HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes2019-064 CITY OF SEWARD,ALASKA
RESOLUTION 2019-064 Sponsored by: Meszaros
IL A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD,
ALASKA, REQUESTING THAT GOVERNOR MIKE DUNLEAVY AND
HIS ADMINISTRATION INTERVENE IN THE STATE OF ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SEWARD AIRPORT PROJECT
AND DIRECT THAT PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 1.1 BE SELECTED AND
CONSTRUCTED
WHEREAS,the State of Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) owns and operates
the Seward Airport located in Seward,Alaska; and
WHEREAS, various flooding events and human intervention to manage events in the
Resurrection River have caused the river to change course; and
WHEREAS, the river is now redirected towards the existing long runway and has
undermined it, causing the runway to be inoperable to its full capacity; and
WHEREAS, DOT has been in the process of addressing this issue through a large-scale
project and has determined to move forward with Project Alternative number 2.2;
WHEREAS, Project Alternative 2.2 is detrimental to the community of Seward because
it will hinder economic development, emergency preparedness and response, and will cause
significant environmental concerns; and
WHEREAS, the community, Council and administration were heavily involved in the
project process and feel that the input and feedback that was given to DOT was not considered in
the decision to select Alternative 2.2; and
WHEREAS, Project and Alternative 2.2 does not meet the existing or future needs of the
City of Seward; and
WHEREAS, the Seward City Council and the Port and Commerce Advisory Board held
a joint work session on July 1, 2019 to discuss the Airport Project and determined.that Project
Alternative 1.1 is the project that best reflects the desires and needs of the community of Seward.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEWARD,ALASKA that:
Section 1. The Seward City Council urges Honorable Governor Mike Dunleavy and his
administration to intervene in the Alaska Department of Transportation Seward Airport Project
and direct the department to select and construct Project Alternative 1.1.
CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA
RESOLUTION 2019-064
Section 2. Further,the Seward City Council requests that all expenditures associated with
Project Alternative 2.2 immediately cease so that funds can be appropriately utilized.
Section 3.This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 8`1'
day of July, 2019.
THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA
SaA)--t1S)f-)
David Squires, Mayo
AYES: Horn, Osenga, McClure, Towsley, Seese, Squires
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lane
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: —•+
r '
renda J. Ballo , MMC
City Clerk
(City Se�►�q�l pF S pf, eo
• • SEAL 0
-A
—e"\PP-4**
rnr
Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: July 8, 2019
To: City Council
From: Scott Meszaros, City Mariagert
Agenda Item: Urging Governor Mike Dunleavy and his administration to intervene in the
State of Alaska Department of Transportation Seward Airport Project and
recommending that Alternative 1.1 be selected and constructed
BACKGROUND & jusTIFICATION:
The State of Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) owns and operates the Seward Airport
located in Seward, Alaska. Through various flooding events and human intervention to manage
flooding in the Resurrection River, the river has changed Course and is now redirected towards the
existing long runway at the Seward Airport. Due to this redirection, the long runway has been
Undennined and has caused the runway to be inoperable at its full capacity,
Over a number of years,DOT,has been in the process of addressing this issue through a large-scale
project and have determined to move forward with Project Alternative nUmber 2.2.Alternative 2.2 is
a project that is abandoning the long runway and constructing a new,shorter 3,300'runway,parallel
to the existing short runway.
Though the community and administration were heavily involved in the
project process and participated in community-wide meetings, administrative meetings and public
hearings,the DOT selected plan Alternative 2.2 does not reflect public input and does not meet the
existing or future needs of the City of Seward.
The Seward City Council and the Port and Commerce Advisory Board held a joint work session on
July 1", 2019 to discuss the c>ttc�rl�indocr
Petrfortmust be made to
intervene in this pro�jcct soas economic development and emergency response efforts.
'the City ofSeward is also very concerned about Alternative 2.2 due to the significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project.
The Community,City Council and Administration feel that DOT is ignoring the desires and needs of
the community and have made no effort to implement Or Utilize any of the feedback or input they
have received throughout project development.
This Resolution is a request that the Governor of Alaska intervene and direct DOT to select and
construct Seward Airport Project Alternative 1.1.
INTENT: Urge the Governor and his administration to intervene in the Seward Airport project,
and support the selection and construction of Alternative 1.1.
CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Y7ts No N/A
50
Comprehensive Plan:
2.2.9—PublicS'afely
2.2.11 E'conomic Base
L 2.2.12 Transportation Facilities x
2.2.12.5-- Air Traffic
3.1 -Economic Development
3.4
Strategic Plan:
Page 3 —Economic Base
Page 4— Transportation Facilities
2. x
Page 5--Attract new industry
Pa,qe 11 —Plan and prepare.for natural disasters
Po re 16-�jLm. rove Sta
3. Other (list): x
FISCAL NOTE: There are no financial impacts associated with this Resolution.
Approved by Finance Department: -JY�11'2 �
ATTORNEY REVIEW: Yes No N/A X
RECOMMENDATION: Seward City Council approve Resolution 2019- _ 064, urging the
Governor and his administration to intervene in the Seward Airport Project".- —
51
Seward Airport
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS
Alternative 1.1 Alternative 2.2
Main Runway Disposition Raise the main runway;maintain existing length and Allow main runway to be overtopped by floodwaters.
embankment width;protect from overtopping and protect
from erosion.
Crosswind Runway(C)AI)Disposition Raise crosswind runway on north to match raised main Offset CW runway from apron to allow Design Group TT
runway. aircraft;shift threshold north to avoid VE impact;widen
to 75'(150'safety area)and lengthen to 3,300'(3,900'
safety area).
Hydraulic Analysis Use Q100 with 2-foot freeboard on main runway;this Use Q100 with 2-foot freeboard on CW;raise CW
option is within the floodway.Consider impacts to elevation;provide erosion protection.
properties due to change in the floodway.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Cost
Alternative 1.1 Alternative 2.2
Advantage Disadvantage Advantage Disadvantage
Construction/Earthwork Cost $13 million $11 million
(fbr comparison only—not
total project costs)
Maintenance&Operations Acts as a Icvcc to protect the More snow removal and M&O costs will be less; Maintain closed runway
(M&O) apron from 100-year flood. pavement surface to maintain pavement and lighting for markings;assumes the
than others;assumes the only one runway;new stabilization is permanent and
erosion protection is stable/ runway embankment acts as a no additional costs for M&O
permanent and no additional Icvcc to protect the apron within the design life.
costs for M&O within the from flooding.
design life.More lighting and
pavement markings to
maintain.
Right of Way(ROW) $1,300,000 $950,000
(preliminary costs only)
FAA Funding Eligibility Generally easier to get Two runways may be seen as Should be eligible. None
approval of work on existing unwarranted;environmental
facility. impacts could trigger scrutiny
of funding.
52
Seward Airport
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Ability to Serve the Community's Needs
Alternative 1.1 Alternative 2.2
Advantage Disadvantage Advantage Disadvantage
Medevac Longest runway,best forjets; Serves the King Air 200; Too short for jets.
also see wind coverage. provides for basic medevac
Allows C-130 access in case service.
of a mass casualty event(very
infrequent need).
Meets General Aviation Improves runway.Exceeds Improves runway most often
the forecasted aviation needs. used and adds length.
Wider/longer runway
accommodates operational
tolerance during occasional
strong winds.
Search&Rescue Improves runway. Better apron access. Eliminates longer runway.
Economic Development Longest runway,supports No change to apron area, Runway offset provides for Runway too short for Beech
occasional use by Learjets, which limits use of large larger aircraft(DG 11)on the 1900 commuter service.
tourism opportunities,larger aircraft on the apron,thus apron taxi lane;provides
cargo and passenger planes; limits business development. more areas for use by larger
improves reliability(runway aircraft and thus could
open under a greater range of provide FBOs with greater
conditions)and potential for operational area.
aviation-related business
development at the airport,
including Learjets and
commuter operations.
Safety,Engineering&User Considerations (Items not covered by Covis)
Alternative 1.1 Alternative 2.2
Advantage Disadvantage Advantage Disadvantage
Wind Two runways provide slightly Longer runway(13/31) Provides longer/wider Slightly reduced coverage
better wind coverage for orientation is not as good as runway for best wind due to single runway,but
small aircraft.Combined the crosswind runway.RW coverage orientation.DG II= meets FAA guidelines for a
coverage DG II=99.93,DG I 13/31 coverage DG 11= 99.53%,DG I=98.6% single runway.
=99.64 96.0%,DG I=91.1% A number ofpilots seem to
favor improving the
crosswind versus the main
runway.
Airspace/Runway Protection Airspace:higher runway, RPZ:Main runway has Approach:horizontal shift of RPZ:ARRC development for
Zone(RPZ)/Approach slightly less penetration of undesirable use in the RPZ runway moves the RW 34 barge operations(jetty,access
53
Seward Airport
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Obstructions airspace. (public road,railroad). approach away from the road)may occur in RPZ.
