HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-09 Harbor Commission PacketKENAI HARBOR COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 9, 2022 – 6:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY HALL
210 FIDALGO AVE., KENAI, AK 99611
*Telephonic/Virtual Information on Page 2*
http://www.kenai.city
1. CALL TO ORDER
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
c. Agenda Approval
2. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to ten (10) minutes per
speaker)
3. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes
per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
4. APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY
a. February 7, 2022…………………………………………………………………...Pg. 3
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion – Clean Harbors Survey Write-up………………………………….Pg. 6
b. Discussion – USACE Boat Ramp Dredging Permit Renewal………………Pg. 48
c. Discussion – HDR Bluff Stabilization Project 65% DDR received………….Pg. 61
7. REPORTS
a. Public Works Director
b. Commission Chair
c. City Council Liaison……………………………………………………………….Pg. 62
8. NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION – June 6, 2022
9. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
10. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
11. INFORMATION ITEMS
12. ADJOURNMENT
1
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84169494931 Meeting ID: 841 6949 4931 Password: 869207
OR Dial in by your Location: (253) 215-8782 or (301) 715-8592
Meeting ID: 841 6949 4931 Password: 869207
**PLEASE CONTACT US IF YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING**
MEGHAN – 907-283-8231 OR, LISA – 907-283-8236
2
KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 7, 2022 – 6:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CHAIR MIKE DUNN, PRESIDING
MEETING SUMMARY
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.
a. Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Dunn led those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance.
b. Roll Call
Roll was confirmed as follows:
Commissioners present: M. Dunn, C. Hutchison, B. N. Berga, B. Peters, D. Peck,
Askin, B. Bornemann
Commissioners absent: None
Staff/Council Liaison present: Public Works Director S. Curtin, Public Works Administrative
Assistant L. List, Council Liaison H. Knackstedt
A quorum was present.
c. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Commissioner Peters MOVED to re-appoint Chair Dunn; Commissioner Berga SECONDED the
motion. UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested.
VOTE: There being no objections, SO ORDERED.
Commissioner Peters MOVED to re-appoint Vice-Chair N. Berga; Commissioner Hutchison
SECONDED the motion. UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested.
VOTE: There being no objections, SO ORDERED.
d. Agenda Approval
MOTION:
Commissioner Peck MOVED to approve the agenda as written. Commissioner Hutchison
SECONDED the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
2. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT – None.
3. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT – None.
3
____________________________________________________________________________________
Harbor Commission Meeting Page 2 of 3
February 7, 2022
4. APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY
MOTION:
Commissioner Hutchison MOVED to approve the regular meeting summary of November 8, 2021.
Commissioner Peters SECONDED the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
MOTION:
Commissioner Bornemann MOVED to approve the special meeting summary of January 11, 2022,
and Commissioner Peters SECONDED the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion/Recommendation – FY23-27 Capital Improvement Plan
MOTION:
Commissioner Hutchison MOVED to recommend the Kenai City Council approve the City of Kenai
Fiscal Year 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Peters SECONDED the motion.
Public Works Director Curtin provided a background on the development of the FY2023-2027
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), noting that there are approximately $100 million worth of projects
identified within it. He noted that $28.1 million was recently awarded to the City for the bluff
stabilization project, which will go towards the majority of the projects identified in the General
Fund. He explained that the majority of funds are focused in the Airport, Water/Sewer, and General
Funds, and provided further detail on some of the other major projects identified in the CIP. He
noted that every City department and some commissions participated in the development of the
CIP, and that it will be a great asset for our City to help direct funding towards our highest priorities.
Director Curtin provided clarification that the CIP will create debt for the City, and a large portion
of the projects will be covered by grants and other funds.
Commissioners inquired about dredging the harbor, and Director Curtin explained the logistics and
cost of dredging the harbor and suggested looking at some alternative solutions such as floating
docks. It was requested that dredging be put on the 2025 Capital Improvement Plan, and Director
Curtin suggested a tour of the river and committed to sharing concerns with the Administration.
VOTE:
YEA: Dunn, Bornemann, Hutchison, Peck, Peters, Berga, Askin
NAY:
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. REPORTS
a. Public Works Director – Director Curtin provided further detail on Capital
4
____________________________________________________________________________________
Harbor Commission Meeting Page 3 of 3
February 7, 2022
Improvement Projects.
b. Commission Chair – Chair Dunn thanked Director Curtin and the commission.
c. City Council Liaison – Council Member Knackstedt noted that the roads are being
plowed well, discussed river dredging and reported on the actions of the February
2, 2022 City Council meetings.
8. NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION – March 7, 2022
Chair Dunn noted that the next regular meeting was scheduled for March 7, 2022, but that
meeting was canceled and that date will be used for a City Council work session. He noted that
if the need arises, a Harbor Commission special meeting may be called for later in March. If not,
the next regular meeting will be on April 11, 2022.
9. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
Commissioner Peck thanked Public Works and Streets Department for their good job of plowing
the City.
Commissioner Hutchison thanked Public Works and Streets Department for their good job of
plowing the City.
Commissioner Askin asked to pursue dredging and other possibilities, and consideration of a
floating dock.
Vice Chair Berga inquired about when the Airport Runway project began.
Commissioner Peters noted the good work by City employees and commended the lack of debt of
the City.
Commissioner Bornemann expressed appreciation of City employees and the road maintenance
crew.
10. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT - None
11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
approximately 7:42 p.m.
Meeting summary prepared and submitted by:
_____________________________________
Meghan Thibodeau
Deputy City Clerk
5
Funding for this project was provided by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation with support from Alaska Sea Grant
Statewide Clean Boating Survey and Outreach
2022 Report
Prepared February 2022 for:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
and
Alaska Sea Grant
By:
Tav Ammu
Alaska Sea Grant Fellow
17515 Ninilchik, Ak 99683
tammu@alaska.edu
6
2 | P a g e
Acknowledgments: This project was completed under coordination between the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation and the Alaska Sea Grant. Without the support of Sarah Apsens and Ginny
Eckert this project would not have been possible. We also appreciate all the Native Organizations and
Fishing Organizations that shared links and information to their respective communities: Bristol Bay
Economic Development Corporation, Bristol Bay Native Association, Ninilchik Traditional Council, Alaska
Federation of Natives, Sea Alaska, Upper Cook Inlet Drift Association, Alaska Longline Fishermen’s
Association, Bristol Bay Fishermen’s Association, Young Fisherman’s Association, Alaska Fishermen’s
Network, Alaska Marine Conservation Council, United Fishermen of Alaska, Cordova District Fishermen
United, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen’s Association, Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association,
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies, Salmon State, Trout Unlimited,
Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership, Southeast Alaska Dive Fisheries Association, Alaska Salmon
Alliance, Kenai Watershed Forum, Cook Inletkeeper, Sierra Club and many others. We are also grateful for
the news organizations that shared the information about the surveys: KDLG, KDLL, Anchorage Daily News,
Fish Radio, Reel Times, and Kodiak Daily Mirror. Much appreciation for River City Books and the Homer
Brewing company for the donations of space and goods.
This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States EPA under assistance agreement
number AA-01J87401 to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. The contents of this
document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the EPA, nor does EPA endorse trade names or
recommend the use of commercial product mentioned in this document.
The views or opinions shared in this write-up belong to the survey participants or the author of this
report and do not reflect the opinions of ADEC or Alaska Sea Grant.
Cover Photograph: Homer Harbor
7
3 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Methods .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Results ............................................................................................................................................................... 12
Harbor Staff .................................................................................................................................... 12
Community Members .................................................................................................................... 17
Harbor Users .................................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix 1- Harbor Staff Survey Results ......................................................................................................... 42
Appendix 2- Community Members Survey Results ......................................................................................... 57
Appendix 3- Harbor Users Survey Results ....................................................................................................... 65
8
4 | P a g e
Tables and Figures
Table 1. Groups and organizations reached out to that were willing to spread the surveys to their communities ___9
Figure 1: Graph from Great Alaskan Sportsman Survey, 2015, Conducted by Cook Inletkeeper ____ _____________7
Figure 2. Flyers used in different communities to encourage participation in surveys _______________________ 10
Figure 3: How many boats/boaters use your harbor throughout the year? ____________________ ____________11
Figure 4: What resources are available to properly dispose of human waste in your harbor? __________________12
Figure 5: What are the biggest concerns for boater pollution in your harbor? ____________________ _________13
Figure 6: Which facilities do you think would assist in proper/better sewage disposal in your harbor? __________13
Figure 7: What are the best ways to communicate with boaters? ______________________________ _________14
Figure 8: How do you currently communicate with harbor users? _____________________________ __________14
Figure 9: Map of the locations of Community Members survey participants. Different colors of circles represent the
different amount of participants in each location _______________________________ ____________________16
Figure 10: In your opinion, what are the biggest pollution concerns in your harbor? _______________ _________17
Figure 11: Only Ninilchik participants __________________________________________________ ___________18
Figure 12: Only Dillingham participants_____________________________________________________ _______18
Figure 13: What resources are available to properly dispose of human waste in your harbor? _______ _________19
Figure 14: Question 3- Only Ninilchik participants ____________________________________________________20
Figure 15: Question 3- Only Dillingham participants __________________________________________ _______20
Figure 16: Question 4- Do you consider human waste (blackwater) to be an issue in the harbor? ____ __________21
Figure 17: Question 4- Only Ninilchik participants ____________________________________________________22
Figure 18: Question 4- Only Dillingham participants __________________________________________________22
Figure 19: Map of the locations of Harbor Users survey participants. Different colors of circles represent the different
amount of participants in each location ____________________________________________________24
Figure 20: Question 4- What are the biggest pollution concerns in your harbor? ___________________________25
Figure 21: Question 4- Only Ninilchik participants ____________________________________________________26
Figure 22: Question 4- Only Dillingham participants__________________________________________________26
Figure 23: Question 5- Do you consider human waste (blackwater) to be an issue in the harbor? ______________27
Figure 24: Question 5- Only Ninilchik participants____________________________________________________28
Figure 25: Question 5- Only Dillingham participants__________________________________________________28
Figure 26: Question 6- Which sewage management system do you currently use on your boat?_______________29
Figure 27: Question 6: Ninilchik participants only____________________________________________________30
Figure 28: Question 6: Dillingham participants only __________________________________________________30
Figure 29: Question 7- Which resources are available to properly dispose of human waste in your harbor?______31
Figure 30: Question 7: Ninilchik participants only____________________________________________________32
Figure 31: Question 7: Dillingham participants only___________________________________________________32
Figure 32: Question 8- What facilities do you think would assist in proper/better sewage disposal in your harbor?_34
Figure 33: Question 8: Ninilchik participants only____________________________________________________35
Figure 34: Question 8: Dillingham participants only ___________________________________________________36
Figure 35: Question 10- What are the best ways to communicate with boaters?____________________________38
Figure 36: Question 10: Ninilchik participants only___________________________________________________39
Figure 37: Question 10: Dillingham participants only_________________________________________________39
9
5 | P a g e
Summary
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) teamed with Alaska Sea Grant to
create a Fellowship tasked with exploring existing marine vessel sewage management practices, identifying
approaches to encourage compliance with federal and state regulations, reminding boaters of their existing
options, and piloting a new sewage management approach in one harbor or fishing ground. The timeline for
these tasks were from May 2021 to June 2022. The project was developed due to concern raised by
communities regarding improper sewage disposal in small harbors and large fishing grounds. Originally it
was intended to focus the surveys to the Ninilchik community and harbor users, as there is no harbormaster
or entity in charge of enforcing rules at the harbor. The survey also focused on Dillingham harbor, as that is
the location where the Fellow fishes and the harbormaster is very involved and interested in proper waste
management practices. After initial undertaking the decision was made to expand the focus to the rest of
Alaska. Surveys were created to better understand the opinions of communities regarding the state of
pollution in their harbor.
Three different surveys were developed: Harbor Staff, Community Members, and Harbor Users. The
Harbor Staff survey was designed to determine current sewage pump-out use, infrastructure needs, and
potential barriers to pump-out use. For the Community Members’ survey, the underlying goal was to
determine if people perceived proper sewage management to be an issue in their local harbor and if it was a
concern, what would be the best ways to address it. The survey directed at Harbor Users was created to
identify current sewage handling practices, factors needed to utilize more environmentally responsible
practices, and which options are viable or desirable.
The questions covered similar topics and themes for all three surveys, but the scope of the
questions varied based on the audience. The surveys covered both qualitative (non-numerical) and
quantitative (numerical) research questions. Both data sets will be explored in more detail in the Results
section. Interviews were also conducted either via phone calls or in-person. During these interviews,
participants had the opportunity, if they wanted, to converse without the surveys and to address issues they
felt were most important. These interviews have
been incorporated in this report using quotation
marks.
To encourage as wide a spread of responses as
possible the surveys were shared through a variety of
means. With the help of local media outlets, such as
KDLG in Dillingham, KDLL on the Kenai Peninsula, and
Alaska Fish Radio throughout Alaska, the word was
spread both online and on the radio. Multiple fishing
organizations (UCIDA, ALFA, UFA, BBFA, etc), Native
Organizations (NTC, BBEDC, BBNA, etc), and
Conservation Organizations (Cook Inletkeeper, Ak
Marine Conservation Council, etc) shared links to the
surveys via social media and/or their newsletters.
