Definitions of key terms are available on the Airport Planning Overview page.


What is a Runway Safety Area?

An RSA is a defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to aircraft in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13B). The function of the RSA is to provide additional space and time for runway excursion aircraft to stop safely. Based on the aircraft that regularly operate at CRW, the FAA design standards require that the RSA for Runway 5-23 be 500 feet wide centered on the runway centerline, 600 feet long prior to the runway threshold, and 1,000 feet long beyond the runway end.

What is an Engineered Materials Arresting System?

An Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) uses crushable material placed at the end of a runway to stop or slow an aircraft that overruns the runway. The tires of the aircraft sink into the lightweight material and the aircraft is decelerated as it rolls through the material. EMAS is an alternative to mitigate overruns at airports when a full-dimension RSA is not practicable due to natural obstacles, local development, and/or environmental constraints.

What are Declared Distances?

Declared distances are the distances an airport owner declares available for a turbine powered aircraft’s takeoff run, takeoff distance, accelerate-stop distance, and landing distance requirements for a specific runway.

How did we get here?

In 2003, the Airport Authority conducted an RSA Study in conjunction with the FAA. The study recommended construction of an EMAS off the end of Runway 5 and to implement declared distances for Runway 23, which became operational in 2007. The EMAS and declared distances improved the Runway 5-23 RSAs but did not completely bring them up to FAA RSA design standards. Eight years after installation of the Runway 5 EMAS, a slope failure occurred under the Runway 5 RSA and EMAS, resulting in:

  • displacement of the Runway 5 landing threshold
  • shortening of the usable lengths of Runway 5-23 by up to 500 feet in both directions
  • elimination of the vertical guidance for landing on Runway 5 (glideslope system rendered unusable)

A new EMAS and retaining wall were constructed on the Runway 5 end in 2019; however, these improvements do not address reduced runway length and do not provide for a standard RSA or a standard EMAS.

Why is the Proposed Action Needed?

The immediate and primary need is to enhance safety as the existing RSAs do not meet current FAA design criteria for standard safety areas. The 2015 slope failure has caused operational deficiencies, as the physical and operational lengths of the runway were reduced, resulting in operational restrictions to airlines and aircraft using the Airport. There is also a need to improve and enhance the efficiency in the terminal area. The existing terminal complex, which was originally constructed in the 1950s, is not configured for current airline passenger processing needs, resulting in an inefficient LOS for passengers. Furthermore, taxiways adjacent to the terminal are not consistent with FAA design standard separation distances.

>>Read more

Is the FAA Studying any Alternatives to the Proposed Action?

Yes. As required by NEPA, the FAA will independently identify and evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Action, including a No Action Alternative. The factors associated with the preliminary alternatives under consideration include:

  • No Action Alternative
  • Construction of a New Airport
  • Transfer of Aviation Activity to Other Airports
  • Use of Other Modes of Transportation
  • Airport Authority’s Proposed Project
  • Runway Alternatives
    – Consideration of Runway Length
    – Consideration of Standard RSA and/or EMAS
    – Consideration of Runway Shift Direction
  • Terminal Alternatives

Alternatives will continue to be identified and considered during the scoping process.

Why is the Proposed Action being Developed in Two (2) Phases?

In order to separately satisfy immediate (near-term) needs and long-term needs of the Airport, the Proposed Project would be developed in phases. The overall project includes development that identifies separate objectives for the near-term and long-term, allowing justification for approval of Phase 1 (near-term) regardless of the timing of implementation of the remainder of the project.

>>Read more

What is a Programmatic Level Analysis?

“Programmatic” is defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as any broad or high-level National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review that assesses the environmental impacts of broad proposals that may include any or all of the following:

  • A wide range of individual projects;
  • Implementation over a long timeframe; and/or
  • Implementation across a large geographic area

Programmatic NEPA is often utilized by federal agencies when the actions under a specific program(s) are actions that are likely to have similar impacts that can be evaluated at a broad scale.

Why is Phase 2 of the Proposed Action being Analyzed at a Programmatic Level?

Phase 2 of the Proposed Action is dependent on and in support of a change in the critical aircraft serving CRW and/or forecast destinations that are anticipated to occur by 2040. Some of these aircraft already operate at the Airport today, but not with sufficient frequency to justify a runway extension beyond 7,000 feet at this time. Due to the uncertainty of timing for an increase in operations by aircraft needing a longer runway or additional gates, the Phase 2 project elements are not considered ripe for decision and, therefore, will be analyzed at a programmatic level in the EIS. Further project-level review will be conducted at a later time when a clear need for Phase 2 project elements is evident.

