Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
2009 Taxiway Relocaton Correspondence
VHPaullc 9755 SW Barnes Rd, Ste 300 Portland, OR 97225 503.626.0455 Fax: 503.526.0775 MEMORANDUM Date: 5/28/2009 RE: McCall Airport - EA Alternatives To: City Council Members Company: City of McCall Phone: 208-634-7142 Fax: 208-634-3038 Address 216 East Park Street McCall, ID 83638 Members of the McCall City Council: From: Rainse E. Anderson, P.E. Title: project Manager Phone: 503-372-3521 Fax: 503-526-0775 Project#: 034256 Project Name: McCall Airport EA In preparation of the upcoming meeting on June 5th to discuss the Taxiway Relocation Environmental Assessment (EA) at the McCall Municipal Airport, I would like to give you a brief overview of the project. The EA is a federally -defined process, undertaken by the City of McCall and the Federal Aviation Administration. The EA examines the No Action and Preferred Alternative through an analysis of the existing conditions, consequences of the alternatives, and cumulative impacts. If necessary, mitigation would be identified for any resources negatively impacted. Through the process a Draft EA will be distributed for public review, a Final EA will be submitted to the FAA, the FAA will issue their finding, and wetland permits will be acquired. Enclosed are copies of the final Purpose and Need statement, along with the Alternatives chapter of the Draft EA. The documents present an overview of the project and the alternatives being considered. Supporting documents, such as the engineer's design report and field reports, are posted to our FTP site at ftp://ftp-guest:mogollon@ftp.whpacific.com/Outg_ojng/McCall. As part of the EA, an Airport Environmental Assessment Committee (AEAC) has been formed that consists of members of the community. At the last AEAC meeting, on March 10th, the proposed alternatives were presented with the intent of identifying a preferred alternative. However, no consensus was reached to select a preferred alternative. It was decided that WHPacific would draft a summary of the discussion and present it to the McCall City Council. An informal vote was taken to get a feeling for the committee's recommendation for the preferred alternative. There were five votes for Alternative 2 and six votes for Alternative 4. Bert Kulesza abstained from voting. The summary for this meeting is also enclosed for your consideration. At the upcoming meeting, we will be asking the City Council to recommend a preferred alternative. A brief summary of the alternatives will be presented, followed by a Q&A session. Representatives from the FAA will also be present to answer your questions. I look forward to meeting with all of you on June 5th. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to call or email me. Regards, WHPacific, Inc. Rainse E. Anderson, P.E. rnderson@whpacific.com Enc. Project Purpose and Need Alternatives Chapter March 10, 2009 AEAC Meeting Summary Introduction The McCall Municipal Airport (Airport) is owned and operated by the City of McCall (City). The Airport encompasses approximately 200 acres and consists of a single runway (6,107' x 75'), one full parallel taxiway, and one partial parallel taxiway that serves the United States Forest Service (USFS). The Airport has been designated as a general aviation facility by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and accommodates private flying, business aviation, charter service, remote access, and the USFS. The typical fleet using the Airport range from Aircraft Design Group I through III, which is a range of aircraft from small single engine airplanes to medium-sized jets. Operations of larger aircraft do occur, but those operations are rare and not considered a typical operation. There are no commercial service operations at the Airport. An update to the Airport's Master Plan in 2007 identified deficiencies in regards to FAA design standards. Primary amongst the deficiencies was the runway/taxiway centerline separation. Although the Master Plan did not identify runway length as a deficiency for the current B -II standard, additional runway length was identified as a deficiency if the Airport changes to a C -II classification. Due constraints on the north end of the runway, any extension would need to be to the south. Presently, additional runway length is not justified by the aircraft operating at the airport. In addition, under current airport design standards and environmental regulations, additional runway length may not be feasible due to wetlands and topographic features that limit the approaches to a longer runway. Purpose and Need The City of McCall and the McCall Municipal Airport need to comply with FAA design standards because they are a recipient of Federal funding. The purpose of the proposed project is to bring the runway/taxiway centerline separation at the Airport into compliance with FAA design standards. The existing runway/taxiway centerline separation is 200 feet. The present separation of 200 feet is based upon an older standard prescribed in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-4B, Utility Airports (1983-1989), which applied when the runway and taxiway was built. The separation standard for the Airport is 240 feet, per (AC) 150-5300-13, Airport Design, the current FAA design standards document. FAA design standards guide the widths, minimum clearances and other dimensional criteria for runways, taxiways, safety areas, aprons, and other physical features. The Airport Reference Code (ARC) is a coding system used to relate and compare airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the aircraft intended to operate at the Airport. The ARC is comprised of two components. The first component, depicted by letter (e.g., A, B, C, D or E) is the aircraft approach category and relates to aircraft approach speed based upon operational characteristics. An aircraft fits into a category based on 1.3 times the stall speed of that aircraft at maximum gross weight in the landing configuration. Speeds and examples of the aircraft approach category are A: less than 91 knots (Beech Bonanza); B: between 91 knots and less than 121 knots (Dassault Falcon 900); C: between 121 knots and less than 141 knots (Gulfstream III); D and E represent even faster aircraft. The second component of the ARC is the aircraft design group. The aircraft design group is based on an aircraft's physical characteristics (wingspan or tail height, which ever is most demanding) and is depicted by a Roman numeral (e.g. I, II, III, IV, V or VI). The below table defines each group: Aircraft Design Group I II III IV* V* VI* Tail Height (ft) <20 20 - <30 30-<45 45 - <60 60 - <66 66 - <80 * Operations not typical at the Airport. Wingspan (ft) <49 49-<79 79 - <118 118 - <171 171 - <214 214 - <262 Example Beech Baron Cessna Citation II Gulfstream V Boeing 757 Boeing 747 Airbus 380 Generally speaking, aircraft approach speed applies to runways and runway -related facilities, while aircraft wingspan/tail height is primarily related to separation criteria associated with taxiways and taxilanes. In 2007, the City of McCall, with assistance from the FAA, prepared an Airport Master Plan. The Plan included an inventory of airport facilities, forecasts for future airport demand, and a comparison of facilities to FAA design standards. Based upon this Master Plan, the appropriate ARC for McCall is B -II. As previously indicated, the runway/taxiway centerline separation requirement for the Airport (ARC B -II) is 240 feet. In summary, the purpose of the project is to increase runway/taxiway centerline separation from the currently deficient 200 feet to a minimum of 240 feet. The project is needed to bring the Airport into compliance with the minimum FAA standards. In addition to the runway/taxiway centerline separation deficiency, the City is proposing to purchase land adjacent to the Airport's eastern boundary. Since the late 1980s, the McCall Municipal Airport Layout Plan (ALP) has shown land acquisition of approximately 64 acres south of the airport's eastern property boundary to just beyond the Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS). There are four primary reasons why this land has a high priority for acquisition. 