airport Lease Rate Analysis: Analysis determining if
PRC’s lease rates and policy are competitively established and
adequate.
o OT 3: Runway Length Analysis: Addressing the purpose and
need for the airport’s proposed runway extension which was
already established through previous planning efforts at PRC and
accepted on the ALP by the FAA.
III. Project Schedule: From the Notice to Proceed date a Draft Master Plan is
anticipated to be submitted in 18 months and the Final Master Plan to be
completed in 20 months. Work on the Task 4: Forecast of Demands has begun.
IV. Task 3: Baseline Conditions Progress: Information collected during the
evaluation of Airport Operational Activity; Existing Facility Conditions;
Airspace, Approaches and Air Traffic Control; Environmental and Land Use
Review; and Socio-Economic Conditions was used for the Baseline Conditions
Report.
V. Task 4: Forecast of Demand Progress:
• Based Aircraft Owner Survey: A Based Aircraft Owner Survey was
distributed to collect information on the Based Tenant’s opinion of the
airport. Of the 230 surveys distributed, 107 have been returned. Copies of
the survey with the survey results preliminary summary were provided at
the meeting. Placement of the information collected from this survey
within the Forecast of Demands has not yet been determined, however it
will most likely be utilized when addressing facility requirements.
•

Local Business Survey: This survey will involve contacting of businesses
within the area who will/do use aircraft to conduct business and question if
they would or wouldn’t use the Prescott Municipal Airport and why.
Q Ab Jackson with the Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce asked
what is defined as “local” by the Master Plan Project.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger stated that an area larger than
just the City of Prescott is being surveyed. The consultant group
continues to identify the appropriate “local” area. Thus far, a list
of 30 businesses within the general area, not just local Prescott
has been compiled. Collection of information from a larger area,
and a well documented approach with numbers to support the
information is necessary for FAA budget support.

VI. Ongoing Optional Tasks:
• OT 2: Airport Lease Rate Analysis: Leasing structure and rates
information has been collected from comparable airports such as Glendale,
Cottonwood, Page, Gateway, Show Low and Daytona Beach. A draft
report of this information will be submitted in the near future.
February 27, 2008
Page 3

City of Prescott
Ernest A. Love Field

•

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #1

OT 1: Passenger Leakage Analysis: Information from local vehicle
shuttle companies; survey data from the City of Phoenix Aviation
Department for passengers from the Prescott area flying out of Phoenix
Sky Harbor over use of Prescott Airport; and evaluation of comparable
airports to Prescott socioeconomically and population size has been
collected to identify passenger leakage. Passenger intercept surveys will
be used to identify passengers via zip code that travel from the Prescott
area to Phoenix to fly. The objective of compiling this information is not
to gain this market back but to evaluate the size.

VII. Open Discussion:
Q Craig McConnell with the City of Prescott Public Works commented the
Task 6: Land Use Planning is very critical to the City of Prescott because
of the impact on other future city growth plans. Such issues and future
projects for the City of Prescott are:
1. Prescott Municipal Airport – Master Plan – Lane Use Plan
2. City of Prescott General Plan Update
3. Evaluation of existing and upcoming projects for transportation
and utility infrastructure
4. Financing and Continual Dialogue with Property Owners
McConnell also requested specific information be provided on what
commercial growth would be appropriate and compatible within the land
use plan map. Additionally, McConnell suggested to take a look at the
main runway, runway length and use in comparison to the impacts of
lengthening the runway to the discouragement of other city growth such as
residential which will in turn strain economical development.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger stated it is understood what information
the city needs to address these issues however, answers to runway changes
are not obtainable early in the project. Processes such as forecast demands
need to be completed prior to suggested answers to runway growth
concerns. Sperling continued by asking McConnell if the commercial
growth identification specifics he would like to see within the land use
map be city zoning categories. McConnell confirmed zoning categories
should be illustrated on this map along with airport master plan land use
guidelines and what can be put into these zoning areas.
Q John Olsen with the Airport Users Association suggested a County
representative be involved with the Prescott Municipal Airport Master
Plan Project.
Α Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport affirmed the County was
invited to PAC Meeting #1 and multiple attempts have been made to the
County with no response. Olsen stated he would also work on gaining
County involvement.
Q Kathi DeFreitas with Air Midwest Airlines asked when comparing airport
leakage analysis are only airports within a 100-mile radius being
February 27, 2008
Page 4

City of Prescott
Ernest A. Love Field

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #1

evaluated. Flagstaff is an important comparison due the ½ hour difference
and expected high volume of passenger traffic lost to this airport.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger confirmed that all airports within the
area near the description of the Prescott Municipal Airport are being
evaluated, however, this has not included Flagstaff Airport.
Q Ron James with Deep Well Ranch expressed concern regarding they city
and master plan project telling property owners what do with their
property.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger confirmed adjacent land owners have
been involved in conversation during past projects. Additionally, the PAC
meetings allow represented land owners to be heard and for their concerns
to be taken into consideration when comprising a land use plan.
Q Ab Jackson with Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce asked to what
degree will other city projects be considered and the willingness of this
project to share information with those projects.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger confirmed the consultants desire to
understand adjacent projects and encourage more dialogue on what project
Jackson has in mind.
Q John Stonecipher with Guidance Helicopters suggested rotary craft length
be considered during the Master Plan Project.
Q John Solomon with Experimental Aircraft Association sitting in for David
Roy asked what period of time is the project forecast.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger stated the project will forecast 20 years
and be broken down into 5, 10 and 20 year reports.
Q Solomon continued with asking one of the land requirement dilemmas is
lack of developable land, is this being looked at.
Α Sperling confirmed this subject is begin considered and will arise in the
future of the project and will be discussed; however there is not a
concentrated effort towards this matter.
Α Rick Severson with the Prescott Municipal Airport added that this subject
will arise and be looked at when runway relocation and extension issues
are discussed.
Q James Dunn with North-Aire Aviation asked where the Prescott Airport
falls in priority rating for funding from ADOT for the upcoming projects:
Α Kent Potts and Tammy Martelle sitting in for Margie Drilling with ADOT
Aeronautics explained ADOT funding allotment for airport projects is
decided by the evaluation of the airport and its projects. These airport
projects are rated on a priority scale considering six different categories.
Airports ranking highest on the priority point scale get funded first until
funding runs out. Airports must apply each year for this funding.
February 27, 2008
Page 5

City of Prescott
Ernest A. Love Field

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #1

Α Ben Vardiman added Prescott Municipal Airport ranks 54th busiest in the
Nation and 7th busiest in the State.
Q John Olsen with the Airport Users Association questioned what happened
to the plans for runway extension.
Α Rick Severson with the Prescott Municipal Airport stated they have the
inventory however do not have approach load and land. 61.3 acres
would need to be acquired for approach to proceed with the runway
extension plan.
Q John Stonecipher with Guidance Helicopters asked if airspace usage for
helicopters is being considered.
Α Rick Severson with the Prescott Municipal Airport commented the
helicopter provider has been ran separate from the Runway and Taxiway
system and has run well this way.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger commented ATCT and FAA will need
to consider for airspace usage however this matter will be taken into
consideration.
Α Rick Severson with the Prescott Municipal Airport commented that the
Airport Master Plan Project is an opportunity for the community to get
involved in creating a snapshot of how the airport will look and be used
the future. All information will be comprised to develop an answer for
airport growth to address community wants and needs. Growth within the
area is expected to increase soon and an established airport is necessary to
meet future needs and not be dominated by other transportation methods.
Q Kathi DeFreitas with Air Midwest Airlines asked if the airport can go to
Mesa Airlines requesting larger capacity aircraft for larger enplanement.
Α Ben Vardiman with the Prescott Municipal Airport stated this is possible
however, Mesa Airlines will not provide larger aircraft to the airport if the
plane can not be filled.
Q Lora Lopas with the City of Prescott asked what can be done to increase
enplanement with the future withdrawal of the Mesa 1900 aircraft.
Α Vardiman answered that Mesa Airlines continues to be not very
forthcoming with their plans for servicing Prescott and its answer to the
removal of the 1900 aircrafts. This airport continues to address this
concern.
Q John Solomon with the Experimental Aircraft Association asked if the
price of service is being considered in the leakage survey.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger confirmed price of service is being
considered.
Α Solomon commented those passengers who are experienced with using a
ground transportation provider to get to a different airport and then are
able to fly with a desired air carrier are hard to regain.
February 27, 2008
Page 6

City of Prescott
Ernest A. Love Field

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #1

Α Kathi DeFreitas with Air Midwest Airlines commented that a good core
business market was regained. Mesa Airlines needs a different aircraft
now to service the Prescott demand.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger stated a list of PAC Meeting #1
attendees will be distributed to all present for those who would like to
continue any dialogue regarding the issues presented.
VIII. Next Steps:
• Finalize Baseline Conditions
• Complete Leakage Analysis
• Complete Lease Rates Analysis
• Complete Forecasts
• Begin and Complete Land Use Analysis – Land Use Analysis will be
reprioritized and a schedule will be submitted by the end of the week to the
City of Prescott
• Begin Facility Requirements
• Obtain Base Mapping and Current Aerial – Awaiting base mapping and
current aerial to begin developing plans
•

Next Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting will be held in midMay 2008. Notification of this meeting will be sent and process of the
Mater Plan Project and future meeting schedules can be checked on the
website www.prescottairportmasterplan.com

February 27, 2008
Page 7

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #2

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #2 Minutes
June 25, 2008
I. Introduction: Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport and David Sperling
with The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) began Planning Advisory Committee
Meeting #2 on Wednesday, June 25 at approximately 2:06 PM with opening
comments and introductions. Each individual present introduced themselves and
who they were representing (please see attached attendance sheet).
The following items were distributed to the Project Advisory Committee (PAC)
members present:
• Meeting Agenda
• PAC Meeting #2 Presentation
• Master Plan Revised Schedule
• Prescott Municipal Airport – Existing Noise Contours Map
• Prescott Municipal Airport – Airport Impact Zones Map
• Updated Demand Forecast (PAC Binder Tab #4)
• Updated Airport Lease Rates Analysis (PAC Binder Tab #13)
II. Project Progress to Date:
• Baseline Conditions – Draft Completed
• Forecast – Draft Completed
• Passenger Leakage Analysis – Draft Completed
• Lease Rates Analysis – Draft Completed
• Land Use Analysis – Ongoing
• Environmental Review – Ongoing
• Airport Layout Plan – Ongoing
III. Baseline Conditions: The Baseline Conditions inventory has been updated since
the last meeting to include Land Use Review and Baseline Noise Contours.
• Land Use Review: The Land Use Review includes the City of Prescott
General Plan, City of Prescott Zoning Ordinance, City of Prescott Land
Development Code and Open Space Policy.
• Baseline Noise Contours: (map provided)
IV. Forecast: A draft of the Forecast has been completed. The purpose of the
Forecast is to predict future aviation demand at Prescott Municipal Airport and to
provide basis for facility requirements. Methodologies used to complete the
Forecast include standard statistical modeling techniques, market share analysis,
socioeconomic analysis, adjustment of FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF),
qualitative/judgment forecasts, combined statistical modeling/judgment forecasts.
Changes at Prescott Municipal Airport have taken place since the Forecast
June 25, 2008
Page 1

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #2

portion of the project began. Project team will return to the Forecast to address
these changes.
Q Bob Luzius with the City of Prescott asked when the airport is expecting
two or more carriers to compete as David Sperling with Louis Berger
mentioned was considered while doing the Forecast draft?
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger answered the airport expects
competitive carriers in September with Great Lakes signing its agreement
to continue EAS and Horizon beginning service.
Q Bob Luzius commented that the mentioned carriers would not be
competing.
Α David Sperling answered that competition would depend on passengers’
origins and destinations and operations of these carriers.
Q Bob Luzius with the City of Prescott asked if 10,000 enplanements is the
number for the FAA funding.
Α Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport confirmed it was. (note:
this is the passenger enplanement level required to obtain a non-hub air
carrier entitlement of $1 million under previous AIP legislation)
Q Ryan Smith with the City of Prescott asked if the number of retirees
within the area was considered while analyzing the levels of economic
income for the Forecast.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger confirmed it was considered and that
levels of discretionary income was considered as part of this.
Α Stephane Frijia with Louis Berger added the number of retirees within the
area was considered along with what economic bracket these retirees fall
within.
Q Ken Potts with ADOT Aeronautics asked if it was considered while doing
the Forecast that the EAS Program could go away with the continuation of
Great Lakes service and the addition of Horizon.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger answered that while doing the Forecast
it was assumed this program would continue.
Q Bob Luzius with the City of Prescott asked if the project team has heard
that a representative with the Department of Transportation wanted to
eliminate the program.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger and Ken Potts with ADOT Aeronautics
confirmed they had heard of the desired program elimination.
Α Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport added he has heard of
several proposals for the program elimination.
V. Passenger Leakage Analysis: A draft of the Passenger Leakage Analysis has
been completed. Methodology used for the Passenger Leakage Analysis includes
estimated enplanements per capita, comparisons with other airports (St. George,
UT; Redding CA; Yuma, AZ; Abilene, TX) and survey data collected from
June 25, 2008
Page 2

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #2

Phoenix Sky Harbor O’Neil Passenger Intercept Survey, 2005 Phoenix Sky
Harbor Survey and Business Survey.
Q David Maurer with Prescott Chamber of Commerce asked how the
leakage analysis compared to other airports.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger answered it is difficult to compare and
it depends on the airport and its location. The leakage analysis will be
posted to the project website for member review.

