SLIDE 1
Meeting Goals
Update BOCC on:
EA Public Comments Public Process going forward Approximate Timeline Next Steps
Environmental Assessment BOCC Update October 2017 Meeting Goals - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Environmental Assessment BOCC Update October 2017 Meeting Goals - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment BOCC Update October 2017 Meeting Goals Update BOCC on: EA Public Comments Public Process going forward Approximate Timeline Next Steps EA Reminders Two Proposed
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
EA Reminders
Two Proposed Projects, and Purpose and Needs
Eastside Terminal and Associated Landside Improvements Relocate Runway 80 feet to the West to accommodate D-III Category
Aircraft
Evaluated Through Public Process Two Terminal Design
Concepts and Associated Landside Improvements
Design would be completed in next steps No Commitment from Airlines Concerning Actual Aircraft
Types or Flights
SLIDE 4
Unique Factors of EA, Not Normal EA Process
Significant Amount of Community Involvement and
Outreach—More than Federally required
Actually Two Separate EA’s Combined for Efficiency and
Public Comment
Prepared in Sequence Combined Public Process
Evaluated Two Terminal Design Concepts, Not Just One Noise and Air Quality Modeling for Future Aircraft not in
Existing Models
Modification to FAA Guidance
SLIDE 5
Draft EA Conclusions
No Federally Defined Thresholds of Significance Exceeded other
Than Wetlands
Minimal Wetlands Displacement Due to piping of Owl Creek
Will require an individual Section 404 permit issued by the US Army Corps of
Engineers and will require mitigation
Will be applied for after detailed plans prepared for runway shift
SLIDE 6
Public Comments Received
Comment period for 45 days through October 3 Written and Verbal Comments collected at Public Hearings
September 25 (Aspen) – 40 + attendees
9 written comments 2 verbal comments
September 26 (Snowmass) – 10+ attendees
2 written comments 1 verbal comment
Comments submitted electronically
13 comments on Pitkin Connect/electronically Letter from City of Aspen
SLIDE 7
Summary of Comments Received
Air Quality and Noise Comments
Concerns over air quality, GHG, and noise with change in aircraft/quality of life impacts/character of Aspen impacts
737s would impact the livability of the area
Comment that noise measurements were not taken 7-14 miles away and residue of jet fuel has not been measured in that area
Request for a third party environmental review to provide recommendations on air quality regulations
Issues with FAA requirements and change in aircraft type
Strong support of the noise wall project (up to 14 feet)
Requested change in parking direction of aircraft on GA apron
Limits on APU runtime/incorporation of APU alternatives into terminal design (preconditioned air and ground power)
Comments on fuel smell near airport
Request for carbon offsets or other programs to be implemented to offset development
Request no flights taking off toward Aspen and Meadowood
Question of noise impacts outside the airport envelope/property value
Support of keeping the existing curfew
Support of flexibility to accommodate late arrivals rather than diverting
Want modest/efficient and neighborhood sensitive airport
Environmental assessment does not take into account the specific conditions of a high altitude narrow mountain valley and that we request an independent and unbiased study that includes; air quality, emergency response, and noise issues
Develop an alternative that limits the airport to commercial regional jets and private aircraft with a gross landing weight of no more than a maximum 125,000 pounds. Because of our altitude and topography, larger airplanes would create unacceptable burdens of noise and toxic pollutants for the many residents near the airport and for many miles down valley
SLIDE 8
Summary of Comments Received
Terminal Comments
Concern that airport is for the rich not the average citizen
Terminal design preferences
Keep from being too fancy but enough concessions, carousels etc. available
Request for sustainability elements (green roof)
Request for concessions/rooftop bar
Want modest/efficient and neighborhood sensitive airport
Worry about expense of terminal
Approve of no jet bridges in the concepts; keep deplaning to mountain views
Humble terminal with minimal distance between drop off and check in
New terminal is out of balance with the projected long-term population growth. A larger airport with more capacity will drive development
Planning, Regulation and Site Questions etc.
Concerns on emergency response relative to larger aircraft and the narrow valley and proximity to residences
Question assumption of losing commercial service; think it is not valid
Restricted airspace creates issues between private and commercial aircraft
FAA should modify its regulations
Comments on existing/potential intersections
Concerns over change in deicing location
Question on parking, how the plan accounts for car share, ride share, autonomous vehicles, etc. and if there is an opportunity to make the terminal a shared hub for regional transportation services
Add more parking
Need more hangars
Traffic may be impacted; Concerns about light pollution
SLIDE 9
Summary of Comments Received
Water Comments
The expansion will impact the sensitive area including but not limited to wildlife, sensitive zones: wetlands, water flow, noise, and pollution.
Support of working with Pitkin County Open Space to find a local mitigation project for impacts from piping Owl Creek
Other Comments
Economic projections regarding this project in my opinion use old data from the 2013 economic impact study for Colorado airports (new data will be surveyed in 2018). And is not a representative sample due to the seasonal nature of the airport
Aspen Airport is the economic lifeline of the community
Request to have runway improvements completed first
Comment in favor of runway reconfiguration
Question on why voters are not allowed to vote on the airport expansion, as it affects small town character
Comment that they are excited for new terminal and change in runway
Comment that the runway reconfiguration adds continued economic viability but want to keep the character of Aspen
Concerns about weather (wind, temperature and visibility) and altitude and weight of aircraft will reduce safety
Request for more time to comment; thought notification was inadequate
SLIDE 10
Public Process/Next Steps
Respond to public comments in the EA Appendix Hold BOCC hearings and take comments, Oct. 10—Nov. 1
Respond to comments
FAA issues findings Solicitation and Contracting with Consulting Team
Program Management Program Financial Feasibility Design Team On call Planning and Environmental On call Engineering On call Financial
Submit Application for Federal Funds