HomeMy WebLinkAbout09162019 City Council Work Session Public Forum - Seward Airport City Council
Public Forum
Packet
Topic: Seward Airport
Monday, September 16, 2019
6:00 — 8:00 p.m.
K.M. Rae Building
125 Third Avenue, Seward
City Council
PUBLIC FORUM
regarding the
SEWARD AIRPORT
September 16, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sections are delineated by colored paper inserts.
Section 1 Resolution 2019-064
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.
Section 2 Back Up Documentation
City Communications and other documents as presented in the July 8,
2019 City Council agenda packet.
400.
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY COUNCIL HOSTING A PUBLIC FORUM
regarding the
SEWARD AIRPORT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a public forum
conducted by the Seward City Council on the following item of business:
Monday, September 16, 2019
6:00 — 8:00 p.m.
K.M. Rae Building
TOPICS: Discuss Seward airport options,
develop a timeline/plan, obtain public input in
preparation for the next meeting with the ADOT & FAA.
ALL PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND.
The K.M. Rae Building is located at 125 Third Avenue in Seward, Alaska.
POSTED: Tuesday, September 10, 2019
City Hall bulletin board
U.S. Post Office
Harbormaster's Building
Seward Community Library Museum
Sponsored by: Meszaros
CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA
RESOLUTION 2019-064
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
;t project process and feel that the input and feedback that was given to DOT was not considered in
Y the decision to select Alternative 2.2; and
1
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
::1 Alternative 1.1 is the project that best reflects the desires and needs of the community of Seward.
.:1
-57} 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.
V.
ti
PA
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 8th
day of July,2019.
THE CITY OF SEWARD,ALASKA
Sailo-tr- AAN2
David Squires, Mayo
AYES: Horn,Osenga, McClure, Towsley, Seese, Squires
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lane
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
'' •_,,,,1%. •,i k4
:renda J. Ballo , MMC
City Clerk
(City S -04 oF s04., ; ,
r
_. • SEAL •r
Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: July 8, 2019 fi,CSd
4,4
To: City Council alp
From: Scott Meszaros, City Manager
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
undermined 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 Airport Project and determined that a strong effort must be made to
intervene in this project so as not to hinder economic development and emergency response efforts.
The City of Seward 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:
Yes No N/A
50
Comprehensive Plan:
2.2.9—Public Safety
2.2.11 —Economic Base
1. 2.2.12— Transportation Facilities X
2.2.12.5—Air Traffic
3.1 —Economic Development
3.4— Transportation
Strategic Plan:
Page 3—Economic Base
2 Page 4—Transportation Facilities X
Page 5—Attract new industry
Page 11 —Plan and prepare for natural disasters
Page 16—Improve State Airport
3. Other(list): X
FISCAL NOTE: There are no financial impacts associated with this Resolution.
Approved by Finance Department: jt
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(CW)Disposition Raise crosswind runway on north to match raised main Offset CW runway from apron to allow Design Group IT
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 Ql OU with 2-foot freeboard on main runway;this Use QI UO with 2-foot freeboard on CW;raiseCW
option is within the floodway.Consider impacts to elevation;provide erosion protection.
fag
properties due to change in the floodway.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Alternative 1.1 Alternativr 2.2
Advantage Disadvantage Advantage Dieadvunta e
Construction/Earthwork Cost $13 trillion 51 I million
(for comparison only—not
total project costs)
Maintenance&Operations Acts as a levee to protect the More snow removal and M&O costs will be less;
apron from 100-year flood. pavement surface to maintain Maintain closed runway
(M&O) 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 levee 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
(prelhnina,y 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
acuity. 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 for jets; Serves the King Air 200; Too short for j cts.
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 Costs)
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 1I=99.93,DG I 13/31 coverage DG II= 99.53%,DG I=98.6% single runway.
=99.64 96.0%,DG 1=91.1% A number of pilots 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 fiat
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 nt
runway to meet bearing
capacity requirement.
Construction Considerations Riprap installation below No riprap placement into Construction phasing will be
water,in river channel,more river channel.Results in most challenging.If
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
EnvironmentaI 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 breads 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<1 toot(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 permittable;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.Maybe difficult to runway.
permit because Clean Water
Act requires selection of
practicable alternative with
least impacts.
Endangered Species Act Farthest from 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
Motion: PACAB recommends Council direct Administration send a letter to the Alaska Department March 19,2019
of Transportation and Public Facilities Commissioner and Cc Federal,State and
Borough Representatives insisting Alternative 1.1 be reconsidered for the Seward To Whom It Should Concern
Airport.
Re:Seward Airport Improvement Plan
Motion: Administration will forward comments to Council if they chose to send a letter based on our
recommendation. I have great concerns about the DOT's selection of Alternative 2.2 which would shift the
existing,2,289'x 75'Crosswind Runway(16-34)to the east and extend it by 1,011 feet to
ALTERNATIVE 1.1:Reconstruct Existing Main Runway 13-31(4,533 feet x 75 3,300'x75'.This plan would abandon the existing 4,533'x 100'Main Runway(13-31)that also
feet) serves as a levee that protects the airport,infrastructure,and salt marsh west of the
Resurrection River.(Note FAA lists RW 16-34 at 4,533'.The Plan variously lists it at 4,249'and
• Reconstruct and raise Runway 13-31 above the 100-year flood level. 4,500'.)
• Install riprap(bulkhead)to protect the embankment from flooding.
I,along with many others,support Alternative 1.1 which would retain and maintain the existing
• Eliminate Float Pond-cost saving measure 4,533'RW 13-31.At all the public meetings,the public and pilots spoke overwhelmingly in favor
• Eliminate Runway 16-34-cost saving measure of this option but it was taken off the table by ADOT.
• Value engineering,for example additional tests and engineering reports re:
soil stability Any alternative will require a continual funding source and staff with no guarantees of success.
The long runway must be raised,fortified,and maintained as a levee with the runway on top to
• Future use reexamined and fully defined population data gathering-numbers protect the rest of the airport and infrastructure to the west.It Is risky and shortsighted to
are low for summer abandon it.