VI. Lease Rates Analysis: A draft of the Lease Rates Analysis has been completed.
The goals of the Lease Rates Analysis include determining competitive position of
Prescott Municipal Airport current lease rates and policy, identify Prescott
Municipal Airport’s overall market position and identify areas of improvements.
Louis Berger has made some lease rate recommendations to Prescott Municipal
Airport and will continue with assisting them on making these changes.
Q M.C. Tennant with Prescott Municipal Airport asked if the lease charges
would apply to storage hangars and commercial business.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger confirmed it would be applied to all.
Q Gordon Ritter with Rittaire asked if the city had their own appraisal
service of if they go out to contract.
Α Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport answered the city goes out
for contract.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger added there are appraisal consultants
who specialize in the airport sector.
Α Ben Vardiman continued the airport just closed the Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) process for airport appraisal and anticipates to issue
a contract within the next month.
VII. Land Use Analysis: The Land Use Analysis is ongoing. An Airport Impact Zone
map was provided showing recommended land use zones. The noise contours
will be laid over the impact zones to show effects on future land use. Louis
Berger is currently working on recommended land use activities and will submit
the draft to the Prescott Municipal Airport within two-weeks.
VIII. Environmental Review: The Environmental Review is ongoing. Louis Berger
has begun this phase by coordinating with the following agencies with letters sent
to the stakeholders asking for input. All will get documented in the
environmental section of the Master Plan:
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• AZ Game and Fish
• National Resources Conservation Service
• AZ State Park, State Historic Preservation Office
• Army Corps of Engineers
• Yavapai County
• Arizona Department Environmental Quality
June 25, 2008
Page 3

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #2

IX. Airport Layout Plan: The Airport Layout Plan is ongoing. Louis Berger
received new survey data from the airport in February 2008, plotted and
compared against the old plan to result in the draft current layout. This layout
will be reviewed by the Airport, ADOT and the FAA for comments and approval.
The Airport Layout Plan Set items are as follows:
• Title Sheet – Draft Ongoing
• Data Sheet – Draft Ongoing
• Existing Facilities Plan – Draft Ongoing
• Airport Layout Plan – Template Completed
• Runway Plans and Profiles – Template Completed
• FAR Part 77 Surfaces Plan – Template Completed
• Terminal Area Plan – Template Completed
• Lane Use and Access Plan – Template Completed
• Airport Property Map “Exhibit A” – Template Completed
Q Bob Luzius with the City of Prescott asked what the environmental
impacts will have on the runway extension project.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger answered as the runway project moved
forward, the environmental process will need to be completed in order for
the runway extension to continue.
Α Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport added that a grant was
issued and the airport will pursue a consultant within the next month and a
half to look at future runway extension.
Α David Sperling added that the Master Plan does consider the runway
extension and will address runway length analysis and proper length of the
runway for future airport operations.
X. Project Schedule: A revised project schedule was distributed showing the status
of all project scope items. The project is currently in month nine.
XI. Next Steps: Public Information Meetings and additional Planning Advisory
Committee Meetings in the future. Louis Berger will continue to work on the
following items in the mean time:
• Finalize Leakage Analysis
• Finalize Lease Rates Analysis
• Finalize Forecast
• Review Forecast with Prescott Municipal Airport, ADOT and the FAA
• Finalize Land Use Analysis
• Complete Facility Requirements
• Complete Runway Length Analysis
• Begin and Complete Alternatives Analysis
• Complete Environmental Review
• Complete Airport Layout Plan

June 25, 2008
Page 4

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #2

XII. Open Discussion:
Q David Maurer with Prescott Chamber of Commerce commented that what
has been done so far within the project looks completed and asked what is
not there yet, in the planning of this project is was discussed to address
who to be the governing body for the airport and it was not addressed.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger answered this was not part of the scope
of work for Louis Berger in the Airport Master Plan development.
Q David Maurer added whether it is a part the scope of work or not it needs
to be addressed. This subject is why the Mayor invited out-of-town guest.
People are interested in who is to govern the airport in the future.
Q Lora Lopas with the City of Prescott asked how Louis Berger would
recommend investigating the airport authority issue.
Α David Sperling with Louis Berger answered there are a number of ways it
can be done. The city should begin to research what it would gain by
relinquishing partial control of what they control completely today.
Analysis can be done on other airports that have gone from municipal to
other models. Many discussions need to take place and to look at the
operating standpoint and the financial standpoint of the issue. By giving
up part control of the airport it can relieve the town of financial burden
and assist the airport in growing for the future.
Q David Sperling asked Ken Potts with ADOT Aeronautics if he has
experience with airport authority changes.
Α Ken Potts answered he has seen it done and has seen it go both ways from
one authority to multiple and from multiple authorities to one. Much
discussion needs to take place if this is the direction Prescott Municipal
Airport wants to go in.
Q Gordon Ritter with Rittaire asked Rick Severson’s thoughts on the airport
authority issue.
Α Rick Severson with Prescott Municipal Airport answered the city needs to
show that the airport is a benefit to entire community not just those there.
This message needs to be brought to council to encourage the city to put
forth grants for the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) general fund. An
airport authority serving a region could be beneficial, Kingman is an
example of this. However, funding is going to be the problem especially
with the economic issues today.
Α Larry Tarkowski with Prescott Valley added that this issue needs to be
discussed in a different forum because it is not part of the Airport Master
Plan Scope of Work, however the formation of a task group within the tricity area can be done. Conversation needs to be engaged regarding the
airport authority matter.
Α Bob Luzius with the City of Prescott added he is on the Executive Board
of CYMPO and the subject of airport authority changes was not accepted
well. Other entities would be happy to share in the profits but not in the
expenses.
June 25, 2008
Page 5

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #2

Α Larry Tarkopski answered there is an opportunity there and should be
revisited with CYMPO.
XIII. Future PAC Meetings: Future PAC Meetings are currently scheduled to be held
in September 2008, January 2009 and April 2009. It is intended for the Public
Information Meetings to be held on the same days as the future PAC Meetings at
a different time.
Anyone may contact David Sperling with Louis Berger throughout the project
with any questions. David Sperling can be reached at (602) 234-1124 or by email at dsperling@louisberger.com. Louis Berger continues to give Ben
Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport regular updates throughout the project.
Project materials and meeting minutes will be posted to the project website under
the member login as they are released. An e-mail message will be sent for each
new material added to the website for viewing. Website:
www.prescottairportmasterplan.com
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #2 ended at approximately 3:20 PM

June 25, 2008
Page 6

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #3

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Minutes
September 29, 2008
I. Introduction: Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport and David Sperling
with The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) began Planning Advisory Committee
Meeting #3 on Monday, September 29 at approximately 3:04 PM with opening
comments and introductions. Each individual present introduced themselves and
who they were representing (please see attached attendance sheet).
The following items were distributed to the Project Advisory Committee (PAC)
members present:
Meeting Agenda
PAC Meeting #3 Presentation
Airport Master Plan Update – Land Use Plan
Prescott Municipal Airport – Facility and Standards Analysis
II. Project Progress to Date:
Forecast – Received FAA Approval
Land Use Analysis – Draft Completed
Environmental Review – Agency Coordination Completed
Facility Requirements – Draft Ongoing
Airport Layout Plan – Ongoing
III. Forecast: FAA approval was issued September 22, 2008
Q Dudley Potter with the AHOA asked if we are spinning our wheels
with the airport master plan proceeding with the economy in the
decline the way it is.
Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport answered that we are
not spinning our wheels with proceeding with the airport master plan
because the span of the plan is for 20-years. Although we cannot be
certain, we do not forsee the economic down turn to last that long.
Additionally, the forecast was done conservatively.
IV. Land Use Analysis: The Prescott Municipal Airport Existing Noise Contours
Map, FAA Land Use Compatibility with Yearly Day-Night Average Sound
Levels Table, Airport Impact Zone Map and Airport Impact Zones Table showing
the maximum recommended allowable non-residential land use densities and
minimum recommended open space, were presented.
Q Ron James with Deep Well Ranch asked if the information within the
table reflects business land only.
David Sperling with Louis Berger confirmed the information reflected
non-residential only.
Q Ron James commented he assumed the city will buy this land.
September 29, 2008
Page 1

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #3

Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport confirmed the land
would be obtained through annexation.
Q Ron James continued that what was being shown today as part of the
progress for the Airport Master Plan does not reflect what was
discussed for annexation and what has been worked and agreed upon
on thus far. The plan being presented today does not reflect what the
General Plan is showing and it should.
Ben Vardiman answered he has been working on the annexation and
compatible land uses with Ron James. What is shown today reflects
the criteria from the FAA. The General Plan Amendment will be
addressed and differences between the two plans will be reconciled.
David Sperling added that the progress of the Airport Plan is being
presented to the Planning Advisory Committee in the manor so
discrepancies such as this can be pointed out, discussed and corrected
if needed prior to the final plan product.
Bob Luzius with the City of Prescott stated he agrees with Ron James
and should be brought up at the new General Plan Committee Meeting
(October 2, 2008). Ron James is invited to attend to further discuss
the issue.
Q David Maurer with the Prescott Chamber commented he thought the
issue of the two plans was brought up at the last General Planning
Meeting and asked if the conflicts could be pointed out.
Ron James answered the Land Use Analysis of the Airport Master Plan
shows there will never be residential area which is not what was
discussed.
Q Al Bradshaw with Bradshaw PR/Cavan asked if the FAA guidelines
were flexible.
David Sperling answered the guidelines were good guidelines to
preserve the airport.
The Honorable Lora Lopas with the City of Prescott commented that
the Prescott Municipal Airport does not want to get into a situation like
that at Luke Air Force Base with no fly zones.
Ben Vardiman and David Sperling agreed and answered the Airport
Master Plan would be aligned with the General Plan for this effort.
However, all must keep in mind that if the plans are updated at
different times during a later date the plans again may reflect different
information.
All agreed the Airport Master Plan and the General Plan will be
coordinated and neither will be taken before City Council or approved
by City Council until they are coordinated.
V. Airport Property Map – Exhibit “A”: Focus on grants assurances obligations.
The Project has been in the process of reconciling Exhibit “A”. Airport staff has
been researching airport history to obtain information regarding the property line
changes over time. The project is also in process of preparing a new airport
property map to reflect the airport property as it is legally owned to date.
September 29, 2008
Page 2