Several surveys were conducted over the phone or in
person at different harbors. The Harbor Staff survey was
conducted in person at the annual conference for the Alaska
Tav Ammu, Julie Matweyou, and
Gabe Dunham at the PME, Seattle
10
6 | P a g e
Association of Harbormasters and Port Administrators (AAHPA) October 24-29, 2021. Because COVID was a
concern, the opportunity to conduct large group outreach and surveys was limited but did occur at the 2021
Pacific Marine Expo (PME) in Seattle.
At the end of the survey there had been 86 Harbor User participants, 99 Community Member
participants, and 28 Harbor Staff participants. The majority of Harbor Users (71%) believed that ‘Routine
small spills/leaks’ was the biggest pollution concern in their harbor (Figure 20). ‘Improper sewage disposal’
was 4th on the list at 48% of those surveyed. In a later question, 47% of participants thought that sewage
was not an issue in their harbor, compared to 45% who thought that it was an issue (Figure 23). Of those
surveyed, the highest amount 33% used a ‘honey bucket’ as their main form of restroom onboard (Figure
26).
To encourage proper/better sewage disposal, 77% of participants thought that more ‘signs on the
rules/regulations about sewage’ would help (Figure 35). The next highest score (40%) was ‘more/better
onshore restroom facilities’ (Figure 35). Many Harbor Users were skeptical about filling out surveys,
therefore a concerted effort was made to communicate either in person or on the phone. The
conversations generally communicated the important topics from the survey but were also free-form and
open to cover any issues not included in the survey. During interviews, if the Harbor User was not
interested in conducting a survey then the information was not included in the final results, if however, they
were open to including their responses, that information was inputted into the survey in the appropriate
section.
The Community Members that participated in the survey had some similar opinions to the Harbor
Users. The Community Members also believed that ‘Routine small spills/leaks’ were the biggest pollution
concern (68%) (Figure 10). ‘Improper sewage disposal’ was 3rd on the list at 52% of those surveyed (Figure
10). In a later question, 45% of participants considered sewage to be an issue in their harbor, compared to
35% that did not think it was an issue (Figure 16).
Like the other two surveyed groups, the Harbor Staff also considered ‘Routine small spills/leaks’ to
be the biggest pollution concern in their harbor (75%) (Figure 5). Second place was ‘Discharge of dirty bilge
water’ (68%) and third was ‘Improper sewage disposal’ (54%) (Figure 5). ‘Pump-out stations’ were available
at 58% of the harbors, while ‘restrooms/outhouses’ were available at 81% of the harbors that participated in
the survey (Figure 4). Signs directing proper sewage disposal were available at 42% of the harbors. The
majority of harbormasters (52%) thought that having a mobile pump-out station would improve sewage
disposal (Figure 6). The facility considered to be the next most beneficial (48%) was to have ‘more/better
onshore restroom facilities’. 88% of Harbor Staff thought that ‘signs around the boat harbor’ were the best
way to communicate with boaters (Figure 7). The second best way was considered to be ‘face to face
communication’ at 72% (Figure 7).
All three groups (Harbor Users, Community Members, and Harbor Staff) considered improper
sewage disposal to be an issue as indicated by approximately 50% of the participants (Figures 20, 10, 5).
During interviews several individuals expressed skepticism about whether more pump-out stations (facilities
that suck sewage out of a boat’s holding tanks) would significantly contribute to better wastewater
management practices. The majority of participants thought that the best way of communicating
information about proper sewage disposal were signs around the boat harbor followed by face-to-face
communication (Figures 35 & 7).
11
7 | P a g e
Introduction
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation teamed up with the Alaska Sea Grant to address
concern raised by a community member about the condition of Ninilchik Harbor. As Ninilchik Harbor has
shared jurisdiction between the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), as well as no Harbormaster, there has been no single point of contact for issues or
concerns.
Most harbors have a harbormaster that is the focal point for ensuring harbors are clean and safe. One
of the nationally recognized standards for ensuring harbors are maintained is through the Alaska Clean
Harbors Program (known in the lower 48 as the “Clean Marinas” program). This program is an optional
certification that stems from following certain Best Management Practices (BMPs) aimed at seven key areas.
Initially a harbor pledges to become a Clean Harbor, then over a period of time, that harbor demonstrates
that they are abiding by the BMPs. Some examples of the expectations in the BMPs are to “provide
adequate trashcans or dumpsters” as well as “prohibit discharge of untreated human and pet waste within
the harbor basin and grounds”. After proving that these practices and others are being followed, the
harbor’s application is reviewed by the Alaska Clean Harbors Advisory Committee. As Ninilchik does not
have a harbormaster, the opportunity to follow these Best Management Practices is much more
complicated.
To better understand the scope of opinions about the state of the harbor the three different surveys
were created and distributed. Those users that are in the vicinity of each harbor are the best sources for
information about the state/condition of the harbor. Therefore, communicating with as many Harbor Users
and Community Members as possible in any given area would improve the data points and have a better
overall understanding of the status of harbors around the state.
A survey conducted by
Cook Inletkeeper in 2015
focused on sewage
handling by recreational
boaters and the best
methods of
communicating rules and
regulations. Using this
survey as a background
guide, ADEC and Alaska
Sea Grant worked
together to develop the
questions most pressing
for harbors.
Figure 1: Graph from Great Alaskan Sportsman Survey, 2015, Conducted by Cook Inletkeeper
Lord, R. (2015). 2015 Great Alaska Sportsman's Show Survey. Anchorage; Alaska.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Why don't you use pumpouts?
12
8 | P a g e
Methods
The ADEC and Alaska Sea Grant worked together to create survey questions that fulfilled certain
goals. For the surveys directed at Harbor Users, these questions were aimed at determining current sewage
handling practices, factors needed to utilize more environmentally responsible practices, and which options
are viable or desirable. The surveys directed at Harbor Staff were aimed at determining current pump-out
use, infrastructure needs, and potential barriers to pump-out use. While creating the surveys we decided a
third survey, directed at Community Members, would help get a more thorough understanding of perceived
issues by the community at large. Because the focus of the survey was explicitly about sewage and proper
waste management, we encouraged directing the conversation towards these issues but also were open to
discussing other topics that participants deemed important.
During the creation of the survey, it was decided to expand the breadth of the surveys to the rest of
Alaska instead of solely focusing on Ninilchik and Dillingham. Having a baseline of information about
different harbors and communities would allow different organizations to better allocate resources to areas
that were both in need of and amenable to assistance to prevent or reduce harbor pollution.
After the commercial fishing season concluded in Dillingham, July 2021, an in-person preliminary
survey was given to fishermen to better gauge thoughts and opinions on the formatting, phrasing and
overall questions. After talking with eight fishermen, the survey was re-organized and changed to reflect
those suggestions. Multiple fishermen expressed reluctance to discuss issues due to a distrust of
government, distrust of surveys or because of other reasons. Therefore, whenever possible a face-to-face
discussion was offered in an informal setting.
One method of outreach that was initiated in Ninilchik was physically going door to door. As this
method was perceived as intrusive and relatively ineffective, the approach was redirected to cold-calling via
phone. Harbor Users were the hardest group to obtain input from, therefore effort was made to
communicate directly with them. Phone numbers of Harbor Users were
mostly received from local conservation groups (Cook Inletkeeper) or
fishing organizations (UCIDA). Willing interviewees would frequently
share phone numbers of other Harbor Users that they thought would be
open to talking. These interviews had the option of following the format
of the surveys and the information being inputted by the interviewer, or,
were informally conducted and allowed the interviewee to direct the
conversation. If the free-flowing conversations discussed sewage directly
those results were added to the survey by the interviewee in the
appropriate section and if the conversation drifted into a different area
that information was inputted into the open-ended portions of the survey.
Despite COVID concerns there were some opportunities to meet
with a decent number of Harbor Users and Community Members in
person. Every year Alaska Sea Grant has a booth at the Pacific Marine
Expo (PME) in Seattle. At this year’s expo in November 2021, flyers were
placed with QR codes on a pedestal with free swag to entice filling out the
survey on an available iPad, or their own personal smartphones. As many Alaskan fisherfolk and community
members attend the PME there was a good amount of outreach.
Alaska Sea Grant Fellow Tav
Ammu at River City Books,
Soldotna
13
9 | P a g e
In Soldotna, space was given at River City Books. Those who filled out the survey had their names
put into a hat and winners that were drawn had a book donated to them by the bookstore. Homer Brewing
Company offered space, as well as the same system as River City Books but donated beers instead of books.
To cast as wide a net as possible our outreach focus also used social media and online outreach. We
published a blog post on the Alaska Sea Grant and ADEC websites as well as the ADEC twitter account. The
information was also included in Alaska Sea Grant’s monthly Fishlines newsletter. From there we were able
to share that blog post (and surveys) with news outlets, fishing organizations, social media in particular
communities, and Native organizations (Table 1). Distributing and posting flyers (Figure 2) with QR codes
that linked to surveys in shops, at holiday bazaars, and other gathering spaces such as libraries or
community centers throughout communities on the Kenai Peninsula and Dillingham was one way of
minimizing face-to-face interactions but encouraging participation.
Native Organizations Fishing or Conservation Groups News Organizations
United Tribes of Bristol Bay Upper Cook Inlet Drift Association KDLG
Bristol Bay Native Association Alaska Long Line Fishermen’s Association KDLL
Ninilchik Traditional Council Bristol Bay Fishermen’s Association ADN
Alaska Federation of Natives Young Fishermen of Alaska Fish Radio
Ahtna Alaska Fishermen’s Network Reel Times
Sealaska Alaska Marine Conservation Council Kodiak Daily Mirror
Bering Straits United Fishermen of Alaska Pacific Fishing Magazine
Calista Cordova District Fishermen United
Chugach Alaska Corporation Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association
CIRI
Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development
Association
Doyon Limited Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
NANA Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies
Aleut Corporation Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association
Bristol Bay Economic Development
Corporation Salmon State
Trout Unlimited
Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership
Alaska Salmon Alliance
Sierra Club
Kenai Watershed Forum
AK Center
Cook Inletkeeper
Table 1. Groups and organizations reached out to that were willing to spread the surveys to their
communities
14
10 | P a g e
Figure 2. Flyers used in different communities to encourage participation in surveys
15
11 | P a g e
Results
Harbor Staff
The Harbor Staff survey was conducted in person during the Alaska Association of Harbormasters
and Port Administrators (AAHPA) annual meeting in Anchorage on October 26, 2021. There were 18
Harbormasters or Harbor Staff that took the survey live and responses were broadcast onto a projector that
was shared immediately with all in attendance. One of the Harbormasters that didn’t attend the annual
meeting had a booth at the Pacific Marine Expo in Seattle and took the survey at that time. After the annual
conference, calls and emails with links to the survey were sent to the remaining 27 Harbormasters that are a
part of the AAHPA. In total 28 Harbormasters or Harbor Staff took the survey. No interviews were
conducted in person or over the phone for the Harbor Staff therefore all data that was accrued came from
the surveys themselves. As anonymity was accepted to encourage a more open and honest discussion, 12
of the 28 Harbor Staff did not indicate which harbor they were a part of.
The vast majority of harbors took in ‘Greater than 200 boats’ throughout the year. The Harbor Staff
participant that chose ‘Other’ stated that they harbor more than 1500 throughout the year (Figure 3).
Figure 3: How many boats/boaters use your harbor throughout the year?
16
12 | P a g e
81% of Harbor Staff participants said that ‘Outhouse/restroom facilities’ were available in their harbor
(Figure 4). The second highest were ‘Pump-out station(s)’ at 58% and third was ‘Signs directing proper
sewage disposal’ at 42% (Figure 4). The two comments under ‘No resources are available’ mentioned that
the “Pump out cart is in very poor condition” or that this question was “not applicable” to them.
Figure 4: What resources are available to properly dispose of human waste in your harbor?
17
13 | P a g e
The biggest concern for most Harbor Staff
was ‘Routine small spills/leaks’ at 75%. The second
biggest concern was ‘Discharge of dirty bilge water’
at 68%. In third place was ‘Improper sewage
disposal’ at 54% (Figure 5).
52% of Harbor Staff thought that ‘A mobile
pump-out station’ would be the best thing to
improve sewage disposal in their harbor. The
second highest choice (48%) was ‘More/better
onshore restroom facilities’. The next two highest
scoring options were tied at 44%, ‘A stationary
sewage pump-out station’ and ‘Signs on
rules/regulations on sewage disposal’ (Figure 6).
Figure 5: What are the biggest concerns for boater pollution in your harbor?
Figure 6: Which facilities do you think would assist in proper/better sewage
disposal in your harbor?
18
14 | P a g e
The following survey question was “Would a permanent or temporary pump-out station benefit your
harbor? Why or why not?”. 24 of the 28 Harbor Staff answered this question and 17% of those that did
respond had ambiguous answers that were hard to decipher. 46% of the Harbor Staff that responded said
“Yes” in one form or another. Some participants mentioned how currently, harbor users “have to either go
far offshore to pump out, or request a pump truck to come down”, or that it would benefit the “large
seasonal fishing fleet”. Some thought a pump-out station could be beneficial if it was done with a fee. 36%
of the Harbor Staff participants answered “No”. Some said so because “We already have 3 permanent
stations, and are adding a 4th” or “it’s not
really a problem”. If the “No” answer was
expanded upon it was frequently explained
because pump-out stations were already
present in the harbor.
