UPDATE: 22 May 2013 - Mitigation Issues

Mitigation Draft Stakeholder Message No. 1 of 2

Good Afternoon!

Where oh where is summer?  I sure hope it arrives soon, I'm certainly ready for it!  In the meantime, a lot has happened with the Kodiak Airport Runway Safety Area (RSA) projects since my last e-mail, and I want to update you on a few items.  

As I wrote about in a previous e-mail, we have been developing a mitigation plan for the unavoidable adverse impacts that could result from the project.  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) have been working with agencies, tribes and other interested parties on how to best mitigate these impacts from the proposed projects.  

Mitigation is a fairly complex and lengthy topic. Instead of trying to cover all of the details in a single message, I think breaking the topic up into two parts works best.  This letter will focus on providing background on mitigation and how it applies to this project.  In my next letter, I will continue with specific information on how we developed the specific mitigation plan for this project.

What is mitigation?
One of the definitions I believe best describes the full range of options for mitigation is from the Council on Environmental Quality.  Generally, “mitigation” can be provided in many forms, including:
1.        Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
2.        Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
3.        Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment.
4.        Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
5.        Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

The descriptions above are “textbook” definitions. To connect these definitions to this project, here are some examples of mitigation measures that we have already incorporated into this project:

Avoiding: By selecting Runway 18/36 Alternative 7 as the preferred alternative for the RSA improvement, we avoided placement of any fill material near the mouth of the Buskin River.

Minimizing: Incorporating engineered materials arresting system (EMAS) for Runway 07/25 will allow us to reduce the amount of fill we would place in Womens Bay.

Rectifying the impact:  The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identifies several Best Management Practices that will be used to help restore the affected environment as much as possible.  One example of this is re-vegetating affected areas with native seed after construction is completed.

Compensating: This type of mitigation is usually reserved for unavoidable environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or lessened through other means.  


What unavoidable impacts need to be mitigated?
Even with the measures included to avoid, minimize, and repair the environmental impacts, there are still impacts that would be unavoidable.  The EIS identifies some unavoidable environmental impacts, including:
1.        Fill into marine waters resulting in a loss of “waters of the U.S.” (i.e. waters under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers)
2.        Impacts to the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge
3.        Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat, including salmonids, which are covered under the Magnusson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act
4.        Negative effects on subsistence users, including minority and low-income populations as well as Alaska Native traditional and customary subsistence practices.

How can these unavoidable impacts be mitigated?
A “compensatory mitigation plan” describes the measures that will be taken to counteract impacts. The RSA Projects’ compensatory mitigation plan is currently under development.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have jointly issued the Compensatory Mitigation Rule. This Rule provides guidance on developing mitigation for projects, like this one, that require placement of fill into Waters of the U.S. The RSA Projects’ compensatory mitigation plan must comply with these rules for the ACOE to issue a permit that would allow fill to be placed into Womens Bay.

What are the objectives of the compensatory mitigation plan?
Simply stated, the objectives of the mitigation plan are to reduce the total severity of the projects’ adverse impacts.  To achieve those objectives, the mitigation plan’s goals include:
·        Improving or replacing habitat functions and values related to anadromous fisheries, migratory birds, and marine resources and habitats.
·        Replacing lost or affected subsistence opportunities and resources by providing access to or preservation of areas with subsistence resource values that have reasonable access from the Kodiak area (The Kodiak area is defined as Kodiak Island and Afognak Island).
·        Complying with the Compensatory Mitigation Rule

What mitigation types are examined under the Compensatory Mitigation Rule?
The Compensatory Mitigation Rule organizes several types of preferred mitigation options into a hierarchy: To follow the Rule, a permittee (in this case ADOT&PF) must attempt to mitigate its project in the following order:

This first preference requires the use of mitigation banks.  A mitigation bank is a wetland, stream, or other aquatic resource area that has been restored, established, enhanced, or preserved for the purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable environmental impacts.  

