UPDATE: 2 July 2012 from Leslie Grey

Hello All,

I know all of you are familiar with the Kodiak Airport environmental impact statement (EIS):  Why we are engaged in that process, how we’ve developed alternatives, and the many environmental and cultural concerns associated with some of the options to improve runway safety areas (RSAs).  I’d like to use this Project Update to introduce you to another process evaluation we are conducting concurrent with the EIS to comply with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA.

What is ANILCA?
When Congress passed ANILCA as Public Law 96-487 in 1980, more than 100 million acres of federal lands in Alaska were converted into “conservation system units”.  Conservation system units are public lands in Alaska that have been given special designations because of their natural or cultural resources, or other attributes.  Wilderness areas and national monuments in Alaska are conservation system units, as are national wildlife refuges.  Congress recognized that Alaskans, particularly those living in remote areas, depend on utilities and means of transportation that must often extend across great distances. Air travel is often the only option. To meet the transportation needs unique to Alaska, including socioeconomic and public safety needs, Congress included some exceptions in ANILCA that establish a decision-making process to allow Alaskans to develop transportation and utility systems in conservation system units.
What exception in ANILCA may be relevant to the Kodiak Airport?
One portion of ANILCA, commonly referred to by its place in the law, “Title XI,” addresses whether and how transportation and utility systems can access and cross so-called “conservation system units.”  The submerged lands around the Kodiak Airport are within a conservation system unit, the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, encompassing much of the Aleutian Chain and more than 2,500 islands, cliffs, headlands and other lands and marine waters from the Chukchi Sea to Southeastern Alaska, qualifies under ANILCA as a conservation system unit.  In fact, the Maritime Refuge was established by ANILCA when 11 existing refuges were combined with other lands and waters to form the largest unit within the National Wildlife Refuge system.
Does ANILCA Title XI Apply to the Kodiak RSA Improvement Projects?

Yes, Title XI of ANILCA applies to the proposed RSA improvements, and here’s why.  First, the runway safety areas are considered parts of a transportation system, in this case the Kodiak Airport that provides access for people and freight to and from Kodiak Island.  Second, the RSA improvements would cross into a conservation system unit, as the submerged lands offshore from the Airport in Chiniak Bay are within the boundaries of the Maritime Refuge.  
So ANILCA Title XI Applies to the RSA Improvement Projects - What’s the Catch?
Really, there is no catch, but it does add another layer of review and different approvals for the RSA projects to be constructed and used. The applicant (ADOT&PF) must submit a transportation and utility systems application to federal agencies with jurisdiction (i.e. permitting authority), where without the permit, the transportation and utility systems cannot be established or operated.  I guess there is a twist, though. Normally, for the Maritime Refuge, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be that agency with primary jurisdiction.  However, the portions of the Maritime Refuge immediately offshore from the Airport were withdrawn for defense purposes, in various installments through Executive Orders and Public Law Orders, starting about 1940.  I’ll save the details of those actions for the EIS, but the end result is that the U.S. Coast Guard also has jurisdiction over the Refuge lands that would be accessed by the RSA improvements and would also have to decide whether to approve or deny a right of way permit.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service still have an important role to play, however, since they have management responsibility for lands within the Refuge and also resources within the Refuge (including some marine mammals, migratory birds, and threatened or endangered species). In addition, the FAA, as lead agency of the EIS and the agency that would fund the RSA improvements, also would be involved in the Title XI decision-making process.  All federal permitting agencies will be required to review the application for completeness, develop a decision on the application with detailed findings, and if appropriate, identify appropriate conservation measures to protect those resources.  

What are the Steps to Conform with ANILCA Title XI?

For the RSA improvement projects to be allowed in the Maritime Refuge, a number of findings and statements must be made by the agencies tasked with decision-making responsibilities.  For example, they must find there is no economically feasible or prudent alternative to routing the transportation system into the Refuge, and if there is not, whether there are other routes that would result in fewer or less severe impacts to the Refuge.  The agencies must also make detailed findings concerning the short and long term social, economic and environmental impacts of national, State or local significance, including impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitat and on rural, traditional lifestyles. If these and other findings sound familiar they should, because all are consistent with the types of analysis and conclusions that must be included within an environmental impact statement.    
Therefore, concurrent with the Kodiak Airport Draft EIS, Alaska DOT&PF will be submitting an application to the Coast Guard, USFWS, USACOE and FAA under ANILCA Title XI. Supporting documentation for the application will consist of the Draft EIS, prepared by FAA and addressing all of the information needed by the agencies with permitting authority to evaluate the application and develop the necessary findings and statements.  