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #3

VI. Facility Requirements: Draft of the Facility Requirements working paper were
distributed to all those attending the PAC Meeting #3 today.
Airfield Requirements – Airport Reference Code has been identified as CIII. Planned runway extension for Runway 3R/21L and Runway 3L/21R
are still being considered as needed. Additionally, future Runway Safety
Area Improvements to meet FAA standards will be needed. Other
necessary future improvements include taxiway upgrades, lighting and
separation improvements, Navigational Aids improvements, additional
aircraft parking and hangars.
Terminal Requirements – Project has been coordinating with
TransSystems during the new facility planning.
Q Al Bradshaw with Bradshaw PR/Cavan asked if the work on a possible
Terminal location has begun.
David Sperling with Louis Berger answered the location portion would
come out during the Alternatives Evaluation portion of the plan.
Q David Maurer with Prescott Chamber asked if the project team knows
how much of the current Terminal design plans can be salvaged.
Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport answered the project
team would be taking a look at what can be salvaged from the last
generated 60% Terminal design documents. However, they do not
anticipate being able to use much of these documents due to many
operations issues these documents have.
David Sperling added the project would not be taking a look at the
Terminal building design but at the building footprint to ensure the
space is allotted along with airside and landside access with the
Airport Master Plan.
Landside and Access Requirements – The project team has been kept
informed of the ADOT SR89 project which is being taken into
consideration throughout the Airport Master Plan Project. Project
objectives are to ensure wherever the Terminal is planned to be placed that
adequate access and egress is provided.
Q David Maurer with Prescott Chamber asked if it is part of the project
to recommend the best time for the new Terminal.
David Sperling with Louis Berger answered the determination of this
is actually tied back to the forecast and airport activity level rather than
a finite year. Additionally, the City’s economic conditions and
priorities also would have weight in the decision of when a new
Terminal is to begin which actually turns into a terminal planning
study rather than a master plan.
Support Facilities Requirements – This will look at the General Aviation
Terminal facility, Fuel Farm and maintenance and storage and evaluate if
all are in the right location and if additional are necessary.
VII. Runway Length Analysis: The project is tasked with justifying the runway
lengthening project in a sufficient manner for environmental approval. In doing
September 29, 2008
Page 3

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #3

so the project is looking at the Air Canada regional jet which many are using, the
CRJ200 which requires additional runway. The project will also look at the
aircraft that is expected at the airport. Lastly, economic conditions of airlines are
also being considered.
VIII. Airport Layout Plan Set:
Title Sheet – Draft Ongoing
Data Sheet – Draft Ongoing
Existing Facilities Plan – Draft Ongoing
Airport Layout Plan – Template Completed
Runway Plans and Profiles – Template Completed
FAR Part 77 Surfaces Plan – Draft Ongoing
Terminal Area Plan – Template Completed
Lane Use and Access Plan – Template Completed
Airport Property Map “Exhibit A” – Draft Ongoing
IX. Next Steps:
Complete Facility Requirements
Complete Runway Length Analysis
Begin and Complete Alternative Analysis
Complete Airport Layout Plan
Revisit Land Use Plan and Coordinate With Other Ongoing City Efforts –
added during PAC Meeting #3 today
Q Ron James with Deep Wall Ranch asked if the General Circulation is
included under the Airport Layout Plan.
David Sperling with Louis Berger answered the Airport Layout Plan is
the preferred plan for this to be reflected, and that will be submitted to
the FAA for approval. The plan will not be completed by next
meeting and is actually one of the last things to be completed within
the project.
X. Future PAC Meetings:
The next PAC meeting is expected to be scheduled in December 2008 to January
2009 and the one following to be scheduled in March to April 2009. Specific
dates of these upcoming meetings to be determined. The project team will be
presenting alternatives at the December 2008 to January 2009 PAC Meeting #4.
Anyone may contact David Sperling with Louis Berger throughout the project
with any questions. David Sperling can be reached at (602) 234-1124 or by email at dsperling@louisberger.com. Louis Berger continues to give Ben
Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport regular updates throughout the project.
Meeting minutes will be posted to the project website. An e-mail message will be
sent for each new material added to the website for viewing. Website:
www.prescottairportmasterplan.com
September 29, 2008
Page 4

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #3

XI. Public Information Meeting Overview: A Public Information Meeting will be
held that night, Monday, September 29 at 7:00 PM to brief the public on the
project scope and progress. Review of what will be presented at this public
meeting was show to all PAC Members present. Additionally, it will be stated at
the Public Information Meeting that the airport plan documents are to be updated
and reconciled in effort to mitigate any further confusion.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #3 ended at approximately 3:55 PM.

September 29, 2008
Page 5

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #4

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Minutes
December 17, 2008
Introduction: Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport and David Sperling with
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) began Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #4
on Wednesday, December 17 at approximately 3:06 PM with opening comments and
introductions. Each individual present introduced themselves and who they were
representing (please see attached attendance sheet).
Old Business: Land use planning documents have been aligned to match the land use
planning that is ongoing with the City of Prescott General Planning Committee.
Comments were requested no comments have been received to date.
The following items were distributed to the Project Advisory Committee (PAC)
members:
• Meeting Agenda
• Facility & Standards Analysis Draft Working Paper
• Alternatives 1
• Alternative 2
• Alternative 3
3 alternatives have been developed from the analysis and input from this group and
Public Meeting in January will help further develop the alternatives.
David Sperling reviewed the Airport Facility Requirements, Airfield System Capacity,
Airside Facility Requirements and Landside Facility Requirement.
Taxiway improvement analysis were presented.
Q Bob Luzius with the City of Prescott asked if it was true that
Commercial Airlines get off the runway quicker that it saves fuel.
A David Sperling replied with no it is not true.
David continued with how the runway extension is based on performance requirements of
a CRJ-700 also takes into account the elevation of the airfield, climate and slope.
Q Dudley Potter asked if the property line extension is at the current
property line.
A Stephane answered yes
David added this also includes 155 acres for land acquisition required
for the runway protection zone.
Dudley Potter suggested the use of approach lights.
The PAC Team agreed.
The demand can be satisfied within the airport boundaries as they are today but
eventually the boundaries will limit usage.
December 17, 2008
Page 1

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #4

Three maps were displayed representing Draft Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Some of the concepts are the same as previous Master Plan studies but the alternatives
are based on brand new analysis. Taxiway extension is needed to improve the
operational efficiencies. Access from proposed development on the north side does not
keep the facility from being usable or accessible.
The alternatives separate Commercial operations from General Aviation operations. The
airport has developed this over time. These areas need to be taken into consideration and
worked around. Site planning in areas needs to be done. Customer service enhancement
for tenants, such as a self service fueling station would be considered.
Alternative 1 Terminal configuration was discussed by the Committee.
Q Al Bradshaw asked if there is a process for terminal planning.
A David Sperling replied the airport will plan the terminal.
Q Al Bradshaw asked if there is a timeline for a new terminal.
A Ben Vardiman stated there is not a definite timeline.
Q Bob Luzius asked if airplane parking would be considered.
A David Sperling replied with yes.
Q Ryan Smith asked how the airplanes taxi to the terminal.
A David Sperling confirmed Taxiway Charlie.
Q Al Bradshaw confirmed that we do not have to decide right now where
the terminal will be located.
A Ben Vardiman agreed.
Q Lora Lopas asked how the Transportation Plan is going to tie into the
Master Plan
A Ben Vardiman stated that is it is going to be a cooperative agreement.
Ben is involved in the transportation planning and will make sure their
plan accommodates the future of the airport. Ben showed the
continuous arterial feed around the airport with feeders and connectors
coming off the road. Then inner roads will be used for circulation
routes.
Q Bob Luzius asked if the road would be closed off from the golf course
once Ruger Road is opened up to the airport.
A Ben Vardiman stated he would suggest keeping it open as a circulation
road.
A David Sperling added that traffic on this section of the road would be
local traffic only.

December 17, 2008
Page 2

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #4

Q Bob Luzius suggested keeping the planning of the Chino bypass east
road coming up Great Western under consideration to join the other
access road.
A Ryan Smith stated the access point would be maintained, and
discussion of a circular road is ongoing.
A Ben Vardiman added we are talking about a major road and access into
the airport as part of the future plan.
David Sperling continued outlining the Alternatives stating that new FBO and General
Aviation areas have a lot of potential for apron space and segregation of addition hangar
activity. More than one FBO can be supported.
Each Alternative shows the ARFF Station relocated from its current location to
alternative locations.
Q Bob Luzius stated that in reality you should have your emergency
services centrally located for better response.
A David Sperling added that the station also serves other portion of the
community and that also needs to be considered in its location
determination on the airport. The ability to get to passengers in the
terminal needs to be considered as well.
The FAA Tower location preferences were discussed by the group. David Sperling
continued with the alternatives showing the top of hill as an opportunity for some airport
expansion such as a new tower. David added that the preferred alternative will show a
future tower. Location will be shown on the airport layout plan and the space would
become reserved for that use in the future.
Q Ryan Smith asked how many feet would the runway be extended to.
A David Sperling stated 10,500 feet.
Q Ryan Smith asked what type of aircraft the extension would
accommodate.
A Ben Vardiman replied with small air carrier 50 to 70 passenger aircraft
and regional jets such as CRJ-700 would be able to utilize it
Q Lora Lopas asked if it is preferred to have smaller aircraft running all
day than one large plane per day.
A Ben Vardiman replied with larger aircraft we would have to extend the
runway further.
A David Sperling added runway length requirement doesn’t necessarily
increase because you have bigger aircraft.
A Ben Vardiman stated you have to go wider at some point which results
in more land requirements. Prescott does not own the property south of
the airport. It is all privately owned.

December 17, 2008
Page 3

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #4

Ben Vardiman explained to the PAC members the alternatives show land acquisition, and
room for buildings that generate revenue. The acquisition is justified. Federal funding is
not typically used for revenue generating land acquisitions, but is for safety needs such as
runway projects. These alternatives are showing a lot of land acquisition.
The airport relies on funds generated on the airport to be able to operate. There is
potential for additional businesses on airport. Property that can be leased out generates
funds that are critical. Office buildings can drive income. We need to look at becoming
independent from needing general fund monies to match grants so that we can move
forward with projects. All construction will be demand and cost based.
Q Ben Vardiman asked if the Committee agreed with generating income
and reserving land for future use.
A The Committee agreed.
A Al Bradshaw asked when the runway extension would begin.
A Ben stated it is a 2 phase runway extension in the 20 year build out.
David Sperling asked for the Committees first impressions of the Alternatives presented.
Documentation of the advantage to one of these plans is coming next. Analysis of plan
alternatives will begin after this meeting. All 3 alternatives will be presented to the
public at the January 20th Public Meeting.
The Committee asked to see more location options for the terminal.
Q Lora Lopas stated the Alternative 1 terminal location boxes you in; if
you place the terminal where it shows in Alternative 2 where the
development will evenutally have more options and room for growth.
A Ben Vardiman reminded the Committee of Embry Riddle’s use of the
taxiway near that location and this may limit access. Embry Riddle
moved to their current location to be removed from all other activity.
At one point they were looking at leaving the airport because it was so
busy.
A David Sperling added General Aviation parking is easy to relocate.
Q Lora Lopas suggested there may be room for Embry Riddle to lease
space once the tower is relocated.
Q Al Bradshaw asked how much Embry Riddle’s traffic has changed
since they began to use simulators.
A Ben replied Embry Riddle has the largest number of students this year
on campus they have ever had. They did decrease flights, but it was
short term and they have returned to their most recent higher numbers.
Q Ryan Smith suggested we start acquiring land outlined in red on the
Alternatives. Ryan also inquired to why there no development shown
in the upper portion of the Alternatives.
A Ben Vardiman stated that some of the land is privately owned and
Bottle Neck Wash is controlled by the CORP of Engineers. It is not
feasible to buyout and develop.
December 17, 2008
Page 4