This type of mitigation is a type of “third-party” mitigation, where the permittee (ADOT&PF) pays a third-party by buying “credits” which are calculated based on the amount and type of resources affected.  The third-party uses the funds from these credits (combined with credits from other compensatory mitigation) to enhance, restore, or preserve the same types of resources that were affected through the existing mitigation bank.  A mitigation bank needs to be federally approved, and there are no federally approved mitigation banks in the Kodiak area (Kodiak Island or Afognak Island).  

Since mitigation banks cannot be used, the second preference is in-lieu fee programs. In-lieu fee programs occur when a permittee (ADOT&PF) provides funds to a third-party sponsor (generally a public agency or a non-profit).  The third-party sponsor then uses these funds to purchase lands that help enhance, restore or preserve the types of resources affected by the project within a local area (in this case Kodiak Island or Afognak Island).  

If approved mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs are not available, the rule allows permittee-responsible mitigation, which in this case would mean ADOT&PF would complete a project restoration, establishment, enhancement, or preservation project of an area, instead of providing funds to a third-party.  For permittee-responsible projects, the Rule prefers the mitigation project to be “on-site” and “in-kind,” meaning the project would need to be near the RSA projects and mitigate for the same impacts described in the EIS.  In this case, ADOT&PF would also need to maintain the site permanently.

What‘s next?
We’re continuing to work on the compensatory mitigation plan, which I will update you on in my next letter, likely at the end of June or early July.  As always, if you have any questions or comments on the mitigation process or the Final EIS, please don’t hesitate to contact me at Leslie.Grey@faa.gov or by phone at (907)271-2851.

Sincerely, Leslie

Leslie A. Grey
Environmental Protection Specialist
FAA - Alaskan Region, Airports Division
907-271-5453

UPDATE: 21 December 2011

Happy Holidays!
 
 
Recent Kodiak Airport EIS project updates have been used to alert you to
meetings or let you know what progress has been made since previous
communications.  I think we are now sufficiently advanced with our project
planning and alternatives development to start using these updates to
provide more in-depth information, especially concerning topics or issues
of widespread interest.  We have plenty of material with which to work, but
don’t hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions for future updates.
 
 
FAA fielded a number of questions concerning runway use during our Runway
Safety Area EIS meetings in November.  For example, while most people are
generally aware of the types of aircraft flying in and out of that airport,
especially the commercial aircraft, there was widespread interest in
learning which runways are the busiest and why.  This project update should
answer some of those questions.
 
 
Let me start by reviewing runway characteristics and some of the key
factors influencing runway use at Kodiak Airport.  I’ve attached a figure
that will help you to follow the different runway references.
 
 
As you know, Kodiak has three runways.
 
 
   Runway 07/25 is the longest runway at 7,542 feet and is the most often
   used, especially for commercial and military aircraft. This is the
   runway used when landing from, or taking off to, the east.
 
 
 
   Runway 18/36 is 5,013 feet long and used by both commercial and military
   aircraft.  Even though Runway 18/36 is shorter than Runway 11/29, the
   north-south alignment and generally favorable terrain beyond the runway
   ends allow it to be used by larger aircraft.
 
 
 
   Runway 11/29 is 5,399 feet in total length and, because of the
   mountainous terrain inland of this runway, is normally used only by
   smaller general aviation aircraft.  FAA is not considering expansion of
   the Runway 11/29 Runway Safety Areas because they already meet standards
   for the smaller general aviation aircraft that are the primary users of
   that runway.  Larger aircraft do use this runway, but not often enough
   to warrant development of larger safety areas.
 
 
Runway length is certainly a factor in the process of deciding which runway
to use for an operation (i.e. a takeoff or landing), but not the only one.
Terrain is an important consideration relative to Kodiak Airport; for
example, Barometer Mountain limits approaches from, or departures to, the
west on Runway 07/25.
 
 
 
Aircraft characteristics are also a key factor in runway use.  Generally
speaking, the larger (in terms of weight and wing-span) and faster (in
terms of landing or takeoff speeds) aircraft need more runway.  Finally,
wind direction is a critical element of the decision-making process for
each operation.  It is easier and safer for aircraft to land or takeoff
into the wind.  Other considerations may include the types of navigational
aids for a particular runway, such as landing lights or approach slope
indicators, or the availability of special approach procedures.
 
