2023-06-20 Public Hearig on EA
1
1
2
3 BLAIR AIRPORT AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING
4 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5 JUNE 20, 2023 - 7 O'CLOCK P.M.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
2
1(At 7:06 p.m. the following
2 proceedings were had:)
3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: At this point
4 in time we'd like to open the public hearing
5 with an introduction.
6 For the public hearing I will be the
7 moderator tonight. Again, my name is Dave
8 Johnson. The city representatives here
9 tonight are city administrator Phil Green in
10 the jacket. And sitting next to him is Aaron
11 Barrow, the assistant city administration
12(sic). With Olsson Associates, the engineers,
13 Heather Olson, Amy Cherko, and Chase Jeldon
14 are with us this evening. The Court Reporter
15 is Stefanie Allison.
16 Notice to the public hearing meeting
17 was given in advance in the Washington County
18 Pilot-Tribune and Enterprise on May 18th,
19 2023. And copies of the draft and
20 environmental assessment were made available
21 on the city website at City Hall, at Blair
22 Public Library, and at the Blair Executive
23 Airport in the Skywerx office.
24 There is a sign-in sheet by the easel
25 over here that we would ask everyone to sign
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
3
1 in as this will be included in the final
2 environmental assessment document.
3 The purpose of the meeting is to
4 provide an opportunity to comment on the
5 potential environmental impact associated with
6 the proposed runway extension project at the
7 Blair Executive Airport.
8 At this time Olsson will provide a
9 brief summary of the draft environmental
10 assessment. And then we will open the meeting
11 for the public comment.
12 HEATHER OLSON: Thank you, David
13 Johnson.
14 Good evening. My name is Heather
15 Olson, and I'm with Olsson. And I've been
16 working with the Airport Authority for the
17 past eight months putting together an
18 environmental assessment for the proposed
19 extension of the existing runway, 4200 feet to
20 5500 feet.
21 Tonight my team and I will be
22 presenting a brief summary of the draft
23 environmental assessments and its findings.
24 We'll start by talking about the purpose and
25 need, the alternatives that were evaluated,
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
4
1 the proposed action that was considered, and
2 then the land acquisition needs associated
3 with that proposed action, and then the
4 environmental impacts.
5 Tonight, as he had mentioned, you're
6 able to come up and talk about the
7 environmental impacts that were identified
8 within the report, and, then, also if there
9 were some environmental impacts that weren't
10 included. You have the opportunity to speak
11 on those tonight. Written comments can be
12 received through June 30th.
13 You can submit your written comments
14 either here at City Hall or directly to Amy
15 Walter at the FAA. There's comment sheets, if
16 you want to grab one of those, for writing
17 your written comments down and turning those
18 in tonight. We'll be bringing those in later.
19 But they're over by the sign-in sheet.
20 All comments and responses that were
21 provided at the meeting tonight and any
22 written comments will be incorporated into our
23 pendencies of the environmental final
24 document.
25 So, first, I'm going to talk about the
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
5
1 purpose and need, what was the objective. The
2 objective is to safely accommodate the
3 existing and forecasted aircraft operation at
4 the Blair Executive Airport per FAA standards.
5 In 2021 the airport started seeing an
6 increased -- as we approached 2021, the
7 airport started seeing an increased usage at
8 the airport and increased fuel sales. And
9 that prompted the Airport Authority to
10 complete an updated forecast.
11 The current airport usage and
12 projected usage study was between 2021 and
13 2031, so ten-year span. And both aircraft
14 based at the airport and an itinerary aircraft
15 that comes and goes from the airport were
16 studied.
17 The data collected is used to
18 determine the critical aircraft that's going
19 to be using the airport. Critical aircraft
20 it's very important to establish what the
21 critical aircraft for an airport is. That
22 determines what the size and all the design
23 components associated with the airport need to
24 be completed.
25 So, to be considered a critical
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
6
1 aircraft, you have to have a minimum of 500
2 operations of specific aircraft or of a
3 certain similar type of aircraft to make that
4 500 operations per year.
5 So in 2021 the B2 large aircraft was
6 the critical aircraft identified. So that's
7-- typically you'll see that cooperate-sized
8 jet, four to nine passengers.
9 So to -- per FAA standards, to safely
10 accommodate the B2 large aircraft for take off
11 and landing, in all weather conditions, you
12 need 5500 feet of runway lane.
13 Currently the airport has a 4200-foot
14 length runway. So that is where it was
15 determined that the 1300 additional feet would
16 be required. So there's our need.
17 With the purpose and need identified,
18 the FAA, NDOT, the Department of Aeronautics,
19 the city, and the Airport Authority came
20 together and identified six alternatives to
21 accomplish that 1300-foot extension.
22 So tonight I'm going to go through
23 those six alternatives and walk you down the
24 path we all went through to identify to be the
25 best scenario to complete that 1300-foot
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
7
1 extension.
2 We started with alternative number
3 one which is no action. As I just mentioned,
4 no action is maintaining the existing
5 conditions. Um, I just mentioned that the
6 4200 foot is what the existing runway is. So
7 per FAA standards, we've already -- we're
8 noncompliant with safety requirements. So we
9 could not carry this alternative forward.
10 Alternative two looked at extending
11 the 1300 feet at the south end of the runway.
12 Um, I just want to point out in addition to
13 the 1300-foot extension here, we also have to
14 accommodate the runway protection zone, that
15 trapezoid at the end here, for safety
16 requirements per the FAA.
17 So, by putting the runway extension on
18 the south end, you would impact Highway 133.
19 That would have be to relocated, and then
20 County Road P38-A as well.
21 Um, with this as well, there's
22 wetlands that would be impacted, tree removal,
23 significant land purchase. And then there is
24 some homes and some businesses out here that
25 would also be impacted with this
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
8
1 configuration.
2 Due to the environmental and social
3 impacts associated with this alternative, and
4 the financial challenges that would come up
5 with this this, this alternative was not
6 carried forward.
7 Alternative number three was
8 realigning, taking a look at how can we
9 realign runway 13/31 to accommodate the full
10 5500 extension. So we turned that a little
11 bit trying to avoid any impacts to Highway
12 133.
13 But, by doing that, we're still
14 impacting County Road P38A and the two county
15 roads up here, 35 and 38. There's also
16 significant grading, there's wetlands, lot of
17 trees. And, then, again, we have some homes
18 on this end that would need to be relocated.
19 So, again, the purpose and need is met
20 on this alternative. However, due to the
21 environmental and social impacts and financial
22 challenges, this configuration -- this was
23 also not carried forward.
24 So alternative four looks at the north
25 end of the airport. How can we -- what will
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
9
1 it look like if we extend on the north end.
2 This alternative addressed -- or
3 looking at just closing County Roads 35 and 38
4 altogether. There we go. Sorry. Um, this
5 would close these sections of 35 and 38. The
6 Airport Authority and the city was not truly
7 in favor of just altogether just closing those
8 sections of the road.
9 So they went and presented to the
10 county, Washington County Board some
11 alternatives looking at instead of
12 foreclosure -- because they know that's an
13 easy access to Highway 133 for the property
14 owners around that area, and also having those
15 closures would definitely impact those
16 neighbors. So by presenting to the county
17 board, talking about what other alternatives
18 could happen out here, um, is they came up
19 with some other solutions.
20 And, by doing that then, the county
21 enacted a resolution that required that if the
22 extension went to the north that the county
23 roads would have to be relocated and made
24 whole.
25 So, because of that resolution, the
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
10
1 purpose and need is met up here. However, um,
2 the county restrictions would not allow this
3 alternative to move forward.
4 Alternative five: One of the options
5 for the relocation of the county road was
6 actually to move that county road up and
7 around and then through the runway protection
8 zone. Can't do that because that's a safety
9 violation with the FAA standards.
10 So this alternative could not be moved
11 forward because we're encroaching into that
12 runway protection zone. That was easily set
13 aside.
14 So alternative six: Continue to
15 extend the runway to the north at 1300 feet.
16 Close those sections of 35 and 38. But then
17 relocate the county road so we go all the way
18 around the runway protection zone. This
19 alternative met the FAA standards for safety.
20 It met the county requirements for having that
21 county road become whole.
22 So this became the proposed action.
23 So we were able to move forward with this
24 proposed action throughout the environmental
25 assessment looking at all the environmental
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
11
1 impacts.
2 So first thing to look -- one of the
3 first things to look besides environmental was
4 land acquisition.