• Discuss importance of habit of the area with community's use-reason to
keep long runway and not expand short The Crosswind Runway points directly at an extremely Important habitat for resident and
Include reasoning with C 130s(full load deliveries only possible with this migrating birds,and the location of a large Arctic Tern nesting colony.Extending the runway will
• runway)and Dash 8(only able to land on runway with this length)-key for bring all the fixed wing aircraft,including small jets,much closer and lower to the wetlands and
emergency in Seward for community and individual access to save lives with ponds upon approach and departure.This will unnecessarily Increase the risk of bird-aircraft
life flights collisions,and Jeopardize the aircraft and wildlife.
• This is the only runway with ability to provide for future instrument landing Mitigation of all developmental impacts are critical to protect the integrity of this wetlands
equipment ecosystem that also protects the Seward Airport and adjacent Alaska Railroad property from
• Topography favors existing main runway erosion,flooding,siltation,and the threats of continuing sea level rise.Extending the Crosswind
• Include shareholder's list of interested parties that havealready spoke in Runway will negatively impact this delicate ecosystem
favor of 1.1 Extending the Crosswind Runway also places it In an area that experiences flooding,extreme
• Pattern letter as a rebuttal to Selection of the Design Alternative 10/3/2017 high tides,surf and ice impacts,overflow from the adjacent slough and ponds.Impacts and
• Include points from Carol Griswold letter maintenance throughout the year including dramatically different winter conditions must be
evaluated.
• Explore dredging channel-point to Metco's current permits
• Cite that FEMA LOMR's and CLOMR's faster to obtain then DOT asserts The only viable alternative,if dredging the main channel Is not an option,is Alternative 1.1,
Reconstruct the Existing Main Runway 13-31 above the 100-year flood level,Install riprap to
• Decreases impact to private property owners protect the embankment from flooding AND bring it up to Its previous weight-bearing
• Explore alternate funding sources standards.
• Invite DOT to come and discuss with community in a larger forum as a
presentation Q and A Thank you,
Carol Griswold
•Mein Once(001)Tle-eusn
o• •Police 0/07129e•
3338
Seward,Alaska HU
G I Y�XE /�U ^�r�;+11 ••na oar tao7)as alze
w.� • 2243445
March 14,2019
Se WARD.ALASKA 9 96 6 4-0167 •dy desk(007122e-a046
•EVineeraw(9071224-4019
htta;(618sov.dotstaco,ak.usluea/sewafdaireort/documents/Draft-Environmental- • """re0n2a'40°0
•te•m>)2Pea)331
Assessment.odf
February 12,2017
HI Bruce, DOT&pr
Deign&Engineer ing Service+
Thank you for your invitation to provide comments on retaining the current long runway RW Preliminary Design&Environmental
13-31.I have a huge concern that If all the emphasis Is placed on the importance of a 4000'+ I'.CI.lens 1904011
runway,It will give even greater support to Alt 2.2 with a future extension of 700'of RW 16-34 Anchorage,Alaska 99519 6900
to reach 4000'.
Issues with the wildlife,birds,jurisdictional wetlands,private land,etc that would complicate Own Brnum FJirutt
and negate the 700'extension must be emphasized,so that Seward will never have a long Thank you for the opportunity to comment no the proposed Seward Airport improvement project.
runway If RW 13-31 is abandoned.(I will certainly comment on this') The Ca of Se usi desires to see the ante mob as DOT&PF.a reliabk working ni.y g -ptxt meeting ADO-
II and Alaska Community Coss airport design staebcdn,earl that will aecnmamdare heart demand and
Allowing the river to breach RW 13-31 as proposed may very well help to restore the original growth.We orbs the following,based on your agency scalping letter r.(3aeuery 24 2017.
floodplain,but will also threaten the new RW 16-34 and millions of dollars of infrastructure at As you've nand.neon dmoges in arum)rnurpinfugy have Naha)is mum li'cgnew nrcnopring of
the airport and Alaska Railroad property.RW 13-31 needs to serve as a levee and runway. R/W 13/31.It has also shifted the main watasowee of Resent-mon River to the west,et firs obliquely
against nutI Men aligned wilh Ihl•runway.It is fir us sty That.mthw:lean"...the main ntnwwy A meets,
I've noticed comments at City Council and PACAB meetings in support of a long runway may be adjatmt to the river..."that Ore river has relocated itself aducent to the thruway.We have discussed this
in lire DOT spnnsnred community meetings held over Ike last couple of years to address the issue,end
misinterpreted to mean support of the new RW 16-34 with extension.Comments must express were informed Nat imriver work4 or channeliation,is prohibited.Doing such work in the river Is nix
support for improving and maintaining the existing long runway RW 13.31, impossible nr even impractical.Routine in-river work mining gravel,prrnecting riverbanks and edjecent
properties,and performing flood mitigation and prevention tasks we routinely permitted and completed,
The following are points gleaned from the Seward Airport Improvement Project EA that will bath by gnvcmmnent agencies and prima parties in and adjacent to the Resurrection River Redirecting
need to be strongly opposed: she nver as an element of peoteming the rvasw"y should no be tekrn off ike table.As in cummun with
rapid transfer high-deposition streams in the art.vratee hed undercounts migreo within the floodplain
Main runway: boundaries,and at some point this rise will be numcnnhuc other than where itis nuw.Fo ,rm sling•
RW 13-31 protection strategy(Alt 1.1 or 2.2)on an eeswnptan that the floodway wnleecoa,'se will remain in one
place like a wen-defined Ke ui River sir similar will likely Impede:he river From migrating further west,
4,249'x 100' her will be of so use if the river migrates to the we From a ftondpbin manager's perspective rerouting
Currently restricted to small aircraft with a weight of 12,500 or less due to weakening of Ike river ur placing obstructions that vitiate end lima the river'.awn retwel relocation arc danndi,'alinn
embankment caused by flooding.Length exceeds need of current and forecast aircraft, activities Nat require engineering and permitting Neither it impossible.not is one prohibited znd the
although the longer RW would make the airport available for infrequent use by larger aircraft. other ellowed outright.