 
 
So, knowing the runway lengths and something about the other elements that
influence operational decisions, what does the data tell us about runway
utilization at Kodiak Airport?
 
 
Air traffic control tower staff estimated that about half of the aircraft
activity takes place on Runway 07/25.  Of the remaining operations, the
north-south Runway 18/36 gets slightly more use (~28% of operations) than
does the northwest-southeast trending Runway 11/29 (~22% of operations).
Again, though, these numbers reflect all fixed-wing aircraft, large or
small, and include military, commercial and general aviation (but not
helicopter operations).
 
 
It is equally instructive to consider runway use in terms of the types of
operation and the individual aircraft types. We’ve compiled information
supplied by Alaska Airlines, Era Aviation, and the Coast Guard concerning
the larger aircraft they fly into Kodiak:
 
 
 
   · Alaska Airlines (Boeing 737-400 aircraft):
 
 
         o 99% of takeoffs are conducted on Runway 07; 90% of landings are
            conducted on Runway 25.
 
 
         o 10% of landings are conducted on Runway 36; less than 1% of
            operations take place on Runway 18, and Runway 11/29.
 
 
   · Era Aviation (Dash-8 Turboprop aircraft):
 
 
         o 80% of takeoffs are conducted on Runway 07; 75% of landings are
            conducted on Runway 25.
 
 
         o Approximately 17% of takeoffs and landings are conducted on
            Runway 36; most of the remainder of their operations (about 5%)
            is on Runway 18.  Rarely, and primarily due to wind conditions,
            the Dash-8 will use Runway 11/29.
 
 
   · Coast Guard (C-130 cargo aircraft):
 
 
         o Approximately 80% of annual operations take place on Runway
            07/25.
 
 
         o Runway 36 is used for about 15% of operations, and Runway 18
            for another 5%.
 
 
The data for these three operators can’t be directly compared because of
differences in how each of them estimated runway usage for their own
aircraft.  However, it is obvious that Runway 07/25 not only accommodates
about as many annual operations as the other two runways combined, but more
than ¾ of the “large” aircraft operations take place on it as well. Indeed,
because of its length and a “precision” instrument approach to Runway end
25 for landings from the east, Runway 07/25 is the most used runway at
Kodiak Airport.  Runway 18/36 serves to accommodate aircraft operations
when the winds are not favorable for takeoffs or landings on Runway 07/25.
 
 
 
 
I hope this information helps explain the differences in runway use at
Kodiak Airport.  We should have other opportunities to answer some of your
questions from the meetings in future updates.  By the way, we’ve loaded
all the previous project updates from 2011 on the website at
www.kodiakairporteis.com/documents.
 
 
Again, thank you for continuing to stay involved in this project.  Please
don’t hesitate to call (271-5453) or write (Leslie.Grey@faa.gov) if you
have questions, comments or concerns.
 
 
Regards,
 
 
Leslie Grey
Environmental Protection Specialist
FAA - Alaskan Region, Airports Division
907-271-5453
 

Kodiak Meeting for Airport EIS Details: Nov 1 2011

I’m really pleased so many of you will probably be able to attend our meetings to discuss runway safety area alternatives that will be evaluated in the Kodiak Airport EIS.  We will have one interagency meeting in Kodiak and one in Anchorage, at the following locations and times:

Kodiak

• Date:  Tuesday, November 1
• Time:   1:30 pm
• Place:  Kodiak Harbor Convention Center, Katurwik Room
• Directions: Located at the corner of Rezanof Drive and Marine Way

Anchorage

• Date:  Thursday, November 3
• Time:  9:00 am
• Place:  Anchorage Federal Office Building Annex, Room B
• Directions:  The Annex building entrance is located on 8th, across the street to the south from the main Federal building (the main Federal bldg is the big 5-story or so structure at 222 W. 7th Avenue).  It looks like a building that is mostly underground.  The security guard can direct you to conference room A.

I expect that each meeting will take no more than two hours.  As I’ve mentioned before, please let me know if you would like us to meet separately with your organization concerning issues other than alternatives and we’ll work hard to accommodate your schedule.