88% of the participants considered ‘Signs
around the boat harbor’ to be the best
method to communicate with boaters. The
second best (72%) was deemed to be ‘Face
to face communication; and tied for third at
44% were ‘Radio public service
announcements’ and ‘Online information’
(Figure 7). This was a surprising outcome
because, as can be seen in Figure 4, only 42%
of Harbor Staff participants said there were
currently ‘Signs directing proper sewage
disposal’.
92% of Harbor Staff participants
currently communicate ‘In person in the
office’ or ‘In person on the docks’. Only 61% of
the participants communicated ‘Indirectly
through signs’ (Figure 8). This is again a bit
unexpected, because as signs were considered
to be the best form of communication, one
would assume it would have a higher response.
Those that selected ‘Other’ included several
options that were overlooked by the survey.
For example, “texting”, “flyers” and
“newsletters” were three other ways to
communicate with boaters that were
mentioned by participants.
The subsequent survey question was “Is
your harbor certified or pledged as an Alaska
Clean Harbor? Why or why not?” 21 of the 28
participants answered this question. Of
those 21 that answered, 33% said “Yes”,
Figure 7: What are the best ways to communicate with boaters?
Figure 8: How do you currently communicate with harbor users?
19
15 | P a g e
that they were either certified or pledged to work towards becoming certified. 43% were neither certified,
nor pledged. 14% of those that participated in this question were unsure if they were either certified or
pledged as an Alaska Clean Harbor and 10% said that this question was not applicable to them. Those that
said “Yes”, mentioned that it was the right thing to do. Some of the participants that answered “No” were
unsure why that was the case, others thought that “some of the criteria is unattainable”. A participant that
was unsure about whether they were pledged or certified stated that they “never get too many complaints
of dirty bilge in the harbor”.
The next survey question directed at Harbor Staff was “What mitigation actions or best practices do you
currently use to combat boater pollution?” Several Harbor Staff participants mentioned having free pump-
out facilities as well as waste-oil collection points. Communication through a variety of means, flyers, in
person, signs at every ramp, were also considered important reminders to educate the boating community.
Multiple participants mentioned fines as being a useful tool to deter pollution. One participant talked of
following marine best practices, which is also information shared by the Alaska Clean Harbors program. Two
participants mentioned having established policies that have different requirements for live-aboards versus
those that are just in for a short time.
There were a variety of responses when the survey asked Harbor Staff participants “What mitigation
actions would you like to employ to combat boater pollution but do not currently? What barriers are
preventing implementation?” Some participants mentioned being able to offer more varieties of disposal.
Others wanted a greater number of cameras in order to document which boats and people are polluting.
Increased funding, assistance from the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and education for boaters were
also important factors to combat boater pollution.
The final question in the Harbor Staff survey was open to discuss any comments or suggestions about
boating and sewage management in Alaska. One participant brought up the Clean Water Act and their
financial assistance for improvement to pump-out facilities and/or equipment. Another talked about their
concern with the contamination that can occur from grey water dumping, particularly that from large cruise
ships. In the United States, grey water (used water from sinks, showers, etc) is allowed to be dumped within
the three nautical mile limit from land, unlike black water (toilet water), which must be pumped beyond
three nautical miles from land. The final participant to answer this prompt encouraged the use of positive
reinforcement incentives for those that use pump-out stations or conduct clean practices.
20
16 | P a g e
Community Members
Figure 9 shows the locations of participants and the harbor they are nearest to. Community
members were the largest group of participants (99) and of this group 1/3 of them (33) were from the
Homer area. There were also 18 participants from Ninilchik and 14 from Dillingham. As these were the
main focal areas for the survey this was not particularly surprising. Fortunately, all the participants in the
survey were coastal with a harbor near their community. Because there was a good amount of Community
Member survey participants (99), no interviews were sought out specifically for this demographic but still
did occur, generally in a face-to-face setting. The results from those conversations were either included in
the applicable section of the survey or in the open-ended prompts at the end of the survey.
Figure 9: Map of the locations of Community Members survey participants. Different colors of
circles represent the different amount of participants in each location
21
17 | P a g e
‘Routine small spills/leaks’ were considered the biggest pollution concern overall by Community
Members (Figure 10). ‘Hazardous waste (such as solvents and antifreeze) discharges’ were thought to be
the second biggest pollution concern (Figure 10). ‘Improper sewage disposal’ was the third highest at slightly
over half of the participants (Figure 10). One of the possible choices that was not included but multiple
participants mentioned in the ‘Other’ category was improper disposal of trash, plastic and Styrofoam waste.
Figure 10: Question 2- In your opinion, what are the biggest pollution concerns in
your harbor?
22
18 | P a g e
These responses were very
different when only Dillingham or Ninilchik
participants were considered. Ninilchik
participants had very different appraisals
than did Dillingham (Figures 11 & 12
respectively). The biggest concern in
Ninilchik was ‘Hazardous waste discharges’
at 57%. The next two highest were tied at
50%, ‘Improper sewage disposal’ and ‘Fuel
spills’ (Figure 11). The degree of concern
for Ninilchik participants was substantially
lower than those in Dillingham. This was a
surprising outcome, because as this project
came about due to concern about the
state of Ninilchik harbor, it was anticipated
that a higher percentage of Community
Members would have picked some of
these prompts.
In Dillingham, 100% of
participants considered ‘Routine small
spills/leaks’ to be an issue (Figure 12).
85% of participants also believed that
‘Hazardous waste discharges’ and
‘Discharge of dirty bilge water’ were
tied for significance of concern (Figure
22). ‘ Improper sewage disposal’ was
less of a concern but still rather high,
77% (Figure 12). This is a good
example of how opinions of
participants can be very location
dependent. While the issues of
concern are still prevalent, the degree
of concern is very different between
the two areas (Figure 11 & 12).
Figure 12: Question 2- Only Dillingham participants
Figure 11: Question 2- Only Ninilchik participants
23
19 | P a g e
When all Community Member participants were surveyed, ‘Outhouses/restroom facilities’ were
widely considered to be available at harbors (61%), ‘pump-out stations’ (17%) were not (Figure 13). A large
portion of participants also were unaware of what resources were available (43%). 8% of participants chose
to elaborate on this question. Of those that chose to elaborate 25% wrote that although restrooms do exist
they are often locked and therefore unavailable. Another 25% commented that even though pump-out(s)
do exist at their harbor, they are in inconvenient location and therefore probably not used.
Figure 13: What resources are available to properly dispose of human waste in your harbor?
24
20 | P a g e
In Ninilchik and
Dillingham, these responses
were again quite different
(Figures 14 & 15). In the
Ninilchik Community, the
majority of participants (67%)
‘don’t know/not sure’ what
resources exist to dispose of
human waste in their harbor
(Figure 24). 22% of
participants did know that
‘Outhouses /restroom
facilities’ were available
(Figure 14).
The participants in
Dillingham once again had
very different responses. 94%
of Dillingham residents knew
that ‘Outhouses/restroom
facilities’ were available
(Figure 15). 21% ‘don’t
know/not sure’ what
resources were available
(Figure 15). 7% of participants
said that a ‘Pump-out station’
was available, although this is
not the case (Figure 15). One
participant mentioned that
“waste oil/fluids are accepted
at harbormaster offices” while
another one stated
“Restrooms couldn’t be
farther away from the highest
boat harbor traffic.”
Figure 14: Question 3- Only Ninilchik participants
Figure 15: Question 3- Only Dillingham participants
25
21 | P a g e
Overall, of the participants taking the Community Members survey, less than half of those surveyed
(45%) considered human waste to be an issue in the harbor (Figure 16). Several of the ‘Other’ answers
stated things such as, “I wouldn’t want to swim there”, “I didn’t think about it before but now it concerns
me” or simply, “not sure”. During face-to-face interviews, several participants repeated the idea that it
wasn’t a subject that they spent much amount of time concerned about but could be an issue.
Figure 16: Question 4- Do you consider human waste (blackwater) to be an issue in the harbor?
26
22 | P a g e
In Ninilchik, it was split
exactly evenly between those
that thought that human waste
was an issue and those that
thought it wasn’t (Figure 17).
Of those that put other, some
did not consider themselves
knowledgeable enough about
the subject to have an opinion,
but others thought it was
“worth a study and proactive
measures to avoid”.
In Dillingham, concern
about human waste being an
issue was significantly higher than the
participants from Ninilchik, as
well as the overall average
(Figures 16, 17, & 18). These
responses are quite different
than Ninilchik and once again
shows how opinions about the
state of the harbor can be
location dependent. During
one interview a participant
mentioned that they, as a
teacher, had planned on getting
mud and clay from the harbor
to be used in a school project
but other members of the staff
suggested she get the materials
from elsewhere. While their
decision to get mud and clay
from another source than the harbor was not
solely based on human waste, it was a
contributing factor.
The next question was “Would a permanent or temporary pump-out station benefit your harbor? Why
or why not?”. Participants got the opportunity to write in detail their thoughts on this subject. 60% of the
participants that answered this question said “Yes”, a permanent or temporary pump-out station would
benefit their harbor. The degrees of belief in efficacy of the pump-out station varied greatly. One person, a
diver, said that while diving approximately one mile away from the harbor they came across a large holding
tank being dumped. Had there been pump-out facilities available at the harbor, this large and illegal
discharge may not have occurred. Other participants talked about how current pump-out stations were in a
bad location and therefore underutilized.
Figure 18: Question 4- Only Dillingham participants
Figure 17: Question 4- Only Ninilchik participants
27
23 | P a g e
35% of participants said either “No” or “Not sure” about pump-out stations benefiting their harbor. Few
participants elaborated more on the subject but of those that did, one doubted that pump-out stations
would be used, another said that the ocean, through its tides, “pumps out the bilge”, while one stated that
there was no room to accommodate for a pump-out station, regardless of the benefit.
The remaining 5% answered in ways that were hard to decipher and were therefore put in the “other”
category. One participant responded with “I’m not an engineer but I’d appreciate a study”, and “the boats
use 5 gallon buckets”. While the latter may imply that a pump-out station is not necessary as boats do not
use them, it would be presumptuous to assume intention.
When narrowing the focus to particular locations, 71% of Ninilchik participants said “Yes”, again with
varying degrees of positive impact. Some mentioned that the more resources available, the more likely the
harbor would stay clean. Others saw that it could provide some benefit but were concerned about
vandalization or cost.
In Dillingham, 75% said “Yes”. While the positive characteristics of a pump-out station were noted,
several participants recognized that staffing and budget were constraints. The 25% of participants that said
“No”, had two reasons for saying so, most boats just use a 5-gallon bucket or old habits are hard to break.
At the end of the survey participants were given the opportunity to ‘provide us with any additional
comments or suggestions you have about boating and sewage management in Alaska.’ Of the 99
participants, 62 of them answered this question. Most were addressing issues specific to their community,
but some had general comments as well. One participant was surprised that there was not better
enforcement of regulations, “…in Cook Inlet... When it rains the whole yard looks like oil spill and it’s all
flowing to rivers. I don’t know how they don’t get fined or half (sic) to clean it up. But there’s a lot of things
wrong with Cook Inlet, I just think no one cares.” Another expressed concern, “how do you incentivize doing
the right, and more expensive thing when the free thing has an almost zero chance of getting caught and no
apparent impact to the ocean?” One participant pointed to the possibility of using port-o-potties as an
inexpensive and effective way of helping address sewage problems in harbors. This sentiment was shared
by another participant that thought blackwater sewage isn’t as much a concern in the ocean but “doesn’t
become an issue unless concentrated in the harbor”.
Multiple participants stated in one form or another that education was the most important vehicle
for change, advocating for educating harbor users and conducting radio public service announcements
about boating and sewage management. The need for “environmentally-responsible boating” was
addressed by one participant who thought that “placards or signage might help raise awareness… If enough
parties are aware of the environmental expectations, perhaps more accountability can be cultivated on a
person-to-person basis.” Many of the participants felt they were not educated on the subject, and therefore
didn’t want to speak about a topic they weren’t familiar with. Even so, several participants appreciated the
heightened awareness provided by participating in the survey.
28
24 | P a g e
Harbor Users
Figure 19 shows the locations of participants and the harbor they are nearest to. Harbor Users were
the largest group of participants (86). There were 15 participants from Ninilchik and 12 from Dillingham. As
these were the main focal areas for the survey this was not particularly surprising. Fortunately, all the
participants in the survey were coastal with a harbor near their community. As it was difficult getting
Harbor Users to take the survey, extra effort was made to call fishermen. The results from those
conversations were included in the applicable section of the survey or in the open-ended area at the end of
the survey. The data and graphs include the comprehensive results from interviews and individuals that
took the surveys themselves.
Figure 19: Map of the locations of Harbor Users survey participants. Different colors of circles
represent the different amount of participants in each location
29
25 | P a g e
The biggest concern for Harbor Users was ‘Routine small spills/leaks’ (71%) followed by ‘Fuel spills’
(52%) (Figure 20). ‘Improper sewage disposal’ was 4th overall with 48% of participants considering it a
pollution concern in their harbor (Figure 20). Some of the ‘Other’ responses included dog poop that isn’t
properly cleaned and that if a pump-out station isn’t working properly, that people don’t have time to wait
for repairs.
Figure 20: Question 4- What are the biggest pollution concerns in your harbor?
