Assembly hears King Salmon Airport master plan; members urge state to preserve non‑aeronautical waterfront lots

Thomas Midendor, the airport planning presenter, reviewed alternatives for taxiways, apron expansions and float‑plane operations at the King Salmon Airport, telling the Bristol Bay Borough Assembly that the plan lays out long‑range capital projects and possible phasing but does not guarantee funding. "It's a long range plan, a 1 year blueprint for airport development," Midendor said, explaining options that include partial parallel taxiways, a full parallel taxiway (more expensive) and split parallel alternatives.

Why it matters: waterfront lease lots and floatplane operations intersect with daily community use, subsistence activities and safety during peak summer months. Residents and leaseholders told the assembly they fear conversion of non‑aeronautical lots to aeronautical use could displace long‑standing local uses and increase congestion on the river.

At the public meeting and in the assembly hearing, leaseholders and residents described safety concerns and seasonal constraints. John Durand urged local control and warned that the DOT letter issued in February signaled intent to enforce grant‑related lease language: "They have the power. They have the authority to enforce the language that is in that letter," he said, urging community input to influence state decisions. Victoria Morrison said summer congestion makes the area "severely dangerous" and asked the borough to oppose changes that would increase floatplane traffic.

Midendor cautioned that FAA grant assurances can limit how airport lands are used: if an aeronautical demand exists, aeronautical purposes can be prioritized on grant‑encumbered lots. He recommended the assembly engage DOT and noted that land transfers or land trades are legally and administratively complex and can take years to complete. "If you're interested in that, take that up with DOT," Midendor said, adding that some land trades have taken multiple years elsewhere.

Action taken: the assembly directed the borough manager to draft a formal communication to the State/DOT that (a) requests the state consider preserving existing non‑aeronautical waterfront lease lots as non‑aeronautical, (b) asks the state to consider transferring specific lease lots to borough management where appropriate, and (c) objects to the float‑plane area element #3 as proposed in the plan. Members discussed whether the borough should prepare a resolution to accompany the letter; staff and members preferred a letter first, with a resolution considered later if needed.

What's next: the assembly asked staff to research whether the borough is still owed state land allotments and to bring a draft letter back to the assembly for review. The plan will return to the borough in the fall with recommended alternatives and a proposed capital improvement program for final comment.

Attribution: Quotes and attributions in this article come from the assembly hearing and public comment period (presentation by Thomas Midendor; comments by John Durand and Victoria Morrison).