Regards,

Leslie A. Grey
Environmental Protection Specialist
FAA - Alaskan Region, Airports Division
907-271-5453

UPDATE: 30 September 2011 from Leslie Grey FAA

Good morning,
 
 
I just wanted to give you a quick heads-up concerning progress on the
Kodiak Airport EIS.  FAA has completed our examination of the factors that
may constrain or influence runway safety area design for the north-south
(18/36) and east-west (07/25) runways at the airport.  We’ll provide much
more detail in the near future on how we conducted this review and
analysis, but for now I’ll note that factors considered included:
 
 
1) operational requirements such as aircraft use and approach and departure
procedures,
 
 
2) landing aids such as the Runway 36 VASI and the Runway 25 glide slope,
 
 
3) runway utilization patterns,
 
 
4) federal safety requirements for the design aircraft, and
 
 
5) opportunities to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
 
 
As a result of this effort, we’ve established a range of alternatives that
will be subject to a full examination of environmental impacts in the EIS.
 
 
Our consultants are at this time preparing materials that will depict the
details of these new alternatives (and I emphasize “new,” because most of
them were not included in the Preliminary Draft EIS).  My plan is to
schedule meetings with all of you sometime in November, in Kodiak and
Anchorage, to present these new alternatives and explain the work behind
our decisions.  Due to continuing uncertainty over the 2012 budget for
FAA’s Airports Program, unfortunately I can’t yet confirm that meetings
will take place, let alone times and dates.  But I hope to get approval
sometime in the next week or so, and will then notify you all of the
relevant details.
 
 
In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to call (271-5453) or write
(Leslie.Grey@faa.gov) if you have questions or comments or just want to
talk about the EIS.
 
 
Thanks very much,
 
Leslie A. Grey
Environmental Protection Specialist
FAA - Alaskan Region, Airports Division
907-271-5453

20 July 2011: Update from Leslie Grey, FAA

Hello,
It’s been some time since I’ve provided all of you with information
concerning the Kodiak Airport EIS.  This message will give you a sense of
the work we’ve been doing since our meetings in Anchorage and Kodiak last
February.  I’ll also take the opportunity to let you know of a new approach
I’ve implemented to keep the public, tribes, agencies and other
stakeholders informed of our efforts.  First though, a summary of what is
happening with the EIS.
 
 
Most of our effort right now is being consumed by a comprehensive
examination of possible alternatives.  Last February I organized meetings
with tribal and agency representatives during which we held some of the
very good discussion concerning operational factors that can control or
constrain what could be done with runways at Kodiak Airport.  For example,
a common question asked was whether the north-south Runway 18/36 could be
shifted to the south, so that runway safety area could be installed on the
south runway end without adding new land that would affect the Buskin
River.  We are conducting a rigorous evaluation of the aviation
requirements for that runway to determine what, if any, degree of runway
shift would be possible without bringing obstructions such as trees or
terrain into the glide slopes for approaching aircraft.  Other factors also
have to be considered, such as impacts to critical navigational aids.  So
that all possible combinations of alternatives are being considered, a
similar analysis is being conducted for the east-west Runway 7/25.  We are
also considering other questions and options raised during those meetings
involving engineered materials arresting systems, side slope angles and
other construction requirements.
 
 
All of this analysis and re-examination of alternatives is taking more time
than any of us working on the EIS would have liked, but I’m satisfied that
the results will stand up to the very close scrutiny needed for such
important decisions.  In the meantime, I want to remind you that ADOT&PF is
still planning to initiate construction work this summer on a project
unrelated to the EIS or safety areas.  A contractor has been hired to
re-pave Runway 18/36, and at the same time replace lighting within and
along that runway.   Although much of the work will be on the surface, with
little new disturbance, there will have to be some excavation along runway
shoulders and for utility crossings.  Once ADOT&PF establishes a work
schedule we will make sure to pass that and other relevant information
along.
 