30
26 | P a g e
For Ninilchik Harbor Users,
the two biggest concerns were
also ’Routine small spills/leaks’
as well as ’Discharge of dirty
bilge water’ (both at 57%)
(Figure 21). However, in
Ninilchik the level of concern
was almost 25% lower than that
in Dillingham (Figures 21 & 22).
This was also the case with
Ninilchik’s third biggest
concern, ’Improper sewage
disposal’ (50%), again
approximately 25% lower than
Dillingham participants (Figure
21 & 22). Half of all the
Ninilchik participants selected
’Other ’. Some wrote about the
need for dumpsters or used oil
receptacles. Other participants wrote about
needing facilities for public safety, such as fire
suppression systems. While
interviewing fishermen in
Ninilchik, some stated that
pollution is getting better. As
each new generation of fisherfolk
come into the field, they
recognize the importance of not
participating in harmful practices
to sustain their livelihoods.
The two biggest concerns
for Dillingham Harbor Users were
tied at 83%: ’Routine small
spills/leaks’ and ’Discharge of
dirty bilge water’ (Figure 22). The
next two highest were ’Improper
sewage disposal’ at 67% and
’Improper soaps and detergents’
at 58% (Figure 22). These percentages show
that for over half of those surveyed that these
were major concerns. While conducting face-to-face conversations in Dillingham one fisherman talked about
his biggest concern being people cleaning fish in the harbor and dumping their carcasses or entrails directly
overboard.
Figure 21: Question 4- Only Ninilchik participants
Figure 22: Question 4- Only Dillingham participants
Figure 22: Question 4- Only Dillingham participants
31
27 | P a g e
Overall Harbor User participants were nearly split evenly whether sewage was an issue in the harbor
(Figure 23). In opposition to the Community Members survey, more Harbor Users thought it was not an
issue than thought it was (Figure 16 & 23).
Figure 23: Question 5- Do you consider human waste (blackwater) to be an issue in the harbor?
32
28 | P a g e
Ninilchik Harbor Users
concerns about human waste were
at higher percentages than the
overall results (Figure 24 & 23).
Interviewing those on the phone or
in person also showed two different
sides. Some were adamant that
people certainly dumped honey
buckets overboard or discharged
their heads and holding tanks
directly into the harbor. Others
were certain that people cared
about the environment, would
never dump directly into the
harbor, that they went home or to
the restrooms to do their business.
Some expressed dismay at the fact that the
permanent restrooms were 1/3 of a mile away
from the harbor and that although there used
to be dumpsters and port-o-potties
nearby to the harbor, they haven’t
been there in recent years.
In Dillingham, 50% of
participants thought that human
waste was an issue, while 42% did
not (Figure 25). The participant that
chose Other, stated that she/he had
not thought about it before but that
it could be an issue. Percentage-
wise, Dillingham and Ninilchik had
similar opinions (Figures 24 & 25).
Figure 25: Question 5- Only Dillingham participants
Figure 24: Question 5- Only Ninilchik participants
33
29 | P a g e
1/3 of Harbor User participants use a ‘honey bucket, 5-gallon bucket, or camp toilet’ (33%) (Figure
26). The next highest two results are tied at 26%: ‘A toilet/head with a Marine Sanitation Device (MSD)’ and
‘None of the above’ (Figure 26). Only 10% of participants said that they ‘have a MSD onboard but never use
it’ (Figure 26). While interviewing Harbor Users from Homer, one said that they go out for day trips and for
the most part never need to go # 2. Another said that, while his boat does have a head and MSD onboard,
after being on the water for the day he puts the boat on a trailer and takes it home. He drains his holding
tank and dumps it into his toilet in his home. He found that it is more efficient to dump his waste at home
because how rarely the MSD actually gets used and the time it takes to use a pump-out station due to the
lines that sometimes exist.
Figure 26: Question 6- Which sewage management system do you currently use on your boat?
34
30 | P a g e
Ninilchik Harbor Users had very
different results than the overall
opinions (Figure 27 & 26). The two
most common were ‘None of the
above’ and ’A toilet/head with a MSD’
(both at 36%) (Figure 37). Only two
participants use ’A honey bucket, 5-
gallon bucket, or camp toilet’ (14%)
(Figure 27). Some of the participants
wrote more on the survey to explain
their choice. One participant wrote
that they have a “18 gallon holding
tank”, another wrote, “I use it and
dump outside of 3nm”, while another
wrote “I have a head but don’t use it in
the harbor. I use the porta potty
provided by CICADA”. It seems that the
CICADA referred to is “Cook Inlet
Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse”. A follow
up with CICADA confirmed that they have
never provided porta potties.
Dillingham Harbor Users also had
very different results from both
Ninilchik Harbor Users and overall
Harbor Users (Figure 28, 27 & 26). 2/3
of all Harbor Users say they use ’A
honey bucket, 5-gallon bucket, or camp
toilet’ (67%) (Figure 28). Only one
participant in Dillingham stated that
they ’have a MSD onboard but never
use it’ (8%) (Figure 28). This is a
surprising result because when the
initial in-person survey with Harbor
Users in Dillingham was conducted,
over half of those interviewed (5)
stated that they had a MSD but didn’t
use it. One comment from the survey,
likely by a participant that chose ’None
of the above’ (25%), stated that they have a
skiff.
Figure 27: Question 6: Ninilchik participants only
Figure 28: Question 6: Dillingham participants only
35
31 | P a g e
The results from all Harbor Users shows that ’Outhouses/restroom facilities’ were stated as being
available over 2/3 of the time (68%) (Figure 29). ’Pump-out station(s)’ were only considered available less
than 1/3 of the time (32%) (Figure 29). The rest of the participants stated that ’No resources were available’
(17%) or they ’didn’t know/not sure’ (13%) (Figure 29).
Figure 29: Question 7- Which resources are available to properly dispose of human waste in your harbor?
36
32 | P a g e
The large majority of Harbor Users
in Ninilchik knew about the availability of
’Outhouses/restroom facilities’ (73%)
however those that stated ’No resources
are available’ (27%) were likely referring to
the locations and availability of the
restrooms (Figure 30). Several participants
wrote about that issue, “sometimes have
temporary toilets”, “used to be a nice
place, most people dump sewage directly
(into the harbor), outhouses sometimes but
the permanent one is too far”. Another
participant stated that the state “took port-
o-potties (and) dumpsters away, restrooms
closed”. One person that was interviewed
stated that most locals go to their homes
when their boat is in the harbor. They lock
up their boat and just drive home to wait for the
next opener. They therefore bring their garbage
home and use the bathrooms at home too. This participant said that, when the dumpsters and port-o-
potties existed by the harbor, locals made a point of not using them so that those without vehicles could.
Now that the dumpsters and port-o-potties are no longer provided, the harbor users from outside the state
must do something.
The spread of opinions for
Dillingham Harbor Users was much
different than in Ninilchik (Figure 30 &
31). 42% of participants recognized that
there are ’Outhouses/restroom facilities’
available, whereas the exact same
number of participants, believed that ’No
resources are available’ (42%) (Figure
31). This is a very surprising outcome of
this survey because there are certainly
permanent restrooms available that are
visible from every part of the harbor.
One participant also believed that
’Pump-out station(s)’ were available,
which is not accurate. It seems like the
results from these two categories, ’No
resources are available’ and ’Pump-out
station(s)’ would have been more
accurately depicted in the ’Don’t know/not
sure’ category. Similar to the Ninilchik situation, there are many Harbor Users that live in Dillingham and go
Figure 30: Question 7: Ninilchik participants only
Figure 31: Question 7: Dillingham participants only
37
33 | P a g e
home after pulling into the harbor. Therefore, they likely do not need or use the facilities at the harbor.
This could possibly account for the responses that indicate inaccurate information.
This was a contentious question for some survey takers because some believed that the phrasing of this
question was implying that something was wrong with their harbor and by answering it then they, the
Harbor User, was agreeing with that belief. During conversations, over the phone or in-person, there was a
concerted effort to assure this was not the case. That this question, and the survey in general, was aimed at
better understanding people’s opinions in order to facilitate proper waste management procedures. This
was not aimed at getting people or harbors in trouble but to better identify shortcomings and to encourage
ways of improvement.
Figure 32: Question 8- What facilities do you think would assist in proper/better sewage disposal
in your harbor?
38
34 | P a g e
For overall Harbor User participants, the option that got the highest responses was ’Signs on
rules/regulations on sewage disposal’ (47%) (Figure 32). This was encouraged during interviews as well,
even by those that only used harbors in passing. A lot of information was exchanged by passing down from
the older generation of fishermen to the younger. During one interview, a Harbor User in Homer
recommended that signs should be directed both at the entrance to the harbor for incoming boats, as well
as on shore for tourists or people arriving from land. The second highest response was ’More/better
onshore restroom facilities’ at 40% (Figure 32). Some participants that were interviewed mentioned that
just as important as having more restrooms was having them in the right location during the right season.
As many harbors in Alaska are only open during the summer season, having extra port-o-potties or extra
permanent facilities that are open during that time was considered to be equally important.
The vast majority (87%) of Ninilchik
Harbor User participants believed that
’More/better onshore restroom
facilities’ was the most important way
to improve sewage disposal in Ninilchik
(Figure 33). The next highest result was
’Other’ at 67% (Figure 33). One of the
comments from this was that
“Overcrowding is the big issue”. This
was a common opinion during
interviews with Ninilchik Harbor Users.
Many of those interviewed thought that
the root problem was overcrowding,
and that improper sewage disposal was
a symptom of that. The overcrowding
caused boats to tie up in less than ideal
locations and during low tides the
undredged areas would tilt the boats,
causing a variety of unfortunate
impacts. The overcrowding was also a
concern for safety. Should a fire occur, boats
would only be able to leave at high tide and
there are not fire suppression facilities near
the harbor. Two participants posted in the ’Other ’ selection included better messaging and information as
“a lot of people don’t understand the effects fecal matter can have”, either communicating this by “a person
talking to boat owners before the season or handing out fliers”. Several participants mentioned having a
dumpster (that is dumped), port-o-potties that are close to the harbor, and places to deposit used oil.
Figure 33: Question 8: Ninilchik participants only
39
35 | P a g e
Dillingham Harbor Users had very
different opinions than did Ninilchik ones
(Figures 34 & 33). ‘Signs’ were still
considered the most important
improvement (42%) for improving
sewage disposal in the harbor (Figure
34). The next three highest options were
all tied at 33% of participants thinking
these facilities could improve sewage
disposal, ’A stationary sewage pump-out
station’, ’A mobile pump-out station’, ’A
location for disposal of camp toilets (5-
gallon buckets)’ (Figure 34). During an
interview with a Harbor User in
Dillingham they mentioned the fact that
there is no reason for them to get a head
and an MSD onboard because there is no
pump-out station available to them. As
can be seen earlier in the survey, Figure
38, only 8% of those surveyed had heads
and MSDs. Therefore, there is the argument of
whether a pump-out station is warranted as so
few boats have the resources that require a pump-out station contrary to the argument that without a
pump-out station, there is no value in boats getting heads and MSDs.
The next question from the survey was “Would a permanent or temporary pump-out station benefit
your harbor? Why or why not?”. Of the 86 Harbor Users that took this survey, 78 answered this question.
Overall, 42% of Harbor Users responded with a version of “Yes”. One participant stipulated that “if there is
no enforcement it would not be worth it”. 45% of the participants stated “No” in one form or another.
Some were “happy with what we have”, or contrarily, “there are pump-outs, but nobody uses them”. One
participant stated that “the MSDs available for fishing vessels no longer meet CG (Coast Guard) Standards.
The Washington based facilities that sold them, no longer do”. (Puget Sound, in Washington state is in fact a
“No Discharge Zone” and therefore direct discharge from MSDs are not allowed there. However, USCG
certified MSDs are still available for sale in Washington and are allowed to be used in Alaska.) 10% of the
Harbor User participants thought that a permanent or temporary pump-out station would “maybe” benefit
the harbor, and 3% of participants had ambiguous answers.
Of the Ninilchik Harbor Users, all 15 who took the survey answered this question. Of those 66% of
the participants said “No”, a permanent or temporary pump-out station would not benefit the harbor. One
participant included the statement that “People wouldn’t use it. (Ninilchik) is a very different community
than say Homer”. Another participant chimed in saying “Have not used one, would not use one if it was
available”. 2/3 of survey participants did not think a pump-out station would benefit Ninilchik harbor, the
other 1/3 explained why it would be of benefit. “It would encourage boats to upgrade their sanitation
devices”, said one participant. Another Ninilchik Harbor User that was interviewed said, “some harbor users
may never use a pump-out station, but people absolutely won’t use it if it doesn’t exist”.
Figure 34: Question 8: Dillingham participants only
40
36 | P a g e
The Dillingham Harbor Users had a different approach. Of the 12 Harbor Users that took the survey,
11 answered this question. 73% of those that answered this question thought that either seasonal or
multiple pump-out stations would be beneficial. 18% thought that it was not a good idea, one stating “there
is no way to move around unless all the boats move for an opener”. One participant thought that it might
be helpful, but fisherman may not have time to use a pump-out station.
41
37 | P a g e
This project is based around the premise of better understanding and encouraging proper waste
management procedures for boaters so the hope was to hear from the boaters themselves about the best
method of establishing lines of communication and exchanging information. The majority of Harbor Users
(77%) thought ’Signs around the boat harbor’ was the best method to communicate with boaters (Figure
35). The second highest choice was ’Face to face communication’ at 52% (Figure 35). ’Radio public service
announcements’ was third at 39% (Figure 35).