1. Additional land is required for taxiway construction to comply with FAA runway/taxiway centerline separation standards. 2. The ASOS for weather observing and reporting is located on private land, with the land lease expiring July 13, 2009. The proposed additional property would encompass the current ASOS location and the critical area (500' radius) required for its proper operation. 3. The Airport Master Plan Update of 2007 documents a need for an additional 135 hangars through the 2025 planning period. Approximately 20 of the hangars needed by 2015 can be accommodated on existing airport property. By 2015, it is estimated that 72 additional hangars will be in demand. Therefore, in the foreseeable (3-5 year) planning period, there will be a deficit of 52 spaces upon which to develop new hangars. 4. The land that needs to be acquired is divided into four 20 -acre parcels running from parallel taxiway "A" to their easterly property boundary. It is undesirable to purchase the property through a series of piecemeal purchases. Doing so would create uneconomic remnants after the land for the taxiway relocation and the ASOS are purchased. By purchasing the property in one acquisition, the City will be able to avoid costly acquisition fees (i.e., appraisal and negotiation). Additionally, purchasing all of the property now would protect the Airport from encroachment by incompatible land uses, while preserving it for aeronautical uses. The existing ALP for the Airport depicts land and aviation land uses for this land totaling approximately 64 acres, which have been previously disclosed via the Airport Master Plan Update process. An additional 12 acres is also needed to protect the ASOS from incompatible uses. This Environmental Assessment (EA) will consider impacts associated with correcting the runway/taxiway centerline deficiency. The EA will not address any environmental impacts of the property acquisition outside of the taxiway relocation project area of potential effect. All future development on the area of the proposed acquisition outside of the taxiway relocation area of potential effect will be subject to individual National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. The appropriate NEPA review will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The proposed property acquisition is included in this EA solely for the purpose of public disclosure. The EA will evaluate the cumulative impacts of potential development on the acquired property as a reasonably foreseeable action. Proposed Action While the current aircraft operations at the Airport comprise an ARC B -II, operations by larger aircraft such as the Gulfstream II, III and IV, and Learjet 35 and 45 series do occur at the Airport. The 2017 forecast in the Master Plan projects the Airport' s ARC to change from B -II to C -II. The standard runway/taxiway separation for C -II is 300 feet, while C -III is 400 feet. Accordingly, the City of McCall proposes to increase the runway/taxiway separation to meet FAA standards and the future needs of the Airport. The FAA will evaluate at a minimum a runway/taxiway separation of 240 feet for the environmental impact. The McCall City Council will make a recommendation on the recommended alternative on June 5, 2009. Federal Action Requested The Federal Action requested is funding for construction of the proposed taxiway relocation. Timing of the Federal Action Construction is anticipated to occur during summer of 2010. 1. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The alternatives considered are generally derived from the analysis completed for the Airport Master Plan (2007, Sept). Figure 1 is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) that was generated through the master planning process. The following section summarizes alternatives examined and the reasons for keeping or dismissing them. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the analysis of the No Action alternative is considered to provide a basis for comparison of a reasonable range of alternatives. Therefore, the No Action alternative will be discussed throughout this Environmental Assessment (EA). 1.1. Elements to be Analyzed Runway/Taxiway Centerline Separation. The runway/taxiway centerline separation deficiency was identified in the Master Plan. Runway/taxiway centerline separation standards are determined by FAA design standards set forth in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, which is based on the types of aircraft using a particular runway, as previously mentioned in Section II, Purpose and Need for the Action. The existing 50 feet wide parallel taxiway centerline is 200 feet from the runway centerline, 40 feet short of the required separation based on the existing Airport Reference Code (ARC) designation of B -II. The Airport layout Plan (ALP) indicates a future ARC for the airport of C -II, which requires a centerline separation of 300 feet. However, the ALP recommends using a 400 feet centerline separation, as required for Design Group III. The current ALP recommends a future airport design group of C -II. The critical limitation for the airport meeting C -II design standards is the length of the runway. The current runway length of 6,106 feet is adequate for B -II aircraft. Chapter 5 of the Master Plan cites a runway length of 8,606 for the C -II fleet. In addition, the FAA -required approach clearances would need to be met. Development and topographic constraints place significant limitations on the airport achieving this. As such, a runway extension is not discussed or proposed in this EA. The three taxiway relocation design alternatives being considered include relocating the east parallel taxiway to provide centerline separations from the runway of 240 feet, 300 feet, and 400 feet. The No Action alternative will be evaluated with the design alternatives. The four alternatives are outlined as follows: 'vlcCall Airport Environmental Assessment Chapter I: Alternatives (DRAFT) WHPacific. Inc. Page I " A l t e r n a t i v e 1 : N o A c t i o n " A l t e r n a t i v e 2 : R e l o c a t e t h e P a r a l l e l T a x i w a y t o m e e t B - I I D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s ( 2 4 0 f e e t s e p a r a t i o n ) " A l t e r n a t i v e 3 : R e l o c a t e t h e P a r a l l e l T a x i w a y t o 3 0 0 f e e t s e p a r a t i o n " A l t e r n a t i v e 4 : R e l o c a t e t h e P a r a l l e l T a x i w a y t o 4 0 0 f e e t s e p a r a t i o n A s m e n t i o n e d i n S e c t i o n I I , P u r p o s e a n d N e e d f o r t h e A c t i o n , t h e C i t y i s p r o p o s i n g t o p u r c h a s e l a n d a d j a c e n t t o t h e A i r p o r t ' s e a s t e r n b o u n d a r y . S i n c e t h e l a t e 1 9 8 0 s , t h e M c C a l l M u n i c i p a l A i r p o r t L a y o u t P l a n ( A L P ) h a s s h o w n l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 4 a c r e s s o u t h o f t h e a i r p o r t ' s e a s t e r n p r o p e r t y b o u n d a r y t o j u s t b e y o n d t h e A u t o m a t e d S u r f a c e O b s e r v a t i o n S y s t e m ( A S O S ) . T h e t o t a l a r e a o f p r o p o s e d l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e m i n i m u m a m o u n t o f l a n d r e q u i r e d f o r t h e b u i l d a l t e r n a t i v e s . A s s u c h , t h e c o s t e s t i m a t e f o r e a c h b u i l d a l t e r n a t i v e o n l y i n c l u d e s t h e a c q u i s i t i o n c o s t f o r t h e a m o u n t o f l a n d r e q u i r e d t o c o n s t r u c t t h e . a l t e r n a t i v e . A s e p a r a t e c o s t e s t i m a t e f o r t h e r e m a i n i n g l a n d w i l l a l s o b e p r e s e n t e d . T h i s E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t ( E A ) w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e r u n w a y / t a x i w a y c e n t e r l i n e d e f i c i e n c y . T h i s E A w i l l n o t a d d r e s s a n y e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s o f t h e p r o p e r t y a c q u i s i t i o n o u t s i d e o f t h e t a x i w a y r e l o c a t i o n p r o j e c t a r e a o f p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t . A l l f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t o n t h e a r e a o f t h e p r o p o s e d a c q u i s i t i o n o u t s i d e o f t h e t a x i w a y r e l o c a t i o n a r e a o f p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t w i l l b e s u b j e c t t o i n d i v i d u a l N a t i o n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y A c t ( N E P A ) r e v i e w . T h e a p p r o p r i a t e N E P A r e v i e w w i l l b e d e t e r m i n e d o n a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s . T h e p r o p o s e d p r o p e r t y a c q u i s i t i o n i s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s E A s o l e l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e . T h e E A w i l l e v a l u a t e t h e c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s o f p o t e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t o n t h e a c q u i r e d p r o p e r t y a s a r e a s o n a b l y f o r e s e e a b l e a c t i o n . 1 . 2 . A n a l y s i s o f A l t e r n a t i v e s T h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d a i r p o r t i m p r o v e m e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s w i l l b e a n a l y z e d b a s e d o n h o w t h e y m e e t t h e p u r p o s e a n d n e e d , p r o j e c t f e a s i b i l i t y , F A A d e s i g n s t a n d a r d c o m p a t i b i l i t y , i n i t i a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s , a n d p r o j e c t c o s t s . D e t a i l e d c o s t i n f o r m a t i o n m a y b e f o u n d i n t h e E n g i n e e r ' s D e s i g n R e p o r t ( A p p e n d i x X ) . F i e l d s t u d i e s h a v e b e e n p e r f o r m e d f o r t h r e a t e n e d a n d e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s , c u l t u r a l a n d a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s , a n d w e t l a n d s . F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s c h a p t e r : " " W e t l a n d " s h o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s " j u r i s d i c t i o n a l w e t l a n d . " T h e U S A r m y C o r p s o f E n g i n e e r s ( C o r p s ) , h a s g i v e n c o n c u r r e n c e o n t h e w e t l a n d d e l i n e a t i o n , w h i c h M c C a l l A i r p o r t E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t C h a p t e r 1 : A l t e r n a t i v e s ( D R A F T ) B V I - I P a c i f i c . I n c . P a g e 2 determined 2.26 acres of jurisdictional wetlands/waters, and 3.01 acres of non - jurisdictional waters are located within the project area. At this time, it is assumed any impacts to wetlands or waters will need to be mitigated off-site at a 2:1 replacement ratio. It is likely any build alternative will require off-site mitigation. Up to six properties and existing wetland mitigation banks will be investigated and a feasibility review will be conducted to determine each site's suitability as a wetland mitigation site. The City would then select the most viable wetland mitigation site. If the site is not a mitigation bank, a mitigation plan and appraisal of the property will be conducted to allow the City to pursue an option to purchase the property. Requirements by the Corps for wetland permitting require that the alternatives reviewed include an alternative that avoids wetland impact, if possible. If no avoidance alternative is feasible, then an alternative that minimizes wetland impact must be reviewed. Under Corps rules, the minimization alternative should be favored over a more impactful alternative, if impacts to other environmental elements are similar and the alternative meets the stated purpose and need. • The Biological Evaluation found there would be no adverse impacts to species at or near the airport with the exception of the western toad. Any wetland habitat impacted by taxiway relocation would need to be mitigated to offset the potential loss of habitat for the western toad. • The airport has been identified as potential habitat for the Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel. Additional field research, via live trapping, will be conducted in June of 2009 to determine the species presence, if any. If found, impacts would most likely be the same for all build alternatives. • The cultural resource inventory did not identify any cultural resources. Property acquisition requirements do not vary with each build alternative. The property for proposed acquisition is highlighted in Exhibit 1, the ALP. As previously stated, the environmental impact(s) of developing the acquired property will be addressed in future NEPA documents. A detailed breakdown of project costs can be found in the Engineers Design Report (Appendix X). 1.2.1. Alternative 1. No Action Description This alternative provides no change to the current taxiways and does not correct the deficiency in runway/taxiway centerline separation. While it does not meet the project's ?vlcCall Airport Environmental Assessment Chapter I: Alternatives (DRAFT') WI -I -Pacific. Inc. Page 3 purpose and need, it will be retained in the EA as a baseline for analysis of the build alternatives. Key Features • There is no property acquisition. • There are no environmental impacts. • The airport does not meet FAA standards for runway/taxiway centerline separation. • There are potential safety issues due to the decreased distance between the runway and taxiway centerlines. Summary of Costs Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relocation) $ 654,000 Wetlands Mitigation $ 0 Property Acquisition $ 0 Subtotal $ 654,000 Contingency (25%) $ 163,500 Construction Cost Subtotal $ 817,500 Engineering and Inspection $ 245,250 (30% of Twy Relocation & 25% Contingency) City of McCall Administration $ 10,000 Alternative 1 Total Estimated Cost $1,072,750 1.2.2. Alternative 2: Relocate the Parallel Taxiway to meet B -II Design Standards (240 feet separation) Description The existing parallel taxiway will be removed and relocated to provide the FAA standard runway/taxiway separation of 240 feet for the current ARC designation of B -II. It would not meet the separation standards for C -II or C -III. The taxiway will be constructed to a width of 35 feet consistent with the FAA's standards for B -II. The connector taxiways, that join the runway to the parallel taxiway, will be reconstructed to a width of 35 feet and extended to the new parallel taxiway. Approximately 0.61 acres would be acquired for the construction of this alternative. An additional 63.39 acres would be purchased, as stated in the Purpose and Need. Combined, the total land acquisition would be approximately 64 acres. ' Costs associated w' the no action alternative are pavement maintenance operations (i.e., crack sealing, fog sealing, etc.) that would be required over the 20 years. McCall Airport Environmental Assessment Chapter I: Alternatives (DRi\FT) WHPacific. Inc. Page 4 Approximately 0.97 acres of wetland would be impacted. Wetland mitigation would need to occur off -airport, in order to meet FAA requirements regarding wildlife attractants. Figure 2 provides a graphical representation of Alternative 2. Key Features • Lowest cost for all the build alternatives. • Brings airport into compliance with FAA standards for current ARC of B -II by increasing runway/taxiway centerline separation to 240 feet. • Off-site environmental mitigation is needed. • Less wetland impact than Alternative 3, but greater than Alternative 4. Summary of Costs Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relocation $ 2,179,600 Wetlands Mitigation $ 116,160 Property Acquisition (0.61 acres) $ 61,000 