The current flow path continues to deposit malcriel at the head of Rounvx+ion Bay,earning silntnm rat
Alternative 2.2 the Alaska'railroad dock that requites ongoing maintenance and expense h may the that the Railroad
EA proposes closing and discontinuing maintenance of this long runway perm a one-nine larger investment(with°shun)towards rcloesting Mc river flow to the ch•nncl further
Resurrection River expected to be overtopped and breached by future flood events,allowing oast where the predominant flow was located until fairly recently.This would allow natural siltation to
floodwaters to reach RW 16-34,thereby restoring part of the original floodplain(bad Idea) continue,but without rep"Pally ihhmpat,ing shipping fxralian•.
Ike possible need to acquire:privet.pnv rtio in order w implement chin%nbertwove vie+)e,hnned
Secondary runway: Without specifle parcels being identified in the'coping letter,we cuss's the sae which,properties would be
RW 16-34
impacted,but it is likely the numuwst smaller parcels to die east of RIW 13rt I.Thew pn,[mtiet though
2.289'x 75'
A-105
Ken Risse
From: RobertO Hornickalluscg.mil on behalf o'Homik Robert D LT
s i!divekrl and phdtod.as Dever by pmclnefly developed.Tleue.s no legal never,and gaming same eRoberLD.Hornick@uscg.mil>
world be a large multi-agency elTnn.Thar are no utilities(required by City Code prior tc Suing Sant Thursday,August 14,2014 12:18 PM
heading permits),and no cascmcros acnav the venom private and publk lamb that would he crossed to To: Ken Risse
connect utilities.These feels are re:h eered in the esaeasor's tax velum:test of Mennen,.tutt eau rel cd Cc Coulter,Nathan CDR
et Ions than$1,000.Several owners have deeded their prnpMia to the City in order to avoid paying mace Subject RE:PDC Engineering Facility Requirement-Seward
on ursdcrelopable properly.This gives the City.sod the Seward Dear Creek Flood Serrate Ana.a
consawlion and flood mitigation sd-aside that's very valuable in providing needed"sponge'seas,with
vugcration xv arabiliratiun.If ntpai>isirm of none or all of those!WWII ontI is ooz esary in implement the I do not know who does the pavement strength tests or who funds them.The LCN report I was stating came from an Air
protect work,the City will facilitate in any way we can,including acgosieon and assisting with a LOM R force report.We Just go by what is published In the AK aviation supplement.
We view die restorelion of the predominant flow of Contraction River to its historic distinct nuMsix to
the wan.which inclining sufficient width for inevitable:nnan er6ry.n critical in the hieing.anceaa of As far as the use of an airfield during a mass casualty or natural disaster,if the runway is still usable we would/can use
either altarwive We prefer Alternative 1.1 es the less intensive in terns of we:Lands impacts(-5 acres v the C130 as an air ambulance to get people to higher level of care quicker.
11.1 for Attcrrtmive 2.2),likelihood n'Ices ongoing,eeintcsamce,mitigation of continuing impacts to
shipping M the Alaska Railroad dock.and morn likely to meet the common goals of a woeking and As far as the chain of command,we normally get our direction through our district office in Juneau Alaska,
reliable airport that meets applicable design criteria and Mans for Caen demand end growth.
The H60/H65 heilcopters have used Seward before,and usually they only require gas.As stated earlier the C130's have
The ecnpung hater mentions that Seward is nerved by rail.rod,and the marine highway,the Alike not been there In a while.I will not say we will never use Seward for SAR,as we never know what situation will present
Marine I lighting System suspended operation In and from Seward his the every early 2000',. Itself.HavingSeward available for use byC130's onlyallows for increased ftexiblli
ty/capability to respond.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important project.We look forward to participating in
the continuing discussion. If Seward were rated for C130 use we would use It training pilots to land on shorter/narrower runways.Currently the
only other field we use that is close to Sowards dimensions Is Dutch Harbor and that Is a 2 hr Right.You would probably
see weekly flights stopping by for touch and go's.C130's would need no other services.
Sincerely.
Let me know If you have any more questions.
City of 4csrattt,Alade
C / -,�
�/��!-is�`- LT Robert Homkk
Kw 1.nnW C-130 Assistant Operations Officer
Assistant City Manager Robert.D.Homlck®uscg.mil
VA/907-487-5586
(C)B58-752.3103
Donna Glenn,
City Manner(for Ron Long)
FFaaiI L♦1Ytpi'tyrl.uly_ee:n.1 shy
Phone.907 224-2020
--Original Message---
From:prvs•296a1c91boKenRIssegapdceng.com Imallto:prvse296alc91b.eenRisse@Opdceng.comj On Behalf Of Ken Risse
Sent:Thursday,August 14,2014 10:12 AM
To:Hornkk,Robert D LT
Cc:Coulter,Nathan CDR
Subject:RE:PDC Engineering Facility Requirement•Seward
IT.Homick,
Thanks for the reply. Can you tell me more about the way the Coast Guard would handle mass casualties or medical
evacuations? For instance,if there were an accident with a fishing boat,cruise ship or other vessel with a dozen
Injuries,would the Coast Guard C-130 act as s medical ambulance moving mass casualties to hospitals in Anchorage or
A-10e t
A13
other cities? If there were a natural disaster,not at sea,such as an earthquake,fire or flood,would the Coast Guard
respond under FEMA direction? LT Robert Hornick
C-130 Assistant Operations Officer
For the pavement strength,you mentioned that it previously had an LCN of 14. Do you go by the published pavement Robert.D.Hornick@uscg mil
strength In the 5010 records(currently not available),or does the military test pavement strength at airports it plans to (W)907-487-5586
use? (C)858-752-3103
If there were no pavement strength limitations/restrictions,how many annual C-130 operations would you expect at
Seward In a typical year?
Would Coast Guard search and rescue operations ever be based out of Seward? If so,what airport facilities are
needed?
