Friedman Memorial Replacement Airport EIS

1. Friedman Memorial Replacement Airport EIS Date: August 6, 2008

2. Friedman Memorial Replacement Airport EIS Discussion Topics for Today’s Meeting: • EIS Process • Purpose and Need • Aviation Demand Forecast • Alternative Sites Analysis • Schedule • Opportunity to Comment

3. CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING Agency/Public Circulation 45-60 DAY REVIEW Prepare Plan of Study for Phases III and IV Respond to Agency/Public Comments Prepare Final EIS EIS Process Phase I Project Identification Phase III Notice of Availability of DEIS & Public Hearing Select Consultant Prepare Plan of Study for Phase I Prepare Draft EIS Detailed Environmental Analysis Negotiate Scope with FAA/Sponsor Prepare Plan of Study for Phase II Tribal Consultation Publish Notice of Intent FAA Final EIS Availability Phase II Conduct Scoping We are here. Develop Preliminary Range of Alternatives Phase IV FAA Sign/Issue Final Record of Decision 30 DAY REVIEW Meet with Stakeholders Identify Purpose & Need Project Initiation Baseline Data Collection

4. Purpose and Need 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.

5. Aviation Demand Forecast • Historical Activity • Enplaned Passengers • Aircraft Operations • Stakeholder Interviews • Passenger Forecast • Aircraft Operations Forecast

6. Passenger Forecast Methodology • 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

7. Aircraft Operations Forecast • 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.

8. Alternative Sites Analysis – General Site Facility Parameters • 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

9. Alternative Sites Analysis – Three Tier Process • 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.

10. Alternative Sites Analysis

11. Tier One Evaluation Criteria 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.

12. Results of Tier One Site Analysis • 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.

13. Tier Two Evaluation Process • 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.

14. Alternatives Carried Forward to Tier Two

15. 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

16. Results of Tier Two Analysis • 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.

17. Tier Three Evaluation Process • 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.

18. Sites Carried Forward to Tier Three TIER THREE SITES

19. Tier Three Evaluation Criteria 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

20. Results of Tier Three Analysis • 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.

21. EIS Schedule • 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

22. Opportunity to Comment • Written comments and/or questions should be mailed by September 8, 2008 to: Ms. Cayla Morgan Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region Seattle District Office 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W., Suite 250 Renton, WA 98057-3356 Email: Cayla.Morgan@faa.gov Project Website: www.airportsites.net/sun-eis

23. QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION