Loading...
Contract No. 1993-07CkMHILL STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1 M HILL s Office Access 2550 Denali Street, 8th Floor, , AK 99503 ',olecT Name Chi ni ak Water Studv C; =,2M HILL Proiect ^Jo. ANC300 . 70 ::;.TENT Kodiak Island Borough -access P.O. Box 1246 Alaska 99615 CLIENT requests and authorizes CH2M HILL to perform the following services: SCOPE: Within 45 days of the PTotice to Proceed date C112*4 Hill will deliver to the Kodiak Island Borough a technical *memorandum that recommends improvements to the Chiniak water system for compliance with the Surface Plater Treatment Rule. The work will focus on the need for filtration, disinfection system, and disinfection contact time. COMPENSATION by CLIENT to CH2M HILL will be on the basis of Lump -sum amount of $5,000.00. Kodiak Island Borough to provide transportation for CH211 Hill staff traveling to the project site. When compensation is on a cost -reimbursable basis, a service charge of 10 percent will be added to Direct Expenses. All sales. use, value added, business transfer, gross receipts, or other similar taxes will be added to CH2M HILL 's compensation when invoicing CLIENT. OTHERTERMS: Services covered by this AGREEMENT will be performed in accordance with the Provisions stated on the back of this form and any attachments or schedules. This AGREEMENT supersedes all prior agreements and understandings and may only be changed by w-itten amendment executed by both parties. Approved for CLIENT By —i Title Date Fuge 1 of 2 �7T�ST.I ti %O")')n'Iet "T. .fh'1'LLT/ Accepte for CH2M HILL INC. By Title Date REV 8/92 FORM 124 PROVISIONS 1. Authorization to Proceed __ :,cn c; This AGREEMENT by CL: ENT wiii be aUThof2a0on for ... J_ 70 pr Oceed with the work. unless o-.herwlse provided GREEMENT. 2. Salary Costs -ILL s Scary Costs, wnen the basis of cempensaTnon, are _.curd of wades or salanes prc. CH2fvl HILL employees Tor aork C.ectly performed on the PROJECT plus a oercenraae �ccueo tc all sucn wages or salaries To cover all peyroil-reiatea -axes. ca, menrs. cremiums. and benefits. 3. Per Diem Rates C H2M H ILL s Per Diem Rates, when the basis of compensation, are 'hose nourly or daily rates charged for work performed on the ROJECT by CH2M HILL employees of the indicated classifica- tions. '.nese rates are subject to annual calendar year adjust- menTs and include all allowances for salary, overheads. and fee, but do not include allowances for Direct Expenses. 4. Direct Expenses CH2M HILL's Direct Expenses are those necessary costs and charges incurred for the PROJECT including, but not limited to: (1) the direct costs of transportation, meals and lodging, mail. sub- contracts and outside services: special CLIENT approved PROJECT specific insurance. letters of credit. bonds, and equipment and supplies: (2) CH2M HILL's current standard rate charges for direct use or CH2M HILL's vehicles, computing systems, laboratory test and analysis, word processing, printing and reproduction services, and certain field equipment: and (3) CH2M HILL's standard project charges for special health and safety requirements of OSHA and telecommunications services. 5. Cost Opinions Any cost opinions or PROJECT economic evaluations provided by CH2M HILL will be on a basis of experience and judgment, but, since CH2M HILL has no control over market conditions or bidding procedures, CH2M HILL cannot warrant that bids. ultimate con- struction cost, or PROJECT economics will not vary from these opinions. 6. Standard of Care The standard of care applicable to CH2M HILL's services will be the degree of skill and diligence normally employed by profes- sional engineers or consultants performing the some or similar services ar the time CH2M HILL's services are performed. CH2M HILLwiil reperform any services not meeting this standard without additional compensation. 7. Termination This AGREEMENT maybe terminated for convenience on 30 days' written notice, or for cause, if either parry fails substantially to perform through no fault of the other and does not commence correction of such nonperformance within 5 days of written notice and diligently complete the correction thereafter. On termination, CH2M HILL will be paid for all authorized work per- formed up to the termination date plus termination expenses. such as, but not limited to, reassignment of personnel, subcon- tract termination costs. and related closeout costs. If no notice of termination is given, relationships and obligations created by this AGREEMENT, except Articles 9 through 14, will be terminated upon completion of all applicable requirements of this AGREE- MENT. 8. Payment to CH2M HILL Monthly invoices will be issued by CH2M HILL for all work per- formed under this AGREEMENT. Invoices are due and payable on receipt. Interest at a rate of 1-1/2 percent per month, or that permitted by law if lesser, will be charged on all past -due amounts starting 30 days after date of invoice. Payments will first be credited to interest and then to principal. In the event of a disputed or contested billing, only that portion so contested will be withheld from payment. and the undisputed portion will be paid. CLIENT will exercise reasonableness in con - -esting onv bill or Donlon Thereof. No interest will accrue on any :ontesied pdrTlon ar the oiling until mu-uclly resolved. 9. Limitation of Liability _o the maximum extent bermirtea by,aw C=2M HILL s liability for CLIENT's damages Tor any cause or camr: rcnon or causes will, in 'he aggregate, norexceea the compensation received byCH2M --IiLL uneer this AGREEMENT. This Provision Takes oreeeaence over any confilctina Provision or this AGREE?JEiNT or any document ncdrooraTea into IT or referenced by IT. 10. Severability and Survival If any of the provisions contained in Tis AGREEMENT are held Illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the enforceability or the reman- ing provisions shall not be impaired thereby. Limitations or liability indemnities, and other express representations shall survive termi- nation of this AGREEMENT for any cause. 11. Asbestos or Hazardous Substances To the maximum extent permitted by law, CLIENT will indemnify CH2M HILL from all claims, damages, losses, and costs, including litigation expenses and attorneys fees. arising out of or relating to the presence, discharge, release, or escape of hazardous sub- stances. contaminants, or asbestos on. under, or from the PROJECT. 12. Loan Monitoring Services When CH2M HILL is providing PROJECT review and/or construc- tion monitoring services to lenders, CLIENT (Lender) will, to The maximum extent permitted by law, indemnify CH2M HILL from all claims. damages, losses, and expenses, including litigation costs and attorney's fees, arising out of or relating to CH2M HILL's involvement or presence on or near the PROJECT. CH2M HILL is not responsible for the duties and responsibilities that belong tothe borrower(s), developer(s). construction contractor(s). designer(s), Testing-laboratory(ies), full-time inspector(s), or other parties associated with the PROJECT not in the employ of or a subcontractor to CH2M HILL. 13. Interpretation The limitations of liability and indemnities will apply whether CH2M HILL's liability arises under breach of contract or warranty: tort, including negligence: strict liability: statutory liability: or any other cause of action, except the limitations will not apply to willful misconduct or gross negligence for limitations of liability or sole negligence for indemnification. Said limitations shall apply to CH21M HILL's officers, affiliated corporations, employees, and subcontractors. The law of the State of A 1 a Rk a shall govern the validity of this AGREEMENT, its interpretation and performance, and any other claims related to it. 14. No Third Party Beneficiaries This AGREEMENT gives no rights or benefits to anyone other Char, CLIENT and CH2M HILL and has no Third party beneficiaries. CH2M HILL services are defined solely by this AGREEMENT, and not by any other contract or agreement that may be associated with the Project. 15. Materials and Samples Any items, substances, materials, or samples removed from the PROJECT site for testing. analysis. or other evahmtion will be returned to the PROJECT site within 60 days of PROJECT close-out unless agreed to otherwise, CLIENT recognizes and agrees that CH2M HILL is acting as a bailee and at no time assumes title To said items, substances, materials, or samples. 16. Assignments This is a bilateral personal services AGREEMENT. Neither party shall have The power to or will assign any of the duties or rights or any claim arising out of or related to this AGREEMENT, whether arising in tort. contract or otherwise. without the written consent of the other party. Any unauthorized assignment is void and unenforce- able. These conditions and the entire AGREEMENT are binding on the heirs, successors. and assigns of the parties hereto. Page 2 of 2 REV 8192 FORM 124 Ac -93-6`7 CoWH//L STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES `VHILI ICfficeAddress2550 Denali Street, 8th Floor, Anchorage, ?1K 99503 ='oleCT Name Chi n; ak "a S dy 21 HILL Prciecr ^;0 ANC300. 70 J o iak 1slandOP011q -==P.O.P.O. Box 1246 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 CJENT requests and authorizes CH2M HILL to perform the following services: SCOPE: Within 45 days of the Notice to Proceed date CH')*t Hill will deliver to the Kodiak Island Borough a technical memorandum that recommends improvements to the Chiniak water system for compliance with the Surface Prater Treatment Rule. The work will focus on the need for filtration, disinfection system, and disinfection contact time. COMPENSATION by CLIENT to CH2M HILL will be on the basis of Lump -sum amount of $5,000.00. Kodiak Island Borough to provide transportation for CH271 Hill staff traveling to the project site. When compensation is on a cost -reimbursable basis, a service charge of 10 percent will be added to Direct Expenses. All sales. use, value added, business transfer. gross receipts. or other similar taxes will be added to CH2M HILL s compensation anen invoicing CLIENT. OTHER TERMS: Services covered by this AGREEMENT will be performed in accordance with the Provisions stated on the back of this form and any attachments or schedules. This AGREEMENT supersedes all prior agreements and understandings and may only be changed by wr+rtrn amendment executed by both parties. Approved for CLIENT 3I — - YL" Title DOTE Page 130,2cuc4i c't-ERK Accepted//f'' r CH2M HILL I`B'T INC. By 1� /7 - Title Date REV 8/92 FORM 124 PROVISIONS 1. authorization to Proceed _ n.. -T This?,GREEMENT by CLIENT will be auTror¢aTion Tor -_ cceeO with the work. unless cmerwise crovaea -esting onv ctll or ccmcn Thereof. "I: r'ereST wail accrue on any =Tesea porion CT The Odung unrJ mutcaiiv resolved. 9. Limitation of Liability _erre rnaxn T'.uni exieni ueinniieu L, uw �-.cyi ­;rL siuuimv vi 2. Salary Costs ---IENT's camages Tor cry ccuse crccmciraTion oTcauses will, in arv_Ccsfs, wnen the basis of compensanon. are '`eaggregareeoTexceearneccmeersaTionrece!vedbyCH2M c`voaes or salaries cdo CH21l 'HILL emiclovees Tor— I Tsrrovisroe Tauesbrece ence v - - - n c. �_ ,, cerrormea on the PROJECT plus a percemdae anv conmctina ?rovisicn or this AGREEMENT or any aocument .cc,c..'- all such wages or salaries TO cover OH pavroil-reiotea ' ccreorareo InTO It or retefencea cv 4. -:xes�cc:menrs. cremwms, cna benefits. 10. Severability and Survival 3. Per Diem Rates C H2,%1 H l L s Per Diem Rates, when the basis of compensation, are -lose hourly or aaily rates charged for work performed on the ROJEC' cv CH2M HILL employees of the indicatea classified - Tions. LIlese rates are subject to annual calendar year adjust- ments Ono include all allowances for salary, overheads, and fee, out do not include allowances for Direct Expenses. 4. Direct Expenses CH2M HILL's Direct Expenses are those necessary costs and charges incurred for the PROJECT including, but not limited to: (1) the direct costs of transportation, meals and lodging, mail, sub- contracts and outside services: special CLIENT approved PROJECT specific insurance, letters of credit, bonds, and equipment and supplies: (2) CH2M HILL's current standard rate charges for direct use of CH2M HILL's vehicles, computing systems, laboratory test and analysis, word processing, printing and reproduction services, and certain field equipment; and (3) CH2M HILL's standard project charges for special health and safety requirements of OSHA and telecommunications services. 5. Cost Opinions Any cost opinions or PROJECT economic evaluations provided by CH2M HILL will be on a basis of experience and judgment, but, since CH2M HILL has no control over market conditions or bidding procedures, CH2M HILL cannot warrant that bids, ultimate con- struction cost, or PROJECT economics will not vary from these opinions. 6. Standard of Care The standard of care applicable to CH2M HILL's services will be the degree of skill and diligence normally employed by profes- sions enaineers or consultants performing the same or similar services CT the time CH2M HILL "s services are performed. CH2M -TILL w,ii reperform any services not meeting This standard without Odaitionci compensation. 7. Termination This AGREEMENT may be terminated for ccnvernence on 30 days written notice, or for cause, if either parry fails substantially to perform through no fault of the other and does not commence correction of such nonperformance within 5 days of written notice and diligently complete the correction thereafter. On termination, CH2M HILL will be paid for all authorized work pen formed i to the termination date plus termination expenses, such as, but not limited to, reassignment of personnel, subcon- 'ract termination costs, and related closeout costs. If no notice of termination is given, relationships and obligations created by this AGREEMENT, except Articles 9 through 14, will be terminated upon completion of all applicable requirements of this AGREE- MENT 8. Payment to CH2M HILL Monthly invoices will be issued by CH2M HILL for all work per- formed under this AGREEMENT. Invoices are due and payable on receipt. Interest at a rate of 1-1/2 percent per month, or that permitted by law if lesser, will be charged on all past -due amounts starting 30 days after date of invoice. Payments will first be credited to interest and then to principal. n the event of a disputed or contested billing, only that portion so contested will be withheld from payment, and the undisputed portion will be paid. CLIENT will exercise reasonableness in con - ',f any of the provisions contained in mis AGREEMENT are held ,legal, mvaiia or unenforceable, the enforceability 'orthe remain - ng provisions snail nor be impairea thereby. Limitations of liability indemnities, and other express representations shall survive termi- nation of this AGREEMENT for any cause. 11. Asbestos or Hazardous Substances To the maximum extent permitted by law, CLIENT will indemnify CH2M HILL from all claims, damages, losses, and costs, including litigation expenses and attorney's fees, arising curt of or relating to the presence, discharge, release, or escape of hazardous sub- stances, contaminants, or asbestos on, under, or from the PROJECT. 12. Loan Monitoring Services When CH2M HILL is providing PROJECT review and/or construc- tion monitoring services to lenders, CLIENT (Lender) will, to the maximum extent permitted by law, indemnify CH2M HILL from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including litigation costs and attorney's fees, arising out of or relating to CH2M HILL's involvement or presence on or near the PROJECT. CH2M HILL is not responsible for the duties and responsibilities that belong to the borrower(s), developer(s), construction contractor(s). designer(s), testing laboratory(ies), full-time inspector(s), or other parties associated with the PROJECT not in the employ of or a subcontractor to CH2M HILL, 13. Interpretation The limitations of liability and indemnities will apply whether CH2M HILL's liability arises under breach of contract or warranty: tort, including negligence. strict liability: statutory liability: or any other cause of action, except the limitations will not apply to willful misconduct or gross negligence for limitations of liability or sole negligence for Indemnification. Said limitations shall apply to CH2M HILL "s officers, cTfiliatea ccrooraTiOns, employees, and suoconiractors. The law of the State of Al A cka shall govern the validity of this AGREEMENT. .is interpretation and performance, and any other claims related to it. 14. No Third Party Beneficiaries This AGREEMENT gives no rights or benefits to anyone other Than CLIENT and CH2M HILL and has no third party beneficiaries. CH2M HILL services are defined solely by th is AGREEMENT, and not by any other contract or agreement that may be associated with the Project. 15. Materials and Samples Any items, substances, materials, or samples removed from the PROJECT site for testing, analysis, or other evaluation will be returned to the PROJECT site within 60 days of PROJECT close-out unless agreed to otherwise, CLIENT recognizes and cgrees that CH2M HILL is acting as a bailee Ono at no time assumes title to said items, substances, materials, of samples 16. Assignments This is a bilateral personal services AGREEMENT. Neither party shall have the power to or will assign any or the dunes or rights or any claim arising out of or related to this AGREEMENT, whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise, without the written consent of the other party, Any unauthorized assignment is void and unenforce- able. These conditions and the entire AGREEMENT are binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. Page 2 of 2 REV 8/92 FORM 124 ITEM NO. 12.D.5 Kodiak Island Borough AGENDA STATEMENT Meeting of: February 18, 1993 Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program Request -for -Proposal. FISCAL NOTES [X] N/A Expenditure Amount Required Budgeted APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to authorize release of the Request -for -Proposal for the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Voice - 486-9360 / Fax - 486-9374 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (KIBCMP) PROGRAM REVISIONS This request for proposals is being issued by the Kodiak Island Borough for the Purpose of selecting a contractor to assist the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department with the revision of the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program (KIBCMP). BACKGROUND The Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program (KIBCMP) was approved by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council on December 8, 1983. As provided for in federal regulations, the Program was subsequently incorporated into the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) by the Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management. The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly adopted the KIBCMP by ordinance on February 2, 1984 and the Program has served as the basis for consistency reviews at the federal, state and local levels since March 14, 1984. The Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program consists of several program documents and accompanying maps. These are: Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program, Resource Maps (color set, June 1981; mylar revisions, April 1982); Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program, Progress Report Reprint (Resource Inventory and Analysis), June 1983; Kodiak Island Approved Draft, Addendum #1. Borough Coastal Management Program, Concept June 1983, reprinted in June 1988 incorporating Request for Proposal - KIBCMP Page 1 of 8 DRAFT - February 18, 1993 Since the original adoption of the KIBCMP, the Kodiak Island Borough has increased in area, with the annexation of land on the Alaska Peninsula and islands south of the archipelago in the Gulf of Alaska. The annexation, effective in March of 1989, has created a unique pattern of coastal management authorities within the Kodiak Island Borough. Specifically, lands annexed into the Borough have not yet been incorporated into the KIBCMP. The lands on the Alaska Peninsula are still part of the Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program (BBCMP), which is now managed under the split jurisdiction of the Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area (BBCRSA) and the Lake and Peninsula Borough. Other portions of the annexed lands have not been incorporated into any coastal district program. In addition, since the adoption of the KIBCMP, the program has functioned as the comprehensive plan for the remote areas of the Borough. II. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this project is to revise the KIBCMP. Effective coastal management and long range planning in the Kodiak Island Borough requires revision of the KIBCMP to extend its applicability to all the lands in the Borough, and to update it's comprehensiveness to deal with current resource management/development conflicts. The project has the following objectives: 1. The resource and inventory analysis portion of the KIBCMP is over ten (10) years old. In addition, for some of the annexed portions of the Borough no resource inventory or analysis has been completed. One objective of this project is to revise and update the resource inventory and analysis section of the KIBCMP. 2. The KIBCMP has served as the Borough -wide comprehensive plan since its formal adoption in 1984. As the Kodiak Island Borough has changed over the intervening years, there has been a recognition that revisions to the KIBCMP would allow the program to better serve this purpose. One objective of this project is to revise the KIBCMP Concept Approved Draft to reflect the Kodiak Island Borough's current long term planning goals, since the Borough intends to continue using the KIBCMP as the comprehensive plan for the remote areas of the Borough. Specific portions of the KIBCMP that are Request for Proposal - KIBCMP Page 2 of 8 DRAFT - February 18, 1993 considered to be in need of revision are the district boundaries; issues, goals, and objectives; resource management area classification; subject uses and policies; and implementation. 3. An extensive public participation program was conducted as part of the original development of the KIBCMP. One objective of this revision process is to again involve the public as much as possible in the planning process. At a minimum, the contractor will be expected to work closely with the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly and Planning and Zoning Commission. It is possible, but not certain that a citizen/agency advisory committee will be established to provide feedback to the contractor in the completion of the work products established by the contract resulting from this RFP. It is anticipated that this project will be conducted in two (2) phases; work able to be completed by June 30, 1993 and work to take place between July 1, 1993 and June 30, 1994. III. SCOPE OF WORK Work Tasks A. The consultant will review information contained in the KIBCMP and BBCMP program documents. B. The consultant will review and update, where appropriate, the KIBCMP and BBCMP resource inventory and analysis to address the lands and waters of the Borough. Revisions and supplemental information will be provided, where appropriate, to address land ownership, socio-economic data, community infrastructure and populations, commercial recreation use areas, seabird colonies, marine mammal populations and haul -out areas, caribou populations and use areas, documented distribution of anadromous fish streams and other relevant resource information. The Borough will provide consultant with 20 paper copies of maps at scale and detail sufficient to permit draft sketches of resource information for future use by the Borough. The KIBCMP resource analysis will be revised focusing on resource concerns and potential development activities in, or affecting, the Borough. The Borough shall be responsible for identification of key development activities and projects to be addressed in the analysis. Request for Proposal - KIBCMP Page 3 of 8 DRAFT - February 18, 1993 Work Product: A draft narrative discussing appropriate revisions and updates of the KIBCMP's resource inventory and analysis to be combined with existing information. C. The Borough coastal boundary will be evaluated. The existing KIBCMP boundary includes all lands within the original Borough boundaries. The updated resource inventory may provide information upon which to evaluate the KIBCMP boundary. Following completion of the resource inventory and analysis and issues, goals and objectives, the Borough will consider whether the coastal boundary will 1) remain the same as that in the KIBCMP and the BBCMP, 2) be revised to incorporate new information from the resource inventory and analysis, or 3) be revised to reflect new criteria or the inclusion of potential development areas which might adversely affect coastal resources. Any boundary revisions should consider compatibility with adjoining district coastal boundaries (Kenai Peninsula Borough, and Lake and Peninsula Borough) for consistent implementation of the ACMP, and the Borough's desire to continue to use the KIBCMP as the remote area comprehensive plan. Work Product: Alternative boundary approaches for consideration by the Borough, and their implication for continued use of the KIBCMP as a comprehensive planning document. D. The consultant shall prepare preliminary issues, goals and objectives to reflect the concerns and desires of Borough residents. Major elements in development of issues, goals and objectives are economic development; commercial fishing and seafood processing; transportation and improved access; subsistence and personal use of fish and wildlife resources; proposed oil and gas exploration and development; recreation and tourism (especially sport fishing and hunting), and cumulative and secondary impacts of development. The revised goals and objectives should be developed to be compatible with other Borough planning vehicles such as local area plans. As noted previously, it is intended that the revised KIBCMP be the comprehensive Borough -wide planning document. The following steps will be followed in preparation of issues, goals and objectives: 1. Review existing issues, goals and objectives in the KIBCMP and the BBCMP, refuge and national park comprehensive plans, state land plans, and recently developed coastal management plans in nearby areas; Request for Proposal - KIBCMP Pape 4 of 8 DRAFT - February 18, 1993 2. work with Borough staff to identify current Borough and community concerns relevant to coastal management; 3. prepare a review draft of issues, goals and objectives for discussion with the Borough Planning and Zoning Commission and Assembly, and for distribution to Borough communities and residents for review; and 4. modify and review draft of issues, goals and objectives based on the comments received. Work Product: Written review draft of issues, goals and objectives. E. The consultant will develop a policy issue analysis to identify subject areas for policies which will address coastal resource management and development concerns noted in the resource inventory, resource analysis, and issues, goals and objectives. Work Product: Summary of policy issue analysis. F. The consultant will further work with staff to refine the resource management classification system contained in the KIBCMP. This task will also include review and revisions of Chapter 5 (Policies) and Chapter 6 (Implementation), building on Task E above. Work Product: Draft of revised resource management area classification, policies, and implementation for KIBCMP. IV. PROJECT BUDGET The proposed budget for project completion will be considered in the selection of a contractor. A maximum of $20,000 is available to fund the completion of Phase 1 of the project. Funding has not yet been committed for Phase 2. The contractor is responsible for identifying how the specified tasks and work products should be allocated between Phase 1 and Phase 2. V. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS Request for Proposal - KIBCMP Pape 5 of 8 DRAFT - February 18, 1993 Three copies of the proposal must be mailed or delivered to the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department, 710 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615. Proposals must be received -at the Kodiak Island Bar©egh�4.30-P.m., March -TS, 1993. - -- --- -- A contract for professional services resulting from this RFP must be submitted to the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs for approval. VI. CONTENTS OF PROPOSALS Proposals should contain for each work product: A work program and schedule for preparation of the product, including a timetable for research, consultation with agencies and coastal districts, preparation of draft products, product review, and preparation of final products. A list of personnel who will be performing the work and their qualifications and percentage of time they will spend on this contract. A detailed description of previous experience with the ACMP and/or other state resource regulatory programs, including samples of similar work. A detailed budget, including cost of personnel, equipment, production, printing, distribution and travel. Three references for persons familiar with previous work products. VII. EVALUATION The proposals will be evaluated on the basis of: Contractor's experience and samples of similar work, including familiarity with the ACMP and comprehensive planning, 45%. Description of the project treatment, 45%. Budget, 10% (Alaskan vendors will receive a 10% cost preference). Request for Proposal - KIBCMP Page 8 of 8 DRAFT - February 18, 1993 VIII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Specific questions or comments about this RFP must be in writing and directed to Linda L. Freed, Coastal Program Coordinator, by March 5, 1993. Answers to these inquiries will be distributed to all interested respondents prior to the close of the RFP. IX. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The contract will last from the date of signing through June 30, 1993. Depending on the availability of funds, a contract amendment will be negotiated for Phase 2 of the project. The Borough shall not be subject to payment for cost incurred for proposal preparation or contract preparation as a result of valid or legal termination of this RFP, nor termination of the contract resulting from the award of this RFP. All costs incurred by respondents in preparation of this proposal, including travel and personal expenses, may not be charged as an expense of performing the contract. All designs, drawings, specifications, notes and other work developed in the performance of this agreement are and remain the sole property of the Kodiak Island Borough and may be used by the Borough for any other purpose without additional compensation to the Contractor. The Contractor agrees not to assert any rights and not to establish any claim under the design patent or copyright laws. The Contractor for a period of three years after final payment under this contract, agrees to furnish and provide access to all retained materials at the request of the Project Director. Unless otherwise directed by the Project Director, the Contractor may retain copies of all the materials. If it becomes necessary for the KIB to revise any part of this RFP significantly or to lengthen the proposal deadline date, addenda will be provided to all contractors who have been provided the RFP. The Borough reserves the right to reject any proposal not adhering to material requirements set out in this RFP. Request for Proposal - K18CMP Pepe 7 of 8 DRAFT - February 18, 1993 The Borough reserves the right to use any ideas presented in the response to this RFP. Selection or rejection of a proposal does not affect that right. It COMT&M 114914UL-are unsucces ufi with -the pnmary award-e-el_fhe Borough may either cancel the RFP or negotiate with the respondent who submitted the next best proposal. Prior to contract approval, the successful respondent must supply proof of workers compensation. All respondents (prime contractor or subcontractor (s)) will be required to hold a valid Alaska Business License and the necessary professional occupational licenses required by State law. For more information on these licenses, contact the Department of Revenue, Business License, P.O. Box SA, Juneau, AK 99811 and/or the Department of Occupational Licensing, P.O. Box D, Juneau, AK 99811. All subcontractors must be disclosed five working days after notice of intent to award. The proposal submitted in response to this RFP must remain valid for at least 90 calendar days. All proposals and other material submitted become the property of the Borough any may be returned only at the Borough's option. This RFP does not obligate the Borough to perform until a contract is signed and approved by both parties. If it is approved, it is effective from the date of approval. Request for Proposal - KIBCMP Paps a of 8 DRAFT - February 16, 1993 Cf—y3-u ? PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT 1: ASSISTANCE WITH REVISIONS TO THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - PHASE 2 - THIS CONTRACT made and entered into this 20th day of October,1999 by and between the KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH and JON ISAACS AND ASSOCIATES. Section 1. Definition. In this contract: (A) The term 'Borough" means the Kodiak Island Borough. (B) The term "Consultant' means the firm Jon Isaacs and Associates. (C) The term "Mayor" means the mayor of the Kodiak Island Borough or his authorized representative. Section 2. Employment of Consultant. The Borough hereby agrees to engage the Consultant and the Consultant hereby agrees to perform the services hereafter set forth. Section 3. Scope of Work. The Consultant shall perform all the services provided for by this contract which are described with particularity in Appendix "A," entitled Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 4. Personnel. Personnel shall be limited to those listed in the proposal by Jon Isaacs and Associates. Section 5. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant shall commence upon Notice To Proceed and shall terminate on June 30, 1994. The period of performance may be extended for additional periods only by the mutual written agreement of the parties. Section 6. Compensation. (A) Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Borough shall pay the Consultant a total sum for all services and expenses for the term of this contract, not exceeding the sum as set forth in Appendix "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, for services required by this contract. (B) Travel or per diem required for the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to Appendix 'B". I (C) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Borough shall not provide any additional compensation, payment, use of facilities, service or other thing of value to the Consultant in connection with performance of contract duties. The parties understand and agree that, except as otherwise providedin this section, administrative overhead and -indirect ar direct CBSt& ilw Consultant may incur in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement have already been included in computation of the Consultant's fee and may not be charged to the Borough. Section 7. Method and Time of Pavment. (A) The Borough will pay to the Consultant the amount set forth in Appendix 'B" which shall constitute the full and complete compensation for the Consultant's professional services. That sum will be paid on receipt of billings submitted pursuant to a schedule set forth in Appendix 'B." A billing is a summary of expenditures to date by line item categories (e.g., Personal Services, Travel, Contractual, Commodities and Equipment). Documentation of expenditures need not be submitted with billings but must be retained by the Consultant in the event the Borough requests said documentation. (B) No payment will be disbursed until the completed task and associated expenditures have been approved by the Borough. Billings shall be submitted to the Manager in accordance with the schedule in Appendix "B." (C) It is expressly understood and agreed that in no event shall the total compensation due the Consultant exceed THIRTY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY and NO/100 DOLLARS ($32,020.00). Section 8. Termination of Contract for Cause. If, through any cause, the Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner the obligations under this contract, or if the Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, the Borough shall thereupon have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys and reports or other material prepared by the Consultant under this contract are the property of the Borough and shall be delivered to the Borough by or upon the effective date of termination. The Consultant shall be entitled to receive compensation in accordance with the payment provisions of Appendix "B" of this Agreement only for work completed to the Borough's satisfaction in accordance with Appendix "A" of this Agreement and the other terms of this Agreement. Section 9. Termination for Convenience of Borough. The Borough may terminate this contract at any time by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date of such termination. All finished or unfinished documents and other materials as described in section 8 above are the property of the Borough and shall be delivered to the Borough by or upon the effective date of execution of this section. The Consultant shall be entitled to receive compensation in accordance with the payment provisions of Appendix "B" of this Agreement only for work completed to the Borough's 2 satisfaction in accordance with Appendix "A" of this Agreement and the other terms of this Agreement. If this contract is terminated due to the fault of the Consultant, section 8 of this contract shall govern the rights and liabilities of the parties. Section 10. Causes Beyond Control. In the event the Consultant is prevented by a cause or causes beyond control of the Consultant from performing any obligation of this contract, non-performance resulting from such cause or causes shall not be deemed to be a breach of this contract which will render the Consultant liable for damages or give rights to the cancellation of the contract for cause. However, if and when such cause or causes cease to prevent performance, the Consultant shall exercise all reasonable diligence to resume and complete performance of the obligation with the least possible delay. The phrase "cause or causes beyond control," as used in this section, means any one or more of the following causes which are not attributable to the fault or negligence of the Consultant and which prevent the performance of the Consultant: fire, explosions, acts of God, war, orders or law of duly constituted public authorities, and other major uncontrollable and unavoidable events, all of the foregoing which must actually prevent the Consultant from performing the terms of the contract as set forth herein. Events which are peculiar to the Consultant and would not prevent another Consultant from performing, including, but not limited to financial difficulties, are not causes beyond the control of the Consultant. The Borough will determine whether the event preventing the Consultant from performing is a cause beyond the Consultant's control. Section 11. Modifications. (A) The parties may mutually agree to modify the terms of the contract. Modifications to the contract shall be incorporated into the contract by written amendments. (B) It is expressly understood that the Borough may require changes in the scope of services and an unreasonable refusal by the contractor to agree to modification in the scope of services will be the basis for termination of the contract for cause. It is expressly understood that the total amount of compensation for successful performance of the contract will not be modified, under any circumstances, without prior written approval of the Borough. Section 12. Equal Employment Opportunity. (A) The Consultant will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical handicap, age, status as a disabled veteran, or veteran of the Vietnam war era. The Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical handicap, age, status as a disabled veteran, or veteran of the Vietnam war era. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotions, or transfers; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoffs or terminations; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; selection for training, including apprenticeship; and participation in 3 recreational and educational activities. The Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places available for employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. The Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed -by en-behal Df -the -Co state that all qualified -applicants-iivill receive oansideratinn employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical handicap, age, or status as a disabled veteran, or veteran of the Vietnam war era. The Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts for any work covered by this contract. (B) The Consultant shall keep such records and submit such reports concerning the equal opportunity employment provisions set forth in subsection 12 (A) for applicants for employment and employees as the Borough may require. Section 13. Interest of Members of Borough and Others. No officer, member or employee of the Borough and no member of its governing body, and no other public official of the governing body shall participate in any decision relating to this contract which affects their personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which they are, directly or indirectly, interested or having any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof. Section 14. Assignability. (A) The Consultant shall not assign any interest in this contract and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation) without the prior written consent of the Borough, thereto; provided, however that claims for money due or to become due to the Consultant from the Borough under this contract may be assigned by court order or to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution without such approval. Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the Borough, or the Consultant shall be responsible to the Borough for any moneys due the assignee of this Agreement which are paid directly to the Consultant. (B) The Consultant shall not delegate duties or otherwise subcontract work or services under this contract without the prior written approval of the Borough. Section 15. Interest of Consultant. The Consultant covenants, that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this contract. The Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this contract, no person having any such interest shall be employed. Section 16. Findings Confidential. To the extent permitted or required by law any reports, information, data, etc., given to or prepared or assembled by the Consultant under this contract which the Borough requests to be kept confidential shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without the prior written approval of the Borough. EI Section 17. Officials Not to Benefit. No members of or delegate to the Congress of the United States and no resident commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part thereof or to any benefit to arise from this contract. No member of the legislature or officer of the state of Alaska or the Borough Section 18. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Materials. No material produced, in whole or in part, under this contract shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other country. The Borough shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data or other materials prepared under this contract. Section 19. Audits and Inspections. At any time during normal business hours and as often as the Borough or the Comptroller General of the United States may deem necessary, there shall be made available for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this contract and will permit representatives of the Borough or the Comptroller General to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment, and other data relating to all matters covered by this contract. Section 20. Jurisdiction; Choice of Law. Any civil action arising from this contract shall be brought in the superior court for the third judicial district of the state of Alaska at Palmer. The law of the state of Alaska shall govern the fights and obligations of the parties. Section 21. Non -Waiver. The failure of the Borough at any time to enforce a provision of this contract shall in no way constitute a waiver of the provisions, nor in any way affect the validity of this contract or any part thereof, or the right of the Borough thereafter to enforce each and every protection hereof. Section 22. Permits. Laws and Taxes. The Consultant shall acquire and maintain in good standing all permits, licenses and other entitlements necessary to the performance under this contract. All actions taken by the Consultant under this contract shall comply with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations. The Consultant shall pay all taxes pertaining to its performance under this contract. Section 23. Relationship of the Parties. The Consultant shall perform its obligations hereunder as an independent contractor of the Borough. The Borough may administer this Agreement and monitor the Consultant's compliance with this Agreement but shall not supervise or otherwise direct the Consultant except to provide recommendations and to provide approvals pursuant to this Agreement. Section 24. Contract Administration. (A) The Borough Mayor or their designee, will be the representative of the Borough administering this Agreement. (B) The services to be famished by the Consultant shall be administered, supervised, and directed by Jon Isaacs. In the event that the individual named above or any of the individuals identified in the proposal to perform work under the contract is unable to serve for any reason, the Consultant shall appoint -- a successor in interest subject to a-wrimn approval of theKodiak Island Borough,- Section 25. Integration. This instrument and all appendices and amendments hereto embody the entire agreement of the parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions or obligations other than those contained herein; and this contract shall supersede all previous communications, representations or agreements, either oral or written, between the parties. To the extent they are not inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement, the following documents are incorporated by reference into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein: ALASKA BUSINESS LICENSE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE Section 26. Borough Held Harmless. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold and save the Borough, its elected and appointed officers, agents and employees, harmless from liability of any nature or kind, including costs, expenses, and attorney's fees for or on account of any and all legal actions or claims of any character resulting from injuries, death, economic loss, or damages sustained by any person, or property arising from Consultant's, or Consultant's officers, agents, employees, attorneys, partners, assigns and subcontractors, performance of this contract in any way whatsoever. Section 27. Interpretation and Enforcement. This Agreement is being executed by the parties following negotiations between them. It shall be construed according to the fair intent of the language as a whole, not for or against any party. The titles of sections in this Agreement are not to be construed as limitations or definitions but are for identification purposes only. Section 28. Consultant Insurance. (A) The Consultant will, at its own expense, secure and maintain and will file with the Borough proper and acceptable insurance coverage, including defense and indemnification of the Borough. The insurance coverage will be secured with an insurance company acceptable to the Borough and shall be primary to any coverage carried by the Consultant which may cover the work specified in this Agreement. (1) Worker's Compensation Insurance in compliance with the laws of the state of Alaska, AS 23.30, et. sea., and federal jurisdiction where the work is being performed, covering all employees engaged in the performance of the work specified in this Agreement. Employer's Liability limits shall be: $100,000 each accident; $500,000 disease --policy limit; $100,000 disease --each employee. (2) Comprehensive General Liability: Limit $300,000 Bodily Injury and Property Damage, combined Single Limit. Coverage to include: Premises Operation Products/Completed Operations Independent Contractors Blanket Contractual Broad Form Property Damage Personal Injury with Exclusion "C" deleted (3) Comprehensive Automobile Liability: Limit $100,000 Bodily Injury and Property Damage, Combined Single Limit. Coverage to include: Scheduled Vehicles Hired Vehicles Non -owned Vehicles (4) Unemployment Insurance by payment of employment security taxes for all employees hired by the Consultant to work on this project. In the event of the Consultant's failure to pay such taxes, the Borough will withhold an amount sufficient to pay such taxes from any payments owed to the Consultant by the Borough. The Borough also reserves the fight to contact the Alaska State Department of Labor, in order to determine whether unemployment security taxes have been paid by the Consultant. The Borough further reserves the right to withhold that portion of employment security taxes owed to any employees pending notification of the Consultant's unemployment security tax clearance from the Alaska State Department of Labor. (B) A lapse in insurance coverage is a material breach of this contract which shall result in immediate termination of the contract, pursuant to Section 8. (C) Each policy of insurance required by this section shall provide for no less than 30 days' advance notice to the Borough prior to cancellation. Each policy shall name the Borough as an additional insured. Each policy shall be endorsed to waive all fights of subrogation against the Borough by reason of any payment made for claims under the above coverage. Section 29. Severability. If any section or clause of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, or is otherwise invalid under the law, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Section 30. Understanding. The Consultant acknowledges that the Consultant has read and understands the terms of this Agreement, has had the opportunity to review the same with counsel of their choice, and is executing this Agreement of their own free will. 7 Section 31. Notices. Any notice required pertaining to the subject matter of the contract shall be personally delivered or mailed by prepaid first-class, registered or certified mail to the following address: 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Consultant: Jonathan Isaacs 2418 Forest Park Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99517 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CONSULTANT: Acting Mayor J lz�— Id -s 19 ]�' lob c� r53 DATE DATE ATTEST: Borough Clerk 8 APPENDIX A: SCOPE OF WORK Draft 7/27/93 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PHASE 2 REVISIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND In March of 1993, the Kodiak Island Borough initiated revision of its coastal management program. Since the program was prepared several, changes have occurred that indicate a need for program revisions: • The Borough increased in area with the 1989 annexation of lands on the Alaskan Peninsula and islands south of the archipelago in the Gulf of Alaska • Many portions of the KIBCMP are out of date and should be revised • Current land use issues and use of the KIBCMP as an informal comprehensive plan indicate a need to update the KIBCMP The Phase 1 effort focussed on revising the issues, goals and objectives; initiating changes to the resource inventory and analysis; making boundary recommendations; and making preliminary recommendations for changes to the policies and implementation. 1.2 PHASE 2 OBJECTIVES The proposal to continue revisions to the KIBCMP in phase 2 has the following objectives: • revise the KIBCMP to provide effective coastal management and long range planning in the Kodiak Island Borough • complete revisions to the resource inventory and analysis • review, evaluate, and revise the classification areas, subject uses, and policies of the KIBCMP • review, evaluate, and revise the implementation chapter of the KIBCMP 11 Draft 7/27/93 • review, evaluate, and revise Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) recommendations for the KIBCMP • complete an adequate public participation program with a Citizens Advisory Committee and Borough residents • prepare a Public Hearing Draft (PHD) of the revised KIBCMP, and hold appropriate public and agency meetings • incorporate comments on the PHD into a Concept Approved Draft for approval by the Borough Planning Commission, Assembly, and submittal to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council for approval • assist the Borough with evaluation of state Findings and Conclusions on the Concept Approved Draft and presentation of the plan to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council for approval 2.0 PHASE 2 WORK PLAN As indicated in the introduction, preparation of the Public Hearing and Concept Approved Draft will take place in Phase 2. The following tasks are scheduled for Phase 2: Task 1 Completion of Resource Inventory and Analysis Using information obtained from the Minerals Management Service, Petromarine, the 1990 census, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, updating the resource inventory and analysis. The update will focus on topics 1) identified in the issues, goals, and objectives, and 2) pertinent to providing support to land use regulations. Task 2 Review, evaluate, and revise the classification areas, subject uses and policies of the KIBCMP Based on the revised issues, goals, and objectives, and revised inventory and analysis, the nature and boundaries of the resource classifications areas will be reviewed and revised. Land use and zoning will also be taken into consideration. 2 Draft 7/27/93 KIBCMP policies will be evaluated and revised based on several factors: enforceabVe and -adff strative potfcy Language Trom more recent coastal management plans • the focus of the revised issues, goals, and objectives • land use and zoning considerations Special management or other area -specific policy schemes have been useful in other coastal management plans, and may be used if necessary. These more specific policies can be applied to geographically limited areas that have common problems, avoiding the use of unnecessarily strict policies on a Borough wide basis. They could be linked to the individual classification areas, or other areas based on identification of common environmental or land use concerns. Task 3 Review, Evaluate, and Revise the Implementation Chapter of the KIBCMP There several consideration in revising the implementation chapter of the Kodiak Island Borough coastal management program. First, because it is an older coastal management plan, the Chapter needs to be revised to reflect current federal/state consistency review requirements and procedures. Second, the Kodiak Island Borough has modified some of its local land use regulations, and developed procedures for using the coastal management program during review and approval of Title 29 land use requirements. these need to be incorporated into the implementation chapter. Finally, a major intent of the program revisions is to focus on current land use issues, and use the coastal management plan as a comprehensive plan to support Borough land use regulations. Modifications to the implementation chapter should reflect this orientation and provide adequate linkage to municipal regulations and ordinances. Task 4 Review, Evaluate. and Revise Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) Recommendations for the KIBCMP At this point in time, it is envisioned that changes to this chapter will be minor. The Borough should consider whether, after 10 years, it wishes to drop or add any potential AMSA's. In particular, the resource inventory/analysis and evaluation of current land use issues may indicate a need for new AMSA's. 3 Draft 7/27/93 Task 5 Prepare a Public Hearing Draft (PHD) of the revised KIBCMP, and Hold Appropriate Public and Agency Meetings Upon completion of the five previous tasks, a Public Hearing Draft (PHD) of the revised KIBCMP will be prepared for approval by the Planning Commission and subsequent distribution. The consultant team will assist the Borough in setting up and conducting a public hearing in Kodiak and agency meetings in Anchorage. Task 7 Prepare a Concept Approved Draft for approval by the Borouqh Planning Commission, Assembly, and submittal to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council for approval Public testimony and written comments received on the PHD will be evaluated, using direction from Borough staff. Appropriate changes will be made in the PHD to prepare a Concept Approved Draft (CAD). The CAD will be submitted to the Borough Planning Commission and Assembly for approval. Upon approval is will be submitted to the State for review and approval by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council. The consultant team will assist the Borough in reviewing preliminary and final Findings and Conclusions prepared by the Division of Governmental Coordination. Task 8 Participate in a Public Participation Program with a Citizens Advisory Committee and Borough residents The consultant team will support Borough staff in designing and conducting a public participation program associated program revisions. This will include attendance at selected public meetings, and possible use of newsletters and other tools. 9 Draft 7/27/93 3.0 PROJECT BUDGET Table 4-1 presents the proposed budget for Phase 2, which totals $32,020. This amount includes eight trips to Kodiak. Table 4-2 is a preliminary budget estimate for Phase 2 funding. It includes staffing and air fare/per diem costs to Kodiak, but assumes that any village travel will be picked up by the Borough. In addition, it does not include report printing estimates, since current DGC/DCRA practice is to fund printing from a separate source of funding. 4.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE The project schedule for Phase 2 revisions to the KIBCMP are presented below. It assumes an September 1 Start-up. Task Continue Revision of Inventory and Analysis Task 1: Revise Management Classification System Task 2: Revise Subject Uses and Policies Task 3: Revise Implementation Chapter Task 4: Revise AMSA Chapter Task 5: Prepare Public Hearing Draft Task 6: Public Hearings and Agency Meetings Task 7: Prepare Concept Approved Draft Task 9: Assistance with State Approval 5 Date September -October September November - Planning Commission meeting subject to Borough schedule November -December December January (Planning Commission Meeting) February (Planning Commission Meeting) March April - June APPENDIX B: PROJECT BUDGET 14 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PHASE 2 PROGRAM REVISIONS PHASE 2 TASK/STAFF HOURS RATE COST TOTAL TACKY • RFVI.SF MANArEMFNT CI ASSIFICA770N.SY.STFM J.ISAACS 16 $65.00 $1,040.00 G. LEWIS 8 $65.00 $520.00 J. GLASPELL 8 $65.00 $520.00 TASK2: REVISE SUBJECT USES AND POLICIES J.ISAACS 40 $65.00 $2,600.00 G. LEWIS 24 $65.00 $1,560.00 J. GLASPELL 24 $65.00 $1,560.00 J. RICHARDSON 8 $80.00 $640.00 TASK 3: REVISE IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER J.ISAACS 40 $65.00 $2,600.00 G. LEWIS 32 $65.00 $2,080.00 TASK 4: REVISE AMSA CHAPTER J.ISAACS 8 $65.00 $520.00 G. LEWIS 2 $65.00 $130.00 J. GLASPELL 2 $65.00 $130.00 TASK 5: PREPARE PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT J.ISAACS 24 $65.00 $1,560.00 G. LEWIS 8 $65.00 $520.00 J. GLASPELL 8 $65.00 $520.00 TASK 6: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND AGENCY MEETINGS J.ISAACS 24 $65.00 $1,560.00 G. LEWIS 8 $65.00 $520.00 J. GLASPELL 8 $65.00 $520.00 TASK 7: REVIEW COMMENTS, PREPARE CONCEPT APPROVED DRAFT J.ISAACS 40 $65.00 $2,600.00 G. LEWIS 16 $65.00 $1,040.00 J. GLASPELL 16 $65.00 $1,040.00 TASK 8: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION' J.ISAACS 24 $65.00 $1,560.00 G. LEWIS 8 $65.00 $520.00 TASK 9: ASSISTANCE WITH STATE APPROVAL J.ISAACS 24 $65.00 $1,560.00 EXPENSES airfare 8'200 $1,600.00 per diem 8'100'3 $1,600.00 mapping (autocad) $1,000.00 phone $200.00 xerox $200.00 TOTAL ESTIMATE $32,020.00 e 93-07 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ASSISTANCE WITH REVISIONS TO THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THIS CONTRACT made and entered into this 12th day of ApIj 19 93, by and between the KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH and JON ISAACS AND ASSOCIATES. Section 1. Definition. In this contract: (A) The term 'Borough" means the Kodiak Island Borough. (B) The term "Consultant" means the firm Jon Isaacs and Associates. (C) The term "Mayor" means the mayor of the Kodiak Island Borough or his authorized representative. Section 2. Employment of Consultant The Borough hereby agrees to engage the Consultant and the Consultant hereby agrees to perform the services hereafter set forth. Section 3. Scope of Work. The Consultant shall perform all the services provided for by this contract which are described with particularity in Appendix "A," entitled Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 4. Personnel. Personnel shall be limited to those listed in the proposal by Jon Isaacs and Associates. Section 5. Time of Performance. The services cf the Consultant shall commence upon Notice To Proceed and shall terminate on June 30, 1993. The period of performance may be extended for additional periods only by the mutual written agreement of the parties. Section 6. Compensation. (A) Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Borough shall pay the Consultant a total sum for all services and expenses for the term of this contract, not exceeding the sum as set forth in Appendix "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, for services required by this contract. (B) Travel or per diem required for the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to Appendix "B". 1 (C) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Borough shall not provide any additional compensation, payment, use of facilities, service or other thing of value to the Consultant in connection with performance of contract duties. The parties understand and agree that, except as otherwise provided in this section administrative everhoad and ether- indima w direct costs the £fit may incur in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement have already been included in computation of the Consultant's fee and may not be charged to the Borough. Section 7. Method and Time of Pavment (A) The Borough will pay to the Consultant the amount set forth in Appendix "B" which shall constitute the full and complete compensation for the Consultant's professional services. That sum will be paid on receipt of billings submitted pursuant to a schedule set forth in Appendix "B." A billing is a summary of expenditures to date by line item categories (e.g., Personal Services, Travel, Contractual, Commodities and Equipment). Documentation of expenditures need not be submitted with billings but must be retained by the Consultant in the event the Borough requests said documentation. (B) No payment will be disbursed until the completed task and associated expenditures have been approved by the Borough. Billings shall be submitted to the Manager in accordance with the schedule in Appendix "B." (C) It is expressly understood and agreed that in no event shall the total compensation due the Consultant exceed NINETEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and NO/100 DOLLARS ($1$359:99}. � �9,sao.ao Section S. Termination of Contract for Cause. If, through any cause, the Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner the obligations under this contract, or if the Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, the Borough shall thereupon have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys and reports or other material prepared by the Consultant under this contract are the property of the Borough and shall be delivered to the Borough by or upon the effective date of termination. The Consultant shall be entitled to receive compensation in accordance with the payment provisions of Appendix "B" of this Agreement only for work completed to the Borough's satisfaction in accordance with Appendix "A" of this Agreement and the other terms of this Agreement. Section 9. Termination for Convenience of Borough The Borough may terminate this contract at any time by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date of such termination. All finished or unfinished documents and other materials as described in section 8 above are the property of the Borough and shall be delivered to the Borough by or upon the effective date of execution of this section. The Consultant shall be entitled to receive compensation in accordance with the payment provisions of Appendix "B" of this Agreement only for work completed to the Borough's 2 satisfaction in accordance with Appendix "A" of this Agreement and the other terms of this Agreement. If this contract is terminated due to the fault of the Consultant, section 8 of this contract shall govern the rights and liabilities of the parties. Section 10. Causes Beyond Control. In the event the Consultant is prevented by a cause or causes beyond control of the Consultant from performing any obligation of this contract, non-performance resulting from such cause or causes shall not be deemed to be a breach of this contract which will render the Consultant liable for damages or give rights to the cancellation of the contract for cause. However, if and when such cause or causes cease to prevent performance, the Consultant shall exercise all reasonable diligence to resume and complete performance of the obligation with the least possible delay. The phrase "cause or causes beyond control;' as used in this section, means any one or more of the following causes which are not attributable to the fault or negligence of the Consultant and which prevent the performance of the Consultant: fire, explosions, acts of God, war, orders or law of duly constituted public authorities, and other major uncontrollable and unavoidable events, all of the foregoing which must actually prevent the Consultant from performing the terms of the contract as set forth herein. Events which are peculiar to the Consultant and would not prevent another Consultant from performing, including, but not limited to financial difficulties, are not causes beyond the control of the Consultant. The Borough will determine whether the event preventing the Consultant from performing is a cause beyond the Consultant's control. Section 11. Modifications. (A) The parties may mutually agree to modify the terms of the contract. Modifications to the contract shall be incorporated into the contract by written amendments. (B) It is expressly understood that the Borough may require changes in the scope of services and an unreasonable refusal by the contractor to agree to modification in the scope of services will be the basis for termination of the contract for cause. It is expressly understood that the total amount of compensation for successful performance of the contract will not be modified, under any circumstances, without prior written approval of the Borough. Section 12. Equal Employment Opportunity. (A) The Consultant will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical handicap, age, status as a disabled veteran, or veteran of the Vietnam war era. The Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical handicap, age, status as a disabled veteran, or veteran of the Vietnam war era. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotions, or transfers; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoffs or terminations; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; selection for training, including apprenticeship; and participation in 3 recreational and educational activities. The Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places available for employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. The Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by 'Dr _ OR behalf o€-thg-ess"'�^ state that all fired its will receive consideration- for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical handicap, age, or status as a disabled veteran, or veteran of the Vietnam war era. The Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts for any work covered by this contract. (B) The Consultant shall keep such records and submit such reports concerning the equal opportunity employment provisions set forth in subsection 12 (A) for applicants for employment and employees as the Borough may require. Section 13. Interest of Members of Borough and Others. No officer, member or employee of the Borough and no member of its governing body, and no other public official of the governing body shall participate in any decision relating to this contract which affects their personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which they are, directly or indirectly, interested or having any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof. Section 14. Assignability. (A) The Consultant shall not assign any interest in this contract and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation) without the prior written consent of the Borough, thereto; provided, however that claims for money due or to become due to the Consultant from the Borough under this contract may be assigned by court order or to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution without such approval. Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be famished promptly to the Borough, or the Consultant shall be responsible to the Borough for any moneys due the assignee of this Agreement which are paid directly to the Consultant. (B) The Consultant shall not delegate duties or otherwise subcontract work or services under this contract without the prior written approval of the Borough. Section 15. Interest of Consultant. The Consultant covenants, that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this contract. The Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this contract, no person having any such interest shall be employed. Section 16. Findings Confidential. To the extent permitted or required by law any reports, information, data, etc., given to or prepared or assembled by the Consultant under this contract which the Borough requests to be kept confidential shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without the prior written approval of the Borough. 0 Section 17. Officials Not to Benefit. No members of or delegate to the Congress of the United States and no resident commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part thereof or to any benefit to arise from this contract. No member of the legislature or officer of the state of Alaska or the Borough shall he admitted to any share er- pam hereof or to -any hem -this €anfract. Section 18. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Materials No material produced, in whole or in part, under this contract shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other country. The Borough shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data or other materials prepared under this contract. Section 19. Audits and Inspections. At any time during normal business hours and as often as the Borough or the Comptroller General of the United States may deem necessary, there shall be made available for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this contract and will permit representatives of the Borough or the Comptroller General to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment, and other data relating to all matters covered by this contract. Section 20. Jurisdiction; Choice of Law. Any civil action arising from this contract shall be brought in the superior court for the third judicial district of the state of Alaska at Palmer. The law of the state of Alaska shall govern the fights and obligations of the parties. Section 21. Non -Waiver. The failure of the Borough at any time to enforce a provision of this contract shall in no way constitute a waiver of the provisions, nor in any way affect the validity of this contract or any part thereof, or the right of the Borough thereafter to enforce each and every protection hereof. Section 22. Permits, Laws and Taxes. The Consultant shall acquire and maintain in good standing all permits, licenses and other entitlements necessary to the performance under this contract. All actions taken by the Consultant under this contract shall comply with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations. The Consultant shall pay all taxes pertaining to its performance under this contract. Section 23. Relationship of the Parties The Consultant shall perform its obligations hereunder as an independent contractor of the Borough. The Borough may administer this Agreement and monitor the Consultant's compliance with this Agreement but shall not supervise or otherwise direct the Consultant except to provide recommendations and to provide approvals pursuant to this Agreement. Section 24. Contract Administration. (A) The Borough Mayor or 4heir deli ee, will be the representative of the Borough administering this Agreement. 5 (B) The services to be furnished by the Consultant shall be administered, supervised, and directed by Jon Isaacs. In the event that the individual named above or any of the individuals identified in the proposal to perform work under the contract is unable to serve for any reason, the Consultant shall appoint _, successor in interest subjeet tam Written approval of island Borough. Section 25. Integration. This instrument and all appendices and amendments hereto embody the entire agreement of the parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions or obligations other than those contained herein; and this contract shall supersede all previous communications, representations or agreements, either oral or written, between the parties. To the extent they are not inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement, the following documents are incorporated by reference into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein: ALASKA BUSINESS LICENSE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE Section 26. Borough Held Harmless. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold and save the Borough, its elected and appointed officers, agents and employees, harmless from liability of any nature or kind, including costs, expenses, and attorney's fees for or on account of any and all legal actions or claims of any character resulting from injuries, death, economic loss, or damages sustained by any person, or property arising from Consultant's, or Consultant's officers, agents, employees, attorneys, partners, assigns and subcontractors, performance of this contract in any way whatsoever. Section 27. Interpretation and Enforcement. This Agreement is being executed by the parties following negotiations between them. It shall be construed according to the fair intent of the language as a whole, not for or against any party. The titles of sections in this Agreement are not to be construed as limitations or definitions but are for identification purposes only. Section 28. Consultant Insurance. (A) The Consultant will, at its own expense, secure and maintain and will file with the Borough proper and acceptable insurance coverage, including defense and indemnification of the Borough. The insurance coverage will be secured with an insurance company acceptable to the Borough and shall be primary to any coverage carried by the Consultant which may cover the work specified in this Agreement. (1) Worker's Compensation Insurance in compliance with the laws of the state of Alaska, AS 23.30, et. seg., and federal jurisdiction where the work is being performed, coveting all employees engaged in the performance of the work specified in this Agreement. Employer's Liability limits shall be: $100,000 each accident; $500,000 disease --policy limit; $100,000 disease --each employee. 51 (2) Comprehensive General Liability: Limit $300,000 Bodily Injury and Property Damage, combined Single Limit. Coverage to include: - Premises ADgerati T Products/Completed Operations Independent Contractors Blanket Contractual Broad Form Property Damage Personal Injury with Exclusion "C" deleted (3) Comprehensive Automobile Liability: Limit $100,000 Bodily Injury and Property Damage, Combined Single Limit. Coverage to include: Scheduled Vehicles Hired Vehicles Non -owned Vehicles (4) Unemployment Insurance by payment of employment security taxes for all employees hired by the Consultant to work on this project. In the event of the Consultant's failure to pay such taxes, the Borough will withhold an amount sufficient to pay such taxes from any payments owed to the Consultant by the Borough. The Borough also reserves the fight to contact the Alaska State Department of Labor, in order to determine whether unemployment security taxes have been paid by the Consultant. The Borough further reserves the right to withhold that portion of employment security taxes owed to any employees pending notification of the Consultant's unemployment security tax clearance from the Alaska State Department of Labor. (B) A lapse in insurance coverage is a material breach of this contract which shall result in immediate termination of the contract, pursuant to Section 8. (C) Each policy of insurance required by this section shall provide for no less than 30 days' advance notice to the Borough prior to cancellation. Each policy shall name the Borough as an additional insured. Each policy shall be endorsed to waive all fights of subrogation against the Borough by reason of any payment made for claims under the above coverage. Section 29. Severability. If any section or clause of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, or is otherwise invalid under the law, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Section 30. Understanding. The Consultant acknowledges that the Consultant has read and understands the terms of this Agreement, has had the opportunity to review the same with counsel of their choice, and is executing this Agreement of their own free will. 7 Section 31. Notices. Any notice required pertaining to the subject matter of the contract shall be personally delivered or mailed by prepaid first-class, registered or certified mail to the following address: 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Consultant: 2418 Forest Park Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99517 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CONSULTANT: DATE ATTEST: Borough Clerk cw/i,/f3 Date BOROUGH SEAL J -1z-53 DATE APPENDIX A: SCOPE OF WORK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The proposal to revise the KIBCMP has the following objectives: • revise the KIBCMP to provide effective coastal management and long range planning in the Kodiak Island Borough • revise and update the resource inventory and analysis section of the KIBCMP • review, evaluate, and revise the coastal boundary of the KIBCMP to include the annexed area and modify the existing boundary as necessary • review, evaluate, and revise the Issues, Goals, and Objectives to reflect the concerns and desires of Borough residents • provide an analysis of policy and implementation requirements for the KIB • work with the Borough Planning Commission and Assembly in revising the KIBCMP The Technical Approach for revising the KIBCMP is presented in this section. TASK 1: REVIEW OF KIB AND BBCRSA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS The first task is a review by key team members of the KIB and BBCRSA coastal management programs to become familiar with their components. Because of the project team's experience in Kodiak, with the KIBCMP, and the BBCRSA CMP, this will be a relatively efficient task. Portions of both programs for potential inclusion, updating, or deletion will be noted for discussions with Borough staff. TASK 2: PREPARE PRELIMINARY ISSUES. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The second task is to review, evaluate, and revise the Issues, Goals, and Objectives to reflect the concerns and desires of Borough residents. The emphasis and orientation developed in this task will affect the direct and content of the subsequent portions of the KIBCMP. The first step will be to review the Issues, Goals, and Objectives of the KIB and BBCRSA CMP's. Two members of the study team will go to Kodiak to work with the Community Development Department to identify key Issues, Goals, and Objectives for coastal management, land use, and long-range Borough planning. Resource development and jurisdictional will also be targeted. Preliminary Issues, Goals and Objectives will be prepared that will be refined through public participation in Phase 2. M Associated with this task will be workshops with the Borough Planning Commission and Assembly. This workshop will include an orientation to the project (including schedule and phasing) and discussion of Issues, Goals, and Objectives. A discussion of the mechanics of coastal management and comprehensive anninrt nen he providpA _Ago„^-y .,: ,.: will also wring-this-task, and willeonsislW individual contacts with appropriate state and federal agencies such as ADF&G and USFWS. TASK 3: REVIEW AND UPDATE OF RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS The third task is to review and update the KIBCMP resource inventory and analysis. As noted before, the resource and inventory analysis portion of the KIBCMP is over ten years old, included in the BBCRSA CMP, and for some of the annexed portions of the Borough no resource inventory or analysis has been completed. Several newer sources of data are available, including the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Southwest Regional Habitat Guides and Subsistence Division Data; population and socioeconomic information from the U.S. Census Bureau, and Alaska Departments of Labor and Community and Regional Affairs; Exxon Valdez oil spill studies; MMS studies; U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service management plans; and studies related to commercial fishing/seafood processing and recreation/tourism. The consultant team will work with borough staff to identify key data categories and data that may be available from the Borough. Special attention will be paid to data needed to support the comprehensive plan aspect of the KIBCMP update, including land use and use conflicts, federal land management considerations, recreation/tourism, commercial fishing/seafood processing, and oil and gas exploration and development. The Borough will provide 20 blueline copies of resource inventory and analysis maps to draft sketches of revised information for borough review and for incorporation into the Phase 2 Public Hearing Draft. TASK 4: EVALUATION OF COASTAL BOUNDARY After completion of Preliminary Issues, Goals, and Objectives and Resource Inventory and Analysis, the coastal boundaries of the KIBCMP will be evaluated and adjusted. Borough experience with consistency reviews of their current boundary will be included in this evaluation. Other considerations include past precedents for setting coastal boundaries in other plans, compatibility with boundaries of adjacent coastal districts (Kenai Peninsula Borough, Lake and Peninsula Borough, Aleutians East Borough) and borough - wide consideration for land use controls. The preliminary boundary will be sketched on base maps provided by the borough, and will be incorporated into Autocad after public review in Phase 2. TASK 5: PRELIMINARY C_L_ASSIFICATION, POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY Phase 1 tasks will be completed with a preliminary review and analysis of the management classification system, subject uses and policies and program implementation chapters. Recommendations will be made 10 on how these program elements will be modified in Phase 2 of the KIBCMP revisions. Considerations in the review and analysis are as follows: • new policy areas indicated by the Phase 1 Issues, Goals, and Objectives • additional policies or language changes being used in more current coastal management programs • additional implementation features indicated by analysis of long-range planing needs, jurisdictional issues, and staff experience • additional implementation features and language changes being used in more current coastal management programs PHASE 1 REPORT A Phase 1 Report will be prepared in draft for staff review and will include the write-ups of Tasks 1 through 5. The draft report will be summarized in a presentation before the Borough Planning Commission. Comments from Community Development Department staff and the Planning Commission will be incorporated into a Final Report. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public participation is a significant requirement of coastal management, and is a key ingredient to the success of any long-range planning process. Sound public participation informs about process and choices, involves participants in decision-making, and invests participants in the outcome. Timing and funding limit the Phase 1 effort; formation of the Citizens Advisory Committee and public hearing will occur in Phase 1. However, early public notice and education is essential. Radio and newspaper ads can be used to invite public attendance at the first or second Planning Commission meeting. Project newsletters have been successful for other plans, and the project team can assist Borough staff with preparing short newsletters for distribution (see enclosed Lake and Peninsula Borough Newsletter). Agency coordination is another important part of public participation. State and federal agencies play a crucial role in the review and approval of coastal management plans, and the USFWS in particular has an influential position in Kodiak. Agency coordination will be done on an individual basis in Anchorage and Kodiak. 11 PROJECT SCHEDULE The project schedule for revisions to the KIBCMP are presented below. It assumes an April 12 Start-up. Task Task 1: KIBCMP and BBCRSA Program Review Task 2: Issues, Goals, and Objectives Task 3: Resource Inventory/Analysis Task 4: Preliminary Boundary Task 5: Preliminary Policy Analysis Draft Report to Borough Final Report to Borough 12 Date 2nd week - April 3rd -4th week - April Planning Commission/Assembly meeting April 29 1st -3rd week - May 4th week - May 1st week - June 2nd week -June 4th week - June Planning Commission meeting subject to Borough schedule KODIAK COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE: PROPOSED BUDGET PHASE 1 - IAOSTIV55TAFF --, - SATE _ COST TOTAL TASK 1. REVIEW OF KIB AND BBCRSA PROGRAMS J.ISAACS 4 $65.00 $260.00 J. GLASPELL 4 $60.00 $240.00 G. LEWIS 4 $60.00 $240.00 $740.00 TASK 2: PREPARE PRELIMINARY ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES J.ISAACS 4 40 $65.00 $2,600.00 J. GLASPELL 16 $60.00 $960.00 G. LEWIS 24 $60.00 $1,440.00 L. COTTEN 16 $60.00 $960.00 J. RICHARDSON 16 $80.00 $1,280.00 Expenses Airfare Anch.-Kodiak x 4 per diem 4'125 $776.00 $500.00 $7,236.00 TASK 3: PRELIMINARY REVIEW/UPDATE OF RESOURCE INVENTORY/ANALYSIS J.ISAACS 4 $65.00 $260.00 J. GLASPELL 60 $70.00 $4,200.00 G. LEWIS 24 $60.00 $1,440.00 J. RICHARDSON 20 $80.00 $1,600.00 $7,500.00 TASK 4: EVALUATION OF COASTAL BOUNDARY J.ISAACS 4 $65.00 $260.00 J. GLASPELL 8 $60.00 $480.00 TASK 5: PRELIMINARY POLICY AND CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY J.ISAACS 22 $65.00 $1,430.00 J. GLASPELL 10 $60.00 $600.00 G. LEWIS 15 $60.00 $900.00 Expenses Airfare Anch.-Kodiak x 1 $386.00 per diem 1'125 $125.00 $3,441.00 TASK 6: PROJECT MANAGEMENT J.ISAACS 4 $65.00 $260.00 expenses phone calls/fax $53.00 xerox/map reproduction $220.00 airfreight $50.00 $583.00 TOTAL BUDGET $19,500.00 COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM REVISIONS: PHASE 1 REPORT Prevared /or. Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department Preoared By: Jon Isaacs and Associates Community Planning Resource Analysts ResourcEcon July 1993 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PHASE 1 REPORT Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Program Revision Objectives 1-1 1.3 Phase 1 Report Organization 1-2 1-3 2. ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Governmental Coordination 2-1 2.3 Land Management and Ownership Status 2-2 2.4 Recreation/Tourism 2-4 2.5 Energy Resources and Facilities 2-7 2.6 Transportation 2-9 2.7 Fisheries 2-11 2.8 Timber Harvesting, Agriculture and Mining 2-13 2.9 Subsistence 2-14 2.10 Public Safety 2-16 2.11 Economic Productivity 2-17 2.12 Resource Protection, Enhancement, and Develo ment p 2-18 2-19 3. COASTAL BOUNDARIES 3.1 Original Program Boundaries 3.2 Bristol Bay CRSA/Alaska Peninsula Boundaries 3-13-1 13 1 3.3 Boundary Considerations 3-2 4. RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Biological Information 4-1 4.3 Human Resource Information 4-1 4.4 Resource Analysis 4-5 4-6 5. CLASSIFICATION AREAS AND POLICIES 5.1 Resource Management Area Classifications 5.2 Subject Uses and Policies 5.3 Additional Considerations 6. IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 Introduction 6.2 State and Federal Implementation 6.3 Local Implementation 6.4 Additional Considerations APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF ACMP CONSISTENCY REVIEW APPENDIX B COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES APPENDIX C ISSUE PAPERS Land Use Control Alternatives Commercial Recreation Development Issues APPENDIX D BOROUGH POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DATA APPENDIX E KODIAK: OVERVIEW OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY 5-1 5-5 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-3 Chapter 1: Phase 1 Report CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND Preparation of the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program (KIBCMP) was initiated in 1980. The program was approved by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council in December of 1983, and approved by the Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management and adopted by the Kodiak Island Borough assembly in 1984. At the time of adoption and approval, the KIBCMP addressed the issues and needs of that had been the Borough, and was one of the most advanced coastal management programs adopted. In addition to its primary use in the coastal consistency review process for local, state, and federal permits, the Borough used the KIBCMP as an informal Borough -wide comprehensive plan for its remote areas, providing guidance for its zoning ordinance and other Borough -wide land use tools. The Borough then prepared comprehensive plans for each of its communities to address community -specific planning needs. Since the original adoption of the KIBCMP in 1984, several conditions have changed in the Kodiak Island Borough, resulting in the need to revise the KIBCMP. • The Borough increased in area with the 1989 annexation of lands on the Alaskan Peninsula and Islands south of the archipelago in the Gulf of Alaska. This annexation, created a unique pattern of coastal management authorities within the Kodiak Island Borough. The Alaska Peninsula portion of the Borough technically falls under the approved coastal management program of the Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area. Other portions of the annexed lands have not been incorporated into any local district coastal management program. The KIBCMP must be amended to include these lands under its jurisdiction and implementation authority in order for the borough to fully participate inconsistency determinations on those lands. • Many portions of the KIBCMP are out of date and should be revised. The resource inventory and analysis information is roughly 10 years old and does not reflect current conditions in the Borough. Similarly, the Issues/Goals/Objectives most likely do not reflect the current needs of Borough residents. For example, issues related to recreation/tourism and commercial fishing have become more Pressing. Many advancements have occurred in coastal management policies and implementation techniques since the adoption of the KIBCMP in 1984. The KIBCMP should be updated to correct these deficiencies. Chapter 1: Phase i Report • Current land use Issues and use of the KIBCMP as an informal comprehensive plan indicate a need to update the KIBCMP. Used in concert and modified to function as a comprehensive plan for remote parts of the Borough. A comprehensive plan should provide a forecast to look at future needs of the Borough, and provide a basis for zoning and other land use controls that the Borough adopts. Appropriate revisions would include updating the Issues/Goals/ Objectives and resource inventory data, particularly in the areas of land use and land management, and in topics related to oil and gas development, fishing and seafood processing, and recreation and tourism activities. Revision of the KIBCMP will be considered a significant amendment to the program and the Alaska Coastal Management Program, and must go through the same steps of local, state and federal approval followed by the original KIBCMP. This means preparation of a Public Hearing Draft, Concept Approved Draft, Coastal Policy Council Approval, federal approval, and adequate public participation. The timing and funding considerations require that the KIBCMP be revised in two phases over FY 1993 and FY 1994. 1.2 PROGRAM REVISION OBJECTIVES Revision of the KIBCMP in two phases has the following objectives: • revise the KIBCMP to provide effective coastal management and long range planning in the Kodiak Island Borough Phase 1 • revise and update the resource inventory and analysis section of the KIBCMP • review, evaluate, and revise the coastal boundary of the KIBCMP to include the annexed area and modify the existing boundary as necessary • review, evaluate, and revise the Issues, Goals, and Objectives to reflect the concerns and desires of Borough residents • provide an analysis of policy and implementation requirements for the KIB • work with the Borough Planning Commission and Assembly in revising the KIBCMP 1-2 Chapter 1: Phase 1 Report Phase 2 revrse the classification areas, subject uses, and policies of the KIBCMP • review, evaluate, and revise the implementation chapter of the KIBCMP • review, evaluate, and revise Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) recommendations for the KIBCMP • complete an adequate public participation program with a Citizens Advisory Committee and Borough residents • prepare a Public Hearing Draft (PHD) of the revised KIBCMP, and hold appropriate public and agency meetings • incorporate comments on the PHD into a Concept Approved Draft for approval by the Borough Planning Commission, Assembly, and submittal to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council for approval • assist the Borough with evaluation of state Findings and Conclusions on the Concept Approved Draft and presentation of the plan to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council for approval 1.3 PHASE 1 REPORT ORGANIZATION The Phase 1 report contains the following chapters: • 2.0 Issues, Goals, and Objectives • 3.0 Coastal Boundaries • 4.0 Resource Inventory and Analysis • 5.0 Classification Areas and Policies • 6.0 Implementation • Appendix A - Description of ACMP Consistency Review Process • Appendix B - Coastal Management Program Implementation Guidelines • Appendix C - Issue Papers 1-3 Chapter 2: Phase 1 Report CHAPTER 2 ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES coastal management plan. Portions recommended for deletion �have ,been �'Ssoaek Guff significant material added has been presented in italics; subjects that may no longer be pertinent and guidance is needed are noted as [????] 2.1 INTRODUCTION The citizens of the Kodiak Island Borough are both resource users and resource managers, and in these roles make many decisions about what types of land and water development are desirable, where the developments will take place and what (in general terms) they will look like. The Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program set forth in the following pages establishes an agenda and provides the tools to direct development and to manage the resources of the coastal zone. The program emphasizes management tools that are explicit, yet flexible enough to provide guidance in a changing physical, economic, and regulatory environment. Issues The primary purpose of coastal management is to provide a framework for making decisions on uses of coastal resources and activities taking place within the coastal zone. In order to develop a coastal management program that best serves Kodiak Island Borough residents, issues concerning resource use and the needs of local residents should be land ownership; recreation/ tourism; energy resources and facilities; transportation facilities and services; fisheries; timber harvesting and subsistence. Goals and Objectives The goals of the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program reflect a wide spectrum of issues, including those highlighted in the previous section, pertaining to coastal management and the well-being of the residents of the Kodiak Island Borough. Underlying these goals is the recognition that many Kodiak Island Borough residents enjoy economic prosperity and development, and that the foundation of this prosperity is coastal resources and the fishing industry. While coastal management cannot, by itself, ensure economic well-being, it can help to make events orderly and sensible within the 2-1 Chapter 2: Phase i Report constraints of limited land, potential hazards, and sensitive habitats. These goals reflect concerns expressed by residents of the Kodiak Island Borough, and form the basis for objectives, to be, achieved through the program. --- 2.2. GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 2.2.1 Issues On federal and state government levels, various agencies make day-to-day decisions on the use of resources in the Kodiak Island Borough that are under their management responsibilities. Those decisions can have great impact on Borough residents, yet Borough participation in decision making was often minimal. Prior to the Alaska Coastal Management Program, mechanisms for participation were advisory only. Through Title 29 of the Alaska Statutes, the Kodiak Island Borough has planning powers for the area contained within Borough boundaries including seven communities, the City of Kodiak, five second-class cities, one IRA Tribal Council, and scattered settlements. Past Borough planning efforts have incorporated varying degrees of individual community participation, often resulting In the feeling that the Borough government was nor responsive to local needs. Limited planning budgets and a wide range in individual community needs have contributed to this problem. 2.2.2 Goals A. To simplify and expedite permit procedures and governmental agency review in the implementation of the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program. B. Although federal lands are excluded from the definition of 'coastal zone" (16 USC 1453), and the State of Alaska is responsible for determining the consistency of federal and state related activities (16 USC 1456; ACMP) the Kodiak Island Borough intends to become an active participant in the state and federal review and decision processes. Permits and Government Control Increasingly, all levels of government are participating in decisions to alter the natural and man-made environment. Through the consistency provision of the Coastal Management W' Chapter 2: Phase 1 Report Act, the Kodiak Island Borough would like to simplify and expedite permit procedures and to make certain that state and federal actions are consistent Wiffithn_ n--, tanagement Program. The matter of consistency is important to the Kodiak Island Borough as a large portion of the land in the Borough is federally owned. Once approved, the actions of state and federal agencies are required to be consistent with the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program, and thus it is important that this Program contain policies and an implementation scheme that streamlines decision making and consistency review. Regional Interests Historically, as well as today, the Kodiak Island Borough has been linked economically with other areas of Alaska. The Kodiak Island Borough is keenly interested in how State resource use, land management decisions, and development projects will affect the Borough's own economy and growth. Land conveyances, implementation of fisheries management plans, and establishment of state parks are, in fact, Borough issues and therefore the Coastal Management Program has incorporated wider regional interests into its program objectives: 2.2.3 Objectives In the course of program implementation, the Kodiak Island Borough will: 1. Ensure that applicable state and federal activities are consistent with the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program; 2. Implement mechanisms to coordinate local permitting and consistency review; 3. Use existing ordinances and regulations to the maximum extent for implementation of the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program 4. Consider mechanisms to monitor and enforce provisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program; and 5. Develop mechanisms to ensure that local governments in the Kodiak Island Borough are active participants in the implementation of the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program. 2-3 Chapter 2: Phase 1 Report 6. Coordinate future land and water use decisions with other concerned public and private agencies outside the Borough, and 7. Promote the interests of Kodiak Island Borough residents in fish and shellfish resources management outside the jurisdiction of the Borough. 2.3 LAND MANAGEMENT AND OWNERSHIP STATUS 2.3.1 Issues Land Ownership Status Land ownership is becoming fragmented as individuals and corporations receive land. The institution of management and development on what was once considered public domain has led to conflicts with traditional uses by the public of those areas. The management of resources and activities in the Borough often transcends property lines and requires a comprehensive management framework that can include different participants who have different needs and responsibilities. Fragmented land ownership increases the need for such management. Land Use Restrictions on Federal Land Much of the Kodiak Island Borough lies within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Use of lands and resources within the Refuge, whether the land is owned by Native corporations or other private entities, is subject to restrictions imposed by Refuge management guidelines. In the past, these restrictions have slowed the development of the Terror Lake hydroelectric project and may limit future unrestricted use of privately owned lands. Additional regulations are imposed by the U S. Coast Guard on land under their control. Land Use Management Some land or water uses can act to preclude other uses from occurring. For example, a log dump site will prevent short-term uses, and possibly other subsequent uses such as shellfish farming. The intensity of use of coastal resources can lead to conflicts and degradation of the value of those resources. Land and water uses are irrevocably connected to public safety, resource protection, and economic development. However, 2-4 Chapter 2: Phase 1 Report given steep terrain and hazard areas, land suitable for development is limited and thus deserves special attention in the coastal management plan. Kodiak Istand-Borough is currently experiencing new development pressures near villages and in more remote areas of the Borough. Applications for rezoning from Conservation District to Rural Development District have increased, in response to bringing commercial fishing sites into compliance with code, potential commercial recreation development, and speculative rezoning. Through coastal management and its applications under zoning and other Borough land use controls, the Borough wishes to manage development in a manner that allows an economic use but avoids or minimizes social and environmental impacts. The coastal management program strives to provide compatible multiple use of coastal lands and water. The Kodiak Island Borough recognizes that it cannot identify the most appropriate use for all land and water within its jurisdiction. Therefore the Borough strives to identify those areas that should be preserved. Those areas that have development potential are assigned levels of intensity of development, reflecting the impacts of such development. 2.3.2 Goals A. strive for compatible use of coastal lands and waters among diverse land uses and activities; and B. To encourage the provision of land for the desired intensity of development; and C. Preclude the human habitation of unsafe areas; and D. Ensure the long-term viability and quality of coastal resources through mitigation or elimination of conflicts from intensive or incompatible uses 2.3.3 Objectives The implementation of the following objectives will help to fulfill the previously mentioned goals: 1. Determine future land and water use needs for development activities; 2-5 Chapter 2: Phase 1 Report 2. Reserve waterfront land for uses needing direct access to water; 3. Encourage innovative development to maximize the use of available land; 4. Maximize compatible multiple uses of land and water resources through siting and design criteria 5. Continue to identify important geophysical hazard areas, biological resource areas, coastal habitats, recreation areas, subsistence use areas, and land ownerships; and 6. Work closely with the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, State of Alaska, Native corporations and communities and organizations within the Kodiak Island Borough to ensure suitable locations and intensities of land uses and development activities 7. Develop a land management policy system and portfolio for Borough -owned lands that: • inventories resources and potential uses of Borough owned lands • designates which lands the Borough should retain and which lands it should sell of trade • identifies property on the road system that is used by the public but not in public ownership -identifies property on the road system that are needed for fire stations, school sites, recreational areas and other public uses • identifies lands for acquisition by the Borough through purchase or trade 8. Require as part of the subdivision process documentation that septic systems can provide safe, long-term disposal of waste water or that a state approved alternative system needs to be provide. ••••9. Prohibit the removal of gravel from shoreland areas (within 250 feet of MHW), except for the minimum necessary for lot development 10. retain and protect the remote wild area ambience of selected areas of the Borough W Chapter 2: Phase 1 Report 11. ensure protection of the intertidal zone while preserving appropriate public access and reasonable economic use of the land 12. concentrate development in remote areas using nodes with adequate buffering between other nodes and uses 2.4 RECREATION/TOURISM 2.4.1 Issues The Kodiak Island Archipelago is a major state recreation and tourism attraction, offering excellent hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and boating opportunities. Resident and nonresident use of these resources supports a local industry consisting of hotel operators, air taxi services, and guiding services. Increasing recreation activities have caused conflicts with other resource use, and a lessening in the quality of the recreation experience. Conflicts include trespass on private lands, general disruption of community lifestyle, competition for subsistence fish and wildlife resources, overcrowding and littering. As in other parts of Alaska, commercial recreation and tourism activities such as guided hunting, fishing and remote lodges have become popular in rural portions of the Borough. This has resulted in an increasing number of requests for rezoning and other Borough land actions associated with developing private lands for tourism related activities. The Borough is concerned about potential adverse impacts to the environment and adjacent land uses, and that the long-term viability and high level of quality in the recreation experience in Kodiak is maintained. 2.4.2 Goals [no specific recreation tourism goals were Included In the 1985 plan] A. to ensure the long-term viability and maintain a high level of quality in the recreation experience in Kodiak B. to ensure that recreation activities minimize adverse impacts to the environment and adjacent land uses 2.4.3 Objectives 1. Improve public access to developed/undeveloped waterfront areas on the urban 2-7 road system; Chapter 2: Phase 1 Report 2- 1'k�Polentw sites rmanne park facilities, that are located near highly used recreation areas; 3. Encourage recreational boating safety through improved navigation and communication aids and improved search and rescue capability by supporting those agencies involved in marine safety and protection; 4. Encourage the development of recreational facilities in local communities and designated areas around the Kodiak Island Borough; 5. Develop guidelines for the conversion or reuse of remote industrial and commercial sites to recreational uses 6. Evaluate the purpose and potential use of Borough lands on Shuyak Island, including land trades with the state or federal government 7. Support state efforts to publish a public easement atlas for Native corporation lands in the Borough 8. Require remote recreation activity to concentrate in specific nodes 9. Develop and guidelines for the intensity and density permanent recreational facilities and temporary recreational activities 10. Permit clusters of commercial recreation development only if selected locations with established tidewater access and a history or tradition of such activity M Chapter 2: Phase i Report 2.5 ENERGY RESOURCES AND FACILITIES 2.5.1 Issues Oil and Gas Develo ment Activities Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) exploration and development activities have been a concern of Kodiak Island Borough residents since 1975. The impact of normal operations and ail spills on the fishing industry, and of onshore support facilities on lifestyle and community facilities, are of particular concern. The Borough formed the OCS Advisory Committee in 1976 to act in an advisory capacity to the Borough Assembly in matters - related to OCS oil and gas development. Although the likelihood of oil and gas development faded in the early 1980's, new finds in Cook Inlet have increase duled. With d interest /n Kodiak waters, and new federal, oil and gas /ease sales have been sche the passage in 1980 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Section 1008 opens certain federal upland areas to the evaluation of oil and gas resources they may contain. These areas include the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge which could be opened for oil and gas exploration; however, the potential is considered low. The 1989 ExxonValdez oil spill showed that it didn't require oil development in nearby waters to cause oil damage to coastal resources. Kodiak Island's shores were oiled, commerc/a/ fishing was suspended, and social and economic impacts were experienced. The area remains susceptible to future spills from passing tankers and other potential sources. The Borough and otherlocal organizations must develop and maintain adequate oll spill prevention and response capability. Hydroelectric Resource Development The relative isolation of the Kodiak Island Borough and its communities has contributed to a dependence on fuel oil for power generation which is an extremely costly source of energy. A major hydroelectric generation project was developed at Terror Lake, and state and federal feasibility studies have identified potential hydroelectric generation sites for each of the Borough's communities. Hydroelectric power may provide a comparatively inexpensive and reliable long-term source of power for Borough residents, and additional projects have been identified and are being considered. However, because many of these sites are located within or adjacent to the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, they are subject to Refuge management guidelines and compatibility with Refuge objectives 2-9 Chapter 2: Phase 1 Report governs their approval. These guidelines are oriented primarily toward protection of fish and wildlife habitat, and not toward other uses of the Reft,na III approval process. Lilt!oorougn currently faces a lengthy licensing 2.5.2 Goals [no specific energy facility goals were included in the 1985 plan] A. support sound oil and gas exploration and development that occurs in a manner compatible with commercial fishing, subsistence, recreation, and fish and wildlife. B. improve the local and regional capability to prevent and respond to onshore and offshore oil spills C. support the development of small hydroelectric projects within the Borough 2.5.3 Objectives Emmy Development 1. Manage energy facility siting and onshore oil and gas exploration in a manner that will mitigate adverse socioeconomic impacts in the Kodiak Island Borough and adverse environmental impacts on coastal resources that Kodiak Island Borough residents rely on for their livelihood; 2. Identify potential sites for petroleum -related facilities without limiting the Opportunity for other development activities; 3. Encourage development of small-scale hydroelectric projects, wind generation, and co -generation as alternatives to traditional fossil fuels, particularly in the villages of the Kodiak Island Borough that desire these alternatives; 5. Pursue the development of a Borough energy plan in coordination with state-wide energy planning programs as part of the Borough's overall planning efforts; 2-10 ter 2: hase I Report 6.Support improved bulk fuel storage facilities for the villages, improved fuel delivery to these facilities, and local and regional adequate spill response caoan;i;r., and 2.6 TRANSPORTATION 2.6.1 Issues Facilities - Because of the Island's mountainous topography, space for locating transportation facilities is low and the cost of bui d n'g such fOf aciliti sbis high. In the case of many existing facilities, such as boat harbors and the Port of Kodiak, the capacity is inadequate to meet demands. At other facilities, such as village airstrips, operations can be severely constrained by weather conditions. Maintenance of existing facilities and developing material borrow sites for constructing new facilities are also significant problems. All of these factors contribute to high construction and maintenance costs for transportation facilities, and general Borough -wide demands for new facilities, increased capacities, and better maintenance. S� - All Borough communities are dependent on air and marine transportation for commodity and passenger movement. While scheduled air transportation services to the City of Kodiak are adequate to meet current needs, outlying communities must depend on mail plane service or high cost charter air service. Many of these communities would like to see more regular air service and a ferry service provided to reduce transportation costs and increase the ability of getting freight from the City of Kodiak to the communities. [However, state ferry service to the community of Port Lions has increased sport hunting access for hunting and fishing purposes, and other communities are concerned that increased access could bring similar problems.????, 2.6.2 Goals [no spec/f/c transportation goals were included in the 1985 pian] A. Improve air and marine transportation between the Borough communities City of Kodiak and outlying 2-11 2.6.3 Objectives Chapter 2: Phase i Report P�6� the use of watemont and set aside for development activities dependent, on water-based transportation (e.g. container shipment, cargo handling); 2. Promote the improvement of air and water transportation between the City of Kodiak, Kodiak Island Borough villages; and the rest of Alaska; 3. Support regular air and freight/barge service between the City of Kodiak and villages in the Kodiak Island Borough; 4. Identify future land requirements for docking facilities, ports, landing strips, and airport expansion and reserve the appropriate land; 5. Discourage the development of roads between the villages and the City of Kodiak; [6. Promote the extension of the Anton Larsen Bay Road to ice -free water; ????] [7. Extend the Monashka Bay Road no further than the end of the Bay; ????] [8. Promote the development of a deep water port in the City of Kodiak; and ????] [9. Promote the development of small boat harbors in Port Lions, Ouzinkie, Old Harbor, and Larsen Bay, and the development or upgrading of docking facilities in all the Borough villages. ????j 6. Maintain coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard and the Alaska District Corp of Engineers to ensure navigational safety in and around the Kodiak Archipelago, and 7. Require the development of all-weather harbors and docking facilities to minimize damage to the facilities and to vessels. 2-12 Chapter 2: Phase 1 Report 2.7 FISHERIES 2.7.1 Issues The harvest and processing of fish resources of the Kodiak Island Archipelago and surrounding waters are the economic mainstay of most Borough residents. In addition to traditional fisheries (halibut, salmon, shellfish), other fisheries have been changing based on fish populations, new technologies and emerging markets for new species. Fish harvesting and processing for ocean species is subject to allocation and seasons set by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Salmon and other fish resources comprise a large portion of the subsistence resources they harvest. Because the viability of of fisheries resources is dependent on offshore and onshore habitats, development other Borough resources has the potential for adverse impacts on fisheries if safeguards are not taken. appropriate 2.7.2 Goals [no specific fisheries goals were included in the 1985 pian) A. Minimize conflicts between different fisheries B. Support diversification of Kodiak's fisheries 2.7.3 Objectives 1. Encourage the maintenance of marine and freshwater habitats areas, and Promote the rehabilitation of former biologically productive marine and freshwater habitats; 2. Identify fish hatchery sites for commercial fish species; 3. Support the development and expansion of commercial and small boat harbors in the communities of the Kodiak Island Borough; 4. Promote programs that mitigate conflicts between fisheries and other natural resource developments; 5. Encourage the development of onshore support bases for the bottomfish industry at established canneries and villages in the Kodiak Island Archipelago; 2-13 Chapter 2: Phase i Report 6. Reserve areas for gear storage for the fishing industry; and ued Support Fisheries Technology Center In the C ty of Kodiak. of the University of Alaska's 8. Support innovative new fisheries development that contributes to diversification of the fishing industry ???? do we want to have a objective on getting into fish research, management, and harvest issues (ADF&G and NPFMC) 2.8 TIMBER HARVESTING, AGRICULTURE, AND MINING 2.8.1 Issues Timber has been harvested on Afognak Island over the last 15 years, initiated under U.S. Forest Service supervision and currently managed by KONCOR Forest Resources Management and Native corporations. The timber resources on Afognak Island were the primary reasons for land selection there by Afognak and Ouzinkie Native Corporations, with the intent of continuing timber harvesting. There are currently plans for timber harvest closer to the city of Kodiak and along it road system, including areas near Chiniak and Spruce Cape. In the past logging has occurred remote from populated areas, and conflicts with visual recreation impacts may arise. There is concern among Kodiak Island residents that timber harvesting activities are damaging to anadromous fish streams, and other fish and wildlife habitat, and are not compatible with the area's recreation and aesthetic values. Mining in the Kodiak Island Borough has typically consisted gravel and armor rock mining for residential and commercial development, and for specific transportation and utility projects. Some intermittent gold mining has occurred on Tugidak Island at the southern end of the Borough. While mining has not been a significant issue in rnKodiak, traditional concerns usually consist of reclamation of sites upon completion of us to stream hydraulics and anadromous fish streams, and conflicts with adjacent land uses e, potential impacts from noise, dust, and truck traffic. 2-14 Chapter 2. Phase i Report 2.8.2 Goals [no specific timber goals were included in the 1985 plan] A. Suppor_susained yield tinjbw harvest activities to economic growth but compatible with other values B. Work with KONCOR and other land owners in developing economically viable timber harvest plans that minimize adverse impacts. C. Ensure that mining is conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse environmental impacts and conflicts with adjacent land uses. 2.8.3 Objectives Timber/Agriculture 1. Maintain fish and wildlife habitat as a high priority in both timber [??? and agricultural???] development; 2. Encourage the development of sustained -yield timber harvesting in identified commercially viable timber areas of the Kodiak Island Borough; 3. Identify transfer points for the movement of timber products from harvest areas to storage areas and shipping points that minimize the impact on fish and wildlife resources; 4. Explore the use of timber harvesting by-products for local utilization; and 5. Restrict logging in watersheds that provide community water supply or water for hatchery operations 6. Develop plans for timber harvests along the road system, populated areas, and in designated recreation/public use areas that minimize visual impacts 2-15 Chapter 2. Phase t Report Mining 7Identify and -encourage the development of comme-cially valuable minerM deposits in the Kodiak Island Borough when impacts to fish and wildlife resources will be minimized. 2.9 SUBSISTENCE 2.9.1 Issues Many Kodiak Island Borough residents use fish and wildlife resources for subsistence, to a degree. In general, the villages have been more dependent on subsistence resources due to few local employment opportunities, high transportation costs, social and cultural traditions, and preferred diet. Competition is increasing between subsistence users, and sport and commercial users. [Subsistence may face increasing competition from sport use of resources. In all cases, resource allocation among subsistence, sport, and commercial users is a growing concern. Recent regulations addressing subsistence and sport conflicts have been passed by the Alaska Board of Fisheries. ???] 2.9.2 Goals A. Support Kodiak Island Borough resident use of local fish, game, and plant resources to meet nutritional, traditional, cultural, and spiritual needs. B. Ensure that land use and development decisions maintain subsistence resources and activities The Kodiak Island Borough has recognized that subsistence use is an important use of the resources of the Kodiak Island Archipelago. Subsistence is considered an important use of resources in the Borough, especially in village areas. The subsistence goal can be accomplished by the following objectives: 2.9.3 Objectives 1. Maintain and improve fish and wildlife habitats important for subsistence resources and activities; 2-16 Chapter 2., Phase 1 Report 2. Encourage the management of fish and wildlife harvests to preserve the opportunity for subsistence, and 3. Support the use of, and access to, subsistence resources by subsistence users. 2.10 PUBLIC SAFETY 2.10.1 Issues Public Safety The Kodiak Archipelago, like other areas of Alaska, is likely to be subject to future earthquakes, marine landslides, flooding, avalanches, erosion, and wind damage. In addition, the Kodiak Island Borough has other public safety concerns that relate to the health and welfare of the residents. 2.10.2 Goals A. To provide for public safety, and economic welfare of Borough residents when siting future land use activities. 2.10.3 Objectives To provide for public safety and to minimize exposure to danger when developing coastal areas, the KIB Coastal Management Program will pursue the following objectives: 1. Evaluate seismic, avalanche, erosion, flood, and wind hazards and incorporate development criteria into permits and local ordinances to minimize these hazards; 2. Require industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational development to site in areas or incorporate measures in areas that minimize risk to life and property; 3. Require sound engineering and construction practices to ensure the safe design and construction of public and private facilities; 4. Determine the best use of hazard -prone lands; 2-17 Chapter 2: Phase i Report 5. Identify studies needed to determine the magnitude of potential geological hazards, mitigation measures, and utilization of hazardous lands; 6. Require placement of offshore structures and fill do not adversely affect coastal processes or cause navigation hazards 2.11 ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY 2.11.1 Issues The Kodiak Island Borough, because of its high fishery values and its strategic location, is one of the major fishing ports in the United States. [In addition, it has the potential for becoming a transshipment point in the near future.???] The Kodiak Island Borough is economically dependent on the fishing industry. Due to the nature of the traditional nature fishing industry, fluctuation in employment has been an concern. Thus, the Kodiak Island Borough would like to increase development of stable, year-round sources of income and employment to complement and supplement the fishing industry. Existing and potential new fisheries in the Borough hold promise for future economic diversification. Tourism is an activity of increasing economic importance in Kodiak. In addition to providing an economic contribution to the city of Kodiak, it is more important in the outlying communities and private lands. This recent growth in tourism presents a dilemma regarding what level of management is necessary to minimize adverse social and environmental impacts, and maintain the quality of the recreational experience that supports the tourism industry. 