Approach:existing proposed ARRC
obstructions in the RW 13 development.Closing the
approach(road,railroad) main runway significantly
would remain.ARRC is reduces RW 13 RPZ
planning barge obstruction.
loading/unloading facilities
under the approach of RW
34.
User Function,Runway Uses existing VASI approach Long taxi path;requires Lengthens runway along the Large,infrequent aircraft
Reliability,Level of Service aids.Higher(above the flood) displaced threshold to meet orientation for prevailing such as Coast Guard C-130
(LOS) runway will improve the RSA requirement. winds;meets the needs of the will be unable to use,as well
reliability of the airport. based aircraft;improves as some larger commuter
Level of Service is slightly apron expansion aircraft.
higher because capacity is opportunities;reduces
increased. congestion;provides full
safety area.Higher(above the
flood)runway will improve
the reliability of the airport.
Shorter taxi path.
Long-Term Stability&Risks On existing embankments, Greater risk of flood damage RW provides flood protection Potential risk to downstream
which are stable,except for since the river is next to the for apron.Runway is sited (ARRC)facilities if the river
erosion. runway and the"model'has further from the river,less moves.
variables.Climate change potential for flood impacts.
could affect river flow;
additional sediment
deposition unpredictable.
Requires reconstruction of
runway to meet bearing
capacity requirement.
Conshuction Considerations Riprap installation below No riprap placement into Construction phasing wiII be
water,in river channel,more river channel.Results in most challenging.Tf
difficult.Construction likely easier installation. evacuation from abandoned
delayed(as much as two runway is used for fill,both
years)by a runways will be under
CLOMAR/LOMAR process construction concurrently.
with public hearings.
54
Seward Airport
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Environmental Concerns
Alternative 1.1 Alternative 2.2
Advantage Disadvantage Advantage Disadvantage
Floodplain&Floodway Provides flood protection for In the floodway;increases the Provides flood protection for Greater chance for channel
Impacts apron since runway acts as a flood elevation by up to 4'. apron since runway acts as a movement into the floodplain
levee.Raises main RW two Impacts additional private levee.Does not impact the when flood waters breach the
feet above 100-year flood properties.Permitting will floodway;no change to the main runway.In floodplain,
level. face more obstacles due to FIRM map needed.Eventual increases the flood elevation
public process,and floodway breach of main runway would by<I foot(with coastal
impacts=expensive and time partially remove an flooding considered).
delays.Impacts the floodway; obstruction in the However,based on previous
requires revision to the FIRM floodplain/floodway. discussions by DOT with
map.Process includes public FEMA and city, I'rise is
involvement. okay.
Fish Habitat Impacts Least impact to Intertidal Requires in water work to Fewer impacts to Intertidal More impacts to Intertidal
(coastal)EFH area for salmon place erosion protection;most EFH than Alt.3;no impacts EFH than Alt. 1.1
and marine fish species. impacts to Resurrection River to Resurrection River than
mainstream,which is EFH for Alt.1.1
salmon species.
Wetlands Impacts No wetlands fill associated Most impacts to wetlands Most permutable;fewer acres Similar wetland impacts to
With RW 16-34. from fill in river to raise RW of impacts than Alt.1.1 Alt.3,but less due to shorter
13-31.May be difficult to runway.
permit because Clean Water
Act requires selection of
practicable alternative with
least impacts.
Endangered Species Act Farthest fi-om Resurrection Possible bald eagle nest Similar distance from Fill in or near Resurrection
(ESA)—Bald Eagle Bay where sea lions,otters, impacts(based upon 2004 Resurrection Bay as Alt.3; Bay,and possible bald eagle
and harbor seals are known to nest sites);more so than with less fill near or in the bay nest impacts.
be located.Most acceptable other alternatives. than Alt.3
under ESA and MMPA.
Human Impacts Greater reliability of main Floodplain impacts would Flooding affects reduced, Loss of main RW and short
(Socioeconomic,ROW, RW,and keeping both impact more private therefore,less property length of RW 16-34 less
Compatible Land Use) runways provides increased properties adjacent to river, impacts during Q 100.Longer favorable to the city from
capacity,higher LOS.This and may affect their property RW 16-34,but not as long as economic development
option would provide values.Portions of the in Alt.3 standpoint.Restricts access to
additional protection for the impacted property are floatplane takeout area.
ARRC facilities. underdeveloped and the
properties lack access.
55