Kodiak Airport EIS Deadlines, etc Update 31 March 2012

We are fast approaching some important deadlines for the proposed runway safety area
improvements at Kodiak Airport EIS, the first of which will be publication of a draft
environmental impact statement (EIS). I’ll use this update to let you know our schedule for
the coming months and years. To put the schedule in context, I’ll start with a quick overview
of what goes into an EIS and our status within that process. The last paragraph refers to the
law necessitating our analysis of these proposed actions and the statutory commitment for
completing RSA improvements at Kodiak and other airports across the U.S.
The Steps of an EIS
I know that many of you are very familiar with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the procedures established by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to conform
with NEPA’s purpose, which essentially is to help public officials make informed decisions
with full understanding of possible environmental consequences. The process of meeting
that purpose also helps to make sure appropriate actions are taken to protect, restore, and
enhance the environment.
A mechanism outlined in the CEQ regulations to achieve those goals is preparation of an
EIS. Once a federal agency establishes that an EIS is needed, a notice of intent is published
announcing the decision and soliciting feedback from the public, agencies, tribes, and other
parties. This scoping process helps to define the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts
to be considered in the EIS. After the agency completes its analysis of potential
environmental impacts, the conclusions are published in a Draft EIS and another opportunity
for public is initiated. In a few relatively rare instances a draft is adopted as final, but in most
cases the federal agency will revise at least some aspect of the analysis and publish a Final
EIS that includes responses to comments made on the Draft. After a period of at least 30
days during which the Final EIS is available for public consideration, the federal agency can
make a decision concerning the actions that triggered the EIS. Our website for the project
includes a simple diagram of the main elements of an EIS and opportunities for public
involvement during that process (www.kodiakairporteis.com/schedule/schedule.htm).
Where is Kodiak Airport EIS in this Process?
On February 15, 2007, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a notice of intent
to prepare an EIS that would assess the impacts resulting from improvements to runway
safety areas (RSA) on two runways (18/36 and 7/25) at Kodiak Airport. During the ensuing
5+ years, FAA and our EIS Consultant Team have compiled information documenting
existing environmental conditions on and around the Airport; put together a range of
alternatives to improve RSAs on two of the Airport runways; and conducted analyses of
possible environmental, cultural, economic and social impacts. A preliminary draft EIS was
prepared and distributed late 2010 to Kodiak-area Tribes and state and federal agencies that
generated substantial discussion and valuable feedback concerning, in particular, the
alternatives being considered, methods of impact analysis, and some of our conclusions.
We’ve also begun to develop the documentation needed for compliance with a variety of
state and federal laws, in the event that a decision is reached to improve RSAs on one or
both of the runways. These efforts are driven in part by two factors. One, our schedule for
completion of the EIS and possible construction of the RSAs is very ambitious (see below).
Page 2 of 3
So we don’t have the luxury of waiting for an FAA decision to begin, for example, consultation
with National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning
compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Second, FAA believes that consultation
processes are best done concurrent with NEPA analysis. Not only does this help integrate
NEPA with unique requirements of special purpose laws, but it results in more efficient and
streamlined government coordination and decision-making.
What is the Schedule for the Remainder of the EIS?
We are now working to complete a Draft EIS for public and agency review, and I hope to
release it in mid-summer of 2012. FAA will make it available at easily accessible locations in
Kodiak as well as at the FAA and Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
offices in Anchorage, and on the project website (www.kodiakairporteis.com). Hard copies
and CDs of the Draft EIS will be mailed to agency, tribal and other governmental contacts, as
well as those organizations and individuals who have expressed interest in receiving it.
In addition to opportunities to submit comments via mail and online, at least one public
hearing will also be conducted in Kodiak to receive additional verbal or written public
comments. I and members of my team will work hard to meet with as many people as we can
to explain the contents and conclusions in the Draft EIS, answer questions, and listen to
concerns. Summer can be a busy time for people in Kodiak, so we will extend our normal
public comment period to a full 60 days.
Once the public comment period is over we will begin preparing a Final EIS. Comments on
the Draft EIS can strongly influence the Final EIS and FAA’s ultimate decision concerning the
proposed RSA improvements, so we will carefully consider and respond to all of them. We’ll
make sure that substantive comments are attached to the Final EIS and posted on the project
website. FAA’s goal is to make decisions about RSA projects for Runways 18/36 and 7/25
no later than spring of next year.