 
After the February meetings I promised to start sending periodic project
updates, not only to keep you better informed of our work and progress, but
also to provide responses to the more substantive questions and concerns.
I’m sorry for the delay in getting that started – and I won’t bore you with
details of the contracting issues we had to resolve or other seemingly
minor bureaucratic issues to sort through – but this message serves notice
that in the coming weeks and months, the updates will be regular and
informative, even if the answers aren’t always what you would prefer to
hear.  I plan on using these communications to address a variety of topics,
but particularly the areas that seem to generate the most interest among
agency and tribal representatives, and the public.
 
 
These updates will not always come directly from me.  Certain senior
members of my EIS consulting team, depending on their particular expertise
and experience, will also be responsible for putting together the updates.
I hope you will feel comfortable calling them directly or sending a reply
e-mail if you have questions or concerns.  Of course, please call or write
me at any time, and if I can’t immediately provide the information you need
I’ll make sure we get it to you as soon as possible.
 
 
Thanks very much for your patience.  On behalf of FAA, I truly appreciate
your continued interest in the work we are doing and the necessary
processes we must follow to reach a decision concerning proposed runway
safety area improvements at Kodiak Airport.
 
 
Leslie Grey
Environmental Protection Specialist
FAA - Alaskan Region, Airports Division
907-271-5453

http://kodiakairporteis.com/

FAA update 03 March 2011 Leslie Grey reaction to Kodiak meetings

I want to thank those of you who were able to participate in our recent
meetings concerning the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Kodiak
Airport.  As we mentioned in our discussions of runway safety area (RSA)
alternatives, FAA has put a lot of time and effort into exploring methods
for improving RSAs on two of the runways.  I hope everyone who attended the
meetings would agree that there are significant limitations on what can be
done to improve RSAs without adversely affecting Airport operations and
service.  Nevertheless, we heard some great questions and comments that
further emphasize the need for FAA to confirm our preliminary conclusions
and validate any assumptions used in developing a range of EIS
alternatives.
 
The comments, questions and criticisms generated at these meetings are not
only helpful, but always presented in a constructive manner, and I
personally appreciate the honest feedback.  As I promised during the
meetings, we will work hard to address all of the issues you raised. In the
coming months, I expect to send you periodic project updates that will
provide responses to the more substantive questions and concerns.
 
Please don’t hesitate to call or write if you have questions about the
project.  And, as always, please let me know if you should no longer be on
our e-mail distribution list, or if your contact information has changed.
If there are others in your organization who should receive these updates
and other information concerning the Kodiak Airport EIS, please forward
this message.  Thanks!  Leslie
 
Leslie A. Grey
Environmental Protection Specialist
FAA - Alaskan Region, Airports Division
907-271-5453

FAA update 08 Feb 2011 from Leslie Grey

I would like to update you on the status and progress of the Kodiak Airport Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) currently underway.  The Federal Aviation Administration is preparing this EIS to evaluate actions proposed by the Airport Operator, the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF), to improve the Runway Safety Area (RSA).

For those of you that may be unfamiliar, the RSA is a clear and graded area surrounding a runway.  This area is there to minimize the severity of injury and aircraft damage in the event of an aircraft excursion.  The project in Kodiak is to improve the deficient RSA to the extent practical.

First, I would like to thank you for your patience and continued interest throughout the course of this project.  There has been a tremendous amount of work and progress since my last update in September 2010.  Since that last message, we have evaluated and updated a range of build alternatives that support operational needs, are reasonable, and are financially feasible.

We are currently in the process of scheduling meetings in both Kodiak and Anchorage with staff from cooperating agencies, coordinating agencies, and federally recognized tribal governments.  These meetings are a necessary part of the EIS process, and will assist us greatly in completing the Draft EIS in anticipation of a mid-summer 2010 release.

Our extended review comments and concerns generated from the preliminary draft EIS, as well as our development of updated build alternatives has impacted our schedule.  Despite that impact, we still plan to release the Draft EIS as close to the above schedule of mid-summer 2010 as possible.  As that date approaches, I will continue to provide updates letting you know were we are.  If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at the number or e-mail address below.

Finally, if you no longer want updates, please let me know, and I will remove you from our mailing list.  Additionally, if you know of someone that needs to be included, but is not, please forward this message, and have them contact me for inclusion in future updates.