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #4

A MC Tennant added there is a big grade difference as well.
A Ben Vardiman stated they would like to take the property all the way
out to Ruger Road once its ultimate alignment is determined.
Ben Vardiman reviewed comments from the Airport Manager’s Aviation Working Group
(AMAWG) Members meeting that was held earlier in the day. Their concerns were
interior road circulation and adding capacity to the runway.
Summary of Alternative Review Comments from the Committee
• Alternative 1 and 2 are favored because they allow FBO Commercial business
development
• The Committee wants to ensure space for hangar growth
• FAA Tower on the hill is preferred
• ARFF Station is preferred on the lower side of the airport, close to runway and
perimeter road access
David Sperling reminded the Committee the perimeter roads are part of the alternative
analysis. Traffic volume numbers are looked at and determination and improvements are
made.
David stated the preferred Alternative would be presented to the FAA then negotiations
of what they are willing to absorb and allocations will take place.
Q Dudley Potter asked about the timing of events, is the runway extension
completed first.
A Ben replied the City of Prescott could build a terminal first. It is
whether or not you can entice additional flights with a new terminal or
a longer runway.
Q Dudley Potter asked if there is funding for a runway project.
A Ben stated there is hope after the first of the year the FAA will turn
over the multi-year authorization that will allow long term multi level
funding.
A David added when you are completing a capital project you are talking
about a lot of money.
Q Ryan Smith asked if a terminal is determined by how many passengers
the airport has.
A Ben stated 10,000 passengers’ results in $1,000,000 annual entitlement
funds from the FAA, compared to the $150,000 we currently receive.
A Lora Lopas stated Airport growth is contingent on City policy priority.
Q Al Bradshaw asked if Master Plan final report can include a
marketability report.
A David Sperling replied this information is typically not part of a Master
Plan.
December 17, 2008
Page 5

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #4

A Ben Vardiman added that this information would be part of the strategic
business plan.
David Sperling recapped the process; the next step is to work towards a more focused
Alternative. David reminded the Committee of the Public Open House which is
scheduled for Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at Golf Course Old Clubhouse from 7:00 pm
until 9:00 pm.
The meeting closed with the Committee agreeing the Alternatives discussed and
suggestions made are headed in the right direction for Prescott Airport’s future.
The Public Advisory Committee Meeting #4 ended at approximately 4:45 pm.

December 17, 2008
Page 6

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #5

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #5 Minutes
July 22, 2009
I. Introduction: Ben Vardiman with Prescott Municipal Airport and Mark
Champigny with The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) began the Planning
Advisory Committee Meeting #5 on Wednesday, July 22nd at approximately 1:06
pm with opening comments and introductions. Each individual present
introduced themselves and who they were representing (please see attached
attendance sheet).
The following items were distributed to the Project Advisory Committee (PAC)
members present:
• Meeting Agenda
• Notes Sheet
• Copy of Draft Working Paper: Alternatives Analysis Prescott Municipal
Airport
II. Overview of Preferred Alternative: An aerial map of the preferred alternative
was presented. Important information regarding locations and details regarding
various items on the preferred alternative were reviewed.
Q Bob Luzius, Prescott City Council member asked where the fire station
will be located.
A Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, answered by pointing out the fire
station’s location on the map and stating the Preferred Alternative meets
the FAA 3 minute response time requirement. He also explained the past
drill response times and the FAA requirements.
Q The Honorable Lora Lopez, Prescott City Council member asked whether
consideration had been given to the rotation of the terminal building as the
sun would impact heating and cooling.
A Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, informed the PAC members of the
orientation of the building for better utilization of the ramp area and also
explained the team will look into windows and walls made from materials
that would block thermal heat.
Q Margie Drilling, FAA, noted a small dip in the Airport’s property line
where a service road is planned. She asked to either acquire that small
piece of land or identify it otherwise appropriately..
A Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, clarified the City of Prescott has access
to the property through an easement.
Q Margie Drilling, FAA, asked if the airport had all of their RPZs and stated
that prior to moving forward Avigation easements need to be acquired.
A Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, stated the City of Prescott has dedicated
Avigation easements and is addressed in Part 77.
Q Margie Drilling, FAA, asked the team to document the easement
agreements in the Airport Master Plan. Margie also stated prior to a
July 22, 2009
Page 1

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

A
Q

A

Q
A
Q

Q
A
Q

A

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #5

Runway Extension the RPZ must be protected, the FAA does not build
extension unless the RPZ is protected.
Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, agreed and stated the easement notation
will be added to the Master Plan.
Al Bradshaw, Bradshaw PR & Cavan Real Estate Investment, asked if the
land acquisition of approximately 138 acres for the north runway
extension was a reduced amount.
Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, reported that was correct. It would have
been close to 160 acres previously. The plan is to only do half of the
extension at first and then do the rest when it is fully justified. Ben also
informed the PAC of the effort to resolve land issues and document the
ownership history. Land issues research has been done and an additional
FAA Grant will be presented to City Counsel in August.
Margie Drilling, FAA, asked for the time frame for the control tower.
Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, reported it is in the 10 to 20 year
planning range.
Margie Drilling, FAA, informed the team the FAA Air Traffic
Organization (ATO) will complete site study to determine tower location,
this takes time. Margie will provide contact information and
recommended getting started with as much as possible in regards to the
control tower as much as possible early on.
Bob Luzius, Prescott City Council member, asked what was special about
the needed runway length.
Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, responded with it is what meets their
critical design for the CRJ 700 aircraft.
Bob Luzius, Prescott City Council member, asked if there was
consideration of the impact of the proximity of the solar farms to the
runway.
Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, because of its location significantly off
centerline propeller wash should be disbursed and they have not had any
comments from pilots regarding glare.

III. Environmental Review: Within this section projects were identified for inclusion
in the Environmental Assessment (EA). Assessment is expected to begin in
August of 2009. The Master Plan’s purpose was to provide general review. Once
final project plans are complete all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
categories will be reviewed.
Q Margie Drilling, FAA asked if they had finalized their scope of work. It is
very important to have construction start within the first three years of the
EA acceptance date. An extension can be filed if construction does not
start within the 3 years.
Α Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, confirmed that they had finalized the
scope of work, but that they were not sure if construction would start
within the three year time range.

July 22, 2009
Page 2

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #5

IV. Airport Layout Plan Set: This is the item that the city will sign. Once this is
done and the project is on the list it will be open to receive FAA funding. This is
still being developed however, below are the current items and their progress.
• Title Sheet Draft Completed
• Data Sheet Draft Completed
• Existing Facilities Plan Draft Completed
• Airport Layout Plan Draft Ongoing
• Runway Plans and Profiles Draft Ongoing
• FAR Part 77 Surfaces Plan Draft Ongoing
• Terminal Area Plan Draft Ongoing
• Land Use and Access Plan Draft Completed
• Airport Property Map “Exhibit A” Draft Completed
V. Capital Improvement Program: This program was developed for the Preferred
Alternative Plan. There are 3 phases within this program, 5, 10 and 20 years.
• Funding Sources
•Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
•Entitlement and Discretionary
•Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program
•Arizona State Funding Sources
•Third Party Funding
•Airport Operating Fund
• Presented as Chapter in draft Master Plan
Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, explained cost estimates have not been broken
out by FAA contribution and the Phase 1 planning is a 5 year period. 5 year
projects would include Environmental Assessments, Land Acquisition, Correction
of non-standard runway safety areas, Commercial Terminal Building and the fire
station. We continue to refine these items.
Q Margie Drilling, FAA, asked if the CIP would be broken out to show FAA
funding versus local.
A Marc Champigny confirmed the funding sources would be identified in the
Master Plan.
Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager continued with an explanation of the Passenger
Facility Charge process and were the coordination effort that continues with
Arizona Department of Transportation and Arizona Airports Association in an
effort to regain State funding.
VI. Next Steps:
• Finalize Environmental Review
• Finalize Capital Improvement Program
• Finalize ALP Set Based on Preferred Alternative
• Submit Draft Master Plan and ALP for review to:
–Airport Management
–Project Advisory Committee (PAC)
–Federal Aviation Administration
–Posted on Project website for public review
July 22, 2009
Page 3

City of Prescott
Prescott Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan
PAC Meeting #5

Mark Champigny with Louis Berger Group reviewed the August 6th deadline to
create the Master Plan and ALP. At that point they will submit to the Airport
Management, FAA, PAC and post on the Master Plan website for public review.
Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, added the 30 day Public Comment period will
commence on August 11th. They will bring this back to City Council for final
adoption after receiving approval from FAA.
Q Jerry Lawyer, Legend Aviation, addressed the team thanking them for
listening to their comments and added that the working group would like
to have a place for helicopters to land, this is an up and coming business.
Jerry also expressed concerned about the fuel tank being built near the
northeast end of the airport and asked that this be shown on the preferred
alternatives map.
A Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, thanked Jerry for his comments and
proceeded to explain the the current use of the facility leased by North
Aire is not anticipated to change, therefore it will not be reflected on the
preferred alternatives map.
Q The Honorable Lora Lopez, Prescott City Council member, asked if it had
been discussed as to whether or not an airport authority would be brought
into the picture and if so, when would be an appropriate time to begin to
look at that.
A Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, suggested once the Master Plan is
approved this should be a discussion within the City of Prescott. What
control do they want over the airport? What funding they want to
contribute to the airport and at what level of importance do they feel the
airport plays in the City are all questions to be addressed They would
have to look at some statutes as well as sit down with City authorities and
figure out what will be their return on that kind of investment.
Q Craig McConnell, Prescott City Council member, added a governance
system would have to be established. Craig suggested showing the
Airport Authority as a funding source in the Master Plan.
Q The Honorable Lora Lopez, Prescott City Council member, closes her
remarks with Prescott Valley would be very interested. We need to
protect the Airport for the future, if we bring the other communities to the
table hopefully we protect it and add potential funding sources.
A Ben Vardiman, Airport Manager, closed the meeting with a reminder of
the 3rd Public Meeting at 7:00 pm, focusing on the Preferred Alternative,
Environmental Review and Capital Improvement Plan.
Project materials and meeting minutes will be posted to the project website as
they are released. An e-mail message will be sent for each new material added to
the website for viewing. Website: www.prescottairportmasterplan.com
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #5 ended at approximately 2:16 PM

July 22, 2009
Page 4

Public Information
Meeting
Prescott Municipal Airport
Master Plan
Monday
September 29, 2008
7 PM to 9 PM
Antelope Hills Golf Course
Old Clubhouse

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

AGENDA
•

Introductions

•

Review of Master Plan Process, Scope of Work and Progress to Date

•

Next Steps

•

Breakout Session

•

Adjourn

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

PROJECT FLOW CHART
Goals
Goals&&
Study
Study
Design
Design

Lease
Lease
Rates
Rates
Analysis
Analysis

Runway
Runway
Length
Length
Analysis
Analysis

Baseline
Baseline
Conditions
Conditions

Demand
Demand
Forecasts
Forecasts

Facility
Facility
Analysis
Analysis

Previous
Previous
Studies
Studies

Leakage
Leakage
Analysis
Analysis

Project
ProjectOutreach
Outreach(Throughout
(ThroughoutProcess)
Process)
••PAC
PAC
••AMAWG
AMAWG
••Public
PublicMeetings/Workshops
Meetings/Workshops

Facility
Facility
Constraints
Constraints

Alternatives
Alternatives
Analysis
Analysis

Airport
Airport
Layout
LayoutPlans
Plans

Report
Report
Documents
Documents

Action
Action
Plans
Plans
Key:
Completed Task
Current Task
On-Going Task
Anticipated/Next Task
Future Task

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

PROJECT PROGRESS TO DATE
• Baseline Conditions
• Forecast
• Leakage Analysis
• Lease Rates Analysis
• Land Use Analysis
• Facility Requirements
• Runway Length Analysis
• Alternatives Development
• Environmental Review
• Airport Layout Plan
• Capital Improvement Plan

Draft Completed
Draft Completed
Draft Completed
Draft Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Not initiated

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

BASELINE CONDITIONS
•

Introduction to Ernest A. Love Field

•

Operational Activity

•

Existing Facility Conditions

•

Airspace, Approaches and Air Traffic Control

•

Environmental and Land Use Review

•

Socio-Economic Conditions

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

BASELINE CONDITIONS
Sources include:
•

Site visits

•

Tenant and user surveys

•

Airport operation counts and administration records

•

Tower records and FAA 5010 forms

•

PRC Airport Master Plan (January 1998)

•

Prescott Airport Economic Impact Study (May 2006)

•

Other pertinent data and studies from the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), Arizona Department of Aviation (ADOT), Yavapai County, the City.