Figure 35: Question 10- What are the best ways to communicate with boaters?
42
38 | P a g e
The results from Ninilchik
Harbor Users were very similar to
the overall results. The number
one position was tied at 73% of
Harbor User participants that
thought that ’Signs around the
boat harbor’ as well as ’Face to
face communication’ were the best
methods for communicating
(Figure 36). This is particularly
difficult in Ninilchik as there is no
harbormaster and therefore the
’Face to face communication’ is
likely from one Harbor User to
another or from a subject matter
expert to those in the harbor. One
person interviewed recommended
someone being on the dock before the season
talking to Harbor Users and explaining proper
waste management practices. Several participants that chose “Other” recommended reaching out to fishing
organizations, such as UCIDA, to get important information disseminated to fisherfolk. Another participant
mentioned the value of workshops, like Alaska Marine Safety Education Association (AMSEA), for safety
information, and that including important harbor information in trainings like that might be a good way to
get information out. Another participant mentioned the value of using CB radios to put this sort of
information out on channel 16.
The Dillingham participants
thought that ’Signs around the boat
harbor’ was important enough to be
tied for first (58%) with ’Radio public
service announcements’ (Figure 37).
The next highest was ’Face to face
communication’ at 50% (Figure 37).
The participant that chose ’Other’
wrote about “email, text, cell phone,
Facebook”, which may have also been
included in the ’Online information’
option aside from text.
One of the last questions was
“What else, if anything, is important
for having clean harbors?” This was
an attempt at encouraging Harbor
User participants to communicate any
issue that they felt needed to be addressed.
Figure 36: Question 10: Ninilchik participants only
Figure 37: Question 10: Dillingham participants
only
43
39 | P a g e
Of the 86 Harbor Users that took the survey, 60 answered this question. While we can’t include every
answer to this question, we will highlight similar themes. Some thought that having more accessible dump
stations for used oil, used diesel, used antifreeze and any other hazardous materials would encourage
proper management of waste. Others were worried about the plastic situation. One person that was
interviewed mentioned driving around the fishing grounds after the fishing season and filling up dozens of
garbage bags with plastic waste.
During interviews, multiple participants made a point of talking about how involved and invested
their harbormaster is, and how much of a difference that makes. Others mentioned about the necessity for
a culture shift, where discussing these issues and making “correct use more palatable”. Lots of participants
spoke specifically about concerns that are occurring at their home harbor and the need to improve
education on issues. Encouraging these conversations is vital to correct these concerns sooner rather than
later. While multiple participants mentioned increasing enforcement, others mentioned culture shift.
In Ninilchik, 11 of the 15 Harbor User participants responded to this question. One survey participant as
well as several Harbor Users that were interviewed thought that the Ninilchik Harbor wasn’t that bad and in
fact is getting better. They believed that fellow fisherfolk were good at pointing out when someone was
engaging in improper waste management procedures. Many interviewed also thought that as the older
generation was getting out of the business that the practices were getting more environmentally friendly.
Despite these takes, multiple Harbor Users that were interviewed thought that it was worse than it’s ever
been. That there used to be facilities for Harbor Users to use, such as dumpsters and port-o-potties. Those
have since been removed, due to funding issues, and several participants have recognized the danger that
this poses. If there aren’t dumpsters or used oil facilities available, people will have to do something with
their waste, ignoring that concern does not solve the problem. Some fishermen avoid the Ninilchik harbor
because of the overcrowding and fuel spills there. They went on to say that the big problem is that Ninilchik
is an incredibly desirable location but poorly maintained and that the harbor needs to be expanded and
better managed.
In Dillingham, of the 12 Harbor Users that took the survey, six answered this question. One comment
was to ensure community buy-in. That with the help of BBRSDA, other fishing organizations and the
fisherfolk themselves would go a long way to help with proper waste management practices. As it is a
seasonal harbor, ensuring that attention during the summer season is key. One survey participant
recommended “sending three text reminders--one pre-season, one mid-season, and one post-season”.
44
40 | P a g e
Conclusions
There were many take-aways from the survey. They are not included in here in any order of
importance. There is rarely a one size fits all solution for any single issue. Working with community
members, harbor staff, and harbor users to identify problems and craft solutions that are specific to
each harbor is hugely important. Encouraging this communication between stakeholders is the best way
to improve or recognize when things are going well.
For example, in Ninilchik, 87% of Harbor User participants thought that ‘More/better onshore
restroom facilities’ was the most important way to improve sewage disposal there (Figure 34). While in
Dillingham, 42% (the choice that received the highest number of votes) of the Harbor User participants
thought that ‘Signs on rules/regulations on sewage disposal’ was most important (Figure 33). These
Dillingham results most nearly resembled the overall average response for this question. Which just
highlights the necessity of holding these discussions and crafting local solutions to ensure the best
possible outcome.
One of the biggest take-aways from the survey were that education and information is wanted.
People want to do the right thing and may not know what that is. Encouraging education and outreach
about proper waste management, even just having a conversation about it, helps remind people that
use the harbor as well as ensure that new people to the community are on the same page. Another
reason people may not ensure proper waste management techniques is because the available
infrastructure at their harbor does not make it easy or feasible. For example, people want to dump
garbage and sewage in appropriate receptacles. Unfortunately, shore support services do not always
exist in such a way to encourage proper disposal. When restrooms are distant, locked, or non-existent,
harbor users must make a difficult decision.
In some cases, the three stakeholders (Harbor Users, Community Members, and Harbor Staff) all
expressed similar opinions. The biggest concern for all three was ‘Routine small spills/leaks”. This was
different than anticipated when the project was started but could help focus future attempts. Even so,
about half of all survey participants considered ‘Improper sewage disposal’ to be a concern in their
harbor.
Many participants were thankful for discussing the topic of harbor pollution because it is not
frequently talked or thought about in Alaska. It was considered very prevalent and an important focus
in the lower 48 but not here. Encouraging these discussions, conducting outreach and having simple,
frequent reminders before and during the fishing season would remind harbor users about the right way
to do things. One way that was identified as being particularly helpful in communicating important
information was through ‘signs around the boat harbor’. These were considered the number one way
to communicate with boaters by both Harbor User and Harbor Staff participants. Signs are also
relatively cheap and easy to maintain.
While the purpose of this project was to get a better understanding of people’s opinions about
the state of their harbor, it should be emphasized that multiple participants made a point of expressing
the positives around their local harbor. That most Harbor Users thought their harbor staff was very
intent and engaged which correlated to less pollution. Numerous participants did not think that the
state of their harbor was particularly bad. As Alaska has much less boat traffic, more extreme tides, and
less land-based traffic than the lower 48, we are in a better position than many harbors in other areas.
45
41 | P a g e
Next Steps
These and past surveys (such as the one identified in Figure 1) identified that creating signs to
remind harbor users about proper waste management techniques was the best way of communicating.
Therefore, the next stage of this project is going to create signs in Ninilchik and Dillingham encouraging
proper waste disposal. Working with schools in both communities, students will design the artwork for
the sign. Dillingham students will design the sign and members of the local community will vote on the
winner. The same will be done in Ninilchik with local students and local community members voting on
the winner. Then the ADEC and Alaska Sea Grant graphic arts teams will work together to incorporate
valuable waste management information and create permanent metal signs to be placed in their
respective harbor. ADEC and Alaska Sea Grant will also be using the artwork to make stickers and
magnets to hand out to the involved communities in order to encourage discussion and reminders.
Presenting the findings from this survey will be done where best to stimulate further
conversation and encourage proper waste management procedures. Presentations will be done at two
conservation conferences in spring 2022, Alaska Forum on the Environment (online), and COMFISH (in
Kodiak). Effort will be made to present findings to communities and organizations that are interested in
this work. Particular effort will be made to present in Ninilchik with Ninilchik Traditional Council, as well
as in Dillingham with Bristol Bay Native Association. There will also be effort made to present at other
forums, such as sports shows, or fishing organizations.
Prior to the summer, this survey write-up will be shared with all members of the AAHPA. Where
possible, presentations of the findings will be done to harbor staff in person or via zoom.
In the future it is recommended that the following steps be taken:
• Consult with Harbormasters and staff to determine best means of waste management and
disposal for their harbor
• Using information from previous bullet point, conduct education campaigns with harbor users to
encourage proper waste disposal
• Conduct water testing and monitoring programs in or near harbors that are concern to
communities
• Bolster/improve current infrastructure that addresses clean harbors program ie Sewage disposal
systems (port-o-potties, restrooms, pump-outs), used oil disposal, dumpsters, etc)
• Conduct future surveys and/or outreach efforts should aim to:
o Improve relations and possibility of involvement from communities
o Document perception about changes occurring and outreach effectiveness
o Have in-person group sessions to discuss issues, requirements and possible solutions
(COVID permitting)
o Recommended that local community member or harbor staff conduct survey and
outreach, folks may be distrustful of outsiders
• Communal outreach to local and regional representatives to secure funding for possible
solutions
• Funding is always a limiting factor: Currently the Clean Waters Act (which appropriates funds for
sewage pump-out facilities) is only directed at recreational harbors
46
42 | P a g e
o Working with communities and the State of Alaska to identify possible grant
opportunities to expand facilities for harbor users
▪ Expansion or creation of pump-out stations
▪ Craft and post signs explaining rules in simple language
▪ Seasonal port-o-potties
▪ Seasonal dumpsters
▪ Cameras to identify those not following rules
▪ Enforcement of rules
47
NAI
City of Kenai I 210 ~idaIgo Aye,Kenai,AK 99611-7794 I 907.283.7535 I www.I<enai.city
To:Benjamin Soiseth
Chief,Southeast Section
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division,CEPOA-RD
44669 Sterling Highway,Suite B
Soldotna, Ak 99669-7915
From:Alan F Robillard,Capital Project Manager/Public Works
Date:April 4,2022
Subject:Notification and Renewal of Permit for Kenai Boat Dock Dredging, Kenai
River,Kenai Alaska
The City of Kenai is submitting the attached completed Nationwide Permit Form as
requested for the Renewal of our five (5)year Permit for Kenai Boat Dock Dredging, Kenai
River,Alaska.
The work for the Kenai boat harbor dock dredging work remains the same as previously
submitted and approved under Permit #POA-1983-221,and as shown on the attached
Site Plan,Ramp Section Details and Cross Section Detail drawings to authorize the
proposed NWP activities.
I can be reached by phone at 907.283.8254 or email if anyone has any questions and if
you need additional information.
Rega rd~,
/
an Robill:rd
Capital Projec ‘anager/Public Works
arobillard@kenai.city
APR 042022
USAGE,Alaska District,Regulatory
48
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)Form Approved-
NATIONWIDE PERMIT PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION (PCN)0MB No.0710-0003Expires:02-28-2022
33 CFR 330.The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
DATA REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
Authority Rivers and Harbors Act,Section 10,33 usc 403;Clean Water Act,Section 404 33 USC 1344;Regulatory Programs of the Corps of
Engineers:Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332.
Principal Purpose Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the nationwide permit pre-coristruction notification.
Routine Uses This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state,and local government agencies,and the public and
may be made available as part of the agency coordination process.
Disclosure Submission of requested nforniation is voluntary,however,If Information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can
a permit be issued.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information,0710-0003,is estimated to average 11 hours per response,nduding the time for reviewing
instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collection of information.Send
comments regarding the burden estimate or burden reduction suggestions to the Department of Defense,Washington Headquarters Services,at
whsJn~!stm~infoao~LQn:p.lIøctipn~C’DaiLrnil.Respondents should be aware that notwithstandIng any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid 0MB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE EMAIL.
attached to this application (see
sample drawings and/or instructions)and be submitted to the District Engineer ha
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location ~activity.An application that is
not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS I THRU 4 TO BE BY T~rg’a~2022
1.APPLICATION NO.2 FIELD OFF CE CODE 3.DATE RECEIVED I~DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
USACE Aaswa Oi6~iet,Regu~tery(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILIXD W(APPUOANT)
S.APPLICANTS NAME 8.AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (age if is not required)
First -Middle -Last -First -Middle -Last -
Company-Cn’~af t-~,fltAIrI.L44 Company
Companylitle-bc.o~V C’.nss.a ~E-mallAddress
E-mail Address -Sc.sac’n j.,,~C.
B.APPLICANTS ADDRESS:9.AGENTS ADDRESS:
Address-?.~c %~4 nA-.~o ~nj’~Address-
City-..,,~state-P~L Zip-~flbfl Country-City-State-Zip-Country-
7.APPLICANTS PHONE NOs.with AREA CODE 10.AGENTS PHONE NOs. with AREA CODE
a Residence usiness c.Fax d.Mobile a.Residence I,.Business c.Fax d.Mobile
g0-)-a.s~-S~.-~o
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11 I hereby authorize,to act In my behalf as my agent in the processing of this this nationwide permit pre-construction
notification and to furnish,upon request,supplemental information In support of this nationwide permit pre-construction notfication.
SIGNATUR OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME,LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME or TITLE (see instructions)
€~s-~r$t~ZL.-C oF S~en4w?r?C)ck -~~
L~)a g~k-.~-4%-c--C.oP ~c ‘P~~Sa~L€-~.oar ~2-.pwwS~)fla.
