Alternatives/Purpose & Need
Announcements
History
Background
EIS Process
Scoping Process
Sponsor's Identified goals & Objectives.
Alternatives
Forecast / Economic Analysis
Tribal Consultation
Draft EIS
Public Information Meetings
Opportunities for Public Comment on the EIS
Contact
Scope of Work for EIS
FAQ's
Glossary
Links
|
ALTERNATIVESNote: The Alternatives and Pupose and Need working paper is currently being updated per comments received. Once finalized, the following summary and links to the document will be updated with the revised information. 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 three tier process was developed to assess the attributes and constraints of each site. A total of 14 evaluation criteria were developed for use in assessing the sites. Using the three tier evaluation process, the analysis 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 had been determined that 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 evalation 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: Catetegory 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 that utilized a numerical ranking system to compare the remaining nine sites. The criteria evaluated in the second tier included:
The remaining nine sites were ranked and a shortlist of three sites (4, 10A, and 12) were 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 Phase II of the EIS. Documents on Alternatives:
|