—Original Message—
Thanks for your help. From:Vojtech,Zachary R LT
Sent:Wednesday,August 13,2014 2:58 PM
Ken Risse,PE,Senior Associate To:Homick,Robert D LT
Civil Engineer Cc DeAngelo,Daniell LT;Coulter,Nathan CDR
Subject:PDC Engineering Facility Requirement-Seward
PDC Inc Engineers
Planning Design Construction Bob,
1028 Aurora Drive I Fairbanks,Alaska 99709 v 907.492.1414 I f 907.456.2707 I www.pdceng.com I received a phone call from Ken Rime who works for PDC Consulting Engineers,contract work with Dept of
"Transforming Challenges into Solutions' Transportation.They are putting together a Facility Requirement Chapter for the Seward airport and would like to know
the importance of Seward in regards to the Coast Guard.Specifically,they are deciding whether or not the DOT should
shorten the runway or change the weight capability,but would like to know impacts to our C-130 operations.
Ken Risse's phone number is 907-452-1414 and email is kenrisse@pdceng.com.
He will be completing this chapter by Friday,and would like to add our Input to it before then.
--Original Message— Thank you.
From:Robert.D.Homkk@uscg.mli[malito:Robert.D.Hornickgpuscg.mll)
Sent:Wednesday,August 13,2014 3:33 PM Zach
To:Ken Risse
Cc:Coulter,Nathan CDR LT Zach Vojtech
Subject:RE:PDC Engineering Facility Requirement-Seward Air Station Kodiak
w:(907)487-5887
Ken,
Understand you are inquiring about Coast Guard operations at the Seward airport with regards to C130 operations and
Impacts.
Since I have been here(2012)we have not used Seward due to the fact that it is no longer tested for the C130 bearing
capacity.From what I have been told we used to operate there when It was certified for our weight.
The real impact for Coast Guard operations is for expedient planning in case of mass casualty or Medical Evacuation that
would allow a quicker response via C130 than an H60.Additionally,if an H60 needed fuel and a fuel provider was not
available at the airport the C130 could provide fuel.With the bearing capacity as it stands we would need a DOT waiver,
which could take some time.The last report,before the 12,500 NOTAM restriction was established,Is that the main
Runway has an LCN of 14 equating to a max gross C130 weight of 100,000 lbs.With a runway length of 4500 we can
normally operate at about 120,000 lbs,allowing enough fuel and gear to respond to the majority of situations.
Let me know If you have any questions.
2 3
A14 A15
4, 42
Note that the USACE method calls for a Class Ii+,Cal B&SP calls for Class iV-,and HEC-11 include backing up floodwaters onto private properties in the middle of the Resurrection River
calls for Class II.Given the angle of attack of the flow to the runway embankment,Class III is floodplain.The eastern limit would expand as well toward Nash Road,potentially impacting
recommended for embankment protection for the southern half of the Runway,including and private properties. Additionally,floodwater velocities generally increase,which could lead to
extending upstream beyond the anticipated point of impinging flow.Above the point of erosion and embatil®ent toe scour.Finally,the large BFE increases would result in a substantial
impinging flow,Class iI riprap is recommended.Additional analysis will be conducted following quantity of material being needed to raise the runway embankment to the design crest elevation.
the selection of the preferred design alternative.
If selected as the engineering preferred alternative,this design would likely face substantial
Due to the length of Runway 16/34 in Alternative 22,the embankment will extend into the permitting obstacles and requires modification to the effective FIRM and Floodway Map. Such
Resurrection Bay intertidal zone.Additional erosion protection will be required to protect the an action would require a Letter of Map Revision(LOMR),which is FEMA's modification to an
runway embankment from wave runup and storm surge events. effective FIRM,or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map,or both. LOMR reviews take up to 90
days to process,are subject to an appeal period,and usually become effective within six months
Recommendations after they are issued(FEMA,2015a). The preparation of a LOMR request includes extensive
hydrologic computations,hydraulic analysis,and regulatory requirements.
Though FAA Advisory Circulars.the Alaska Aviation Preconstruction Manual,and the Alaska
Highway Preconsnvction Manual(AHPCM)do not provide a design return interval specifically Alternatives 2.2 and 3.0 do not require encroachment within the Regulatory Floodway,and will
applicable for en airport adjacent a river,Table 1120-1 in the AHPCM recommends using a result in BFE increases of less then 1 foot. impacts to private properties from the BFE increases
discharge with a 100-year return interval to design culverts and channel changes in designated are much smaller than with Alternative 1.1.When including the effects from coastal flooding,
flood hazard areas with no reference to the type of facility. ADOT&PF interprets this there would be only small impacts(increased inundation)to the private properties in the middle
recommendation to be applicable for countermeasures pertaining to both flooding and scour at of the Resurrection River floodplain.Similarly,there would be a very small expansion of the
airport facilities in FEMA mapped floodways and floodplains(Janke,2015). eastern limit of the 100-year floodplain toward private properties along Nash Road between the
Seward Highway and Resurrection Bay.The expansions would still be contained within the
The braided channel of the Resurrection River adjacent to the Seward Airport has exhibited Salmon Creek Effective FIRM floodplain.Average velocity increases would be less than 15
significant changes in location over time.Additionally,the frequency of runway overtopping percent,though larger local increases may occur near new embankments.
events and the required maintenance has been increasing with time. Because of the dynamic
nature of the Resurrection River at close proximity to the Seward Airport,the design guidelines However,either of these alternatives may still require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
should be conservative. (CLOMR).A CLOMR is FEMA's comment on a proposed project that would,upon
construction,result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway,the effective BFEs,
Panels 4543,4544,5006,and 5007 of the 2013 Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM)are found in or the Special Flood Hazard Area(FEMA,2015b). A CLOMR is required when proposed
Appendix H. Panel 4543 includes the Seward Airport and the Resurrection River Regulatory changes will cause any increase the BFE where a regulatory floodway has been identified.