5 The land acquisition -- first of all,
6 point out this blue dashed line is what the
7 airport currently owns. The FAA requires that
8 all land within the runway protection zone is
9 owned by the airport. So these triangles here
10 would definitely have to be purchased. Then,
11 as part of FAA funding, all land impacted by
12 the county road relocation would also have to
13 be purchased. So that would include the
14 remaining purple, that zone here. Altogether
15 that's an approximately 26 acres of land
16 acquisition with the proposed action.
17 Now I'm going to turn it over to Chase
18 from our team. He's going to talk about the
19 environmental impact portion and how that was
20 analyzed.
21 CHASE JELDON: Thanks, Heather.
22 Hi. My name is Chase Jeldon. I'm an
23 environment scientist with Olsson and one of
24 the authors of the environmental assessment.
25 In this presentation I'll be covering
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
12
1 the environmental assessment and resources we
2 used to evaluate the environmental impact and
3 the purpose of the environmental assessment.
4 This project was prepared in
5 accordance with the National Environmental
6 Policy Act of 1969. Also called NEPA. NEPA
7 was the first law to establish the national
8 framework for environmental protection on a
9 federal level.
10 NEPA applies when a federal agency
11 develops a proposal to take a major federal
12 action and utilizes federal funds.
13 The environmental review can involve
14 three different levels of analysis;
15 categorical exclusion, environmental
16 assessment, and environmental impact
17 statement.
18 The lead federal agency involved with
19 this project, the United States Department of
20 Transportation, Federal Aviation
21 Administration shows that the environmental
22 assessments would be appropriate level for
23 environmental review.
24 The EA for environmental review is
25 made up of the purpose and need, which we went
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
13
1 over, are the alternatives, evaluation of
2 environmental impacts and agency consultation.
3 Once those are complete, and this
4 meeting is complete, all this information will
5 go to the Federal Aviation Administration, and
6 they will issue is a finding of no significant
7 impact or a FONSI.
8 Materials pertaining to the proposed
9 action in the no action alternative were
10 presented to the agencies and provided them
11 with the opportunity to comment or concur with
12 our finding on the environmental impact.
13 The agencies contacted were presented
14 the information and collected their review --
15 sorry.
16 So here is the agencies we contacted
17 for their correspondence and their involvement
18 with this project.
19 We contacted Nebraska State Historical
20 Preservation Officers and Tribes within the
21 historical range of the project; U.S. Fish and
22 Wildlife Service, and the Nebraska Game and
23 Parks for threatened and endangered species;
24 Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy
25 for air quality, construction and storm water,
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
14
1 drinking water, waste water, water quality,
2 and waste disposal; the United States
3 Department of Agriculture for farmland
4 protection; the Natural Resources Conservation
5 Service for ground water protection; Natural
6 Resource District in the area for any concerns
7 they may have in regards to the project; and
8 the United States Army Corps of Engineers for
9 the wetlands.
10 Additional resources that we used to
11 determine environmental impact for this came
12 from consultants or in-house from Olsson.
13 That includes the flood plain certification
14 stating that the area is not a flood plain.
15 Federal Aviation Administration for approval
16 on land use; Coffman and Associates performed
17 a noise study. Olsson performed an
18 environmental records review for hazardous
19 materials that may be present it the area;
20 Olsson traffic study for the county road
21 relocation and Olsson wetland delineation.
22 As documented in the environmental
23 assessment, this project would have no
24 significant impacts to the following
25 resources:
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
15
1 Threatened and endangered species.
2 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
3 indicated that conservation conditions must be
4 implemented to protect migratory birds and
5 federally endangered northern long-eared bat.
6 The conversation conditions would
7 include minimizing impacts through
8 preconstruction surveys and seasonal clip tree
9 clearing. There were no impacts to cultural
10 resources as indicated by the state Historical
11 Society and its rights. Prime farmland, there
12 was no impact with the NRCS. There was no
13 impacts to natural resources, vegetation,
14 wildlife, surface water, ground water, or
15 wetlands. There was no impact to energy
16 supply. There's no impact to the noise study,
17 as a result from the noise study. And there
18 was no impact from socioeconomic environmental
19 justice or children's environment health and
20 safety.
21 So, although, the noise study found
22 adverse impacts on the proposal alternative,
23 I'm going to go in detail pertaining to that
24 study from Coffman and Associates.