Subtotal $ 2,356,760 Contingency (25%) $ 589.190 Construction Cost Subtotal $ 2,945,950 Engineering and Inspection $ 817,350 (30% of Twy Relocation & 25% Contingency) City of McCall Administration $ 25,000 Permitting $ 15,000 Alternative 2 Total Estimated Cost $ 3,803,300 4` t, 610, eery Additional Land Acquisition (63.39 acres) $ 6,339,000 1.2.3. Alternative 3: Relocate the Parallel Taxiway 300 feet separation Description The existing parallel taxiway will be removed and relocated to provide the FAA standard runway/taxiway separation of 300 feet for the future ARC designation of C -II. The taxiway will be constructed to a width of 35 feet consistent with the standards for C -II. The connector taxiways will be reconstructed to a width of 35 feet and extended to the new parallel taxiway. Approximately 4.98 acres would be acquired for the construction of this alternative. An additional 59 acres would be purchased, as stated in the Purpose and Need. Combined, the total land acquisition would be approximately 64 acres. Approximately 1.39 acres of wetland would be impacted. McCall Airport Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Alternatives (DRAFT) WE[Pacific. Inc. Page 5 Figure 3 provides a graphical representation of Alternative 3. Kev Features • Meets FAA standards for future ARC (C -II), as cited in ALP. • Off-site environmental mitigation is needed. • Greatest wetlands impact of the build alternatives. Summary of Costs Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relocation $ 2,268,100 Wetlands Mitigation $ 166,560 Property Acquisition (4.98 acres) $ 498.000 Subtotal $ 2,932,660 Contingency (25%) $ 733,170 Construction Cost Subtotal $ 3,665,830 Engineering and Inspection (30%) $ 850,540 (30% of Twy Relocation & 25% Contingency) City of McCall Administration $ 25,000 Permitting $ 15,000 Alternative 3 Total Estimated Cost: $ 4,556,370 Additional Land Acquisition (59.02 acres) $ 5,902,000 1.2.4. Alternative 4: Relocate the Parallel Taxiway 400 feet separation) Description The existing parallel taxiway will be removed and relocated to provide the FAA standard runway/taxiway separation of 400 feet for the future Design Group III as recommended in the ALP. The taxiway will be constructed to a width of 50 feet consistent with the standards for Design Group III. The connector taxiways will be reconstructed to a width of 35 feet and extended to the new parallel taxiway. Approximately 13.54 acres would be acquired for the construction of this alternative. An additional 50.46 acres would be purchased, as stated in the Purpose and Need. Combined, the total land acquisition would be approximately 64 acres. Approximately 0.30 acres of wetland would be impacted. Figure 4 provides a graphical representation of Alternative 4. Kev Features McCall Airport Environmental Assessment Chapter I: Alternatives (DRAFT) WHPaciflc, Inc. Page 6 " T a x i w a y b u i l t o u t f o r D e s i g n G r o u p I I I , a s r e c o m m e n d e d i n c u r r e n t M a s t e r P l a n . " L e a s t w e t l a n d s i m p a c t o f a l l b u i l d a l t e r n a t i v e s . " O f f - s i t e e n v i r o n m e n t a l m i t i g a t i o n i s n e e d e d . S u m m a r y o f C o s t s C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s : P a r a l l e l T a x i w a y R e l o c a t i o n $ 2 , 5 2 7 , 4 0 0 W e t l a n d s M i t i g a t i o n $ 3 6 , 0 0 0 P r o p e r t y A c q u i s i t i o n ( 1 3 . 5 4 a c r e s ) $ 1 , 3 5 4 , 0 0 0 S u b t o t a l $ 3 , 9 1 7 , 4 0 0 C o n t i n g e n c y ( 2 5 % ) $ 9 7 9 , 3 5 0 C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t S u b t o t a l $ 4 , 8 9 6 , 7 5 0 E n g i n e e r i n g a n d I n s p e c t i o n ( 3 0 % ) $ 9 4 7 , 7 8 0 ( 3 0 % o f T w y R e l o c a t i o n & 2 5 % C o n t i n g e n c y ) ' C i t y o f M c C a l l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 P e r m i t t i n g $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 A l t e r n a t i v e 4 T o t a l E s t i m a t e d C o s t : $ 5 , 8 8 4 , 5 3 0 A d d i t i o n a l L a n d A c q u i s i t i o n ( 5 0 . 4 6 a c r e s ) $ 5 , 0 4 6 , 0 0 0 1 . 3 . S u m m a r y K e y d i f f e r e n t i a t o r s f o r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s , w e t l a n d i m p a c t s , a n d p r o p e r t y a c q u i s i t i o n . T a b l e 1 p r o v i d e s a m a t r i x f o r c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s . T a b l e 1 : A l t e r n a t i v e s C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e A l t e r n a t i v e 1 A l t e r n a t i v e 2 A l t e r n a t i v e 3 A l t e r n a t i v e 4 M e e t s F A A S t a n d a r d s - N o : Y e s Y e s : Y e s F u t u r e g _ D e v e l o p m e n t L i m i t a t i o n s H i g h C M o d e r a L o w - e L o w P . W e t l a n d I m p a c t s & M i t i g a t i o n N o n e 0 : 9 7 a c 1 . 3 9 ` a c ' - 0 : 3 . 0 a c ��: . P r o p e r t y A c q u i s i t i o n N o n e 0 . 6 1 a c 4 . 9 8 a c 1 3 . 5 4 a c f o r T a x i w a y C o n s t r u c t i o n O v e r a l l C o s t $ 1 , 0 7 2 , 7 5 0 ` $ 3 ; 8 ( 1 3 , 3 9 0 . ; : r . " $ : 4 , 5 5 ' 6 ' ; 3 7 0 $ - 5 ; 8 8 4 ; 5 3 0 \ ' I c C o l l A i r p o r t E n v i r o n m e n t a l i \ s s e s s i i u n t C h a p t e r I : A l t e r n a t i v e s ( D R A F T ) McCall Airport Environmental Assessment Committee (AEAC) Meeting #1 March 10, 2009 Meeting: 5:30 — 7:00 p.m. McCall City Hall — Legion Hall Attendees: AEAC Members: Bert Kulesza, Mark Thorien, Curt Mack, Jim Egnew, Mike Anderson, Rik Poston, Bill Robertson, Joyce Sisson, Mike Medberry, Brian O'Morrow, John Humphries, and Mary Sue Roach City of McCall: John Anderson, McCall Airport Manager WHPacific, Inc (WHP): Rainse Anderson, Project Manager; Jason Ritchie, Project Engineer; and Sarah Lucas, Project Planner Corvid Consulting: Laura Jackson, Environmental Specialist Public Attendees: No members of the public attended Welcome and John Anderson opened the meeting at 5:30 and began with having everyone Introductions introduce themselves. He reiterated the environmental assessment (EA) is for the taxiway separation project and not related to any other airport master plan (AMP) projects and the intent of this evening's meeting is to review the four project alternatives. Review AEAC Rainse Anderson thanked everyone for coming and reviewing the. informational Roles and alternatives packet over the last week. He reminded committee members that the Responsibilities AEAC is an advisory committee to the City and that the City has final authority over the project. He asked members to provide input to help produce a document that incorporates a wide range of interests, bring comments and concerns of the public forward, and help with rumor control to reduce misconceptions. Comments can be sent to the City and WHP at anytime between meetings. Curt Mack asked that in the future all mailings be printed double -sided to be environmentally responsible. WHP said they would strive to make double -sided copies in future documents. Mr. Mack also inquired how the committee members should interact with one another and as to what constitutes the committee's recommendations: consensus or vote? Rainse Anderson replied that all discussions should be professional and avoid personal attacks. John Anderson suggested waiting until the end of the meeting to determine the most appropriate method for deciding the committee's recommendation. Mr. Mack asked that the committee be given the opportunity to review the draft meeting summary prior to it being posted on the City's website. WHP said they P:\City of McCa11\034256\Management\Meetings\AEAC #1 (Mar 2009)\AEAC #1 Meeting Summary.doc Page 1. of 9 December 3`d Meeting Overview Project Update would send a copy to all AEAC members before finalizing it. Rainse Anderson gave a brief overview of the previous EA public meeting where the following was presented: • Reviewed the AMP process and outcome, and discussed the AMP alternatives and resulting Airport Layout Plan (ALP). • Gave an overview of the EA