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

BASELINE CONDITIONS
Operational Activity

400

16

350

14

300

12

250

10

200

8

150

6

100

4

50

2

0

0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Number of Operations

Number of Enplanements

Enplanements

Operations

Figure 1.3.2 PRC Historical Operations

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

BASELINE CONDITIONS
Based Aircraft
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Based
Aircraft
258
290
290
312
312
312
335
347
335
349
340
330

Aircraft
Type
Single Engine
Twin Engine
Jet
Helicopters
Ultra-Light
Total

Number of
Based Aircraft
300
26
3
10
1
340

Percentage of
Total Aircraft
88.2%
7.6%
0.9%
3.0%
0.3%
100%

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

BASELINE CONDITIONS
Runway Data
Length
Width
Material

Runway 3L-21R
4,862
60
Asphalt

Strength*

12,500 lbs. (S)

Lighting

MIRL

Markings

Visual / Visual

Visual
Aids

PAPI – 2
(Both)

RSA
RPZ
Approach
Slope

5,342 x 120 ft.
250 x 1,000 x 450 ft.

Runway 3R-21L
7,616
150
Asphalt
60,000 lbs. (S)
80,000 lbs. (D)
MIRL
Non-Precision /
Precision
ILS (21L)
PAPI – 4 (Both)
REIL
9,616 x 500 ft.
500 x 1,700 x 1,010 ft.

20:1 / 20:1

34:1 / 50:1

Runway 12-30
4,408
75
Asphalt
12,500 lbs. (S)
MIRL
Non-Precision / Visual
VORTAC
PAPI – 2
(Both)
5,008 x 150 ft.
250 x 1,000 x 450 ft.
20:1 / 20:1

Acronyms: MIRLS – Medium Intensity Runway Lighting System; REIL – Runway End Identification Lights; RSA
– Runway Safety Area; VASI – Visual Approach Slope Indicator; PAPI – Precision Approach Path Indicator;
ILS – Instrument Landing System
*Pavement strengths are expressed in Single (S), Dual (D), and/or Dual Tandem (DT) wheel loading capacity

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

BASELINE CONDITIONS
Aircraft Parking

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

BASELINE CONDITIONS
– Landside: Access, Parking
– General Aviation: FBO, Aircraft
Parking (tie-downs, hangars)
– Support Facilities: Fuel Farm,
Service Equipment & Storage

Administration Building

Box Hangars

Shade Parking

T‐Hangars

Landside Access

Fuel Farm Storage Tanks

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

BASELINE CONDITIONS
– Terminal: Hold Rooms, Ticket Counters, Passenger Screening

Terminal Building (Interior)

Terminal Building (Exterior)

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

BASELINE CONDITIONS
Airspace, Approaches and Air Traffic Control
•

Class D Airspace

•

FAA ATCT (0600 to 2300)

•

Precision & Non-precision Instrument
Approaches (VOR, GPS, ILS)

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

ENVIROMENTAL AND LAND USE REVIEW
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Noise Impacts
Biotic Communities
Social Impacts
Compatible Land Use
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
Air Quality
Water Quality
DOT 4(f) Lands
Endangered and Threatened
Species of Flora and Fauna
Historic, Architectural,
Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources

• Wetlands
• Floodplains
• Coastal Zone Management
Program
• Coastal Barriers
• Wild and Scenic Rivers
• Farmland
• Energy Supply and Natural
Resources
• Light Emissions
• Solid Waste Impact
• Construction Impacts

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

ENVIROMENTAL AND LAND USE REVIEW
Land Use Review includes:
• City of Prescott General Plan
• City of Prescott Zoning Ordinance
and Overlay
• City of Prescott Land Development
Code
• Open Space Policy

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

PASSENGER LEAKAGE ANALYSIS
Methodology:
• Estimated enplanements per capita
• Comparisons with other airports
– St. George, UT
– Redding, CA
– Yuma, AZ
– Abilene, TX
• Survey data
– Phoenix Sky Harbor O’Neil Passenger Intercept Survey
– 2005 Phoenix Sky Harbor Survey
– Business Survey

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

PASSENGER LEAKAGE ANALYSIS
• Airport Service Area (ASA) population: 124,477
• Estimated potential demand: 43,000 to 68,000 annual enplanements
• Estimated 70,000 people per year use inter-city airport shuttles

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

FORECAST METHODOLOGIES
Standard Statistical Modeling Techniques (i.e. trend analysis; single- or multivariant regression)
•

Market Share Analysis

•

Socioeconomic Analysis

•

Adjustment of Existing Forecasts

•

Adjustment of FAA Terminal Area or National Aviation Forecasts

•

Qualitative/Judgment Forecasts (e.g., User Surveys)

•

Combined Statistical Modeling/Judgment Forecasts

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

FORECAST
Enplanements Forecast

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

FORECAST
Enplanements Forecast: Market Share Analysis
• Based Upon Leakage Analysis
• Compared to FAA TAF
• Slow Growth in Short Term, Paradigm Shift Expected
40000
Com bined

TAF

TAF + 10%

18%

28%

10%

35000

Enplanements

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Year

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

FORECAST
Aviation Activity

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

LEASE RATES ANALYSIS
• Determined competitive position of PRC
current lease rates and policy
• Identified PRC’s overall market position
• Identified area of improvements

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

LAND USE PLAN
The purpose is to develop a satisfactory land use plan, to both PRC and the
City, which allows for planned development of the airport’s surroundings while
ensuring protection of airport operations and surrounding population.

•

Considerations
¾ Noise
¾ Safety
¾ Continued Airport Viability as Regional Economic Engine

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

AIRPORT IMPACT ZONES

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

NOISE CONTOURS

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
To provide a general assessment of the environmental effects of the
preferred alternative and to define the potential extent of future
environmental analyses and regulatory issues that will be required to
implement the airfield improvements shown on the ALP.

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Agency Coordination:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• AZ Game & Fish
• National Resources Conservation Service
• AZ State Park, State Historic Preservation Office
• Army Corps of Engineers
• Yavapai County
• Arizona Department Environmental Quality

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Requirements are based on:
• FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13; 150/5360-9,13
• Existing Facilities
• Aviation Demand Forecast
Critical Areas:
• Airfield
• Terminal
• Landside & Access

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
3 to 5 alternatives will be developed for the areas determined in the facility
requirements.
Alternatives will be identified and evaluated for the following airport elements:

•
•
•
•
•

Airfield
Terminal Area
Aircraft Parking and Storage
Access
Non-aeronautical Development

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Alternatives will be evaluated in terms of the following criteria:

•
•
•
•

Operational Efficiency and Safety
Engineering Feasibility
Environmental Impacts
Land Use Impacts

The “preferred alternative” will reflect a balance between engineering
feasibility, aeronautical safety and practicality, minimal environmental
impacts, and financial responsibility

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS
Establish purpose and need for the Airport’s proposed runway extension
• Review operational constraints and safety considerations, critical/design
aircraft, current fleet mix and associated operational data.
• Analysis of historical and current airfield performance based on demand
factors.
Data sources may include:
•
•
•
•

Airport operations data from the Airport or the Air Traffic Control Tower
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Airlines currently operating at PRC
FAA/DOT Sources

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SET
• Title Sheet

Draft Ongoing

• Data Sheet

Draft Ongoing

• Existing Facilities Plan

Draft Ongoing

• Airport Layout Plan

Template Completed

• Runway Plans and Profiles

Template Completed

• FAR Part 77 Surfaces Plan

Draft Ongoing

• Terminal Area Plan

Template Completed

• Land Use and Access Plan

Template Completed

• Airport Property Map “Exhibit A”

Draft Ongoing

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
• Prioritize recommendation for airport improvements
• Order of magnitude cost estimates for the recommended improvements (in
current year dollars) shall be prepared
• These results will be combined to present a comprehensive Capital
Improvement Program for the 5, 10 and 20-year planning horizons

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
• A comprehensive financial plan will be developed based on the recommended
improvement projects
• Methods for financing airport improvements will be provided
• Historical financial data will be reviewed
• A 20-year revenue-expenses and cash flow analysis will be performed
• Alternative financing implementation plans may be identified

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

NEXT STEPS
• Complete Facility Requirements
• Complete Runway Length Analysis
• Complete Alternatives Analysis
• Complete Environmental Review
• Complete Airport Layout Plan

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

BREAKOUT SESSION

Your questions and input are greatly valued.
Please feel free to approach freely project team members and ask questions about
the project and the material presented.

Thank you.

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

Public Information Meeting
Prescott Municipal Airport
Master Plan
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
7 PM to 9 PM
Antelope Hills Golf Course
Old Clubhouse

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

MEETING AGENDA
• Introductions
• Review of Master Plan Process, Scope of Work and
Progress to Date
• Next Steps
• Breakout Session
• Adjourn

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

MASTER PLAN PROCESS
Goals
Goals&&
Study
Study
Design
Design

Lease
Lease
Rates
Rates
Analysis
Analysis

Runway
Runway
Length
Length
Analysis
Analysis

Baseline
Baseline
Conditions
Conditions

Demand
Demand
Forecasts
Forecasts

Facility
Facility
Analysis
Analysis

Previous
Previous
Studies
Studies

Leakage
Leakage
Analysis
Analysis

Project
ProjectOutreach
Outreach(Throughout
(ThroughoutProcess)
Process)
••PAC
PAC
••AMAWG
AMAWG
••Public
PublicMeetings/Workshops
Meetings/Workshops

Facility
Facility
Constraints
Constraints

Alternatives
Alternatives
Analysis
Analysis

Airport
Airport
Layout
LayoutPlans
Plans

Report
Report
Documents
Documents

Action
Action
Plans
Plans

Key:
Completed Task
Current Task
On-Going Task
Anticipated/Next Task
Future Task

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

FORECAST SUMMARY

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
• Airfield System Capacity
• Airside Facility Requirements
• Landside Facility Requirements

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Airfield System Capacity
• Design Aircraft
• Airfield Capacity Analysis
• Airport Design and Operational Safety Standards
• Wind Coverage

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Airside Facility Requirements
• Runway Length Requirements
• Runway/Taxiway Design, Safety and Separation Standards
• Runway /Taxiway Pavement Conditions, Marking and
Lighting
• Runway Safety Areas, Object Free Areas, and Runway
Protection Zones
• NAVAID, Visual Aids, and Instrument Approaches

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

AIRSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
PRC Runway Length Analysis (FAA Model)
Airport Input Data
Airport Elevation (MSL)

5,045

Mean daily temperature of the hottest month

90°

Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation

62’

Runway Length Recommended for Airport Design
Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots

450

Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots

1,200

Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats:
75 percent of these small airplanes

4,640

95 percent of these small airplanes

6,240

100 percent of these small airplanes

6,410

Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats

6,410

Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less:
75 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load

7,300

75 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load

9,220

100 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load

11,400

100 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load

11,620

Source: FAA Airport Design Computer Program 4.2AD and FAA AC 150/5300-1.