Thank you so much, Leslie

Leslie A. Grey
Environmental Protection Specialist
FAA - Alaskan Region, Airports Division
907-271-5453

FAA UPDATE: January 11, 2011

Subject: Kodiak Airport EIS Update
 
 
Happy New Year!
 
This message is to inform agencies and other interested parties of
the status of the Kodiak Airport Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being
prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  As you
know, the purpose of the EIS is to evaluate actions proposed by the Airport
operator, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to
bring the facility into compliance with the most current national aviation
safety standards for runway safety areas.
 
 
 At the end of the summer I sent you a note to make you aware that FAA
was conducting a comprehensive review of the runway safety area
alternatives.  That review has taken much longer than anticipated, but I am
pleased to say it is nearing completion.  I won't use e-mail to explain all
of the changes we've made, or the policy rationale and operational
constraints dictating the range of alternatives to be included in the Draft
EIS.  I plan on meeting with you in the near future to convey that
information.  However, I will tell you that the alternatives for both
runways 18/36 and 7/25 will incorporate, to a much greater extent, the use
of EMAS technology to provide added safety margin, particularly for
aircraft overruns while landing or from an aborted takeoff.  Greater
reliance on EMAS should translate to somewhat smaller disturbance
footprints in surrounding marine waters.  (I realize that most of you don't
practice arcane aviation acronyms on a frequent basis, so I'll just remind
you that EMAS stands for Engineered Materials Arresting System, an array of
crushable cellular cement blocks at the end of a runway that cause a rapid
aircraft deceleration.)
 
 
I will soon be directing my consulting team to start evaluating
environmental impacts of the new alternatives, and to incorporate these
analyses into a revised EIS.  And, of course, we have made and are
continuing to make other changes to the analyses based in many instances on
the substantive comments made by those of you who reviewed the PDEIS.
 
 
I will be scheduling meetings in mid-February, most likely the week of
February 14 or February 21, to review our work with as many of you as are
available.  Our intent will be to present you with a detailed
explanation of the alternatives, including the physical and operational
factors that limit or even prevent consideration of some options and other
rationale used to screen alternatives.  I'll make sure that we spend as
much time as needed to explain the new alternatives and why EMAS appears to
provide Kodiak Airport with particular environmental advantages, as opposed
to more traditional but larger RSA fill construction.  I also hope to be
able to present you with FAA's preferred alternatives.
 
 
Our extended review of alternatives has affected the project schedule, but
I still plan on releasing a Draft EIS to the public in mid-2011.   As we
get closer to completion of the analysis and documentation, I will provide
additional updates to inform you of our progress and next steps.
 
 
In the next couple of weeks I will send a follow-up message with specific
dates and locations for our February meetings.  In the meantime, please let
me know if you have questions or concerns, at the contact information
below.   And, as always, please let me know if you should no longer be on
our e-mail distribution list, or if your contact information has changed.
If there are others in your organization who should receive these updates
and other information concerning the Kodiak Airport EIS, please forward
this message.  Thanks!  Leslie
 
Leslie A. Grey
Environmental Protection Specialist
FAA - Alaskan Region, Airports Division
907-271-5453
 

Update 30 May 2010

At this time, we are still awaiting word from Leslie Grey at the FAA as to when the draft EIS for the Runway Extension Project will be available for public review.
We suggest checking this blog or the Stewards of the Buskin River Facebook page on a weekly basis for notification.
Or email Leslie Grey directly and ask to be put on the email notification list.

UPDATE 29 APRIL 2010 from Leslie Grey, FAA

All,
This message is to provide a status for the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) being prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  The
purpose of the EIS is to evaluate actions proposed by the Airport operator,
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADPT&PF) to
bring the facility into compliance with the most current national aviation
safety standards for runway safety areas.
 
The FAA and the EIS consulting team are coordinating with local, state, and
federal agencies as well as local tribal organizations, to assist in the
preparation of the Draft EIS which will be released for public, agency and
tribal review and comment before the FAA conducts a public hearing for the
project.  Further, FAA is conducting a thorough review of the alternatives
to assure that the EIS includes a suitable range of practicable and
feasible runway safety area enhancements for the runways in consideration.
 