process. • Reported on preliminary results of field investigations. Sarah Lucas reported on progress since the December meeting. WHP has drafted the preliminary engineering design report that included cost estimates to assist in selecting the EA's preferred alternatives. The Purpose and Need statement was revised to include the City's and FAA's comments. With this updated information, WHP drafted the alternatives chapter for review. Project Purpose Laura Jackson reviewed the project's purpose, which is to bring the & Need runway/taxiway centerline separation at the airport into compliance with FAA design standards, and the need to improve airport safety as the current runway/taxiway centerline separation is substandard. The Airport's current Airport Reference Code (ARC) is B -II (see presentation for more detailed description of the ARC). The AMP states it is possible the Airport will become either a C -II or C -IH within the planning period. Currently, during heavy fire seasons there are already over 500 annual operations of B -III and C -III aircraft. Mike Anderson asked why the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) discounts the government operations at the airport and why the AMP was not able to count them. WHP replied they have never experienced the FAA discounting operations before and they believe it has to do with the issue of justifying a runway extension. It may also be that it isn't a consistent statistic, since the number of operations varies greatly depending on the severity of the fire season. They will follow-up with the FAA to get a more decisive answer. John Humphries stated the westside parallel taxiway was built to B -III standards to accommodate firefighting activity. Mike Medberry asked if the airport was ever given a variance to the runway/taxiway centerline separation standard. Mr. Humphries cited a paragraph from the AMP (pg. 5-9) that alluded to a waiver. WHP reported neither the City nor FAA has records of a variance and the FAA assured them no waiver would ever be given. The AMP made an incorrect statement. Joyce Sisson asked if the FAA was the trigger for the project or if it was the AMP. WHP reported the trigger was the AMP's completion, since it noted the design deficiency. While the deficiency was also noted in the previous AMP, the FAA would now like to pursue the project since funding is available. Bert Kulesza made a comment that runway/taxiway centerline separation seems to be on FAA's radar nationwide. WHP noted they have seen this trend elsewhere. P:\City of iMcCail\034256\Management\Meetings\AEAC #1 (Mar 2009)\AEAC #1 Meeting Summary.doc Page 2 of 9 Mary Sue Roach asked if the no action alternative could ask for a variance and Curt Mack asked how worried the FAA was about the separation issue. WHP reiterated the FAA is not willing to issue a waiver and they can include that statement in the no action alternative. Other AEAC members pointed out the liability of not doing anything and having a "failure to act" in a situation where liability became an issue. Curt Mack asked how the EA relates to the AMP's preferred alternative and requested the purpose and need document be expanded to include more discussion about the AMP. The term "frequently" is too vague, along with the discussion of B -II and C -II. He also asked what the other deficiencies were. It was his understanding the other deficiencies related to changing the airport's designation to C -II. John Anderson said there were some other safety issues noted. WHP reminded everyone that, regardless of deficiencies identified in the AMP, the EA's only focus is the runway/taxiway separation. Mary Sue Roach inquired as to who owns the EA. WHP reported it is a City document until signed by the FAA, at which time the FAA takes ownership. Bill Robertson commented that people need to think ahead to growth. Jim Egnew stated that is the issue many people have with this EA, since they feel the City is committed to growth and the AMP's forecasts are not consistent projections and are difficult to use as a project purpose and need. Mary Sue Roach agreed the AMP was based on poor assumptions. John Anderson said even if people have issues with the AMP's forecast it is irrelevant to this project since the airport has been a 3 -II for twenty years and the project is to correct a B -II deficiency. Jim Egnew said he understands that, but feels other people are accommodating growth. John Humphries asked how much the City's match would be. It would be 2.5 %. John Anderson added the FAA prioritizes projects on a scale of 0-100. Most projects that score over 60 are funded and this project is most likely scored higher. He expects the FAA grant to be given over a 2-3 year period. Bill Robertson stated the AMP is based on 2005 data. As such, would it be possible for FAA to get more recent data that may support C -II? John Anderson said if the airport does experience growth (actual operations) it would cross that threshold. Once the operations occur the change happens, regardless of what forecasts predict. John Anderson gave the example of the Driggs airport. The city of Driggs wanted to stay a B -II airport, even though operations had changed it to a C -II. Once FAA found out the City was designing a project to B -II standards the FAA made them redesign the project. This is an example that what matters is what the numbers say; the FAA won't ignore actual statistics. Another example is the Hailey airport that is C -III, but can't comply since it has no growth potential. They are trying to relocate the airport, which is a very time and money consuming project. A question was asked what would happen at the airport if it were designated to a C -II. The projects that would be required are: widening the runway, expanding the runway safety area width and length, relocating the taxiway to at least 300' from the runway, and possibly a runway extension. The runway extension would depend on many other factors and is not necessarily dependent on a C -II designation. P:\City of McCa11\034256\Management\Meetings\AEAC #1 (Mar 2009)\AEAC 41 Meeting Summary.doc Page 3 of 9 Field Sarah Lucas gave an update on the wetland delineation, the biological resources Investigations technical report, and the cultural resources inventory. Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters • It is expected 2.26 acres of jurisdictional wetlands/waters, and 3.01 acres of non -jurisdictional waters are located within the project area. • 2:1 off-site mitigation replacement ratio expected. • Up to six properties and existing wetland mitigation banks will be investigated. • Requirements by the US Corps of Engineers (Corps) for wetland permitting require the alternatives reviewed include an alternative that avoids wetland impact. • If no avoidance alternative is feasible, an alternative that minimizes wetland impact must be reviewed. • The minimization alternative should be favored over a more impactful alternative, if impacts to other environmental elements are similar. Cultural Resources Inventory • Stringer Ditch is not deemed eligible for listing in the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) as an individual resource, but may be if listed as a contributing element to the possibly eligible irrigation district. • The historic -period archaeological isolated find (artifact scatter) is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. Biological Resources Technical Report • No adverse impacts to species at or near the airport with the exception of the western toad. • Any wetland habitat impacted by taxiway relocation would need to be mitigated to offset the potential loss of habitat for the western toad. • Live trapping will be conducted during the late spring months to determine the Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel presence, if any. If found, impacts would most likely be the same for all build alternatives. There were several comments from the AEAC that the biological report dismissed species without giving enough