What Happens After the Decision?
Construction of the proposed projects would take two to three years. If FAA were to approve
the RSA projects in early 2013 some components of the work could begin the same year, but
a number of factors would influence the construction start time. There are permits,
authorizations, consultations and other actions that would be needed before construction
could begin. Permits may include restrictions of various types that would dictate when
construction could occur and for how long. For instance, stipulations could be imposed to
protect natural resources, such as seasonal prohibitions to protect wildlife species of concern.
The construction work would also be designed to minimize impacts on commercial and
military aircraft operations.
Does the Schedule Above Have to be Met?
Yes! By passage of Public Law 109-115 Congress has directed that, not later than
December 31, 2015, the owner or operator of an airport such as Kodiak’s shall improve the
runway safety areas to comply with applicable FAA design standards. In other words, FAA
does not have the ability or authority to shift the deadline. Considering the approvals and
permits that could be needed, and the extended construction period that may be required to
Page 3 of 3
complete work on the runway ends, our efforts to complete the EIS and prepare and
complete a Record of Decision necessarily have to be aggressive.
I hope to be seeing some of you in the near future to talk more about the Draft EIS analysis,
and some of the consultation needs to comply with special purpose laws such as the
Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, ANILCA and so forth. In the
meantime, let me know if you have questions, comments or concerns. My phone number is
271-5453 or you can email Leslie.Grey@faa.gov.
Regards,
Leslie Grey
Environmental Protection Specialist
FAA - Alaskan Region, Airports Division
907-271-5453

Kodiak Airport EIS Project Update Message – February 2012

Kodiak Airport EIS Project Update Message – February 2012
You’ll recall from the update I sent in January that a runway safety area (RSA) is an area
surrounding the runway that reduces the risk of damage to an aircraft if it deviates from the
runway. The size of a RSA typically depends on the largest and heaviest aircraft regularly
operating on that runway. Two of the runways at Kodiak Airport, 18/36 and 07/25, do not
meet RSA design standards for those aircraft. The traditional runway safety area consists of
graded areas at the runway ends and along the sides of the runway to offer aircraft protection
in the event of an overrun or veeroff during takeoff or landing. To meet the FAA’s
dimensional standards for RSAs at Kodiak Airport, sufficient fill would have to be placed at
the north (toward the Buskin River) and south (into Womens Bay) ends of Runway 18/36 and
the east end of Runway 7/25 (into Chiniak Bay) to create a graded surface that measures
500 feet wide by 1,000 feet long.
FAA is considering alternatives for Kodiak Airport that could lessen environmental impacts
caused by the fill and large disturbance areas associated with a conventional RSA
construction on the runway ends. One option is the use of Engineered Materials Arresting
System, or EMAS. The Preliminary Draft EIS distributed to agencies and tribes late in 2010
included one alternative incorporating EMAS. Engineering and operational analysis since
that time confirms that it may be a feasible technology for both runways, and I expect the
Draft EIS will consider alternatives incorporating EMAS on the north, south, and east runways
ends. I’ll use this update to provide some explanation of how EMAS works, where it has
been used, and some of the benefits and potential drawbacks of this technology.
What is EMAS?
A conventional runway safety area provides a substantial additional amount of land for an
aircraft to slow down and stop; for runways 18/36 and 7/25 at Kodiak Airport, the requirement
would be 1,000 feet beyond the runway ends. However, at many airports it may not be
practicable to build enough safety area at the runway ends to meet FAA standards. Existing
roads or railroads, natural features such as water bodies and large terrain changes, or
environmentally sensitive areas are among the reasons why it may not be prudent to
construct a conventional RSA. The FAA began conducting research in the 1990s to come up
with an alternative way to stop aircraft without requiring as much land as a conventional RSA.
Working in concert with the University of Dayton, the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, and the Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation (ESCO) of Logan Township, NJ,
a new technology, EMAS, emerged to safely arrest overrunning aircraft.