Floodway.FEMA regulations state communities shall prohibit encroachments,fill,new Consultation with FEMA,the City of Seward,and the KPB Floodplain Administrator is
development,substantial improvements,and other development within the adopted regulatory
suggested to determine if a CLOMR is required for either Alternative 2.2 or 3.0.
floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that the
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community of The following recommendations are based on the hydraulic analysis described in this report,as
the base flood(100-year)discharge.in addition,the KPB Floodplain Development Ordinance well as applicable local and FEMA floodway and floodplain regulations:
(KPB,1986)also prohibits any increase in flood levels during the base flood that result from fill,
construction and other development within the regulatory floodway. 1. The engineering preferred design should be either Alternative 2.2 or 3.0.
Also note that minimum federal standards limit the maximum allowable rise of the 100-year 2• In the future,long-term stockpiling of overburden and gravel in the channel or floodplain
Base Flood Elevation(BFE)to 1 foot FEMA's regulations allow for State and local government of the Resurrection River downstream of the Seward Highway bridges should be
regulations that are more stringent(allow something less than a one foot rise)to take precedence. discouraged.
Alternative 1.1 requires encroachment within the Regulatory Floodway due to construction of 3. The recommended design water surface elevation for the Seward Airport Improvements
project is the water surface elevation during the discharge with a 100-year(1/a chance)
the raised runway.The hydraulic analysis shows a range of flood level increases within the return interval plus a two-foot freeboard.
regulatory floodway during the base flood.Additionally,BFE increases of more than 1 foot
would occur in areas of the 1%chance floodplain other than the regulatory floodway.In addition 4. The recommended design condition for erosion protection for the Seward Airport
to the large BFE increases,the impacts from the encroachment required by Alternative 1.1 Improvements project is the discharge with a 100-year(1%chance)return interval.
RI, a42
•)
r
F`:4:, +
/ _ \ i
, (.h
` .0. It k
4 \
r> K :
IK 7 :•.[ 1o6Vr fl.mivar hA e.w 1
1 ti•‘, Gr.�eov. . .
WnILro. f .
IC 3 .,.L!.
Figure 15. 100-year flood map for Alternative 1.L FINn 16. 100-year flood map for Alternative 2.2.
AltAlt 2.2 Thu design alternative reconstructs Runway 16/34 and raises the elevation with a 2-ft
1.1-This design alternative raises the elevation of Runway 13/31 above the 100-year floe
with a 2-ft freeboard. Both runways remain above the base flood elevation. The Alt i.I water freeboard above the 100-year flood. Though Runway 13/31 is abandoned for active aircraft use,
surface elevations across the floodplain east of the runway are substantially higher than those of it is armored to prevent embankment erosion and channel migration
the EG model. Water surface elevation increases of greater than 1 foot occur from Cross-section
D to Cross-section 1. The maximum water surface elevation increase is 4.04 feet,and occurs at Water surface elevation increases of less than 1 foot occur from Cross-section F to Cross-section
Cross-section F.The private parcels in the middle of the Resurrection River floodplain are
M. The maximum water surface elevation increase is 0.78 feet,and occurs at Cross-section F.
completely inundated. At some areas of the 100-year floodplain between the Seward Highway The private parcels in the middle of the Resurrection River floodplain are partially inundated.
and Resurrection Bay,the eastern limit has expanded.At Cross-sections D and E,the Alt 1.1 At some areas of the 100-year floodplain between the Seward Highway and Resurrection Bay,
floodplain boundary is 70 feet to the east of the Effective FIRM floodplain(red line). At Cross- the eastern limit has slightly expanded.At Cross-section F,the Alt 2.2 floodplain boundary is
sections F and G,the Alt 1.1 floodplain boundary is 300 to 500 feet east of the EG model 160 feet east of the EG model boundary(dark blue line);a low spot in Cross-section G 200 feet
boundary(dark blue line). Though it is within the Salmon Creek Effective FIRM floodplain east of the EG boundary is inundated. These locations are within the Salmon Creek Effective
Zone AH,the Alt 1.1 water surface elevations of Cross-sections F and G are slightly higher(1-2 FIRM floodplain Zone AH;however,the Alt 2.2 water surface elevations of Cross-sections F
feet)than the FIRM base flood elevations there. At Cross-section K,the Alt 1.1 floodplain and G are lower than the FIRM base flood elevations there.At Cross-section K,the Alt 1.1
boundary is approximately 400 feet northeast of the EG model boundary,but still within the floodplain boundary is approximately 400 feet northeast of the EG model boundary,but still
Salmon Creek Effective FIRM base flood and floodway boundary.See FIRM Panel 4544. within the Salmon Creek Effective FIRM base flood and floodway boundary.
EU 1 8311
VI
-. ...,^w...
wawa, ._..R.... ,.^.,raga _ .._600a .'__.yw _,_agar..,
..114444 waaM . 14.wrw a.Pala.. w�••.ra.w.r.aMg, .w.M Tw wag•...ink+.. T ma�.ti.rw.n...".. a.,...«aw.s,✓w
anietai•amen mane.am•a0i
...a.T+ —
wr.aan..r. .wwww..rr.' •wr.n.w.r• wwr.wwa�...ra.aw,w...w..r.�arrw .•.r..•rwa• *IV*,
avia..a.Oa wan
gall ra Lag.ar• ++rawaw•.r•• +..wa 1•..am ama.a. 4.. _ •i.T a.•rw•w4.....v.r. Ma..s_•.^w•atian am.....-.r
+w..a w—w•w....w ..rr�1.ma a•
rw•ar.•y�—r..••ra •wriw waa—�.r..�.rw.4s rw�r+..n_g... MTrg..n�..........•-- •w.w _4•.1..MO. w ..••.war. ar
war wrw
14144,44.44
g•a a1a.a•r n rlfe.o, wn.na.......arr•r. *it•T
..►.4.44www_ww44 4 �Ya.. .a►wrM a•ww•rr. .w..•.T y �r.+w+raw.