\C-4~w”-~
ENG FORM 6082, JUN 2019 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.Page 1 of 6
49
NAME, LOCATION,AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
13.NAME OF WATERBODY,IF KNOWN (if applicable)14.PROPOSED ACTIVITY STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
1Ca,~ce~~-,
15.LOCATION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY (see instructions)City:~~st.’ai flit State:Zip:
Latitude •N Longitude
L.o.cq.~cj 1(1 ttl’o
16.OTHER LOCAtON DESCRIPTIONS,IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID MunicipalIty
~~~i ti-I IS’L$j.tja.31a.i n-k-
Section Township Range
w’...g .e’j~~~1-r.r ~~e,,,ii ‘~j SCA.3flaSflft.C...C1z$V.U L.wrt.o,cq’~~
17.DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE.
~&~fl ‘t~an.~r Lau~~-’oL ?~~t,aF?ThrJ.\’i~.fl.acst jton..4
18.IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC NATIONWIDE PERMIT(S)YOU PROPOSE TO USE:
4n...n..n>~..7,avz~wAk Ciq.y~)~4a 3
19.DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED NATIONWIDE PERMIT ACTIVITY (see inslructions)
fl~c.~jv~ja.-¶i ~-s -
20.OESCRIP’TlON OF PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES (see instructions)
P~a~L.y’Nw4 ~a-Ca~~._aZ .O,~~n~—.-“&tcntc~.-r ~.Xc..)
~V~-tjtn4 l...a~Lo~~aJ-~aF~_Mv2r’t.’L Va “r~~.c,.-.Z,asna i’,,-
~~~P1 ~~4-
21.PURPOSE OF NATIONWIDE PERMIT ACTIVITY (Describe the reason or purpose of the project see instructions)
a F ‘Pa~o~atr a
22.Quantity of Wetlands, Streams or Other Types of Waters Directly Affected by Proposed Nationwide Permit Activity (see instructions)
Acres Linear Feet 3 1aoo —Cubic Yards Dredged or Discharged
Each PCN must Include a delineatIon of wetlands,other special aquatic sites, and other waters,such as lakes and ponds,and perennial,Intennlttent,
and ephemeral streams,on the project site.
23.List any other NWP(s),regional general permit(s),or individual permit(s)used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project on any
related activity (see instructions)
~ce ~b~sz~~
24.If the proposed activity will result in the loss of greater than 1110-acre of wetlands and requires pre-construction notification, explain how the compensatory
mitigation requirement in paragraph (c)of general conditIon 23 will be satisfied,or explain why the adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal
and why compensatory mitigation should not be required for the proposed activity.
ENG FORM 6082,JUN 2019 Page 2 of 6
50
25.Is Any Portion of the Nationwide Permit Activity Already Complete?DYes No If Yes,describe the completed woric:
28.LIst the name(s) of any species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act that might be affected by the proposed NWP activity
or utilize the designated critical habitat that might be affected by the proposed NWP activity.(see instructions)
No~e -
27.List any historic properties that have the potential to be affected by the proposed NWP actIvity or include a vicinity map Indicating the location of the historic
property or properties.(see instructions)
28 For a proposed NWP activity that will occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System,or In a river officially designated by Congress as a
‘study river”for possible inclusion in the system while the river is In an official study status,identify the Wild and Scenic River or the “study river:
29.If the proposed NWP activity also requires permission from the Corps pursuant to 33 u.s.c.408 because it will alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or
use a U.S.Army Corps of Engineers federally authorized civil works project, have you submitted a written request for section 400 permIssion from the Corps
district having jurisdiction over that project?DYes No
If ‘yes’,please provide the date your request was submitted to the corps District
30.If the terms of the NWP(s)you want to use require additional information to be included in the PCN,please include that informatIon in this space or provide it
on an additional sheet of paper marked Block 30.(see instructions)
$r~a.4ka.~.n-.)%S~e.n..n..r%.‘4 fl.~L.cc...e.now,%ti-c ~~cttrt
31.Pre-construction notification is hereby made for one or more nationwide permit(s)to authorize the work described in this notification I certify that this
information in this pre-construcion notification Is complete and accurate.I umber certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein
or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Pre~Construction Notification must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant)and, if the statement in block 11 has
been filled out and signed,the authorized agent.
18 U.S.C.Section 1001 provides that:~ioever,in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully
falsifies conceals,or covers up any trick,scheme,or disguises a material fact or makes any false,fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes
or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry,shal be fined not more than $10,000 or
imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 6082,JUN 2019 Page 3 of 8
51
Instructions for Preparing a
Department of the Army
Nationwide Permit (NW?)Pre-Construction Notification (PCN)
Blocks 1 through 4.To be completed by the Corps of Engineers.
BlockS.Applicant’Name.Enter the name and the e-mail address of the responsible party or parties.If the responsible party is an agency,company,
corporation,or other organization, indicate the name of the organization and responsible officer and title. If more than one party is associated with the
preconstruction notification,please attach a sheet of paper with the necessary information marked Block 5.
BlockS.Address of Applicant.Please provide the full address of the party or parties responsible for the PCN. If more space is needed,attach an extra sheet of
paper marked Block 6.
Block?.Applicant Telephone Number(s).Please provide the telephone numberwhere you can usually be reached during normal business hours.
Blocks S through 11.To be completed,if you choose to have an agent.
BlockS.Authorized Agent’s Name and Title.Indicate name of individual or agency,designated by you,to represent you in this process.An agent can be an
attorney,builder, contractor, engineer,consultant,or any other person or organization.Note:An agent is not required.
Blocks 9 and 10.Agent’s Address and Telephone Number.Please provide the complete mailing address of the agent,along with the telephone number
where he /she can be reached during normal business hours.
Block 11.Statement of Authorization.To be completed by the applicant,if an agent is to be employed.
Block 12.Proposed Nationwide Permit Activity Name or Title.Please provide a name identl~ing the proposed NWP activity,e.g.,Windward Marina,Rolling
Hills Subdivision,or Smith Commercial Center.
Block 13.Name of Waterbody.Please provide the name (if it has a name)of any stream,lake,marsh,or other waterway to be directly impacted by the NWP
activity.If it is a minor (no name)stream,identi&the waterbody the minor stream enters.
Block 14.Proposed Activity Street Address.If the proposed NWP activity Is located at a site having a street address (not a box number),please enter it in
Block 14.
Block 15.Location of Proposed Activity.Enter the latitude and longitude of where the proposed NWP activity is located.Indicate whether the project location
provided is the center of the project orwhether the project location is provided as the latitude and longitude for each of the “corners”of the project area requiring
evaluation.If there are multiple sites, please list the latitude and longitude of each site (center or ccmers)on a separate sheet of paper and mark as Block 15.
Block 16.Other Location Descriptions.If available,provide the Tax Parcel Identification numberof the site,Section,Township,and Range of the site (if
known),and!or local Municipality where the site Is located.
Block 17.Directions to the Site.Provide directions to the site from a known location or landmark,Include highway and street numbers as well as names.Also
provide distances from known locations and any other information that would assist in locating the site.You may also provide a description of the location of the
proposed NWP activity,such as lot numbers,tract numbers,or you may choose to locate the proposed NWP activity site from a known point (such as the right
descending bank of Smith Creek,one mile downstream from the HIghway 14 bridge).If a large river or stream,include the river mile of the proposed NWP
activity site if known.If there are multiple locations,please indicate directions to each location on a separate sheet of paper and mark as Block 17.
Block IS. Identify the Specific Nationwide Permit(s)You Propose to Use. List the number(s)of the Nationwide Permit(s) you want to use to authorize the
proposed activity (e.g.,NWP 29).
Block 19.Description of the Proposed Nationwide Permit Activity.Describe the proposed NWP activity,including the direct and indirect adverse
environmental effects the activity would cause,The description of the proposed activity should be sufficiently detailed to allow the district engineer to determine
that the adverse environmental effects of the activity will be no more than minimal.Identify the materials to be used in construction,as well as the methods by
which the work is to be done.
Provide sketches when necessary to show that the proposed NWP activity complies with the terms of the applicable NWP(s). Sketches usually clatity the activity
and result in a quicker decision.Sketches should contain sufficient detail to provide an illustrative description of the proposed NW?activity (e.g.,a conceptual
plan),but do not need to be’detailed engineering plans.
The written descriptions and illustrations are an important part of the application. Please describe,in detail,what you wish to do.If more space is needed,attach
an extra sheet of paper marked Block 19.
ENG FORM 6082,JUN 2019 Page 4 of 6
52
Block 20.DescriptIon of Proposed Mitigation Measures.Describe any proposed mitigation measures intended to reduce the adverse environmental effects
caused by the proposed NWP activity.The description of any proposed mitigation measures should be sufficiently detailed to allow the district engineer to
determine that the adverse environmental effects of the activity will be no more than minima!and to determine the need for compensatory mitigation or additional
mitigation measures.
Block 21.Purpose of Nationwide Permit Activity.Desoribe the purpose and need for the proposed NWP activity.WhatwIll it be used for and why? Also
include a brief description of any related activities associated with the proposed project.Provide the approximate dates you plan to begin and complete all
work.
Block 22.Quantity of Wetlands,Streams,or OtherTypes of Waters Directly Affected by the Proposed Nationwide Permit Activity.For discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,provide the amount of wetlands1 streams,or other types of waters filled, flooded, excavated,or drained
by the proposed NWP activity.For structures or work in navigable waters of the United States subject to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 18S9,
provide the amount of navigable waters filled,dredged,occupied by one or more structures (e.g.,aids to navigation,mooring buoys)by the proposed
NWP activity.
For multiple NWPs,or for separate and distant crossings of waters of the United States authorized by NWPs 12 or 14,attach an extra sheetof paper marked
Block 21 to provide the quantities of wetlands,streams,or other types of waters filled,flooded,excavated,or drained (or dredged or occupied by structures,if in
waters subject to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1890)for each NWP. For NWPs 12 and 14,include the amount of wetlands, streams,or other
types of watersfilled,flooded,excavated,ordrained foreach separate and distance crossing of waters orwetlands.If more space is needed,attach an extra
sheet of paper marked Block 21.
Block 23.IdentIfy Any Other Nationwide Permit(s), Regional General Permit(s),or Individual Permit(s)Used to Authorize Any Part of Proposed
Activity or Any Related Activity.List any other NWP(s),regional general permit(s), or individual permit(s)used or intended to be used to authorize any part of
the proposed project or any related activity.For linear projects, list other separate and distant crossings of waters and wetlands authorized by NWPs 12 or 14
that do not require PCNs.If more space is needed,attach an extra sheet of paper marked Block 22.
Block 24.Compensatory Mitigation Statement for Losses of Greater Than 1/10-Acre of Wetlands When Pre-Construction Notification is Required.
Paragraph (c)of NWP general condition 23 requires compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one replacement ratio will be required for all wetland losses
that exceed 1110-acre and require pre-construction notification, unless the district engineer determines in writing thateither some other form of mitigation is more
environmentally appropriate or the adverse environmental effects of the proposed NWP activity are no more than minimal without compensatory mitigation,and
provides an activity-specific waiver of this requirement.Describe the proposed compensatory mitigation forwetland losses greater than 1/10 acre, or provide an
explanation of why the district engineer should not require wetland compensatory mitigation for the proposed NWP activity.If more space is needed,attach an
extra sheet of paper marked Block 23.
Block 26.Is Any Portion of the Nationwide Permit Activity Already Complete?Describe any work that has already been completed for the NWP activity.
Block 26.List the Name(s)of Any Species Listed As Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act that Might be Affected by the
Nationwide Permit Activity.If you are not a federal agency,and if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or Is In the vicinity of the
proposed NWP activity,or if the proposed NWP activity is located in designated critical habitat, list the name(s)of those endangered or threatened species that
might be affected by the proposed NWP activity or utilize the designated critical habitat that might be affected by the proposed NWP activity.If you are a Federal
agency,and the proposed NWP activity requires a PCN,you must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act.
Block 27.LIst Any Historic Properties that Have the Potential to be Affected by the Nationwide Permit Activity.If you are not a federal agency,and if any
historic properties have the potential to be affected by the proposed NW?activity, list the name(s) of those historic properties that have the potential to be
affected by the proposed NWP activity.If you are a Federal agency,and the proposed NWP activity requires a PCN,you must provide documentation
demonstrating compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation AoL
Block 28.List the Wild and Scenic River or Congressionally Designated Study River if the Nationwide Permit Activity Would Occur in such a River.if
the proposed NWP activity will occur in a river in the National Wild andScenic River System or in a river officially designated by Congress as a ‘study river’
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,provide the name of the river.Fora list of Wild and Scenic Rivers and study rivers,please visit http:UM~N±d~Ler$9QY/
Block 20.Nationwide Permit Activities that also Require Permission from the Corps Under 33 U.S.C.408.lIthe proposed NWP activity also requires
permission from the Corps under 33 USC.408 because it will temporarily or permanently alter,occupy, or use a Corps federal authorized civil works project,
indicate whether you have submitted a written request for section 408 permission from the Corps district having jurisdiction over that project.
EMS FORM 6082,JUN 2019 Page 5 of 6
53
Block 30.other Information Required For Nationwide Permit Pre.Construction Notifications.The terms of some of the Nationwide Permits include
additional information requirements for preconstruction notifications:
*NWP 3,Maintenance —information regarding the original design capacities and configurations of the outfalls,intakes,small impoundments and canals.