EMAS consists of a number of pre-cast, crushable, and energy-absorbing cellular cement
blocks installed at the end of a runway. The material in these blocks may be thought of as
something similar to pumice, a type of very light volcanic rock with lots of holes and
airspaces. An aircraft that hasn’t stopped by the runway end encounters “lead-in” blocks that
begin to crush under the movement and force of the wheels. The material in the EMAS is
designed to slow an aircraft by increasing the resistance, or friction, of the wheels as the
material gets crushed. The landing gear of the aircraft sinks into the “pumice-like” material
and the aircraft slows down as it gets further into the EMAS. How quickly the EMAS slows an
Page 2 of 4
aircraft is dependent on a number of factors including the weight of the aircraft and entry
speed, landing gear configuration, and even tire pressure.
Nice Theory, but does EMAS Really Work?
Currently, EMAS is installed at 63 runway ends at 42 airports in the United States, and on
five more runway ends at three airports outside the U.S. By the end of 2011, there had been
eight incidents where EMAS safely stopped overrunning aircraft carrying a total of 235 crew
and passengers, including incidents at JFK Airport in Queens, New York; Key West Airport in
Florida; and Downtown Greenville Airport, South Carolina. Obviously, EMAS can help
protect human health and safety, and it has worked with relatively little damage to the aircraft.
But it is also important to remember that EMAS really represents a component of runway
safety area that was used because of physical or environmental constraints unique to a
particular runway. A successful aircraft arrest by EMAS illustrates the value of FAA’s runway
safety area program, and there are many similar examples where conventional RSA has
provided the additional land needed for an aircraft carrying crew and passengers to come to
a complete stop, with little damage. If you are interested in more information about incidents
involving EMAS or locations where it has been installed, you might consider looking at FAAs
most recent fact sheet at
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=12497.
Could EMAS be Used at Kodiak Airport?
FAA has determined that a properly designed EMAS will provide a level of overrun safety
generally equivalent to a standard runway safety area. And, as we know from the past 10+
years of experience, the technology works. Typically, FAA and Airport Sponsors (the owners
and operators of airports) consider installing EMAS on runway ends where space is limited
and a standard RSA is not feasible. EMAS may also deserve consideration in other
situations, even where standard runway safety area is considered practicable. For example,
because EMAS requires a smaller disturbance footprint than conventional RSA, its use could
lessen damage to sensitive environmental resources beyond runway ends. Some of these
reasons apply to Kodiak Airport.
A conventional RSA for Runways 18/36 and 7/25 would be 500 feet wide and extend 1,000
feet from the runway ends. To provide an equivalent level of safety at Kodiak Airport, an
EMAS would have to be capable of stopping a Boeing 737-400 (the “design” aircraft) that is
still traveling at a speed of 70-knots when it exits the runway. The EMAS required to achieve
this performance would be about 340 feet long and 170 feet wide. However, for runways like
Kodiak’s that have instrument approaches or visual guidance lighting, there must still be at
least 600 feet of RSA to protect aircraft landing short of the runway. To meet all of these
requirements, the final design would consist of 260 feet of conventional, graded RSA
immediately after the runway end, followed by 340 feet of EMAS for a total RSA length of 600
feet. Although the EMAS itself would only be about 170-feet wide (slightly wider than the
runway) it would be surrounded by traditional RSA out to the standard 500-foot width. The
net footprint for a RSA incorporating EMAS that meets FAA standards for the design aircraft
Page 3 of 4
would therefore be 600 feet long by 500 feet wide. (If that is all a little confusing, don’t worry,
we are developing figures for the Draft EIS that should be easy to follow!)
Other Important Considerations for Kodiak
Although EMAS may have appeal for some applications, it also has some potential
drawbacks. EMAS can be more expensive to construct and maintain than a traditional RSA.
Each EMAS is designed according to the specific needs of the airport and runway at which it
will be installed. The cellular concrete blocks, coatings, and other materials all have to be
shipped to the airport from the manufacturing facility in New Jersey. Further, EMAS will have
a limited design life (currently 10 to 20 years) and may have to be replaced, at another
substantial cost. Blocks that are damaged during routine airport functions or as a result of
aircraft arrest would need to be manufactured and replaced.