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

AIRSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
PRC Runway Length Analysis
Bombardier Airport Planning Manual Specification for CRJ 700
Airport Input Data
Mean Temperature (Hottest Month)

90°F

Airport Elevation above MLS

5,045 ft

Maximum Difference in Centerline Elevation

62’

Aircraft Weight Data
Maximum Design Weight (landing)

67,000 lbs

Maximum Design Weight (takeoff)

75,000 lbs

Runway Length Recommended for Airport Design
Landing Runway Length (wet)

6,200’

Landing Runway Length (dry)

5,400’

Takeoff Runway Length
Source: Canadair CRJ 700 Airport Planning Manual

10,570’

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

AIRSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
PRC Runway Design, Separation and Safety Standards Compliance
Runway

3R

Category

21L

3L

21R

12

30

Meets Planning Standards

Approach Category and Design Group End

C-III

C-III

B-II

B-II

B-II

B-II

Runway Width (ft)

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Percentage Effective Gradient

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Runway Safety Area Width (ft)

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Runway Safety Area - Distance Beyond Runway
End (ft)

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Runway Object Free Area Width (ft)

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Runway Object Free Area – Distance Beyond
Runway End (ft)

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Runway Obstacle Free Zone Width (ft)

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Runway Obstacle Free Zone – Distance Beyond
Runway End (ft)

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Runway Centerline to Taxiway Centerline
Distance (ft)

No

No

No

No

No

No

Runway Centerline to Nearest Parking Area

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

AIRSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
PRC Runway Safety Area Deficiencies
Existing Conditions
Runway

3R-21L

3L-21R

12-30

C-III

B-II

B-II

Visual/ Precision

Visual/Visual

Non-Precision/Visual

ARC
Approach
Runway End

3R

21L

3L

21R

12

30

RSA Width (ft)

500

500

1204

1204

150

150

RSA Length Beyond Runway
End (ft)

5881

1000

802

2404

2203

300

1 Intersection

with localizer antenna, perimeter fence at 640 ft, Club House Dr. at 650 ft and Golf Course
with rising terrain with a six percent slope
3 Declining terrain and intersecting with perimeter fence
4 Existing dimensions are base on ARC B-I standards.
2 Intersecting

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Landside Facility Requirements
• Apron and Hangar Space Requirements
• Commercial Terminal Building
• General Aviation Terminal Building
• Access Road and General Aviation Parking
• Support Facility Requirements and Utilities

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Additional items:
• Administration Building relocation;

• Land acquisitions;

• Airport Access, roadway realignment;

• Lengthening of Runway 3L-21R;

• Airport Maintenance building relocation siting;

• Lengthening of Runway 3R-21L;

• Approach Lighting System to Runway 12 and 3R; • Lengthening of Taxiway A, C and D;
• ARFF building relocation siting;

• Lighting improvements for taxiway E;

• Commercial Terminal siting;

• Perimeter Fencing improvements;

• Conventional Hangar siting and development;

• Perimeter Road;

• Expansion and development of new aprons;

• Runway 3L-21R widening;

• FBO/GA building siting and development;

• Runway Protection Zone Issues for Runway 3R & 3L;

• High speed taxiway exits;

• T-Hangar and shades relocation.

• Itinerant Ramp relocation and expansions;

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES
• Facility Alternatives
- Aircraft Parking & Storage
- Passenger Terminal
- Fixed Base Operator(s)
- Support Facilities
- Etc.

• Airfield Alternatives
- Runways & Taxiways
- Runway Safety Areas

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

NEXT STEPS

• Complete Alternatives Analysis & Select Preferred
Alternative
• Complete Airport Layout Plan
• Continue Report Documentation

Prescott Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan

Thank You

Public Information
Meeting
Ernest A. Love Field
Master Plan
Wednesday
July 22, 2009
7 PM to 8 PM
Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University
Davis Learning Center
Auditorium

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

AGENDA
•

Introductions

•

Review Project Process

•

Review of Preferred Airport Alternative

•

Next Steps
– Complete and Submit Draft Master Plan for FAA Review
– Complete and Submit Airport Layout Plan Set for FAA Review

•

Adjourn

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

PROJECT FLOW CHART
Goals
Goals&&
Study
Study
Design
Design

Lease
Lease
Rates
Rates
Analysis
Analysis

Runway
Runway
Length
Length
Analysis
Analysis

Baseline
Baseline
Conditions
Conditions

Demand
Demand
Forecasts
Forecasts

Facility
Facility
Analysis
Analysis

Previous
Previous
Studies
Studies

Leakage
Leakage
Analysis
Analysis

Project
ProjectOutreach
Outreach(Throughout
(ThroughoutProcess)
Process)
••PAC
PAC
••AMAWG
AMAWG
••Public
PublicMeetings/Workshops
Meetings/Workshops

Facility
Facility
Constraints
Constraints

Alternatives
Alternatives
Analysis
Analysis

Airport
Airport
Layout
LayoutPlans
Plans

Report
Report
Documents
Documents

Action
Action
Plans
Plans
Key:
Completed Task
Current Task
On-Going Task
Anticipated/Next Task
Future Task

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

PROJECT PROGRESS TO DATE
• Baseline Conditions
• Forecast
• Leakage Analysis
• Lease Rates Analysis
• Land Use Analysis
• Facility Requirements
• Runway Length Analysis
• Alternatives Development
• Environmental Review
• Airport Layout Plan
• Capital Improvement Program

Draft Completed
Draft Completed
Draft Completed
Draft Completed
Draft Completed
Draft Completed
Draft Completed
Draft Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Alternatives were developed for the areas determined in the facility
requirements.
Alternatives identified and evaluated for the following airport elements:

•
•
•

Airfield components
Landside components
Airport Access

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Alternatives were evaluated in terms of the following criteria:

•
•
•
•

Operational Efficiency and Safety
Engineering Feasibility
Environmental Impacts
Land Use Impacts

The “preferred alternative” reflects a balance between engineering feasibility,
aeronautical safety and practicality, minimal environmental impacts, and
financial responsibility. And meet the needs of the Airport’s Future.

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
• Identify Projects to be included in Environmental Assessment (EA)
• EA is expected to commence in August of 2009
• Purpose in Master Plan is to provide general review
• All NEPA Categories will be reviewed in detail in the EA based on final
project plans
• Presented as Chapter in draft Master Plan

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SET
• Title Sheet

Draft Completed

• Data Sheet

Draft Completed

• Existing Facilities Plan

Draft Completed

• Airport Layout Plan

Draft Ongoing

• Runway Plans and Profiles

Draft Ongoing

• FAR Part 77 Surfaces Plan

Draft Ongoing

• Terminal Area Plan

Draft Ongoing

• Land Use and Access Plan

Draft Completed

• Airport Property Map “Exhibit A”

Draft Completed

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
• Cost Estimates Developed for Preferred Airport Alternative
• Project Prioritization
• Phase I – 5 years
• Phase II – 5 to 10 years
• Phase III – 10 to 20 years

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
• Funding Sources
• Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
• Entitlement and Discretionary
• Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program
• Arizona State Funding Sources
• Third Party Funding
• Airport Operating Fund
• Presented as Chapter in draft Master Plan

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

NEXT STEPS
• Submit draft Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Set to:
– Airport Management
– Project Advisory Committee (PAC)
– Federal Aviation Administration
– Posted on Project website for public review

Ernest A. Love Field
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan

Comment Period

Your questions and input are greatly valued.
Please feel free to approach freely project team members and ask questions about
the project and the material presented.

Thank you.

Janet Napolitano
Governor

11 10 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 771 -2300 www.azdeq.gov

Stephen A. Owens
Director

February 19,2008

Bernardita Calinao, Ph.D., Environmental Manager
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
2345 E. Thomas Road, Suite 220
Phoenix, AZ 850 16-7818
Dear Ms. Calinao:
We received your January 18,2008 inquiry regarding sensitive environmental resources within
the Prescott Municipal Airport and its general vicinity. The only information we are able to
provide is that Granite Creek is listed as an impaired water for dissolved oxygen. Also data
shows there may be future concerns regarding E coli and mercury levels. Any future activities
near Granite Creek could not contribute to further any pollutants.
Without specifying what information you are seeking or the possible future activities, the Water
Qualify Division is unable to provide further information.
Sincerely,

V

Linda Taunt, Deputy Director
water' Quality Division

Northern Regional Office
1801 W. Route 66 Suite 117 Flagstaff, AZ 86001
(928) 779-031 3

Southern Regional Office
Tucson, AZ 85701

400 West Congress Street Suite 433
(520) 628-6733

Printed on recycled paper

United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Courthouse Federal Building
230 N. First Avenue, Suite 509
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1733
(602) 280-8801

-

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Attention: Bernardita Calinao, Ph.D.
2345 East Thomas Road, Suite 220
Phoenix, Arizona 85016-7818
Dear Ms. Calinao:
This is in response to your letter dated ~ k u a 18,2008,
..~
regarding the Master Plan for the
Prescott Municipal Airport.
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service is responsible for coordinating the activities
related to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The law requires NRCS to assist other
agencies during their planning processes in making determinations of prime farmland. We also
have responsibility to assist in analyzing project effects on agricultural wetlands.

In a letter dated October 29, 1996, we made a determination that your project was exempt from
the requirements of the FPPA. We have taken another look at the project area defined in your
letter and have made the determination that no prime farmland or agricultural wetlands exist
within the proposed project area. Therefore, the project is still exempt from the FPPA and there
is no need to coordinate your planning activities with NRCS.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Steve Smarik at 602-280-8785 or
steve.smarik~az.usda.gov.
Sincerely,

ERIC B, BANKS
Assistant State Conservationist (Financial Programs)

Helping People Help the Land
An Equal Opportunlly Provldar and Employer

"Managing a n d conserving natural, cultural, a n d recreational resources"

February 15,2008

S t a t e Parks

Bernardita Calinao
Environmental Manager
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
2345 East Thomas Road, Suite 220
Phoenix, AZ 85016-7818

RE:
Janet Napolitano

Governor

State Parks
Board Members
Chair
William C. Cordasco

Flagstaff

Arlan Colton

Tucson

William C. Scalzo

Phoenix

Reese Woodling

Tucson

Tracey Westerhausen

Phoenix

William C. Porter

Kingman

Mark Winkleman

State Land
Commissioner

Kenneth E. Travous

Executive Director

Environmental Assessment for Proposed Airport Development,
Prescott Municipal Airport Master Plan, Prescott, Arizona;
SHPO-2008-0107 (35308)

Dear Ms. Calinao:
Thank you for advising the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
regarding planning efforts involving the above project. We appreciate your
cooperation with this office in considering the impacts of federal development
on cultural resources situated in Arizona. We recommend a qualified cultural
resources specialist inspect the project area to determine the presence or
absence of historic properties (i.e., any prehistoric or historic district, site,
building, structure, traditional cultural place, or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in the National or State Registers of Historic Places).
According to our records [and as stated in the SHPO letter dated November 14,
1996, referred in your letter], the area of the Prescott Municipal Airport has not
been systematically surveyed. If the preparation and implementation of this
master plan require approval from the Federal Aviation Administration, then
this project should be considered a federal undertaking and should be reviewed
pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as
implemented by 36 CFR Part 800.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (602) 542-7140 or
electronically via djacobs@azstatepparks.gov.