What is NEPA?

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to engage in a review process to evaluate the potential environmental and public health effects of major federal actions and to involve the public before a decision is made or construction begins.

A NEPA-mandated review must be completed before an agency makes a final decision on a proposed action. NEPA does not require the decision-maker to select the most environmentally preferable alternative, but NEPA does require that decision-makers be informed of the environmental consequences of their decisions. Analysis under NEPA should be informed by NEPA’s policy goals which include assuring a safe and healthful environment for future generations.

What Federal Agencies are Involved in the NEPA Process?

There are three federal entities responsible for regulating NEPA and the environmental review process.

  • Primary responsibility is vested in the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). CEQ oversees implementation of NEPA regulations, which are binding for all federal agencies. CEQ also approves alternative arrangements for compliance with NEPA in the case of emergencies.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Federal Activities reviews environmental impact statements and some environmental assessments issued by federal agencies. It provides its comments to the public by publishing summaries of them in the Federal Register.
  • The third environmental entity involved in the NEPA process is the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. The Institute helps federal agencies and other affected stakeholders address environmental disputes, conflicts, and challenges through programs and services that provide situation assessments.
What is an Environmental Impact Statement?

Federal agencies prepare an EIS if a proposed major federal action is determined to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An EIS is a detailed written statement that defines the purpose and need for a project; considers a range of reasonable alternatives (including a no action alternative); analyzes and evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives that meet the purpose and need; and identifies measures that may mitigate the effects of a proposed action.

The contents of an EIS include:

  • Executive Summary. A summary of the EIS, including the major conclusions, areas of controversy, and the issues to be resolved.
  • Table of Contents. Assists the reader in navigating through the EIS.
  • Purpose and Need Statement. Explains the reason the agency is proposing the action and what the agency expects to achieve.
  • Alternatives. The EIS must consider all reasonable project alternatives that can accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed action. For all project alternatives that were eliminated, the EIS must briefly discuss the reasons why the alternative was eliminated from consideration.
  • Affected Environment. Describes the environment of the area to be affected by the alternatives under consideration.
  • Environmental Consequences. A discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects and their significance.
  • Mitigation. Describes measures to be taken to minimize harm from the proposed action and reasonable alternatives.
  • List of Preparers. A list of the names and qualifications of the persons who were primarily responsible for preparing the EIS.
  • List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to whom the EIS was sent.
  • Index. The index focuses on areas of reasonable interest to the reader.
  • Appendices (if required). Appendices provide background materials prepared in connection with the EIS.

The EPA is then required to review and provide comments on the adequacy of the analysis and the project’s impact on the environment using a rating system. In the rare case that the EPA deems the EIS’s analysis unsatisfactory, it is referred to CEQ.

Where can more information be found regarding the EIS process?

For more detailed information, please see “A Citizen’s Guide to NEPA” published by CEQ.

What is the NEPA Process for the Proposed Action?

Publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS formally initiates the NEPA process. The NOI initiates the scoping comment period, identifies dates for agency and public scoping meetings on the EIS process, and begins the NEPA process. The EIS follows a process prescribed by the CEQ regulations.

An overview of the EIS process is provided here.

Who are the Agencies Involved in Preparing the EIS?
  • The FAA is the lead federal agency for this EIS. The FAA is responsible for complying with NEPA and other environmental laws, regulations, and orders. As part of the process for preparing an EIS, the FAA must consider and disclose the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and its alternatives on the quality of the human environment. The FAA also coordinates with federal, state, local, and tribal agencies and conducts public outreach.
  • Cooperating Agencies. Some large or complex proposals involve multiple federal agencies along with state, local and tribal agencies. Other federal, state, tribal, or local government agencies may also play a role in the decision-making process or provide special expertise regarding a proposed action, but less of a role than the lead agency. In such a case, that agency is called a “cooperating agency.”
  • Participating Agencies. A participating agency is any federal or non-federal governmental agency that may have an interest in the project because of their jurisdictional authority, special expertise, and/or statewide interest.

>>Read more

What are the opportunities for providing input and reviewing additional information?

The public will be provided several opportunities to provide input and comments on the EIS throughout the EIS process. Public input provides valuable information to the FAA in its evaluation of alternatives, potential impacts, and possible mitigation measures. To view information concerning the public involvement activities, please go to the Public Involvement page.