Federal Aviation Administration Friedman Memorial Replacement Airport EIS Date: August 6, 2008

Federal AviationAdministrationFriedman Memorial

Replacement Airport EIS

Date: August 6, 2008

Wood River Region Replacement Airport EIS

August 6, 20082Federal Aviation

Administration

Discussion Topics for Today’s Meeting:

• EIS Process

• Purpose and Need

• Aviation Demand Forecast

• Alternative Sites Analysis

• Schedule

• Opportunity to Comment

Friedman Memorial Replacement Airport EIS



Administration

EIS Process

ProjectInitiation

FAASign/Issue

Final Recordof Decision

FAA Final EIS

Availability

PrepareFinal EIS

Respond to Agency/Public

Comments

30 DAYREVIEW

PreparePlan of Study forPhases III and IV

Agency/PublicCirculation

CONDUCTPUBLIC

HEARING

Notice of Availability of DEIS &

Public Hearing

Prepare Draft EIS

Detailed Environmental

Analysis

PreparePlan of Study for

Phase II

Develop Preliminary Range of

Alternatives

Identify Purpose & NeedBaseline

Data Collection

45-60 DAY REVIEW

Phase IPhase I

Phase IIPhase II

Phase IIIPhase III

Meet withStakeholders

Phase IVPhase IVWe are We are here.here.

Conduct Scoping

Tribal Consultation

Negotiate Scope with

FAA/Sponsor

PreparePlan of Study

for Phase I

SelectConsultant

Project Identification

PublishNotice of

Intent



Administration

• Provide an Airport that conforms to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport design standards, criteria, and orders.

• Ensure the reliability of an airport serving the Wood River Region by providing approach capability that will allow operations during periods of reduced visibility. At a minimum, provide an approach capability providing for operations down to a ceiling of 200 feet above airport elevation and one-half mile visibility.

• Ensure the ability of the airport to accommodate growth in operational demand and in demand for new and expanded facilities.

Purpose and Need



Administration

• Historical Activity• Enplaned Passengers• Aircraft Operations

• Stakeholder Interviews• Passenger Forecast• Aircraft Operations Forecast

Aviation Demand Forecast



Administration

• Scenarios• Constrained (existing airport)• Unconstrained (replacement airport)

• Constrained forecast relies upon analysis of historical traffic• Unconstrained forecast considered:

• Reduced leakage to Boise and Twin Falls• Airport choice data from stakeholder interviews• Potential new air service• Level of air service at similar resort areas

Passenger Forecast Methodology



Administration

• Under the constrained scenario, passenger aircraft operations would remain in the historical range, although SkyWest has announced its intent to remove the Embraer 120 aircraft from the fleet by 2012.• Following the opening of the replacement airport the use

of narrowbody aircraft is possible and expected.• Due to the larger capacity, passenger aircraft operations

would decline.• General aviation operations are forecast to grow at

1.3 percent per year, in line with national trends.• Total aircraft operations are projected to grow at 0.7 percent per year from 2007 to 2021.

Aircraft Operations Forecast



Administration

• Provide a primary runway alignment of 8,500 feet in length• Where necessary ensure crosswind runway capability of

80 percent of primary runway length• Conform to FAA design standards for Design Group C-III aircraft• Provide a minimum of 50 acres for terminal area & terminal

support development• Provide a minimum of 75 acres for general aviation/FBO development• Ensure expansion capability for terminal and general aviation/FBO beyond initial specified areas• Provide a total site area that meets all of the above requirements

Alternative Sites Analysis – General Site Facility Parameters



Administration

• Identified full complement of sites to be evaluated.• Developed a process to assess the attributes and constraints of each site.• Developed a total of 14 evaluation criteria used to assess the sites.

• Tier One - used to identify any sites that could not meet “Fatal Flaw Criteria.”

• Tier Two - employed a broader set of criteria using a numerical scoring system. • Tier Three - used to determine the flexibility of a site to provide for expanded approach capabilities.