25 The noise study was completed because
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
16
1 the proposed action would result in an
2 increase in air traffic and would also change
3 the composition of air traffic compared to the
4 existing conditions.
5 This change in air traffic warranted a
6 noise study to evaluate the existing
7 conditions compared to the future conditions
8 of the proposed action.
9 Air traffic noise is measured in
10 decibels in a 24-hour exposure period during
11 an average year -- average day of the year.
12 And also called the DNL.
13 The Federal Aviation Administration
14 has established a noise level that exceeds 65
15 DNL beyond the property limits would be
16 considered a significant noise exposure.
17 Coffman and Associates modeled all
18 fixed-wing aircraft projected to use the
19 airport for the existing conditions in the
20 proposed action.
21 The result found a 1.4 percent
22 increase in noise for the initial runway
23 extension and a 1.5 percent increase after
24 five-year period of proposed action.
25 The threshold for additional noise
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
17
1 screening set forth by the Federal Aviation
2 Administration is a 17 percent increase.
3 Although the proposal action falls far
4 below or just beneath for additional
5 screening, you can see on the next slides that
6 the 24-hour average for noise contours is
7 below -- or for -- see here these are the
8 contours for the existing conditions.
9 Noise contours from those figures
10 below are aligned from the map that represent
11 equal levels of noise and exposure distance
12 compared to the noise source. The noise
13 contours on the map are used to validate the
14 initial study and also provide a visual
15 representation on how noise travels through
16 the property.
17 So next slide here. So here's our no
18 action alternative, 2026, this would be with
19 the future traffic proposed and the future
20 jets. You can see that our 65 DNL just comes
21 in pretty close to the boundary but doesn't
22 exceed. Um, then with the runway extension
23 that 65 DNL is actually pushed back a little
24 bit, so that is our future -- or no action
25 alternative and then proposed action as far as
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
18
1 noise goes. And then he also modeled up the
2 2031 alternative. You can see for the no
3 action alternative it is right on that
4 property boundary. And, then, again, not a
5 whole lot of changes at 1.5 percent increase
6 you see there.
7 So, in conclusion, the proposed action
8 means the purpose and need, as described in
9 this presentation and detailed within the EA,
10 we have that proposed action would address the
11 existing operational deficiencies of the
12 airport. This preparation of the draft being
13 made we have found the proposed action would
14 not yield any significant effects into the
15 natural or human environment.
16 HEATHER OLSON: Thanks, Chase.
17 This completes our brief summary of the
18 environmental assessment. The full copy of
19 the draft environmental assessment is located
20 at the Blair City Hall, Blair Public Library,
21 out at the airport at Skywerx, and also on the
22 city website.
23 And, as I mentioned, there's comment
24 cards if you want to do written comments. And
25 those can be turned in here at city hall or
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
19
1 directly to Amy Walter.
2 And all of those documents will be
3 available until June 30th, the deadline for
4 submittals.
5 With that, I'll turn it back over to
6 continue the public hearing.
7 MR. DAVID JOHNSON: Heather,
8 Chase, thank you very much.
9 Now we will open the meeting for the
10 public comment.
11 When you come up to speak, please
12 state your name and address, spell it for the
13 reporter. This will assist in the recording
14 process. Since this is a public hearing, the
15 team will listen to the comments, review and
16 incorporate them into the final environmental
17 assessment as required. This not a question
18 and answer session tonight. Each person will
19 have five minutes to speak.
20 With that, I'll open the floor to
21 anybody that would like to come up. And
22 anybody? If there being nothing further, we
23 made it perfectly clear no one wants to make
24 any other statements, we can close the public
25 hearing at this time. So thank you.
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com
20
1 And we will move down to item number
2 six.
3 MR. MARTY RUMP: Just a point of
4 order real quick. Have there any written
5 comments that we know of that have been
6 received to date?
7 AARON BARROW: Not received by
8 the city staff.
9 MR. MARTY RUMP: Thank you. Go
10 ahead.
11 MR. DAVID JOHNSON: Like to
12 proceed to item six on the agenda.
13(Portion related to the Blair
14 Executive Airport runway extension
15 was concluded.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Stefanie Allison, RPR, CSR
Registered Professional Stenographic Court Reporter
stefanie@allisonreporting.com