Summary and Schedule

For some time FAA has been preparing an environmental impact statement considering impacts associated with runway safety area improvements at Kodiak Airport.  Our analysis of possible impacts caused by the proposed RSA improvements is almost complete, and I hope to publish for agency and public review a Draft EIS, including the ANILCA Title XI application and preliminary analysis, sometime later this summer.  The FAA will be providing the public, agencies, and tribes and other interested parties 60 days to review the DEIS.  The FAA, Coast Guard, USACOE and USFWS will review the Title XI application, and inform ADOT&PF in writing whether it contains the information required for evaluation under ANILCA (ANILCA § 1104 (d)).  During our EIS public comment period, we will also hold public hearings concerning the ANILCA application in both Alaska and Washington DC.  
I hope this introduction to ANILCA Title XI has been informative.  Please don’t hesitate to send an e-mail (leslie.grey@faa.gov) or call me at 907-271-5453.  Best regards, Leslie

Leslie A. 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

30 January 2012: Runway Safety Areas Explanation

Hello Again!
 
 
In December I sent out an update that provided some answers to questions
raised during our November meetings, with a focus on the Kodiak Airport
runways: their dimensions and orientation, and how often they are used by
the different aircraft types, including commercial jets, turboprops, and
Coast Guard planes.  This update builds on that earlier message by making
the connection between runway use – particularly the type of aircraft
regularly using a runway – and the applicable runway safety area (RSA)
standards. I will also compare the standard RSA dimensions with what
currently exists at Kodiak Airport.
 
 
What is a Runway Safety Area?
 
 
In the Advisory Circular Airport Design (#150-5300-13; 1989), FAA has
described the RSA as
 
 
      “A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for
      reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an
      undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway.”
 
 
I’ll supplement that description a little.  By “defined” we mean the RSA
has published dimensions of width, as measured from the runway centerline
to both sides, and length, or the distance of safety area beyond the runway
end.  (We usually give these dimensions in feet).  So, not only is there
RSA at the runway ends, designed to offer aircraft undershoot or overshoot
protection, but it also is found parallel to and along the sides of the
runway.  This lateral safety area provides protection in case an aircraft
veers off during landing or takeoff.  Our analysis of Kodiak Airport RSAs
tends to focus on the runway ends, but each of the alternatives for Runway
18/36 also includes improvement to lateral safety area on the east side of
the runway near the Runway 36 end.  The attached, simple schematic from the
Airport Design Advisory Circular should help to illustrate the concept.
 
 
A way to establish that an RSA is “prepared or suitable for reducing the
risk of damage…” is by requiring it to be capable, under normal (dry)
conditions, of supporting aircraft that deviate from the runway without
causing structural damage to the aircraft or injury to its occupants.  RSAs
make airports and flying safer, and reduce the potential for an aircraft to
be damaged if a landing or takeoff has problems.  RSAs also make it easier
to get firefighting and rescue personnel and equipment to the scene of the
accident if an aircraft does deviate from the runway.
 
 
How are RSA Dimensions Determined?
 
The minimum size for a particular RSA (known as the Design Standard) can
vary depending on the type of aircraft expected to use the runway.
Generally speaking, the largest and heaviest aircraft regularly operating
on a runway dictates the RSA size.  At Kodiak Airport this aircraft is the
Boeing 737-400, operated by Alaska Airlines.  The Boeing 737-400 falls
within wingspan category Group III, which is based on primarily on an
aircraft’s wingspan and tail height,  and approach category of C, a
classification based on an aircraft’s speed when approaching a runway for
landing.  (In case you were wondering, all of the B737-series aircraft
using or potentially using Kodiak Airport, such as the B737-200 or newer
-700/800/900 series, fall within the same design categories and would
require the same RSA dimensions.)
 
 
 
What are the RSA Standards for Kodiak Airport Runways?
 