Alternative Sites Analysis – Three Tier Process



Administration

Alternative Sites Analysis



Administration

Tier One Evaluation – Fatal Flaw Analysis Criteria

• Inability to provide Category I approach minimums (200-foot

ceiling and one-half mile visibility)• Outside of a 60-minute drive time from Ketchum/Sun Valley,

Hailey/Bellevue, and Carey

Alternatives failing to meet one or both of the above were dropped from further consideration.

Tier One Evaluation Criteria



Administration

All existing airport options failed Tier One based on Approach Capability.

Sites 2, 3, and 16 failed Tier One based on Approach Capability.

Sites 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15 failed Tier One based on the drive time criteria.

Sites 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 10A, 12, 13, and 17 were recommended for evaluation under the criteria in the Tier Two evaluation.

Results of Tier One Site Analysis



Administration

Tier Two Criteria applied to each site carried forward. Several Tier Two criteria are comprised of multiple sub-

categories that combine to make up the primary category. All primary and sub-element criteria were numerically ranked. Scores were tabulated for each evaluation criteria and a total

score for each site was calculated. A score exceeding the 80th percentile was necessary to be

moved forward in the process for further consideration.

Tier Two Evaluation Process



Administration

Alternatives Carried Forward to Tier Two



Administration

Tier Two Evaluation Criteria

Tier Two Evaluation – Comparative Site Analysis Criteria

•Safety Considerations •Site Topography Factors•Landside Expansion Capability•Airside Expansion Capability •Site Development Factors •Conformity with Local, State, and Federal Land Use

Regulatory Requirements •Sponsorship Factors•Property Ownership Factors•Proximity to Demand•Accessibility to Regional Roadways



Administration

Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 17 did not move on to the Tier Three evaluation due to scoring below the 80th percentile in the Tier Two evaluation.

Sites 4, 10A, and 12 were recommended for evaluation under the criteria in the Tier Three evaluation.

Results of Tier Two Analysis



Administration

All three sites provide a single Category I approach and

some form of missed approach capability. Each site was reviewed for ability to accommodate

enhanced instrument approach capabilities in the future. Evaluated additional Category I capability and Category II

capability at each site. Goal was to define those sites with greatest flexibility to

meet future capabilities and opportunities. A site not providing any added capability or flexibility would

not move forward if other sites met this criteria.

Tier Three Evaluation Process



Administration

TIER THREE SITES

Sites Carried Forward to Tier Three



Administration

Tier Three Evaluation – Flexibility to accommodate Future Approach Capabilities

• Capability to accommodate additional Category I approaches and associated missed approach requirements

• Capability to accommodate Category II approach & missed approach criteria

Tier Three Evaluation Criteria



Administration

Site 4 accommodates Category I to both runway ends, but not Category II.

Site 10A accommodates Category I and II to both ends of the primary runway.

Site 12 accommodates Category I and II to both runway ends.

Sites 4, 10A, and 12 recommended to be carried forward to Phase II of the EIS.

Results of Tier Three Analysis



Administration

• Phase I – Scoping and Alternative Site Review

• August 5, 2008 – Presentation to the FMAA

• August 6, 2008 – Two Public Meetings presenting the Purpose and Need, Forecast, and Alternatives Analysis• Please provide all comments by September 8, 2008

• Phase II – Preparation of the Draft EIS• Kick-off field work – Summer/Fall 2008• Draft EIS published for public review – late 2009

EIS Schedule



Administration

• Written comments and/or questions should be mailed by September 8, 2008 to:

Ms. Cayla Morgan Federal Aviation AdministrationNorthwest Mountain RegionSeattle District Office1601 Lind Avenue, S.W., Suite 250Renton, WA 98057-3356

Email: [email protected] Website: www.airportsites.net/sun-eis

Opportunity to Comment



Administration

QUESTIONS

AND

DISCUSSION

Documents

Federal Aviation Administration Friedman Memorial Replacement Airport EIS Date: August 6, 2008