4waea�wi w..•.wrwwwrw•
w••••••oak w..•=.� r.ag/q 1.y•..motion.+wa.w
.—.ca mays.- ..—....ham.. .•..,rr.rm AMR.w•..• rIT4Mrr•ft a rr�ww�a�a._r__4 . .a•Tr .•a.wg.r�•.•w..•w...a.+.�w.e
•
la Ya Van �wnem R
.a 4r +rww ft.eft... ar. •w.4 o...T. la.•r•..1, •.._.ru_—_.. argr.44444.n 4441. 4.444 4.. 444444444- 4814 444 �� �lR 4004 gMa1,)100f1•nP4l
liftftftift -
w...r..ar.r..•a...gr.ra•a•a...•'T.,ommo. ammo/�.T�I..ga•,-49••MT*rw.wo Tama.a.r....wYr..•..•uw...�....riaw.....rsro.w ram_,
Inaa morn.o rep.•>r wr•4...•..44444444 F oft.rr.•gAw r yaw•Mr.r a ftftft r ar....M loft.,+a•+...•waft
T.^a.•••hr+w�a..�.w•... .gw.•44444ar...Mwrw 444 r+•1 444 .w.tig�.w.
•
fttlft•40,ftft iftftftr V.ea
Twr.•a ww..44,4,--arl.a_srw arr A.w...M.se
•.r.•aa•w.•w..r. 444 gnaw 4ar�y,war 4 4.4 44 4. 4.4V.i 44.44.444w
_p.4•444444•rw. 4.44..ar.....+...4 4444, r w .a..414 • ...• ..• dad aaw .w.•r•a .1g.,!•r..ra.ar w..w •4.4r..1%wows, mais
1_14144 444
____wawa....MI..1
.......".a.rw.yrr, �r1•w..wr.., MN..w..aw...... .•.•rr.•.•.4•w.a...mono a. ...w.aa..
4444
g1....+wawa .TrMwTww.... 'a..r...w.1 �..•mMa•a.�.•. .ww.w••. ....w.+w.a1
444 aM.we .444
444.44.w4444 awr 444 n 444 ...44 4444 4.4.44 444414-44 4 •a...
444444 w 440
.44 4 arM44OM gs.a 4.44..a wg.•a.aa .1 4....•y 444444 44 4.• ...n iaaaa.•w.w• gr..4Mal s•o
_ 4444+,444.•...—
•T41Ywar..,_. . rams tr.•r.. ..w r�.•..rg..w�444 wft.ft.a.aa..r.ww ..wa.ftftfta_ ^.awa.r�a.ft.aa•mwa....T .r. _..rwi.•wwwl
•4ag4Y gg•...rtl J4../Y .4wMww .4rW 4404.10./
•T a.ra.w awr. w..n..•.a•
44. w4.rw.ar.a.r.444 pow4 r 4.4.44 44 4444 4 4,41•4aa.r...w.wr..rw..+rr......r....•.,r.so..
444
g.r• hr,w444444 no... ..ra...•�.r.w•a.w•rr.r...r gaTw s•g�.r raga. A4"uR]apwuN'
uMaMa3 aMYg<uaMY podgy igw.a5
nSeketdaa of Dedga Point Cosa atap.NI-Booed Member Schneider
ANerestive
Page 4,paragraph 6 Therefore air traffic(current,past,and future)at this airport can easily be We request the retained runway be Runway 13/3 I
accommodated with a single runway.
Page 5,paragraph 2 Demand is not expected to increase significantly in the near Mute as the This number does not include the many residents of the immediate surrounding area
population(currently 2,754)is growing at a rate of less than 254 year. who oblize Seward's services.The populations of the surrounding areas including
Seward,Rear Creek,Lowell Point,,Primrose,Crown Point,Moose Pass,and 7?'h?is
'?'?7.The growth rase in the area n a obese is 7?M(Not sure if the scull Crown
Point hawing Airport covers some of these areas in the.estimation)
Page 5,paragraph 2 Recent,kparvnerrtal improvements in the Seward Highway make the The Alaska Railroad does not operate in winter.In a seuatios in which the only mass
highway safer and reduce travel time to about 2 howl....Seward can also be road to town is closed,there are no practical alternatives for medical transport or
accessed by the Alaska Railroad and by ship. commonly evacuation.Examples include........
Page 6,paragraph 2 Alternative 2.2 had more advantages and less disadvantages than the other Looking at the liar,this is not immediately obvious.They both lent nearly identical
two alternatives nurobers of advantages and disadvantages.Were the categories weighted?Is there a
scoring sheet?Who nude this detaasiaation?
Page',paragraph 2 Alternative I. requires fill,as well as placement of'ierap,ao the Is this private lard even habitable as n currently stands?Assessed property values are
floodway...As a result,flood water beemdaries incensed sagnificanty on all very low for the parcels directly to the east of the airprrt.I don't know enough to
propetles east of the airport...affecting shout 160 acres more understand if they we talking about properties further east were the floodway extends
beyond the FIRM map or not.Please reference the 100-year Flood Maps.
Page 7.paragraph According to FEM A,any fill into a floodway is to be avoided as it will This should not be a deal breaker.We are willing to wait longer for the right solution.
2.3 result in an increase to die Base Flood Elevation,stipulated on the FIRM This process is not as lengthy as DOT implies.
snap....This impact would require a LOMR procem to revise the Flood
base Elevation rat the FIRM map...This process to lengthy and will impact
forth there project xhedule and budget
Page 7,paragraph 3 Public approval may be difficult cult to achieve as the final result may be an Who?Man land tanned.Likely not difficult
increase in flood protection rafts for affected property owners.
Page ll,paragraph 4 FAA 1050.1 F Desk Reference also references factors to consider when 'Unacceptable"is subjective.Unacceptable to who?Current land use and potential
assessing impacts on a Iloodplain s natural and beneficial values.Most Rittae use should drive this consideratioa.Even as things currently stand,the'affected'
notably,'would the proposed action or alternative one flow alterations properties are unusable.
that would result in unacceptable upstream a downstream flooding?'