EMAS also has maintenance and care requirements that don’t apply to a conventional RSA.
For example, special equipment designed for use on EMAS is needed to drive on the
arresting bed, or to clear snow without fear of damaging individual blocks or system integrity.
A system of sealants, coatings, and outer layers protect the cellular concrete from
environmental conditions such as rain and ultraviolet radiation. Older versions of EMAS
needed periodic re-painting, although the manufacturer asserts that the improved plastic seal
coating for newer models should eliminate the need for painting and sealing.
An issue we have discussed with respect to Alaska airports concerns the practicality of using
EMAS in more challenging climates or environmental settings. Kodiak Airport exhibits some
of these factors including cold temperatures, frequent freeze/thaw cycles and a relatively wet
environment, especially at the runway ends exposed to waves and salt spray. In particular,
FAA Order 5200.9 acknowledges that local climate conditions consisting of “extreme cold
location with high flooding potential might limit the effectiveness and/or durability of an EMAS
installation.” Runways at Kodiak Airport, particularly runway end 25, can be exposed to high
waves that wash onto land. The strong energy behind wave action can carry rocks and other
materials that could damage the surface. A common concern for coastal airports has been
that salt water could have an especially corrosive effect on materials, coatings and sealants.
FAA and Airport Sponsors, among others, had also been uncertain as to how EMAS would
perform in locations with extremely cold temperatures, prompting research funding to the
Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory to assess the
durability of EMAS in cold climates.
ESCO has responded to concerns about the resilience and durability of earlier EMAS
versions by developing the so-called 3rd generation product, known as “EMASMAX.”
According to the manufacturer, this version improves on earlier systems with better protection
against moisture penetration and jet blast protection, among other enhancements.
Regardless of specific climactic or environmental conditions, it is clear that frequent
inspection and regular maintenance are important factors to a viable, long-lasting EMAS.
(For the purpose of this update, “EMAS” refers to any version of the arresting system.)
Page 4 of 4
EMAS is currently being used at one location in Alaska, installed on Runway end 27 at
Cordova in 2007. As you know, Cordova has experienced a particularly difficult winter, with
heavy precipitation. At this time, we don’t know if or how the extreme weather and
tremendous snow loads have affected integrity of the Cordova EMAS. I know ADOT&PF, the
Cordova Airport “Sponsor”, is particularly keen to find out if there have been problems. I’ll let
you know when more information with this local-to-Alaska EMAS application becomes
available.
One interesting question, certainly applicable to Kodiak Airport and raised during our
meetings in November 2011, concerns the ability of EMAS to withstand a ground-shaking
event. Put another way, what magnitude of seismic event (i.e., earthquake) could an EMAS
handle – in terms of materials integrity, seam adhesion, sealant durability and so forth –
without requiring repair or replacement? I’m not aware of any testing has been conducted to
specifically answer this question. In practice, immediately following an earthquake a Sponsor
would quickly inspect all airport facilities to determine if they are in acceptable condition to
resume service. However, damage to an RSA, or an EMAS installed as part of the safety
area, should not prevent normal aviation operations from resuming, although it would then be
important to replace any damaged components of the EMAS as soon as possible after an
event.
In fact, this scenario is very much similar to the sequence of events after an aircraft overrun
into EMAS. An aircraft arrested in EMAS would be removed from the airfield as soon as
possible after immediate response activities have concluded; typically, this happens within a
couple of days or even hours after the accident. At that point, FAA will issue an official notice
to airman of the change in conditions at the airport, but service on the applicable runway
returns to normal relatively quickly.
Summary
EMAS represents a safety technology for aircraft overruns that can be comparable to
traditional, grade and fill runway safety area. The potential benefits of EMAS, particularly by
lessening adverse impacts on marine habitat and wildlife, have led FAA to conclude it should
be a component of some RSA alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS. We will work hard to
make sure the EIS provides a reasoned analysis of the benefits and drawbacks associated
with installation and care of an EMAS at Kodiak Airport.
Thanks so much for your interest in the project. I hope these updates are informative, but
don’t hesitate to let me know if you have questions, comments or concerns. My phone
number is 271-5453 or you can email Leslie.Grey@faa.gov.
Regards,
Leslie 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/

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.