The current schedule for the project has the Draft EIS being released this
fall, with the public hearing occurring before the holidays.  As we get
closer to completion of the analysis and documentation, I will provide
additional updates to inform you of our progress and next steps.
 
Please let me know if you have questions or concerns, at the contact
information below.  Additionally, the project website
(kodiakairporteis.com) has background information about the project.
 
Leslie A. Grey
Environmental Protection Specialist
FAA - Alaskan Region, Airports Division
907-271-5453
 

Introduction to the FAA Kodiak Runway Extension Proposals

The red line on the photo shows the original plan that the FAA was proposing. They wanted to fill in the area within the line to extend the entire land mass surrounding the runways out 1000 feet beyond where the shore is presently. The red and yellow blocks represent the FAA's current alternatives.   

Stewards of the Buskin River State Recreation Site

The purpose of this group is to oppose any plans by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) to extend the north-south runway #18/36 at the Kodiak Airport toward the Buskin River. This is a proactive effort to get the facts out about this issue to interested people before this proposal is a done deal. At this point, your action can shape the future of the Buskin River State Recreation Site. If you are willing to help, read on.

For the last 3 years, the FAA has been preparing an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for a proposal to expand the Runway Safety Areas on the runways at the Kodiak Airport. The FAA believes that by doing this, it will lesson the potential for aircraft damage.

Currently, a PDEIS (Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement) is circulating among a select group of agencies and organizations that have direct regulatory jurisdiction over the area and its resources. (USFWS, ADF&G, Alaska State Parks, Tribal groups, USCG) A few scoping meetings were held to gather input from these agencies and a select group of organizations but no meetings have been held for the general public to review the plans and various alternatives. No opportunities for the general public will be scheduled to review or comment on the plans until the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) is completed sometime early in 2010.

Although Preferred Alternatives have not been identified yet, the FAA is seriously considering Alternative #3, to extend the landmass of runway #18/36 (the north-south runway) 1,200 feet toward the mouth of the Buskin River from the present end of the runway parallel to the existing beach between the river and the ocean.  (see attached photo)

In addition, the FAA is considering extending the landmass of runway #07/25 (the east-west runway) 800 feet straight out into Chiniak Bay from the existing end of runway.

The potential for impacts on the environment, fish and wildlife, recreation, and subsistence by Alternative #3 make the proposed action impracticable and unacceptable, especially when there is a viable alternative. Alternative #4 would extend the landmass of the north-south runway southward instead of northward and would have far fewer impacts.

Because of its close proximity to town, the Buskin River is used more for sport and subsistence fishing than any other river on the road system. 

Here are some of the potential impacts of Alternative #3 on the Buskin River area.

• Placing fill in marine waters would result in direct habitat loss for marine birds. Chiniak Bay was designated as an Important Bird Area of Global Significance in 2008 by Birdlife International and the National Audubon Society for habitat of three bird species of conservation concern; Black oystercatcher, Steller’s Eider, and Emperor Goose.

• Placing fill in marine waters would have adverse impacts on pink, chum, red, and coho salmon.

• Placing fill in this area would have direct effects on natural physical processes that dictate stream flow and hydrodynamics that shape aquatic habitats and species that live there.

• Placing fill in this area will directly impact the view shed of the ocean from Buskin River. With the 1,200 foot landmass extension that will be approximately 30 feet high, from the existing north end of runway #18/36, most of the present ocean view from the Buskin River beach and parking lot will be obstructed and only a small view of the ocean will remain toward town.

• Placing fill in this area will reduce access to beach areas at the mouth of the Buskin River for sport and subsistence fishing, environmental education, birding, beach combing, walking.

Here’s what you can do:

Promote Alternative #4 for Runway 18/36 to extend the N-S runway to the south instead of to the north toward the mouth of the Buskin River.

Stay informed. Read the information on the FAA’s website: http://www.kodiakairporteis.com/ 

Watch for announcements of meetings and attend meetings to get the facts.

Write to the FAA: Leslie Grey: Leslie.Grey@faa.gov or comments@kodiakairporteis.com 

Write letters to the editor of the Kodiak Daily Mirror: 

Get others involved by spreading the information.