Page 8,paragraph 7 Proposed actions that have a potential to result in impacts at a above these We accept these delays as a necessary part of the process.
defined Significance Thresholds require preparation of an Fnvironrnernal
Impact Statement(EIS)...Preparation of an EIS would result in a
significant delay le to project schedule.
Page 9,paragraph 2 thing agency moping,ADNR requested that construction activities not Who determined it would be difficult?Difficult or impossible?
impact river navigation.This may be difficult due to the river's location
next to the runway and the river diversion that will needed to place fill.
Page 9,paragraph 3 Construction activities associated with Alternative I.I,including placement Are there ways to mitigate these impacts?Who was present at this meeting,and are
of fill below OH W level it the river will disrupt coining rub habitat... minutes available?Can the Fist and Cane representatives expand upon limit
Alaska'Department of Fish and Game stated at the Agency Scoping recomsnendat ins?
nsedisg(March 2017)that they prefer Alterative 2.2,as it het less impacts
on the fish.
Page 9,paragraph 4 While federal standards allow the base flood elevation to Increase op to 1 In this case,based on the minimal impact to usable land,the City of Seward will easily
foot in a regulatory floodway...,the Kenai Peninsula Borough(KPB) issue the necessary flood permits.
ordinance(Tale 21,Chapter 21.06)does not allow any increase.Although
the City of Seward is the flood permitting agency for this project,their
negotiations mimic the KPB's regulations.It say not be possible to obtain a
flood pewit
Page 9,paragraph 5 The Corps of Engineers(COE)is required to authorize the least The City of Seward sod its residents do not consider the impacts of Alternative 2.2 on-
environmentally damaging practicable a/tersrtive.While Alternative 2/ the wetlands and sensitive bird habitat to be insignificant We would like this fact and
affects more wetlands,the COE will consider another alternative if it is the public use(Willis space to be weighted heavily In the assessment of alternatives.
more practicable.
Page 9,paragraph 6 Current staff experienced difficulty this past winter just maintaining snow Could DOT contract with the city for saw removal and other maintenance activities to
-Page 10, removal at the sipor...There is eat a nunaed maintenance station is reduce costs?
paragraph 2 Seward which makes msi lainmg the airport more cumbersome...
Elimitntloa of Runway 13/1 I and Texivrey I would reduce regular
maintenance costs at the■sport by about 25%.
Page 10,paragraph Some(pilaf)noted that occasional winter winds prevent than from using Winter storms are a likely lime roads are unsafe and the need for an airport would be
3 Runway 16/34. greater.
Page I I,paragraph The Seward Highway,the airport access road and the Alaska Railroad all These conditions already exist.They will be improved with Alternative 1.1.What is
2 bisect the center of the Runway Protection Zone(RPZ)fur Runway 13.Both specific FAA guidance about ullowabiliry of roads and raihsmds?(I don't know enough
rail cars and passenger vehicles currently penetrate the Approach Surface about aviation to know how big a safety concern this is)
for Ranway 31,aerating a safety hazard.New FAA guidance indicates that
all innprovemenK incksdln6 raiboads and roads,should be removed from
RP!s whenever feasibk.Selection of A ternative 1.1 does not improve this
situation much.Raising the runway will reduce the penetrations but likely
will not eliminate than.
-
1- Seward Airport Improvements Appendix B
Environmental Assessment Alternatives Dropped from Further Consideration
APPENDIX B
Alternatives Dropped from Further Consideration
Alternatives Dropped from Further Consideration are described in Section 4.1 of this
Environmental Assessment (EA). A description of preliminary alternatives dropped during the
scoping phase of the project can be found in the Scoping Report (available at
http://www.dot.alasks,gov/tree/sewardairaort/docuntentsshtml)•This appendix provides further
explanation for the elimination of Alternative 1.1 as described in Section 4.1.1 of this EA.
APPENDIX B ` ; r,,�i�. =t 1' „ �ti
ALTERNATIVES DROPPED FROM * E�,yy'�
FURTHER CONSIDERATION
N �\ � t
i ! () N'''y, 1' ly 1 1 . ' ''
P t
I l , 'I • ^tEe
Y
V i6 �. ii:lilinla
PM
.)/1
r°"`.,. Al
.. .. r ' ` -. a ..vim
�'11\1 ;. L
\
L. i • Alternative 1.1
Page B•t
-��- Seward Airport Improvements Appendix B B Seward Airport improvements Appendix
GC Environmental Assessment Alternatives Dropped from Further Consideration I Environmental Assessment Alternatives Dropped from Further Consideration I
Alternative 1.1 would reconstruct and raise Runway 13-31 above the 100-year flood level with impacts 1)considerable probability of loss of human life,2)likely future damage
2 feet of freeboard (per Executive Order,dated January 30,2015).The existing runway would associated with the encroachment that could be substantial in cost orextenr
remain at Its current length of 4,533 feet_Riprap would have been installed within the Resurrection including interruption of service on or loss of a vital transportation facility,and 3)
River to protect Runway 13-31.Taxiways B and C would have been reconstructed to match into a notable adverse Impact on"natural and beneficial floodplain values.'
Runway 13-31 raised profile and entrance Taxiways A.D,and E would have been reconfigured or
eliminated to comply with new FAA guidance. This guidance states that an alternative with a significant floodplain encroachment should not be
selected if a practicable alternative exists.Alternative 2.2 does nut qualify as a significant floodplain
Runway 13-31 is located adjacent to the Resurrection River.Modeling,using 2 feet of freeboard encroachment and would also allow for the eventual breaching of Runway 13-31,thereby restoring
above the 100-year flood level,showed up to a 4-foot increase in the base flood elevation(BFE) part of the original floodplain.
over portions of the upstream floodplain.The runway embankment was raised over 6 feet in some
areas with an overall average rise of 4.4 feet.This additional fill would result in a backing up of Furthermore,FAA Order 1050.1F provides the following Significance Threshold for Floodplains:
floodwaters onto an additional 159 acres of private, state, and native allotments along the
Resurrection River as compared to the No Build option or Alternative 2.2(Alternative 2.2 would The action would cause notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial
increase flooding on 22 acres,while reducing flooding on another 44 acres).Higher floodwater floodplain values.Natural and beneficial floodplain values are defined in
velocities produced by the river could result in increased erosion and Scour over time of the Paragraph 4.k of DOT Order 56.50.2,Floodploin Management and Protection.
proposed reinforced embankment.