Arizona State Parks
1300 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Tel & l T Y : 602.542.4174
www.azstateparks.com
800.285.3703 from
(520 & 928) area codes
General Fax:
602.542.4180
Director's Office Fax:
602.542.4188

st/Archaeologist
State Historic Preservation Office

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Glossary of Terms
APPRNDIX 8

APPENDIX 8 – GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ADVISORY CIRCULAR (AC) - Federal Aviation
Administration Advisory Circular. This is a FAA
document, which provides guidance on aviation
issues.
AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY - An
aircraft approach category is a FAA grouping of
aircraft based on approach speed. The aircraft
approach categories are:
(1) Category A: Speed less than 91 knots;
(2) Category B: Speed 91 knots or more but less
than 121 knots;
(3) Category C: Speed 121 knots or more but
less than 141 knots;
(4) Category D: Speed 141 knots or more but
less than 166 knots.
AIR NAVIGATION AID FACILITY (NAVAID) Any facility used or available for use as an aid to
air navigation, including landing areas; lights;
any apparatus or equipment for disseminating
weather information, for signaling, for radio
direction-finding, or for radio or other electronic
communication; and any other structure or
mechanism having a similar purpose for guiding
or controlling flight in the air or during the
landing or takeoff of aircraft.
AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS) - The FAA airplane
Design Group subdivides airplanes by
wingspan. The airplane Design Groups are:
(1) Group I: Wingspan up to but not including 49
feet (15 m);
(2) Group II: Wingspan 49 feet (15 m) up to but
not including 79 feet (24 m);
(3) Group III: Wingspan 79 feet (24 m) up to but
not including 118 feet (36 m);
(4) Group IV: Wingspan 118 feet (36 m) up to
but not including 171 feet (52 m);
(5) Group V: Wingspan 171 feet (52 m) up to but
not including 197 feet (60 m)
(6) Group VI: Wingspan 197 feet (60 m) up to
but not including 262 feet (80 m).
AIRPORT HAZARD - An airport hazard is any
structure or natural object located on or in the
vicinity of a public airport, or any use of land
near such airport, that obstructs the airspace
required for the flight of aircraft in landing or
taking off at the airport or is otherwise
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

hazardous to aircraft landing, taking of, or taxiing
at the airport.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (AIP) –
FAA program that is the primary source of
funding for airport projects as grants. This
funding is provided at specific levels, with the
funding priority based on the airport’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP)
AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
(ATCT) - A facility providing airport traffic control
service to an airport and its associated airspace
area.
APPROACH LIGHT SYSTEM (ALS) - An airport
lighting system designed to assist pilots in
finding
the
runway
during
instrument
approaches for landing. The lights extend from
the runway end outwards along the extended
centerline for a certain distance, depending on
the type of runway.
ATC - AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE - A
service provided for the purpose of promoting
the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air
traffic, including airport, approach, and enroute
air traffic control services. ATC is provided by
the Federal Aviation Administration, a branch of
the federal government under the Department of
Transportation.
APPROACH END OF RUNWAY - The
approach end of runway is the near end of the
runway as viewed from the cockpit of a landing
airplane.
APPROACH SURFACE - An imaginary surface
extending out from the end of the Primary
Surface at a slope and width defined in FAR
Part 77, above which the airspace must be free
of obstacles as aircraft approach or depart the
runway.
BASED AIRCRAFT - An aircraft permanently
stationed at an airport by agreement between
the airport owner (management or FBO) and the
aircraft owner.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) –
The Capital Improvement Program provides a
schedule of development for the proposed
projects identified in an Airport Master Plan.
Page 1 of 8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

CATEGORY I, II, AND III LANDINGS ¾ Category I: 200 foot ceiling and 2400 foot
RVR;
¾ Category II: 100 foot ceiling and 1200 foot
RVR;
¾ Category IIIA: zero ceiling and 700 root RVR;
¾ Category IIIB: zero ceiling and 150 foot RVR;
¾ Category IIIC: zero ceiling and zero RVR.
To make landing under these conditions, aircraft
must be equipped with special avionics, pilot
must be qualified to land under specified
conditions for that category, and aircraft must
have proper ground equipment for conditions.
CEILING - The height above the earth's surface
of the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring
phenomena that is reported as "broken"
"overcast", or "obscured" and not classified as
"thin" or "partial". The ceiling is reported in feet
above the surface in a given location.
CLEAR ZONE - Defined by FAR Part 77 as an
area off each runway end to be void of trees and
other obstacles. The FAA has replaced this area
with the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ).
CLEARWAY - A clearway is an area beyond the
stop end of runway, not less than 500 feet (150
m) wide, centered on the extended centerline of
the runway, and controlled by the airport
authorities. -The clearway is expressed in terms
or a geometric plane extending from the end of
the runway, with an upward slope not exceeding
1.25 percent, above which no object nor terrain
may protrude. Threshold lights, however, may
protrude above the clearway plane if their height
above the end of the runway is 26 inches (66
cm) or less and if they are located to each side
of the runway. A clearway increases the
allowable operating takeoff weights of turbinepowered airplanes. For most airplanes, the
maximum usable length of the clearway is less
than 1,000 feet (300 m).
DECISION HEIGHT (DH) - The height above the
highest runway elevation in the touchdown zone
at which a missed approach shall be initiated if
the required visual reference has not been
established. This term is used only in
procedures where an electronic glide slope
provides the reference for descent, as in ILS.
DECLARED DISTANCE - Declared distances
are the runway distances that limit turbinepowered airplane operations and thus the airport
operational capacity. The distances are the
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Glossary of Terms
APPRNDIX 8

accelerated stop -distance available (ASDA), the
Landing Distance Available (LDA), the Takeoff
Distance Available (TODA), and the Takeoff Run
Available (TORA).
(1) ASDA is equal to TORA plus the length of
the stopway (SWY), if provided.
(2) LDA is equal to the length of runway
available and suitable for the landing ground run
of airplanes.
(3) TODA is equal to TORA plus the length of
the clearway (CWY) if provided.
(4) TORA is equal to the length of runway
available and suitable for the takeoff ground run
of airplanes.
DESIGN AIRCRAFT - The Design Aircraft is an
aircraft whose dimensions and/or other
requirements make it the most demanding
aircraft for an airport’s facilities (i.e. runways and
taxiways). The Design Aircraft is used as the
basis for airport planning and design; because if
the airport’s facilities are designed to
accommodate the Design Aircraft, they can
accommodate less demanding aircraft as well.
An aircraft can be utilized as the Design Aircraft
for an airport if it will (has) conduct (ed) 500 or
more annual operations (250 landings) at that
airport.
DISPLACED THRESHOLD - A displaced
threshold is a threshold located at a point on the
runway other than at the runway end. Except for
the approach standards defined in FAR Part 77,
approach surfaces are associated with the
threshold location.
DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME) Equipment (airborne and ground) used to
measure, in nautical miles, the distance of an
aircraft from a NAVAID.
DME FIX - A geographical position determined
by reference to a NAVAID, which provides
distance and azimuth information. The DME fix
is defined by a specified distance in nautical
miles and a radial in degrees magnetic from that
aid.
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION (FAR) Regulations developed by the FAA in order to
maintain safety, define standards, and institute
uniform practices throughout the industry.
FINAL APPROACH FIX (FAF) - The fix from or
over which final approach (IFR) to an airport is
executed.
Page 2 of 8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Glossary of Terms
APPRNDIX 8

order of priority.
FINAL APPROACH - A flight path of a landing
aircraft in the direction of landing along the
extended runway centerline from the base leg to
the runway. For instrument approaches, the final
approach begins at the final approach fix (FAF).
FIX - A geographical position determined by
visual reference to the surface by reference to
one or more radio NAVAIDs, by celestial
plotting, or by another navigational device.
FIXED BASE OPERATION OR FIXED BASE
OPERATOR (FBO) - A sales and/or service
facility located at an airport, or the person who
operates such a facility.
GENERAL AVIATION (GA) - All civil aircraft
and aviation activity except that of the certified
air carriers and military operations. GA includes
corporate flying and private flying (recreation or
personal).
GLIDESLOPE - Vertical guidance provided by a
ground based radio transmitter to an aircraft
landing by use of an Instrument Landing
System. This guidance informs the pilot if the
aircraft is either too high or too low as it flies its
approach to the runway for landing.
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) - GPS
is a navigational system based on the use of
multiple satellites strategically placed in the
earth’s orbit. GPS is used by aircraft equipped
with the proper GPS receiving equipment for
enroute navigation, as well as instrument
approaches to airports for landing. GPS allows
aircraft to fly more freely and set waypoints
(destinations) without the need or reliance on
ground based radio navigation facilities such as
VORs.
HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION - Any object
which has a substantial adverse effect upon the
safe and efficient use of navigable air-space by
aircraft or on the operation of air navigation
facilities is a hazard to air navigation. The FAA
will conduct an aeronautical study of any object
to determine whether or not the object is a
hazard to air navigation. As part of the airport
layout plan approval process, the FAA con-ducts
aeronautical studies of all obstructions to air
navigation identified on the Airport Layout Plan.
Hazards or potential hazards to air navigation
are eliminated by either altering the existing or
proposed object or adjusting the aviation
operation to accommodate the object, in that
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

HEIGHT ABOVE AIRPORT (HAA) - Indicates
the height of the MDA above the published
airport elevation. This is published in conjunction
with circling minimums.
HOLDING - A predetermined maneuver which
keeps an aircraft within a specified airspace
while awaiting further clearance.
HOLDING FIX - A specified geographical point
or NAVAID used as a reference point in
establishing and maintaining the position of an
aircraft while holding.
IFR CONDITIONS - Weather conditions below
the minimum prescribed for flight under VFR.
INITIAL APPROACH - The segment of a
standard instrument approach procedure
between the initial approach fix and the
intermediate fix, or the point where the aircraft is
established on the intermediate segment of the
final approach course.
INITIAL APPROACH ALTITUDE - The altitude
prescribed for the initial approach segment of an
instrument approach.
INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) - Aircraft
operation rules as pre-scribed by Federal
Aviation Regulations for flying by instruments.
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS) - A
system of electronic devices whereby the pilot
guides his aircraft to a runway solely by
reference to instruments in the cockpit. In some
instances the signals received from the ground
can be fed into the automatic pilot for
automatically controlled approaches. The ILS
consists of a Localizer, Glideslope and Marker
Beacons (and Approach Light System).
ITINERANT OPERATIONS - All
operations other than local operations.

aircraft

LOCAL OPERATION - Operations performed
by an aircraft that:
(a) operates within the local traffic pattern or
within sight of the airport;
(b) are known to be departing for or arriving from
an Airport within a 20 mile radius of the Airport in
question;
(c) execute practice maneuvers such as touch
and goes or simulated instrument approaches at
the airport.
Page 3 of 8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

The majority of local operations are conducted
by based aircraft.
LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL AID (LDA) A facility of comparable utility and accuracy to a
localizer but which is not part of a complete ILS
and will not be aligned with the runway.
LOCALIZER - A ground based radio transmitter
which provides pilots with course guidance as
they approach a runway for landing utilizing a
Instrument Landing System. The course
guidance is known as “azimuth”.

Glossary of Terms
APPRNDIX 8

electronic glide slope is provided. A localizer,
NDB, or VOR is often used.
NON PRECISION INSTRUMENT RUNWAY - A
non precision instrument runway is one with an
instrument approach procedure utilizing air
navigation facilities, with only horizontal
guidance, or area-type navigation equipment for
which a straight in non precision instrument
approach procedure has been approved or
planned, and no precision approach facility of
procedure is planned or indicated on an FAA or
DOD approved Airport Layout Plan, or on other
FAA of DOD planning documents.

MARKER BEACON - An instrument, which
provides aural and/or visual identification of a
specific position along a Instrument Landing
System approach to a runway.

NOTICE TO AIRMEN (NOTAM)- A notice
identified either as a NOTAM or an Airmen
Advisory containing information concerning the
establishment, condition, or change in any
component of, or hazard in, the National
Airspace System, the timely knowledge of which
is essential to personnel concerned with flight
operations.

MEDIUM INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS
(MIRL) - An airport runway lighting system of
medium intensity.

(1) NOTAM : A Notice to Airmen in message
form
requiring
expeditious
and
wide
dissemination by telecommunications means.

MOVEMENT AREA - The runways, taxiways,
and other areas of an airport which are used for
taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, excluding
loading ramps and parking areas.

(2) AIRMEN ADVISORY : A Notice to Airmen
normally only given local dissemination, during
pre-flight or in--flight briefing, or otherwise during
contact with pilots.

NAUTICAL MILE (NM) - The unit measure of
distance in both nautical and aeronautical
context. A nautical mile equals 1.15 statute
miles (6,080 feet). The measure of speed in
regards to nautical miles is known as KNOTS
(nautical miles per hour).

OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ) - An OFZ is an
area:

MEDIUM INTENSITY APPROACH LIGHT
SYSTEM (MALS) - An airport approach light
system of medium intensity.