justification. WHP replied they would add more justification in the report. Project The WHP project team gave a presentation of each alternative. Below is a brief Alternatives summation of each alternative. Please refer to the meeting presentation for a graphical representation of each alternative. A breakdown of cost estimates can be found in the design report posted on the City's website. Alternative 1: No Action This alternative does not change the existing deficiencies in runway/taxiway centerline separation. Includes pavement maintenance cost for 20 year period. Advantages • There is no property acquisition. P:\City of McCall\034256\Management\Meetings\AEAC 41 (Mar 2009)\AEAC #1 Meeting Summary.doc Page 4 of 9 " T h e r e a r e n o e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s . D i s a d v a n t a g e s " T h e a i r p o r t d o e s n o t m e e t F A A s t a n d a r d s f o r r u n w a y / t a x i w a y c e n t e r l i n e s e p a r a t i o n . O T h e r e a r e p o t e n t i a l s a f e t y i s s u e s d u e t o t h e d e c r e a s e d d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e r u n w a y a n d t a x i w a y c e n t e r l i n e s . T o t a l c o s t f o r A l t e r n a t i v e 1 i s e s t i m a t e d a t $ 1 , 0 7 2 , 7 5 0 . A l t e r n a t i v e 2 : R e l o c a t e t h e P a r a l l e l T a x i w a y t o m e e t B - I I D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s ( 2 4 0 - f o o t s e p a r a t i o n ) T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e i n c l u d e s r e l o c a t i o n o f t h e t a x i w a y t o m e e t t h e F A A s t a n d a r d r u n w a y / t a x i w a y s e p a r a t i o n o f 2 4 0 f e e t f o r t h e c u r r e n t A R C d e s i g n a t i o n o f B - I I . T h e t a x i w a y w i l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d t o a w i d t h o f 3 5 f e e t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e F A A ' s s t a n d a r d s f o r B - I I . A p p r o x i m a t e l y 0 . 6 1 a c r e s w o u l d b e a c q u i r e d f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 0 . 9 7 a c r e s o f w e t l a n d w o u l d b e i m p a c t e d t h a t w o u l d r e q u i r e o f f - a i r p o r t m i t i g a t i o n . A d v a n t a g e s " L o w e s t c o s t f o r a l l t h e b u i l d a l t e r n a t i v e s . " B r i n g s a i r p o r t i n t o c o m p l i a n c e w i t h F A A s t a n d a r d s f o r c u r r e n t A R C o f B - I I b y i n c r e a s i n g r u n w a y / t a x i w a y c e n t e r l i n e s e p a r a t i o n t o 2 4 0 f e e t . " L e a s t a m o u n t o f p r o p e r t y a c q u i s i t i o n f o r t h e b u i l d a l t e r n a t i v e s . D i s a d v a n t a g e s " D o e s n o t m e e t F A A s t a n d a r d s f o r f u t u r e A R C o f C - I I , w h i c h r e q u i r e s a r u n w a y / t a x i w a y c e n t e r l i n e s e p a r a t i o n o f 3 0 0 f e e t . " O f f - s i t e e n v i r o n m e n t a l m i t i g a t i o n i s n e e d e d . " L e s s w e t l a n d i m p a c t t h a n A l t e r n a t i v e 3 , b u t g r e a t e r t h a n A l t e r n a t i v e 4 . A l t e r n a t i v e 2 i s e s t i m a t e d t o c o s t $ 4 , 3 0 6 , 0 8 0 . A l t e r n a t i v e 3 : R e l o c a t e t h e P a r a l l e l T a x i w a y t o 3 0 0 - f e e t s e p a r a t i o n T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e i n c l u d e s r e l o c a t i o n o f t h e t a x i w a y t o m e e t t h e F A A s t a n d a r d r u n w a y / t a x i w a y s e p a r a t i o n o f 3 0 0 f e e t f o r t h e p o s s i b l e f u t u r e A R C d e s i g n a t i o n o f C - I I . T h e t a x i w a y w i l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d t o a w i d t h o f 3 5 f e e t . A p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 . 9 8 a c r e s w o u l d b e a c q u i r e d f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 . 3 9 a c r e s o f w e t l a n d w o u l d b e i m p a c t e d t h a t w o u l d r e q u i r e o f f - a i r p o r t m i t i g a t i o n . A d v a n t a g e s " M e e t s F A A s t a n d a r d s f o r f u t u r e A R C a s c i t e d i n A L P . " L e s s p r o p e r t y a c q u i s i t i o n r e q u i r e d t h a n n e e d f o r A l t e r n a t i v e 4 . D i s a d v a n t a g e s " P r o p e r t y a c q u i s i t i o n r e q u i r e d t o r e l o c a t e t h e t a x i w a y a w a y f r o m t h e r u n w a y . " O f f - s i t e e n v i r o n m e n t a l m i t i g a t i o n i s n e e d e d . " G r e a t e s t w e t l a n d s i m p a c t o f t h e b u i l d a l t e r n a t i v e s . T o t a l c o s t f o r A l t e r n a t i v e 3 i s e s t i m a t e d a t $ 5 , 3 5 4 , 8 9 5 . A l t e r n a t i v e 4 : R e l o c a t e t h e P a r a l l e l T a x i w a y t o 4 0 0 - f e e t s e p a r a t i o n P : \ G t v o f M c C a 1 1 \ 0 3 4 2 5 6 \ M a n a g e m e n t \ M e e t i n g s \ A E A C 4 1 ( M a r 2 0 0 9 ) \ A E A C # 1 M e e t i n g S u m m a r y . d o c P a g e 5 o f 9 Open Discussion (AEAC Members) This alternative includes relocation of the taxiway to meet the FAA standard runway/taxiway separation of 400 feet as recommended in the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The taxiway will be constructed to a width of 35 feet. Approximately 13.54 acres would be acquired for the construction and approximately 0.30 acres of wetland would be impacted that would require off -airport mitigation. Advantages • Taxiway built out for Design Group III, as recommended in current Master Plan. • Least wetlands impact of all build alternatives. Disadvantages • Greatest amount of property acquisition required for any of the build alternatives. • Off-site environmental mitigation is needed. Alternative 4 is estimated at $7,049,650. Curt Mack asked for clarification regarding the criteria the alternatives would be weighed against. First, he wanted to know if the purpose and need only related to the ARC of B -II. Second, he asked what the difference between purpose and need and meeting FAA design standards was. Third, he asked for the definition of project feasibility. WHP replied the purpose is to meet at least B -II design standards. The difference between the purpose and need and design standards is whether or not all alternatives meet a FAA design standard, i.e. 300' is the C -II design standard. Last, all the projects in this situation are feasible; however, in some instances there are conditions that undermine a project's feasibility. Bill Robertson wondered if FAA would fund anything beyond 240' since that is the standard for B -II. John Anderson replied in the past the FAA wouldn't pay for anything more than the minimum, but now they are more willing to look at a greater range of options. Mary Sue Roach asked if we should/could add more criteria. WHP responded yes and Curt Mack suggested social impacts and community desire be added to the list of criteria to be discussed. Jim Egnew asked if the criteria were FAA issues or if they were project specific issues. WHP responded impact criteria are being looked at and will be addressed with greater detail in upcoming sections of the EA. However, at this time wetland impacts is the only impact that varies between the build alternatives. All other impact areas are considered equal or not affected by the build alternatives. For example, the FAA's qualification for air quality impacts is only considered if an airport has more than 90,000 annual operations or if the airport is within an area for nonattainment. At McCall neither of these criteria apply. Regarding Alternative 1, Curt Mack asked if all alternatives included pavement maintenance. If not, he suggested they all should. John Humphries agreed. WHP replied that pavement maintenance is not included in the other alternatives because the cost would be minimal, considering the pavement would be new unlike the existing 20 -year old pavement. However, those costs can be added. Joyce Sisson asked if maintenance was an FAA covered expense. WHP replied that it is, only if it meets