Since this option produces fill into the regulatory floodway,a modification to the effective Flood Proposed actions that would result in impacts at or above these defined Significance Thresholds
insurance Rate Map(FIRM)and Floodway Map would be required.The associated Letter of Map require preparation of an EIS.
Revision (LOMR) would require extensive hydraulic analysis,would need to meet regulatory DOT Order 5650.2,paragraph 4.k states that natural and beneficial floodplain values include,but
requirements,and will require mitigation for affected property owners.This would Increase the are not limited to:natural moderation of floods,water quality maintenance,groundwater recharge,
cost of the project as well as the ultimate timeline for completion.The existing runway is currently fish.wildlife,plants,open space,natural beauty,scientific study,outdoor recreation,agriculture,
under weight restrictions,due to past flood damage,limiting the type of aircraft that can access the and forestry.The 1050.IF Desk Reference also references factors to consider when assessing
airport impacts on a floodplain's natural and beneficial values.Most notably,"would the proposed action or
alternative(s)cause flow alterations that would result in unacceptable upstream or downstream
Executive Order 11988"requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible,the long and Flooding?"
short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of the 100-year
Floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a The selection of Alternative 1.1 as the proposed action could therefore result in the need to prepare
practicable alternative".Alternative 1.1 maintains the portion of the existing airport which lies an EIS for this project as the potential floodplain impacts meet or exceed the Significance Threshold
within the regulatory floodway (sections of Runway 13-31 and Taxiway A). The location of
set for floodplains.
Runway 13-31 to the Resurrection River puts the runway at a greater risk of overtopping during a
major flood event,even aRer it is raised.At the very least,future maintenance and operation costs
associated with higher than expected flood levels would be a burden. The airport's use for
emergency services is crucial during flood events which could also impair highway travel.
To raise and reinforce Runway 13-31 would require placing riprap below the ordinary high water
mark of the Resurrection River.This has implications for fish habitat within the river as well as
navigability concerns for this braided river channel.'these potential impacts would require further
analysis if this alternative were carried forward into the EA.
DOT Order 5650 states that DOT agencies should ensure that proper consideration is given to
avoid and mitigate adverse floodplain impacts in agency actions.._"Alternative 1.1 has a much
greater impact to the floodplain than the No Build or Alternative 2.2.
Taken together,these considerations qualify the floodplain impacts associated with Alternative 1.1
as a significant encroachment on the floodplain, as defined in the following excerpt from
Section 14.2.1.1 of the 1015.1F Desk Reference:
As defined in DOT Order 5650.2,significant encroachment is an encroachment in a
floodplain that results in one or more of the following construction or flood-related
Page B-2 Page B-3
• Main Office (907) 224-4050
CITY OF SEWARD •
• Police(907)224-3338
Harbor(907)224-3138
P.O.Box 167 „ • . • Fire (907)224-3445
410 Adams Street 1(.I • City Clerk(907) 224-4046
Seward,Alaska 99664-0167 • Community Development(907) 224-4049
• Utilities (907)224-4050
• Fax (907) 224-4038
January 2,2019
Ms. Robin Reich,Public Involvement Coordinator
Solstice Alaska Consulting,Inc.
{ 2607 Fairbanks Street,Suite B
Anchorage,AK 99503
Re: City of Seward Alaska,Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment for improvements to
the Seward Airport. (Project#Z548570000)
Dear Ms. Reich
The City of Seward is pleased to provide the following comments on the Draft Environmental
Assessment for improvements to the Seward Airport. We would like to thank the Alaska
Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration for their attention to this
critical infrastructure element to the southern Kenai Peninsula. We appreciate the openness and
thoroughness of the process. We do,however,have concerns and would like to see changes to
the plan.
As we discussed,the community would prefer a 4,000-foot runway over the currently proposed
3,300-foot runway. The proposed length of the new runway is entirely consistent with rules and
regulations that may work effectively in the lower 48 states. However,we would make the case
that strict compliance with these regulations would turn a blind eye to the unique nature of
Alaska,the distance between communities,and the real potential for using aircraft as a primary
means of getting large numbers of people out of an area or supplies into a community. Limiting
the length of the runway would require relief flights of larger aircraft to utilize less fuel or less
cargo in order to operate at this airport. In the event of a true relief operation this would not be
efficient. It only makes sense to maximize the potential of infrastructure improvements when
they are under construction.
The current design calls for an eventual length of 4,000 to this runway. The land necessary for
such a length is also being acquired for this anticipated length. One of the statements made was
that to undertake the full 4,000-foot runway at this time would slow the project down due to the
CLOMR/LOMR process. At this point we are not convinced that these studies and revisions
will not be necessary with the current project length of improvements to 3,300 feet.
It would be unfortunate if due to the length limitation of the runway and its inability to utilize
larger aircraft that the airport did not meet its potential for current and future aircraft and thus
• become drastically underutilized. These anticipated improvements would not then be used
effectively and be put toward maximum benefit.
It is for these reasons that the City of Seward requests that the proposed improvements to the
Seward Airport include building the entire runway to 4,000.
We would also request a public hearing on this Environmental Assessment to allow for
additional comments on information contained within the assessment.
Again,we would like to thank the Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation
Administration for their commitment to this project and to the Seward community.
We look forward to the completion of this critical infrastructure project.
Sincerely
Jeff
im City Manager
Cc. Mayor David Squires and Seward City Council Members
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski
U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan
U.S. Representative Don Young
Alaska State Senator Peter Micciche
Alaska State Representative Ben Carpenter
Kenai Peninsula Borough Mayor Charles Pearce
Kenai Peninsula Borough Representative Ken Carpenter