*NWP 31,Maintenance of Existing Flood Control Facilities—a description of the maintenance baseline and the dredged material disposal site.
•NWP 33,Temporary Construction,Access,and Dewatering —a restoration plan showing how all temporary fills and structures will be removed and the area
restored to pro-project conditions.
*NWP 44,Mining Activities —if reclamation is required by other statutes,then a copy of the final reclamation plan must be submitted with the pre-construction
notification.
*NWP 45,Repair of Uplands Damaged by Discrete Events —documentation,such as a recent topographic survey or photographs to justify the extent of the
proposed restoration.
NWP 48,Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities —(1)a map showing the boundaries of the project area,with latitude and longitude coordinates for
each corner of the project area;(2)the name(s) of the species that will be cultivated during the period this NWP ‘sin effect;(3)whether canopy predator nets
will be used;(4)whether suspended cultivation techniques will be used;and (5)general water depths in the project area (a detailed survey is not required).
*NWP 49,Coal Remining Activities —a document describing how the overall mining plan will result in a net increase in aquatic resource functions to the
district engineer and receive written authorization prior to commencing the activity.
*NWP 50,underground Coal Mining Activ[ties —if reclamation is required by otherstatutes,then a copy of the reclamation plan must be submitted with the
pre-construction notification.
If more space Is needed, attach an extra sheet of paper marked Block 29.
Blocks 31 and 32.For bank stabilization activities,we are collecting information on the use of living shorelines in coastal waters and lakes to inform future NWP
rulemaking efforts.If the PCN is for a proposed NWP 13 activity,and itis located in coastal waters or a lake, please check the appropriate box in block 31 to
Indicate whether you considered the use of a living shoreline to protect your property from erosion.If the PCN is for a proposed NWP 13 activity,and it is located
in coastal waters or a lake,please check the appropriate box in block 32 to indicate whether there are contractors in your area that construct living shorelines.
Block 33.Signature of Applicant or Agent.The PCN must be signed by the person proposing to undertake the NWP activity, and if applicable, the authorized
party (agent) that prepared the PCN.The signature of the person proposing to undertake the NWP activity shall be an affirmation that the party submitting the
PCN possesses the requisite property rights to undertake the NWP activity (including compliance with special conditions!mitigation,etc).
DELINEATION OF WETLANDS,OTHER SPECIAL AQUATIC SITES,AND OTHER WATERS
Each PCN must include a delineation of wetlands,other special aquatic sites, and otherwaters,such as lakes and ponds,and perennial,intermittent,and
ephemeral streams,on the project site.Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current wetland delineation manual and regional
supplement published by the Corps.The perniittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and other waters on the project site,but there may
be a delay if the Corps does the delineation,especially if the project site is large or contains many wetlands,other special aquatic sites,and other waters.The 45
day PCN review period will not start until the delineation is submitted or has been completed by the Corps.-
DRAWINGS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
General Information.
Three types of illustrations are needed to properly depict (he work to be undertaken.These illustrations or drawings are identified as a Vicinity Map,a Plan View
or a Typical Cross-Section Map.Identify each illustration with a figure or attachment number.For linear projects (e.g.roads,subsurface utility lines,etc.)gradient
drawings should also be included.Please submit one original, or good quality copy,of all drawings on 6Y3x1 1 inch plain white paper (electronic media may be
substituted).Use the fewest number of sheets necessary for your drawings or illustrations.Each illustration should identify the project,the applicant,and the type
of illustration (vicinity map,plan view, or cross-section).While illustrations need not be professional (many small, private project illustrations are prepared by
hand),they should be clear, accurate,and contain all necessary information.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS
For proposed NWP activities that involve discharges into waters of the United States,water quality certification from the State, Tribe, or EPA must be obtained or
waived (see NWP general condition 25).Some States,Tribes,or EPA have issued water quality certification for one or more NWPs. Please check the
appropriate Corps district web site to see if water quality certification has already been issued for the NWP(s)you wish to use.For proposed NWP activities in
coastal states,state Coastal Zone Management Act consistency concurrence must be obtained,or a presumption of concurrence must occur (see NWP general
condition 26).Some States have issued Coastal Zone Management Act consistency concurrences for one or more NWPs. Please check the appropriate Corps
district web site to see if Coastal Zone ManagementAct consistency concurrence has already been issued for the NWP(s)you wish to use.
ENG FORM 6082,JUN 2019 Page 6 of 6
54
/N
Geographic Information Systems
141 North Binkley Street,Soldotna,Maska 99669
6’S
4
to
Kenai City Docks
-0
This map s a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is (or reference only Data layers that appear on this map may or may not
be accurate current,or otherwise reliable It is not to be used for navigation
Legend
Mileposts
ri City Limits
Highways
—Major Roads
Roads
—Town Medium Volume
Town LawlSeasonal;Other
Proposed
Parcels
Notes
Location Map
DATE PRINTED:4/1/2022
55
POA-1983-221 •Kenal River
GUy of Xenai
March 22,2017
Sheet I of 4
56
\
:RIP11OM:KENAI BOAT LAUNCH
POA—1983.-221—R
gENAI RIVER 113
EXIS11NG LM~DSC~ING,RESTROOM
STRUCWRE,~HD SEPTIC SYSTEM
GRAPHIC SCALE
(IN FEET)
1 inch 100 it
SHOULDER OF D(IS1TNG FILL
CORP PERMIT P04-221—N
VERALL SITE P
~TERBO0Y:KENAI RIVER
:IVER MILE:1±
OCAL GOVT:CITY OF KENAI
WPLICANT:CITY OF KENAI
AGENT:NELSON ENGINEERING
T:2 OF 4 DAlE: March 22,2017
57
TYPICALRAMPSSECTION A-ASCALE:3/32’=l58
40353225~MW1612C4MISlM~MUSO.00DR~S5GUINS-45-8—IaSECTIONB-BSCALE: VERTICAL1“=20’HORIZONTAL1“=40’59
3
7
Geographic Information Systems
a
rno~’144 North Binkley Street.Soldotna.Aiaska 99669
Dredging &Disposal Site Location
44,
4;”
A
I..~
II
/
~1—st~C -d\~:45C‘MIni I
\\:‘if in:.~..
\\____
Dredging Area
Legend
Mileposts
[j City Limits
Highways
—Major Roads
Roads
—Town Medium Volume
Town Low/seasonal;Oilier
Proposed
Parcels
—I≤.ii ry
This map is a user generated stat utput fr m an Internet mappLng site and is for reference only Data layers that appear on
be accurate,current,or therwise re ab It t t be used for navigation
fl
Notes
city of Kenal Boat Ramp Dredging
DATE PRINTED:4/12/2022
60
MEMORANDUM
TO: Harbor Commission
THROUGH: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
FROM: Scott Curtin, Director of Public Works / Harbor Master
DATE: May 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Bluff Stabilization Project
The Bluff Stabilization project continues to proceed well. The next scheduled deliverable of
65% Design Documents was received from HDR Engineering on April 28, 2022. They are
available for download from the City website at the link below.
Kenai Bluffs Bank Stabilization Project | Kenai, Alaska
https://www.kenai.city/publicworks/page/kenai-bluffs-bank-stabilization-project
61
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 1 of 3
February 16, 2022
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting
February 16, 2022 ꟷ 6:00 PM
Kenai City Council Chambers
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska
**Telephonic/Virtual Information on Page 3**
www.kenai.city
Action Agenda
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Consent Agenda (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes) per speaker;
thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
*All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the
council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a council member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent
agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
B. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Public comment limited to ten (10) minutes per speaker)
1. Jodi Stuart and Leslie Rohr - 2022 Kenai Peninsula Project Homeless Connect
C. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. FAILED. Ordinance No. 3270-2022 - Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations
in the General, Airport, Senior Citizen, and Water & Sewer Funds, and Authorizing a One-
Time Premium Payment to Eligible Employees. (Vice Mayor Glendening and Council
Members Winger and Sounart)
2. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3271-2022 - Increasing Estimated Revenues
and Appropriations in the Airport Land Sale Permanent Fund to Transfer Earnings in Excess
of Budgeted Amounts to the City’s Airport Fund. (Administration)
3. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3272-2022 - Increasing Estimated Revenues
and Appropriations in the General Land Sale Permanent Fund to Transfer Earnings in
Excess of Budgeted Amounts to the City’s General Fund. (Administration)
4. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-09 – Authorizing Budget Transfers
Within the Kenai Recreation Center Improvements Capital Project Fund. (Administration)
62
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 2 of 3
February 16, 2022
E. MINUTES
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED BY SUBSTITUTE. Resolution No. 2022-04
- Awarding a Three Year Contract for the Purchase of Microsoft Software.
(Administration) [Clerk's Note: At the January 19, 2022 Meeting, this item was Postponed
to this meeting; a motion to enact is on the floor.]
• Resolution No. 2022-04 (Substitute) – Awarding a Three-Year Contract for the
Purchase of Microsoft Software. (Administration)
G. NEW BUSINESS
1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Bills to be Ratified.
(Administration)
2. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Purchase Orders Over
$15,000. (Administration)
3. APPOINTMENT OF VICTORIA ASKIN CONFIRMED. Action/Approval - Confirmation of
Mayoral Nomination for Appointment to the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Mayor
Gabriel)
4. APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Action/Approval - Council on Aging By-Law Amendment.
(City Clerk)
5. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 3/2/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3273-2022 – Accepting and Appropriating Two Grants from Derek
Kaufman Fund through the Alaska Community Foundation and One Donation from the
Friends of the Kenai Community Library for the Purchase of a Bike Repair Station.
(Administration)
H. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
4. Parks & Recreation Commission
5. Planning & Zoning Commission
6. Beautification Committee
7. Mini-Grant Steering Committee
I. REPORT OF THE MAYOR
J. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
63
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 3 of 3
February 16, 2022
1. City Manager
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Citizens Comments (Public comment limited to five (5) minutes per speaker)
2. Council Comments
L. EXECUTIVE SESSION
M. PENDING ITEMS
N. ADJOURNMENT
O. INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000
2. Kenai Dog Park Brochure - Summer 2022
The agenda and supporting documents are posted on the City’s website at www.kenai.city. Copies of
resolutions and ordinances are available at the City Clerk’s Office or outside the Council Chamber prior
to the meeting. For additional information, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 907-283-8231.
Join Zoom Meeting OR
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86837446040 Dial In: (253) 215-8782 or (301) 715-8592
Meeting ID: 868 3744 6040 Passcode: 610477 Meeting ID: 868 3744 6040 Passcode: 610477
64
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 1 of 3
March 02, 2022
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting
March 02, 2022 ꟷ 6:00 PM
Kenai City Council Chambers
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska
**Telephonic/Virtual Information on Page 2**
www.kenai.city
Action Agenda
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Consent Agenda (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes) per speaker; thirty (30)
minutes aggregated)
*All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the
council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a council member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent
agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
B. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to ten (10) minutes per speaker)
C. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per
speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3273-2022 – Accepting and Appropriating
Two Grants from Derek Kaufman Fund through the Alaska Community Foundation and One
Donation from the Friends of the Kenai Community Library for the Purchase of a Bike Repair
Station. (Administration)
2. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-10 – Approving the Execution of a
Lease of Airport Reserve Lands Using the Standard Lease Form Between the City of Kenai
and State of Alaska, Division of Forestry on Lot 4A, FBO Subdivision No. 11.
(Administration)
3. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-11 – Authorizing a Budget Transfer
Within the Kenai Municipal Airport Snow Removal Equipment Capital Project Fund.
(Administration)
4. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-12 – Authorizing a Budget Transfer
Within the Kenai Municipal Water and Sewer Capital Project Fund. (Administration)
5. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-13 – Expressing Intent to Participate in
the National Flood Insurance Program. (Administration)
E. MINUTES
65
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 2 of 3
March 02, 2022
1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Regular Meeting of February 2, 2022. (City
Clerk)
2. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Regular Meeting of February 16, 2022. (City
Clerk)
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
G. NEW BUSINESS
1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Bills to be Ratified.
(Administration)
2. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Purchase Orders Over
$15,000. (Administration)
H. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
4. Parks and Recreation Commission
5. Planning and Zoning Commission
6. Beautification Committee
7. Mini-Grant Steering Committee
I. REPORT OF THE MAYOR
J. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
1. City Manager
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Citizens Comments (Public comment limited to five (5) minutes per speaker)
2. Council Comments
L. EXECUTIVE SESSION
M. PENDING ITEMS
N. ADJOURNMENT
O. INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000
2. Amicus Brief - Letter of Appreciation
66
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 1 of 3
March 16, 2022
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting
March 16, 2022 ꟷ 6:00 PM
Kenai City Council Chambers
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska
**Telephonic/Virtual Information on Page 3**
www.kenai.city
Action Agenda
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Consent Agenda (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes) per speaker;
thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
*All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the
council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a council member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent
agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
B. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Public comment limited to ten (10) minutes per speaker)
1. Katie Cowgill - Kenai Peninsula Re-Entry Coalition and Alaska Department of Corrections
Re-Entry Simulation.
C. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker;
thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED. Resolution No. 2022-14 – Amending the
Employee Classification Plan by Adjusting the Ranges of Temporary Parks and Recreation
and Personal Use Fishery Positions. (Administration)
2. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED. Resolution No. 2022-15 – Temporarily
Waiving the Gym Rental Fee at the Kenai Recreation Center for the Twin City Athletic
Association. (Administration)
3. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED. Resolution No. 2022-16 – Supporting the
Efforts of Kenai Central High School to Secure Grant Funding for the Construction of
Permanent Restroom Facilities at Ed Hollier Field. (Mayor Gabriel)
4. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-17 – Requesting and Supporting the
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Provision of Continuous Lighting
67
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 2 of 3
March 16, 2022
Along the Kenai Spur Highway within the City of Kenai and the Sterling Highway Safety
Corridor. (Administration)
5. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED. Resolution No. 2022-18 – Adopting the
City’s Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023-2027. (Administration)
6. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-19 – Approving the Vacation of 20’
Public Street Easements Adjoining the South Boundary and Northwest Boundary of Lot 1,
Toyon Subdivision as Granted by Plat K-1592, and is Located within the SE1/4 of Section
6, Township 5 North, Range 11 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, and Determining the
Easement is Not Needed for a Public Purpose. (Administration)
E. MINUTES
1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Regular Meeting of March 2, 2022. (City
Clerk)
2. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Work Session of March 7, 2022. (City Clerk)
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
G. NEW BUSINESS
1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Bills to be Ratified.
(Administration)
2. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Non-Objection to Liquor
License Renewals for Main Street Tap & Grill and Fraternal Order of Eagles #3525. (City
Clerk)
3. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 4/6/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3274-2022 – Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations in the
General Fund Parks, Recreation and Beautification Department, and Authorizing an
Increase to the Multi-Purpose Facility Management Services Purchase Order to Red Line
Sports for Additional Ice Maintenance Services. (Administration)
4. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 4/6/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3275-2022 – Amending Kenai Municipal Code, Chapter 23.05 – General
Provisions, to Add a New Category of Temporary Employee Titled “Program or Project
Employee” and Chapter 23.40 – Benefits, to Establish Benefits for this Category and Make
Housekeeping Changes. (Administration)
5. APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Action/Approval - Issuing a Letter of Support for Senate
Bill No. 166 – General Obligation Bonds (City Manager)
H. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
68
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 3 of 3
March 16, 2022
4. Parks and Recreation Commission
5. Planning and Zoning Commission
6. Beautification Committee
7. Mini-Grant Steering Committee
I. REPORT OF THE MAYOR
J. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
1. City Manager
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Citizens Comments (Public comment limited to five (5) minutes per speaker)
2. Council Comments
L. EXECUTIVE SESSION
M. PENDING ITEMS
N. ADJOURNMENT
O. INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000
The agenda and supporting documents are posted on the City’s website at www.kenai.city. Copies of
resolutions and ordinances are available at the City Clerk’s Office or outside the Council Chamber prior
to the meeting. For additional information, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 907-283-8231.
Join Zoom Meeting OR
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83592875033 Dial In: (253) 215-8782 or (301) 715-8592
Meeting ID: 835 9287 5033 Passcode: 062156 Meeting ID: 835 9287 5033 Passcode: 062156
69
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 1 of 4
April 06, 2022
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting
April 06, 2022 ꟷ 6:00 PM
Kenai City Council Chambers
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska
**Telephonic/Virtual Information on Page 3**
www.kenai.city
Action Agenda
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Consent Agenda (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes) per speaker; thirty (30)
minutes aggregated)
*All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the council
and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
council member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
B. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Public comment limited to ten (10) minutes per speaker)
1. Jeff Dolifka, Boys & Girls Club, Plans for Kenai Club
C. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3274-2022 – Increasing Estimated Revenues
and Appropriations in the General Fund Parks, Recreation and Beautification Department, and
Authorizing an Increase to the Multi-Purpose Facility Management Services Purchase Order to
Red Line Sports for Additional Ice Maintenance Services. (Administration)
2. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3275-2022 – Amending Kenai Municipal Code,
Chapter 23.05 – General Provisions, to Add a New Category of Temporary Employee Titled
“Program or Project Employee” and Chapter 23.40 – Benefits, to Establish Benefits for this
Category and Make Housekeeping Changes. (Administration)
3. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED. Ordinance No. 3276-2022 – Accepting and
Appropriating a Grant Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 Passed through the Alaska
Community Foundation. (Administration)
1. Motion for Introduction
2. Motion for Second Reading (Requires a Unanimous Vote)
3. Motion for Adoption (Requires Five Affirmative Votes)
4. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-20 – Authorizing the City Manager to Enter
into an Airline Operating Agreement and Terminal Area Lease with Kenai Aviation.
(Administration)
70
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 2 of 4
April 06, 2022
5. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-21 – Approving a Sole Source Purchase
through Motorola Solutions for the Phase Two Radio Upgrades to the Kenai Dispatch Center,
Utilizing Appropriated Department of Homeland Security Grant Funds and City Capital Funds.
(Administration)
6. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-22 – Authorizing a Budget Transfer in the
General Fund, Police Department for Anticipated Fuel Cost Increases for the Remainder of
FY22. (Administration)
E. MINUTES
1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Regular Meeting of March 16, 2022. (City Clerk)
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
G. NEW BUSINESS
1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Bills to be Ratified.
(Administration)
2. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Purchase Orders Over
$15,000. (Administration)
3. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval – Liquor License Renewals for
The White Moose, New Peking Restaurant and Jersey Subs. (City Clerk)
4. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 4/20/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3277-2022 – Accepting a Grant from the Federal Aviation Administration Under
the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation Act, 2021 and Appropriating
Funds into the Special Revenue Fund. (Administration)
5. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 4/20/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3278-2022 – Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations in the Airport
Special Revenue and Airport Improvements Capital Project Funds and Authorizing a
Professional Services Agreement Amendment to Complete Design Phase Services for the
Kenai Municipal Airport Runway Rehabilitation Project. (Administration)
6. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 4/20/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3279-2022 – Accepting and Appropriating a State of Alaska Grant Passed
through the Southern Region EMS Council, Inc., for Three Scoop Stretchers, Three Adult
Vacuum Splints and Three Pediatric Vacuum Splints. (Administration)
7. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 4/20/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3280-2022 – Accepting and Appropriating a Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant
from the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Passed through the State of
Alaska Division of Forestry for the Purchase of Forestry Firefighting Equipment. (Administration)
8. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 4/20/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3281-2022 – Accepting and Appropriating an American Rescue Plan Act Grant
Passed through the State of Alaska Department of Health and Social Services for Kenai Senior
Center Expenditures in Support of its Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.
(Administration)
9. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 4/20/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3282-2022 – Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations in the Water
71
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 3 of 4
April 06, 2022
and Sewer Special Revenue Fund and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Capital
Project Fund to Provide Supplemental Funding for the Sludge Press Replacement Project.
(Administration)
10. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 4/20/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3283- 2022 – Authorizing a Budget Revision in the Airport Special Revenue
Fund and Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations in the Terminal Improvement
Capital Project Fund for Design Services for the Terminal Landscaping Project. (Administration)
11. APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Action/Approval – Special Use Permit to State of Alaska,
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry for Aircraft Loading and Parking.
(Administration)
12. SPECIAL MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR 4/25/2022 and 4/26/2022. Discussion/Action –
Scheduling Special Meeting(s) for Individual Council Employee Personnel Evaluations to be
conducted between April 20 – April 26. (Mayor Gabriel)
H. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
4. Parks and Recreation Commission
5. Planning and Zoning Commission
6. Beautification Committee
7. Mini-Grant Steering Committee
I. REPORT OF THE MAYOR
J. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
1. City Manager
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Citizens Comments (Public comment limited to five (5) minutes per speaker)
2. Council Comments
L. EXECUTIVE SESSION
M. PENDING ITEMS
N. ADJOURNMENT
O. INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000
2. Kenai Historical Society March Newsletter
72
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 1 of 3
April 20, 2022
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting
April 20, 2022 ꟷ 6:00 PM
Kenai City Council Chambers
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska
**Telephonic/Virtual Information on Page 3**
www.kenai.city
Action Agenda
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Consent Agenda (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes) per speaker; thirty (30) minutes
aggregated)
*All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the council
and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
council member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
B. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to ten (10) minutes per speaker)
1. Kenai Dog Park Friends, Current Need and Future Expansion of the Kenai Dog Park,
Committee Member Crystal Locke.
C. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker;
thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3277-2022 – Accepting a Grant from the Federal
Aviation Administration Under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation
Act, 2021 and Appropriating Funds into the Special Revenue Fund. (Administration)
2. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3278-2022 – Increasing Estimated Revenues and
Appropriations in the Airport Special Revenue and Airport Improvements Capital Project Funds
and Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement Amendment to Complete Design Phase
Services for the Kenai Municipal Airport Runway Rehabilitation Project. (Administration)
3. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3279-2022 – Accepting and Appropriating a State
of Alaska Grant Passed through the Southern Region EMS Council, Inc., for Three Scoop
Stretchers, Three Adult Vacuum Splints and Three Pediatric Vacuum Splints. (Administration)
4. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3280-2022 – Accepting and Appropriating a
Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant from the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Passed through the State of Alaska Division of Forestry for the Purchase of Forestry Firefighting
Equipment. (Administration)
5. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3281-2022 – Accepting and Appropriating an
American Rescue Plan Act Grant Passed through the State of Alaska Department of Health and
Social Services for Kenai Senior Center Expenditures in Support of its Response to the COVID-
19 Public Health Emergency. (Administration)
73
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 2 of 3
April 20, 2022
6. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED. Ordinance No. 3282-2022 – Increasing Estimated
Revenues and Appropriations in the Water and Sewer Special Revenue Fund and Wastewater
Treatment Plant Improvements Capital Project Fund to Provide Supplemental Funding for the
Sludge Press Replacement Project. (Administration)
7. ENACTED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 3283- 2022 – Authorizing a Budget Revision in
the Airport Special Revenue Fund and Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations in
the Terminal Improvement Capital Project Fund for Design Services for the Terminal
Landscaping Project. (Administration)
8. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-23 – Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute an Amendment to the City of Kenai’s Participation Agreement with the Public
Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) to Remove the “Program or Project Employee” Category
of Employees from Participation Effective July 1, 2022. (Administration)
9. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2022-24 – Authorizing a Construction Contract
Award for the Mission Avenue Water Main Improvements Project. (Administration)
10. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED. Resolution No. 2022-25 – Approving the Fifth
Amendment to the City’s Airline Operating Agreement and Terminal Area Lease to Reduce
Certain Insurance Requirements for Operators. (Administration)
11. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED. Resolution No. 2022-26 – Authorizing the Use of
Additional Land at the Daubenspeck Family Park for Expansion of the Dog Park. (Council
Member Winger and Vice Mayor Glendening)
E. MINUTES
1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Regular Meeting of April 6, 2022. (City Clerk)
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
G. NEW BUSINESS
1. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Bills to be Ratified.
(Administration)
2. APPROVED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA. *Action/Approval - Purchase Orders Over
$15,000. (Administration)
3. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 5/4/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3284-2022 – Accepting and Appropriating Private Donations to the Kenai Animal
Shelter for the Care of Animals. (Administration)
4. INTRODUCED BY THE CONSENT AGENDA/PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 5/4/2022.
*Ordinance No. 3285-2022 – Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations in the General
Fund – Police Department and Accepting a Grant from the Alaska High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area for Drug Investigation Overtime Expenditures. (Administration)
5. APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Action/Approval – Consent to Assignment and Assumption of
Lease Agreement, of Lot 5, Block 1, Gusty Subdivision Addition No. 1 Amended, to Forever
Business Plaza, LLC. (Administration)
6. APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Action/Approval – Special Use Permit to Laser Art Alaska, LLC
for a four-month term from May 1, 2022 through August 31, 2022 (Administration)
7. WORK SESSION SCHEDULED FOR 5/14/2022. Discussion/Action – Setting Budget Work
Session Schedule. (Mayor Gabriel)
74
Kenai City Council - Regular Meeting Page 3 of 3
April 20, 2022
H. COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
4. Parks and Recreation Commission
5. Planning and Zoning Commission
6. Beautification Committee
7. Mini-Grant Steering Committee
I. REPORT OF THE MAYOR
J. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
1. City Manager
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Citizens Comments (Public comment limited to five (5) minutes per speaker)
2. Council Comments
L. EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. Possible Donation or Sale of Park View Subdivision Tract A, Kenai Peninsula Borough Parcel
#04701018. Pursuant to AS 44.62.310(c)(1) a Matter of which the Immediate Knowledge may
have an Adverse Effect Upon the Finance of the City.
M. PENDING ITEMS
N. ADJOURNMENT
O. INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Purchase Orders Between $2,500 and $15,000
2. Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council - Update from the Board of Directors
3. Kenai Peninsula Borough 2022 Reapportionment Committee Final Report
The agenda and supporting documents are posted on the City’s website at www.kenai.city. Copies of
resolutions and ordinances are available at the City Clerk’s Office or outside the Council Chamber prior
to the meeting. For additional information, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 907-283-8231.
Join Zoom Meeting OR
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85336877469 Dial In: (253) 215-8782 or (301) 715-8592
Meeting ID: 853 3687 7469 Passcode: 983861 Meeting ID: 853 3687 7469 Passcode: 983861
75