B -II standards. P:\City of McCa11\034256\Management\Meetings\AEAC 41 (Mar 2009)\AEAC #1 Meeting Summary.doc Page 6 of 9 Mary Sue Roach asked if the wetland impact was calculated only by the impervious surface's footprint. WHP replied the impact area is determined by calculating the grading area, which is generally the object free area. Brian O'Morrow asked if the construction costs included relocation of the fence. WHP: Yes, they do. Mike Medberry inquired about the contingency, stating they seem high and sound like ludicrous slop. WHP replied at 25% preliminary engineering there are still many unknowns such as project timing, material costs, and quantities. As the design gets closer to 100% these contingencies are reduced or even removed. A project is not bid with contingencies. Mary Sue Roach noted the legend on the drawings do not match the exhibits and should be corrected. WHP agreed and will update the legend. In the summary of Alternative 2, not meeting ARC C -II was listed as a disadvantage and Curt Mack asked why, saying it sounds like people are pushing growth. WHP replied the AMP shows the airport possibly moving to a C -II, so it was initially shown as a disadvantage. It was agreed that statements of meeting C -II and C -III were only descriptions of the alternatives and would be removed from the advantages/disadvantages statements. Mr. Mack added that even if the AMP assumptions weren't redone, it wouldn't change the fact the AMP doesn't substantiate moving to a C -II even with unconstrained forecasts. He feels the public does not support the growth, citing petitions against airport growth. Brian O'Morrow added there are many people that do support airport expansion. It was later agreed to rearrange the Advantages/Disadvantages discussion to be statements of fact about each alternative without attributing advantage or disadvantage.Jim Egnew added that the City got to this point because the Comprehensive Plan or the AMP didn't talk about what the community wants. However, this may not be the appropriate place for the discussion. Curt Mack added that we are not operating in a bubble and what happens with this project affects future development at the airport. Brian O'Morrow then asked WHP if building the taxiway out beyond B -II standards has any cumulative effect of getting the airport closer to changing the ARC. The answer is no, since changing ARC depends on actual aircraft operations. If it does change designations, any actions needed at that time will be addressed to determine their impacts. Joyce Sisson asked if Alternative 4's reduction of the apron area should be viewed as a disadvantage. John Anderson replied in the long-term it isn't a disadvantage, but it would be in the short-term. The AMP identified areas for apron expansion. Ms. Sisson then asked if the cost of building new apron was included in the cost estimate. WHP said it was not, but that it could be. Regarding the alternatives table, Curt Mack stated there should be a line item for social impacts. Mary Sue Roach asked if the area of proposed land acquisition was within the City or the County's boundary. It is in the County. Brian O'Morrow inquired if it were possible to mitigate the wetlands onsite if a study was done to determine whether the wetland enhancement would be a wildlife attractant. He cited a previous study that said wetlands would not create a wildlife hazard at the airport. WHP responded no, that the FAA will not mitigate onsite regardless. If any wetlands are impacted during a project they must be P:\City of ivlcCall\034256\Management\Meetings\AEAC 1#1 (Mar 2009)\AEAC #1. Meeting Summary.doc Page 7 of 9 mitigated offsite according to FAA; however, in that same light, if on -airport wetlands are not impacted during a construction project and are not known as a wildlife attractant, the FAA says they can stay. Mary Sue Roach commented the City may have 50' development setbacks from all wetland areas. John Anderson said even if there are a city government cannot override the federal government. Curt Mack observed that as a percentage of overall costs the wetland impacts are small. The main differentiator is the cost of property acquisition. Brian O'Morrow asked about the threshold for an Individual Permit for wetland impacts. WHP replied the threshold is 1 acre of impacts, so Alternative 3 would involve a more detailed permitting process. Note: this was later verified to be a threshold of 0.5 acres, rather than 1.0 acres. Alternatives 3 and 4 impact the snow storage and John Humphries asked if this could be viewed as a disadvantage. John Anderson said it does not get used and Mike Anderson added that it isn't accessible to storage unless changes to the diagonal taxiway occur. Mike Anderson said there are underlying issues within the city that are not related to the airport and should be addressed elsewhere. He also added that while property acquisition is the largest cost differentiator, there is a great advantage of only having to work with one property owner. John Humphries said that even if growth was taken out of the equation he prefers Alternative 2 because it is the least burden to taxpayers and there is less than 1 acre of wetland impacts. He asked if the AMP data was accurate enough to justify the project and if it would be worthwhile to redo the AMP forecasts. WHP replied that even with the concerns over the forecasts the airport has been a B -II airport for 20 years and that is the reason for the taxiway relocation. There was then a discussion about the community's concerns with the AMP and the assumptions/models that were used in the forecasts. Many felt the current economics show the assumptions are not true and the models are flawed. There were also many who felt that all models are flawed and wondered why they would want to redo them because in 5-6 years the economy would undoubtedly change again (it was noted this is why the FAA prefers to update master plans on a regular basis). Mike Anderson said he can recall building the third hangar at the airport in 1990. There are now over 70 hangars at the airport. This historical data shows the airport is growing. John Anderson also commented the City needs to protect the 13.54 acres for offset to ensure no private development occurs. It could be far greater of an expense to purchase this land once developed and this, too, is a social cost people should be concerned over. Mark Thorien and Rik Posten both agreed Alternative 4 was their preferred alternative. Curt Mack added again that this project, in his opinion, is about airport expansion. Just based on costs alone he prefers Alternative 2. He feels there is a good argument .the airport won't be C -II or C -III in the planning horizon, noting safe is safe as long as the B -II standard is met. P:\City of ivlcCa11\034256\Management\Meetings\AEAC 41 (Mar 2009)\AEAC t1 Meeting Summary.doc Page 8 of 9 c Open Discussion (Public Attendees) Future meeting dates and times Several people commented that if 400' is safer for some current aircraft than 240', we should go to 400', especially if we have FAA willing to pay for it and we have a willing property seller. Mike Anderson commented that a master plan is prepared every 5-6 years, but construction lasts much longer. Bert Kulesza suggested since no consensus would be met tonight that it may be wise for WHP to summarize the discussion and present it to the City Council for their input. Jim Engew asked if the City was going to have public scoping. WHP responded no that for an EA the scoping is prepared with City and FAA input. Mr. Egnew then commented the City is going to have these problems if the City lets this continue (referring to an earlier comment about the City not taking public input on the AMP and Comprehensive Plan). Bill Robertson added the airport has had extra meetings to get public input and people don't show up. Mike Medberry stated he preferred Alternative 2. A vote was then taken to get a feeling of the committee's recommendation for the preferred alternative. There were five votes for Alternative 2 and six votes for Alternative 4. Bert Kulesza abstained from voting. Since no votes were given to Alternative 3 it was agreed to remove this alternative from consideration. Meeting was not attended by any members of the public. It was decided since no consensus would be made at this evening's meeting that WHP would draft a summary of the discussion and present it to the McCall City Council. The Council would then decide the preferred alternative. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. P:\City of McCa11\034256\Management\Meetings\AEAC #1. (Mar 2009)\AEAC #1 Meeting Summary.doc Page 9 of 9 ' Microsoft Outlook Web Access 11/4/09 9:13 AM Attachments can contain viruses that may harm your computer. Attachments may not display correctly. From: To: Lindley Kirkpatrick; Bert Kulesza Cc: Subject: FW: EA Decision Making Authority Attachments:. D 5050.4B chaotei7.ndf(1421 B) • John Anderson.[janderson@mccall.id.us]• Sent: Fri ,10/23/2009 12:11 PM View As Web Paue Lindley & Bert: Attached is FAA Order 5050.4b, which Paul Holmquist forwarded. Bert, I think they are saying that the City recommends a preferred alternative, and then FAA determines what is reasonable and defensible. I'm not sure if this helps you or not. 'The following bolded comments are from Paul. The process outlined in FAA Order 5050.4B, paragraph 706(d) should be followed. The recommendation that the City makes to the FAA is not binding, and it is ultimately up to the FAA to determine whether or not the preferred alternative is reasonable and defensible. Please call if you need to discuss any further. john Anderson, A.A.E. Airport Manager 216 E. Park St. McCall, ID 83638 208-634-1488 Cell 208-630-3441 From: Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov [mai Ito: Paul.Hol mquist@faa.gov] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:22 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Cayla.Morgan@faa.gov Subject: Re: EA Decision Making Authority http://underhill.mccall.id.us/Exchange/ Page 1 of 2 ' Microsoft Outlook Web Access Paul Holmquist Airports Program Specialist FAA Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. SW Ste. 250, Renton, WA 98057 paul.holmquist@faa.gov 425.227.2641 "John Anderson" <janderson@mccall.ld.us> 10/23/2009 08:42 AM To Paul Holmquist/ANM/FAA@FAA cc"'Anderson, Rainse'" <RAnderson@whpacific.corn>, "'Lucas, Sarah"' <SLucas@whpacitic.com , "'Lindley Kirkpatrick' dkirkpatrick@mccall.id.us> Subject EA Decision Making Authority Paul: I have been asked by our Mayor and City Manager to have FAA advise us who has the decision making authority when it comes to selecting an option for an EA. As I understand it, the City Council of McCall will make a recommendation to FAA. Is this an advisory recommendation, or is this a decision that is binding on FAA? If it is not binding, what is FAA's process to accept, modify, or reject the recommendation of the City? If we could get an answer by October 30, it would be appreciated. John Anderson, A.A.E. Airport Manager 216 E. Park St. McCall, ID 83638 208-634-1488 CeII 208-630-3441 This message has been sent to you as official business of the City of McCall. If you have a concem about the authenticity of this communication, including any attachments, please contact the sender directly for confirmation, either by telephone or separate e-mail. Unencrypted e-mail is inherently insecure and should be treated with caution. Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 11/4/09 9:13 AM http://underhill.mccall.id.us/Exchange/ Page 2 of 2 Microsoft Outlook Web Access Replyr.Reply totiall; From: To: Cc: Subject: , Attachments: Council — 11/4/09 9:20 AM Lindley Kirkpatrick: Bert Kulesza; Don Bailey (dbaileybitt@hotmail.com) Don Bailey, (Don.Bailey@mccall.id:us) .Laura: Scott`(Laura:Scott@mecall idius) 'Marcia John Anderson FW: Voluntary Noise. Abatement Procedures at:Friedman Meinoiial Airport,`Hailey, ent::: ;Mon 6/15/2009 4:54 PM.; ie i As `Well Pane` Below is some information from Paul Holmquist, the FAA rep who was at your recent meeting. Lindley Kirkpatrick, AICP City Manager City of McCall 216 East Park Street McCall, ID 83638 (208) 634-8099 www.mccall.id.us From: Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov [mailto:Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:19 AM To: Lindley Kirkpatrick Cc: Stan.Allison@faa.gov; John Anderson Subject: Voluntary Noise Abatement Procedures at Friedman Memorial Airport, Hailey, ID Dear Lindley, one of the I.O.U.s we had from the McCall City Council meeting last Friday was to provide information on the noise abatement procedures at Friedman Memorial Airport, Hailey, ID. John Anderson gave me your name to send this information to so as to pass it on to the Mayor and http://underhill.mccall.id.us/Exchange/ Page 1 of 2 Microsoft Outlook Web Access council. 11/4/09 9:20 AM I spoke with the airport manager, Rick Baird, at Hailey this week and he outlined how they went about setting up their noise abatement procedures. Establishing the procedures have been a collaborative work in progress and have included the community, the air traffic control tower and users of the airport as much as possible. Once the procedures were finalized, they established an education program and published the procedures on the airport's web site. The procedures are not officially published by the FAA and therefore would not be enforced by the FAA. While the procedures are voluntary, the airport users and management are quite persistent with verbal reminders and warnings to those who operate outside established guidelines. They have a web -site that presents the details that aircraft are expected to follow. http://www .flyfma.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={42222516-CFAS -4D63 - 81 D9- 5929ACCD9BE9} Other noise abatement options include establishing a "calm wind runway" which would be published in the Airport Facility Directory. This option would let pilots know which runway to take off and land on during calm wind operations. This option too, is voluntary and FAA would not enforce it. Also, establishing a traffic pattern direction to keep airplanes from flying over residential areas can help with noise abatement. Please call if you, or the council has any further questions. Paul Holmquist Airports Program Specialist FAA Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. SW Ste. 250, Renton, WA 98057 paul.holmquist@faa.gov 425.227.2641 http://underhill.mccall.id.us/Exchange/ 1J Page 2 of 2 Client: John Anderson, Airport Manager Project: McCall Airport Environmental Assessment Project No: 034256 PROJECT STATIJs: WHPacific has: IN Waft( PROJECT STAT US REPORT PSR No: 013 (01-12-2010 thru 02-17-2010) Date: February 17, 2010 From: Distribution: Rainse Anderson, P.E. "7?-4- Project 7?-• i Project Manager US Mail and E -Mail O Attended the January 28, 2010 City Council meeting to assist with selection of the Preferred Alternative. o Finalized Alternatives Chapter. © Updated Purpose and Need chapter, based on City Council discussions. o Coordinated between FAA and City regarding City Council discussions. WORK' TO B CO[+'Lt LETFfl NEXT :PE'RTOD: WHPacific will: o Complete the affected environment and environmental consequences chapters. o Prepare wetlands functional assessment once a preferred alternative is selected. o Identify possible wetland mitigation sites, as necessary. © Prepare afiadmmistrat v draft EA for City and FAA review. ACTION .REQUIRED: Item: Description: 1 Complete affected environment and environmental consequences chapter 2 Prepare wetlands functional assessment 3 Identify possible wetland mitigation sites 4 Prepare administrative draft EA C: i oeurnents awl S tiags!randers'ort!Locu/ Set #13.doc rrrrporury inter ler l ehrrrmyv 17, 20/0 Action Action Req'd Completed Req 'd By: Date: Date: WIIP 03/05/2010 WHP 02/26/2010 WHP 04/26/2010 WI -IP 05/17/2010 siContent.Outloo1c15 GIFO FEYIPSR "!!! if ti /// :";/'��'i:'�i��% f, ,