NON DIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB) A radio beacon transmitting non directional
signals whereby an aircraft equipped with
direction finding equipment can determine
headings to or from the radio beacon and
“home” in on a track to or from it.
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) - The
common system of air navigation and air traffic
control encompassing communications facilities,
air navigation facilities, airways, controlled
airspace special use airspace, and flight
procedures authorized by FAR's for domestic
and international aviation.
NON-PRECISION APPROACH - A standard
instrument approach procedure in which no
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

(1) Comprised of the runway OFZ, the approach
OFZ, and the inner-transitional surface OFZ.
(A) Runway OFZ: The runway OFZ is the
volume of space above a surface longitudinally
centered on the runway. The elevation of any
point on the surface is the same as the elevation
of the nearest point on the runway centerline.
The runway OFZ extends 200 feet (60 m)
beyond each end of the runway and its width is:
1) 120 feet (36 m) for visual runways serving or
expected to serve only small airplanes with
approach speeds less than 50 knots.
2) 250 feet (75 m) for non precision instrument
and visual runways serving or expected to serve
small airplanes with approach speeds of 50
knots or more and no large airplanes.
3) 300 feet (90 m) for precision instrument
Page 4 of 8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

runways serving or expected to serve only small
airplanes.
4) 180 feet (54 m), plus the wingspan of the
most demanding airplane, plus 20 feet (6 m) per
1,000 feet (300 m) or airport elevation; or, 400
feet (120 m), whichever is greater, for runways
serving or expected to serve large airplanes.
(B) Approach OFZ: The approach OFZ is the
volume of space above a surface which has the
same width as the runway OFZ and rises at a
slope of 50 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) away from
the runway into the approach area. It begins 200
feet (60 m) from the runway threshold at the
same elevation as the runway threshold and it
extends 200 feet (60 m) beyond the last light
unit in the approach lighting system. The
approach OFZ applies only to runways with an
approach lighting system.
(C) Inner-Transitional Surface OFZ: The innertransitional surface OFZ is the volume or space
above the surfaces which slope 3 (horizontal) to
1 (vertical) laterally from the edges of the
runway.
1) OFZ and approach OFZ end at the height of
150 feet (45 m) above the established airport
elevation. The inner-transitional surface OFZ
applies only to precision instrument runways.
2) Free of all fixed objects. FAA approved
frangible equipment, which provides an.
essential aviation service may be located in the
OFZ, provided the amount of penetration is kept
to a practical minimum.
3) Clear of vehicles as well as parked, holding,
or taxiing aircraft in the proximity of an airplane
conducting an approach, missed approach,
landing, takeoff' or departure.
OBSTRUCTION TO AIR NAVIGATION - An
existing object, including a mobile object, is, and
a future object would be, an obstruction to air
navigation if it is of a greater height than any of
the heights or surfaces defined in FAR PART
77.23.
OPERATION - Generally thought of as either a
take-off or a landing of an aircraft. FAA ATCT
operations include all radio contacts with an
aircraft, regardless of whether or not they are
taking off or landing. Operations used for
planning purposes include only takeoffs,
landings and touch and goes.
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Glossary of Terms
APPRNDIX 8

PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR
(PAPI) - An airport approach light aid to pilots.
See GVGI.
PRECISION INSTRUMENT RUNWAY - A
precision instrument runway is one with an
instrument approach procedure utilizing an
Instrument Landing System (ILS), microwave
landing system (MLS), or precision approach
radar (PAR). A planned precision instrument
runway is one for which a precision approach
system or procedure is indicated on an FAA or
DOD approved airport layout plan, or on other
FAA or DOD planning documents.
PRIMARY SURFACE - An imaginary horizontal
surface extending out an equal distance on each
side of the runway centerline a width as defined
in FAR Part 77.
R/W - Runway.
RUNWAY ALIGNMENT INDICATOR LIGHTS
(RAIL) - (usually part of a MALS system).
RADAR (RADIO DETECTION AND RANGING)
- A device which, by measuring the time interval
between transmission and reception of radio
pulses, provides information on range, azimuth
and/or elevation of objects in the path of the
transmitted pulses.
RADAR SERVICE - A term which encompasses
aircraft separation, navigation guidance, and/or
flight track monitoring services based on the use
of radar which can be provided by a controller to
a pilot of a radar-identified aircraft.
RADAR SURVEILLANCE - The radar
observation of a given geographic area for the
purpose of performing some radar function.
RADIAL - A magnetic bearing extending from a
VOR, a VORTAC, or a TACAN navigational
facility.
RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS (REIL) Flashing strobe lights (usually white) which
indicate the end or a runway. They are located
at each end of the runway.
RELIEVER AIRPORT - An airport designated as
having the primary function of relieving
congestion at a commercial airport and providing
more general aviation access to the overall
community. Reliever Airports are allowed to
receive AIP (federal) funds for improvement.
Page 5 of 8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Glossary of Terms
APPRNDIX 8

cockpit of a landing airplane.
RUNWAY - A runway is a defined rectangular
area on an airport prepared for the landing or
takeoff of airplanes.
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) - A
trapezoidal area centered about the extended
runway centerline beginning 200 feet beyond the
end of the area usable for takeoff or landing.
The dimensions are a function of the approach
visibility minimum and the type of aircraft. Refer
to AC 150/5300-13 for specific dimensions and
land use guidelines.
RUNWAY SAFETY AREA - A runway safety
area is a rectangular area, centered on the
runway centerline, which includes the runway
(and stopway, if present) and the runway
shoulders. The portion abut-ting the edge of the
runway shoulders, runway ends, and stopways
is cleared, drained, graded and usually turfed.
Under normal conditions, the runway safety area
is capable of supporting snow removal,
firefighting, and rescue equipment and
accommodating the occasional passage of
aircraft without causing major damage to the
aircraft.
RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR) - An
instrumentally derived value, based on standard
calibrations, that represents the horizontal
distance a pilot will see down the runway from
the approach end.
SAFETY AREA - An actual graded area
surrounding the runway that can be safely
negotiated in case of an emergency by an
aircraft that will be using that runway.
SEPARATION - Spacing of aircraft to achieve
their safe and orderly movement in flight and
while landing and taking off.

STOPWAY - A stopway is an area beyond the
stop end of the takeoff runway which is no less
wide than the runway and is centered on the
extended centerline a' the runway. It is able to
support an airplane during an aborted takeoff
without causing structural damage to the
airplane, and designated by the airport
authorities for use in decelerating the airplane
during an aborted takeoff.
STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH - Entry into the
traffic pattern by interception of the extended
runway centerline (final approach) without
executing any other portion of the traffic pattern.
T/W - Taxiway.
TAXI - To operate an airplane under its own
power on the ground, except the movement
incident to actual takeoff and landing.
TAXILANE - A taxilane is the portion of the
aircraft parking area used for access between
taxiways, aircraft parking positions, hangars,
storage facilities, etc. A taxilane is outside the
movement area, and is normally not controlled
by the Air Traffic Control Tower.
TAXIWAY - A taxiway is a defined path, from
one part of an airport to another, selected or
prepared for the taxiing of aircraft.
TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA - A taxiway safety
area is an area centered on the taxiway
centerline, which includes the taxiway and
taxiway shoulders. The portion abutting the edge
of the taxiway shoulders is cleared, drained,
graded, and usually turfed.

SEPARATION MINIMA - The minimum
longitudinal, lateral, or vertical distances by
which aircraft are spaced through the application
of air traffic control procedures.

Under normal conditions, the taxiway safety
area is capable of sup-porting snow removal, fire
fighting,
and
rescue
equipment
and
accommodating the occasional passage of
aircraft without causing major damage to the
aircraft.

SMALL AIRCRAFT - A small aircraft is an
aircraft of 12,500 pounds (5,700 kg) or less
maximum certificated takeoff weight.

THRESHOLD - The threshold is the beginning
of that portion of the runway available and
suitable for the landing of airplanes.

STATUTE MILE - A regular "highway" mile
measuring 5,280 feet.

THRESHOLD CROSSING HEIGHT (TCH) - The
height of the straight line extension of the visual
or electronic glide slope above the runway
threshold.

STOP END OF RUNWAY - The stop end of
runway is the far runway end as viewed from the
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 6 of 8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Glossary of Terms
APPRNDIX 8

TOUCH AND GO - A training operation in which
a landing approach is made, the aircraft
touches-down on the runway, but does not fully
reduce speed to turn off the runway. Instead,
after the landing, full engine power is applied
while still rolling and a takeoff is made, thereby
practicing both maneuvers as part of one
motion. It counts as two separate aircraft
operations.

a forward visibility of three miles or more.

TRACK - The flight path of an aircraft over the
surface of the earth.

VISIBILITY, PREVAILING - The horizontal
distance at which targets of known distance are
visible over at least half of the horizon. It is
normally determined by an observer on or close
to the ground viewing buildings or other similar
objects during the day and ordinary city lights at
night.

TRAFFIC PATTERN - The traffic flow that is
prescribed for aircraft landing at or taking off
from an airport. The usual traffic pattern consists
of five segments, or “legs”. These components
are the upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind
leg, base leg, and the final approach. Traffic
patterns are followed by aircraft in order to exit
the airport area after takeoff in an orderly
fashion, and to enter an Airport area and
ultimately land, also in an orderly fashion.
TRANSITION ZONE - An imaginary surface
extending upward at a 7 -to 1 slope (i.e. up one
foot for every seven feet moved horizon-tally)
from the Primary Surface and Approach Surface
defined in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
Part 77.
TURBINE - A mechanical device or engine that
spins in reaction to fluid flow through or over it.
This device is used in turbofan, turbojet, and
turboprop-powered aircraft.
TURBOFAN - A turbojet engine whose thrust
has been increased by the addition of a lowpressure compressor fan.
TURBOJET - An engine that derives power from
a fanned wheel spinning in reaction to burning
gases escaping from a combustion chamber.
The turbine in turn drives a compressor and
other accessories.
TURBOPROP - A turbine engine in which the
rotating turbine turns a propeller.
UTILITY AIRPORT - A utility airport is an airport
designed, constructed, and maintained to serve
airplanes in Aircraft Approach Category A and B.
For discussion on airport type, see paragraph 5.
VFR CONDITIONS - Basic weather conditions
prescribed for flight under Visual Flight Rules;
usually implies a ceiling of at least 1000 feet and
The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

VERY
HIGH
FREQUENCY
OMNI
DIRECTIONAL RANGE (VOR) - A ground radio
station that provides a pilot of a properly
equipped air-craft with his radial location in
reference to that station. A VORTAC is an
electronic air navigation facility combining a
VOR and a TACAN.

VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR
(VASI) - The VASI is a device used by pilots to
determine their position in regard to the
recommended approach path for a particular
airport. See also GVGI.
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) - "See and be
seen" flight rules. Each pilot is responsible for
the safe spacing and proper operation of his
aircraft. Under VFR, a pilot is not required to file
a flight plan or be in constant radar and
communication contact with air traffic control.
Visual flight rules are determined by weather
and require a ceiling of at least 1,000 feet and
visibility of at least 3 miles.
VFR TRAFFIC - Aircraft traffic operated solely in
accordance with Visual Flight Rules.
VISUAL APPROACH - A VFR approach
granted to an IFR flight by air traffic control
under special circumstances. Visual approaches
are normally conducted by aircraft operating
under visual flight rules.
VISUAL RUNWAY - A visual runway is a
runway intended solely for the operation of
aircraft using visual approach procedures, with
no straight-in instrument approach procedure
and no instrument designation indicated on an
FAA or Department of Defense (DOD) approved
layout plan, or, on other FAA or DOD planning
documents.
VORTAC - A combination of the civil VOR/DME
and the military TACAN which can provide both
distance and direction of an aircraft from the
station.

Page 7 of 8

Prescott Municipal Airport (Ernest A. Love Field)
Airport Master Plan

Glossary of Terms
APPRNDIX 8

WAKE TURBULENCE - The air turbulence
caused by a moving aircraft, originating at the
tips of the wings. The turbulence is caused by
vortices generated by an aircraft’s wingtips as it
travels through the air. This turbulence is
greatest when the aircraft is taking off and
landing.
WIND COVERAGE - Wind coverage is the
percent of time for which aeronautical operations
are considered safe due to acceptable
crosswind components.

The City of Prescott
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Page 8 of 8