The RSA design standards for the Boeing 737-400 are
 
      Q 600 feet of approach (i.e., undershoot) protection on each end,
 
      Q 1,000 feet of overrun protection on each end, and
 
      Q 250 feet of lateral protection on either side of the runway
         centerline, for the length of the runway.  This equates to a
         500-foot wide lateral RSA.
 
Since most runways support arrivals and departures in each direction, the
600 feet of approach protection is incorporated in the 1,000 feet of
overrun protection.  The net result, for a runway regularly serviced by the
B737-400, is a 500-foot wide rectangular area centered upon the runway and
extending 1,000 feet beyond each runway end.
 
The description above is for what we might term a “traditional” runway
safety area.  Another option that requires a smaller footprint and still
complies with FAA’s design standards is to use Engineered Materials
Arresting System (EMAS).   I’ll have more information on EMAS in another
project update.
 
While RSA design standards are based on the largest and heaviest aircraft
regularly operating on a runway, smaller aircraft use the Kodiak Airport
and do not require the same RSA areas.  The Dash-8, flown by Era Aviation
several times a day into the airport, is also a group III category aircraft
based on wingspan, but it falls into approach category A because it has a
slower approach speed for landings.  Accordingly, the RSA design standard
for the Dash 8 is smaller than for the 737 aircraft:  300 ft wide by 600
long.  As I discussed in the last project update, both the Dash-8 and the
B737-400 regularly use Runways 07/25 and 18/36.  However, the required RSA
dimensions for those runways are based upon the design standard for the
larger aircraft, the B737-400.
 
Why is FAA Considering Expansion of the Kodiak Airport RSAs?
 
Public Law 109-115 states that not later than December 31, 2015, the owner
or operator of an airport certificated under 49 U.S.C. 44706 (such as the
Kodiak Airport) shall improve the airport's runway safety areas to comply
with the FAA design standards required by 14 Code of Federal Regulations
Part 139.  In other words, the RSAs at Kodiak Airport must meet the FAA’s
design standards, contained in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, by the
end of 2015.  The following information describes the extent of RSA
shortcoming on the runways ends at Kodiak Airport.
 
      Runway 07/25, the (almost) east-west runways
 
      Q Runway 07  Landings on this runway are from the west and
         departures are toward the east.  Although the RSA undershoot
         protection on Runway 7 meets FAA standards, the proximity of
         Barometer Mountain precludes virtually any landings by larger
         commercial aircraft.  Overrun standards are not met as there is no
         RSA on the east runway end.
 
      Q Runway 25  This runway is the opposite of Runway 07; landings are
         from the east and departures would be toward the west.  There is
         no RSA to provide undershoot protection for aircraft approaching
         over the water from the east, nor is there RSA on the west runway
         end to provide overrun protection.
 
      Runway 18/36, the north-south runways
 
      Q Runway 18  Aircraft approach this runway for landings from the
         north, over the Buskin River estuary, and take off to the south.
         There is no RSA on the north runway end to provide undershoot
         protection, nor is there RSA on the south end of the runway,
         toward the Coast Guard station, for overrun protection.
 
      Q Runway 36  Since this runway is oriented 180 degrees from Runway
         18, the directions of operation are reversed.  Aircraft approach
         Runway 36 from the south and depart to the north.  As with Runway
         18, there is no RSA on either runway end for overrun or undershoot
         protection.
 
 
      Runway 11/29   These runways accommodate operations from and to the
      southeast, marine end of the runway or the northwest, interior of
      Kodiak Island. The runway safety area in place around Runway 11/29 is
      300 feet wide for the length of the runway and extends 600 feet
      beyond the ends of the runway.  This RSA meets the design standards
      for smaller commercial and larger general aviation aircraft, and no
      further improvement is required.
 
 
Summary
 
 
Federal law requires that RSAs at airports such as Kodiak comply with FAA
design standards.  Further, the owner or operator of such airports –
ADOT&PF is the operator at Kodiak – must meet those standards not later
than December 31, 2015.  Two of the runways at Kodiak Airport, 18/36 and
07/25, do not meet design standards for the largest aircraft regularly
using those runways.  FAA has initiated an environmental impact statement
to evaluate the effects of improving those RSAs.
 
 
I hope this information is useful.  Thanks again 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
(See attached file: RSA Schematic.pdf)
 
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