CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING. 45-60 DAY REVIEW. 30 DAY REVIEW. Phase I. Agency/Public Circulation. Project Identification. Phase III. Notice of Availability of DEIS & Public Hearing. Prepare Plan of Study for Phases III and IV. Select Consultant. Prepare Plan of Study for
of DEIS &
Plan of Study for
Phases III and IV
Plan of Study for
Prepare Draft EIS
Negotiate Scope with FAA/Sponsor
Plan of Study for
FAA Final EIS Availability
We Are Here
The purpose and need for a replacement for FMA is to:
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)August 6,2008
What is the Purpose of the Public Meeting?
The purpose of this meeting is to present the analysis, findings, and recommendations from Phase I of the EIS for the siting and construction of a replacement airport for the Friedman Memorial Airport (FMA)andto collect comments before moving into Phase II of the EIS. Phase I consisted of two primary components: (a) review and determination of alternatives, development of the Purpose and Need, and development of the unconstrained forecast; and (b) agency and public scoping activities.
Phase II of the EIS will include: (a) detailed evaluation of the reasonable alternatives carried forward from Phase I and (b) determination and disclosure of the potential impacts and environmental consequences. Phase II will be brought to a close with the completion of the Public Hearing on the Draft EIS.
The EIS Process
The primary purpose of an EIS is to ensure that Federal government programs and actions meet the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) goals and policies.This EIS is conducted by the FAA as the Federal lead agency responsible for ensuring that airport development projects, such as those proposed by the Friedman Memorial Airport Authority (FMAA), are in compliance with environmental regulations. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is a cooperating agency due to one of the alternative sites being located on BLM land. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed action are assessed in accordance with NEPA. The NEPA process encompasses a body of Federal laws that are intended to protect the nation's environment. In addition to the public, input on the proposed action is also sought from local, state, and Federal agencies.
The following illustration graphically shows the process for the FMA EIS.
The Scope of Work to be performed by the consulting team and information about the study process will be available throughout the study on the FAA project website listed at the end of this handout. Members of the consulting team are available at the public meetings to answer questions and provide information about the information offered in this handout and in the presentation.
How can I comment on the EIS?
The public will be asked to provide comments to the FAA on the EIS for their consideration. Public comments are important to assist the FAA in making decisions about the proposed siting and construction of a replacement airport for FMA. Written comments may be submitted on the comment forms that can be found in the workshop area.
The FAA welcomes written comments on the information presented in the Draft Alternatives/Purpose and Need Working Paper, which will be available on the project website August 8, 2008. You may also submit comments until the close of business on September 8, 2008 to:
Ms. Cayla Morgan
Federal Aviation Administration
Northwest Mountain Region
Seattle Airport District Office
1601 Lind Avenue, S.W., Suite 250
Renton, WA 98057-3356
Email: [email protected]
Topography of the Site
Landside Expansion Capability
Airside Expansion Capability
Site Development Factors
Conformity with Local, State, and Federal Land Use Regulatory Requirements
Property Ownership Considerations
Proximity to Demand
Accessibility to Regional Roadways
Alternatives Recommended To Be Carried Forward Into the EIS Process
The 2006 Site Selection and Feasibility Study was used as a starting point to identify potential airport sites to analyze in the EIS. Two additional sites, not in the previous analysis which were felt to be viable, were also identified. Once this full complement of sites was identified, a process was developed to assess the attributes and constraints of each site. A three tier process was developed. A total of 14 evaluation criteria were developed for use in assessing the sites. Using the three tier evaluation process, the analysis has identified those sites which fully meet the criteria established and constraints associated with each alternative site. Site 1 (existing airport site) was not evaluated in the three tier process because it was determined it could not meet the established facility requirements. However, Site 1, including routine maintenance, will be carried forward in the EIS as the No Action alternative, as required by NEPA.
The Tier One evaluation eliminated eight sites (Sites 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 16) not able to meet the criteria referred to as Fatal Flaw criteria; Category I Approach\Missed Approach capability for the primary runway, and a 60-minute drive time from Ketchum, Hailey, Bellevue, and Carey. The Tier Two evaluation process addressed a broader set of criteria, utilizing a numerical ranking system to compare the remaining nine sites. The criteria evaluated in the second tier included:
Aircraft Operations Forecast Results
Passenger Forecast Results
The remaining nine sites were ranked and a shortlist of three sites (4, 10A, and 12) was identified for the Tier Three and final evaluation which addressed the ability/flexibility of the sites to accommodate enhanced or multiple approaches. All of the short-listed sites (4, 10A, and 12) survived the evaluation process and were recommended to be carried forward for further evaluation in the EIS.