2-18 Chapter 2: Phase i Report 2.11.2 Goals A. To uncourage economic productivity and diversity in the Borough, while minimizing conflicts with fish and shellfish resources, the fishing industry, and the quality of the environment. 2.11.3 Objectives 1. Determine the siting requirements for general industrial expansion that will accompany growth in the transportation, fisheries, tourism/recreation, timber, manufacturing, mining, and petroleum industries; 2. Identify and reserve land forfuture industrial, recreation, commercial expansion; [3. Encourage the multiple use of federal and state-owned lands; ????] [4. Promote improved communication facilities in the communities of the Kodiak Island Borough;???] 5. Promote the development of marine related industrial facilities on the road system in order to maintain and support the fishing industry; 6. Encourage the diversification of industries in the Kodiak Island Borough and 7. Encourage industrial, commercial, and recreation facility siting that minimizes damage to natural settings. 2.12 RESOURCE PROTECTION, ENHANCEMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT (note -this section should be broken up into 3 separate sections entitled fish and wildlife, cultural resources and air and water quality...] 2.12.1 Issues Fish and Wildlife - The lands and waters of the Kodiak Island Archipelago provide a great variety of habitat for fish and wildlife. The uplands support populations of deer, elk, goat, and bear, streams and lakes provide habitat for the five species of salmon. Large colonies of seabirds nest along the coastline, and marine waters contain fish, shellfish 2-19 Chapter 2: Phase 1 Report and marine mammals. Not only do these species contribute to the quality of lie in Kodiak, but also form the basis of recreation, subsistence, commercial fishing and tourism maintain productivity and recognize sensitivity to adverse impacts from development and increasing use pressures. Air, Land. and Water Quality - Kodiak Island is fortunate to have relatively good air and water quality. Sources of existing and potential pollution are limited, and tend to located in the vicinity of the Borough's communities. Potential sources of water pollution include community sewage outfalls, fish processing waste disposal, tidewater log storage/transfer sites, and tidewater fuel storage/transfer facilities. Petroleum spills from large and small vessels is also a potential source of marine water pollution. Potential sources of air pollution are also highly localized, and do not appear to be a significant concern. Cultural and Historical Resources - Kodiak Island has been utilized by a number of cultures, including the Koniaq eskimos, Russian explorers and colonists, and later, immigrants of American and Scandinavian descent. As a result, the number of known and potential cultural and historical resources are significant, and can make a valuable contribution to understanding the past. Without proper care, sites and artifacts of this rich heritage could be subject to potential damage from development activities, looting, or vandalism. 2.12.3 Goals A. To protect coastal habitats and maintain fish and wildlife populations through management of lands and waters and development activities. B. To protect air and water quality in conjunction with development activities; and C. To preserve the seenie beauty and the cultural, ethnic, and historical values of the Kodiak Island Borough. 2.12.3 Objectives The Kodiak Island Borough will ensure compatibility of future developments with the protection of the seenie beauty and valuable habitat characteristics, air and water quality, 2-20 Chapter 2: Phase t Report and cultural and historical resources of the Kodiak Island Archipelago on a site -by -site basis. 1. Protect resource values and air and water quality in the Kodiak Island Borough through siting designs and construction techniques for development activities; 2. Identify and protect coastal and marine habitats that are important for their natural resource value, 3. Identify and encourage the enhancement of coastal and marine habitats that have been degraded by human activities; and 4. Continue to promote the sustained -yield harvest of renewable resources in the Kodiak Island Borough. 5. Identify intensity and density use levels for important areas of the borough related to habitat and air and water quality concerns. 6. Require a buffer or development setback around lakes and streams for proposed development 7. Require construction and operation practices that minimize the likelihood of air and water quality degradation 8. Identify methods for providing proper water supplies and sewage and solid waste disposal for residents of the Borough; 9. Develop and implement siting and construction procedures to avoid damage to cultural and historical resources. 2-21 Chapter 3: Phase 1 Report CHAPTER 3 COASTAL BOUNDARIES When the Kodiak Island Borough coastal management was initiated in 1981, the intent was to use a criteria of the Alaska Coastal Management Program that allows the islands to be included in their entirety within coastal district boundaries. In the case of the Kodiak Island Borough, three other factors were used for support including the entire Borough within coastal boundaries: • the configuration of the shoreline, with coastal fjords cutting deep into the interior of the island • local topography, where mountains rise steeply from the shoreline, and activities at higher elevations have the potential to directly influence coastal and anadromous waters • borough -wide coastal management could be more easily implemented as a supplement to existing Borough land use controls; while it was not specifically mentioned, the nature and amount of Native corporation inholdings within the refuge also provided justification for an area -wide boundary. The coastal boundary of the original plan included the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge in its entirety, with the qualification that "districts may include within their boundaries federal land that would be included were they not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government". Current coastal management plans (Implementation Chapter) also contain a discussion of limits for consistency reviews on federal lands. Uses and activities likely to affect land or water use of natural resources within the coastal zone are subject to consistency. Federal consistency is qualified by the term "consistent to the maximum extent practicable" (see Appendix A). 3.2 BRISTOL BAY CRSA/ALASKA PENINSULA BOUNDARIES When the Kodiak Island Borough annexed the west side of Shelikof Strait in 1989, that area was part of the Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area (BBCRSA). The Alaska Peninsula portion of the Borough still technically falls under the approved coastal management program of the BBCRSA. The BBCRSA used a different approach than Kodiak in determining it's coastal boundaries. Protection of salmon streams and 3-1 Chapter 3: Phase f Report associated habitat was the driving force behind setting boundaries; the interim boundary of the 200 foot elevation was modified to include 1 mile corridors on either side of arvadromous fish be-sriri,g waters. Given the topog apl y of tl e vuest side of tl to Sh*W Strait, this approach leaves "islands of higher elevations" outside the coastal zone. However, use of the interim boundary resulted in the same problem, and lack of imminent threat from development in the area due to restricted federal land status would make other boundary alternatives difficult to justify. 3.3 BOUNDARY CONSIDERATIONS 3.3.1 Federal Ownership The presence of federal lands influences the designation of coastal management program boundaries in three ways: • Limits on Federal Consistency - as previously discussed, there are limits on the extent that federal actions on federal lands must be consistent with a coastal management program. This would include federal land management plans where the mandate and guidelines for managing specific federal lands have been established by Congress and can not be countermanded by provisions of a local coastal management program. Drawing a plan boundary to gain influence over federal management activities would have limited effect. • Federal Land Designation - concerns regarding the impact of potential development activities is affected by the designation of the federal land management unit. For example, a national park allows no activities inconsistent with park values, and resource development is unlikely. This minimizes claims for potential impacts on coastal resources when setting a coastal management boundary. However, Bureau of Land Management and some National Wildlife Refuge lands encourage multiple use, where resource development is likely. These lands should be considered in setting boundaries. • Private Inholdings - private inholdings, including Native corporation and allotment lands, are potentially centers of development activities within federal management units. Depending on the nature of private ownership, such lands are subject (to varying degrees) to federal, Borough, and coastal management regulations. Development of these areas can have a potential impact on coastal resources, and can be used in justifying where coastal boundaries are set. 3-2 Chapter 3: Phase 1 Report While significant areas of federal lands can be found in the Kodiak Island Borough on both sides of the Shelikof Strait, there are differences in land status and management that can have a bearing on notentin, �e,, _. ___ ' th a few exceptions, ,all the land on the west side of the Shel Shelikof Strait s it nlocated in either Katmai National Monument, Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, or Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, Native corporation land selections and other private inholdings in this area are few, compared to the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. The need for and defensibility of expanding coastal boundaries in this area is questionable (exceptions to this argument are lodges and recreational development). On the Kodiak Island side of Shelikof Strait, the extent of private inholdings and potential for development dictates leaving the coastal management boundary as it exists. 3.3.2 Municioal Land Use Reoulations There are two major municipal land use regulations when setting coastal boundaries • In order to apply coastal management policies when reviewing borough zoning and platting actions, the proposed action will have to be within the coastal boundary. The alternative solution is to incorporate desired coastal management Policies into the Borough zoning ordinance, as has been done by the North Slope and Northwest Arctic Boroughs. • Borough comprehensive plans are area -wide in nature, whereas coastal management is not inherently so. If the Borough wishes to use the coastal management plan as a comprehensive plan to provide direction and justification for Borough land use regulations, it would be ideal to cover the whole Borough. However, this deficiency can be overcome by including borough -wide resource inventory and analysis information, and documenting resource sensitivities in the resource analysis so they can be cited as justification in the zoning ordinance. 3.3.3 Compatibility With Adjacent Coastal Districts The Alaska Coastal Management Program requires that coastal boundaries be compatible between adjacent coastal districts. This does not present a concern for the Kodiak Island Archipelago, but is a consideration for the west side of Shelikof Strait. That area is bordered by two coastal management districts: the Kenai Peninsula Borough (north), the Lake and Peninsula Borough (west and south). At the this time, the boundaries as established by the BBCRSA appear compatible with adjacent districts. 3-3 CHAPTER 4.0 Chapter 4. Phase t Report RESOURCE INVENTORY/ANAL YSIS INFORMATION The resource and inventory analysis portion of the KIBCMP was produced in a separate background report, and is over ten years old. Completed in 1982, it covers only the Kodiak Island archipelago. Part of the annexed area is included in the BBCRSA CMP, and for some of the annexed portions of the Borough, no resource inventory or analysis has been completed. During a consistency review, resource inventories are usually important sources of data to compare a proposed action against plan policies to determine consistency. In the case of the Borough plan, the resource inventory is very detailed but out of date in some areas. Agency reviewers are forced to use more current sources of data, which may not readily available to the Borough. In addition, these chapters provide little guidance to Borough staff in addressing current land use conflicts and planning challenges. Information related to minimizing environmental and social conflicts creating by current development activities is needed. Several newer sources of data are available, including the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Southwest Regional Habitat Guides and Subsistence Division Data; population and socioeconomic information from the U.S. Census Bureau, and Alaska Departments of Labor and Community and Regional Affairs; Exxon n_� oil spill studies; MMS studies; U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service management plans; and studies related to commercial fishing/seafood processing and recreation/tourism. During the revision of the resource inventory and analysis, special attention will be paid to data needed to support the comprehensive plan aspect of the KIBCMP update, including land use and use conflicts, federal land management considerations, recreation/tourism, commercial fishing/seafood processing, and oil and gas exploration and development. 4.2 BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION 4.2.1 Introduction The Kodiak Island Borough coastal management program resource inventory information is currently based on data available prior to 1983 and does not include resource information for lands annexed by the Borough on the Alaska Peninsula and islands south of the archipelago in the Gulf of Alaska. Since preparation of the original CZM plan, considerable research has been conducted by state and federal resource agencies to 4-1 Chapter 4: Phase 1 Report expand the state of knowledge concerning fish, wildlife, and habitat resources of the area. Peninsula, Becharof, Alaska Maritime) and resource studies conducted during and following the Exxon Valdez oil spill have greatly contributed to the biological knowledge of the Borough area. To support resource protection policies of the Kodiak Island Borough coastal management program, it is important that the Borough assimilate current biological resource information to update both the resource maps and the narrative discussions of the resource inventory. In addition, resource analysis should be revised to incorporate new information on sensitive/vulnerable fish and wildlife areas, impacts related to oil spill incidents, and new issues such as the expansion of rural development parcels within the Borough. Changes in resource harvests, increased recreational use, and the potential for presence of developments (particularly lodges) in remote areas which could conflict with maintenance of important fish and wildlife habitats should be evaluated and addressed the coastal plan. 4.2.2 Revisions to the Resource Inventory Updated biological resource information concerning coastal habitats and the distribution of fish and wildlife populations is available from a number of resource agency and industry sources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game - Since 1983, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has compiled a series of Habitat Management Guides which describe in mapped and narrative format the occurrence, populations, and human use of mammals, fish, birds, and fresh and marine fish and shellfish in the southwest region of Alaska. On an annual basis, the Habitat Division of ADF&G updates the catalog of waters important to anadromous fish, including maps for the occurrence of anadromous fish streams. The ADF&G Division of Subsistence has assimilated information on the use of subsistence resources with the Borough area. The Division of Commercial Fisheries and the Division of Sport Fish are sources of updated information since 1983 for commercial harvests of finfish and shellfish in the Kodiak area, and increasing harvests by sport fishermen. Kodiak Island Borough - In 1985 the Kodiak Island Borough supported preparation of a Coastal Sensitivity Study which identified in detail the occurrence of biological resources along the coastline. 9% Chapter 4: Phase 1 Report U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed planning documents for the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (1985), the Alaska Peninsula -National Wildlife Hutuyu (19ou), the Alas a rnnsulaBecharoofNational-WTdlife Refuge Complex (1993), and the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (1988) which describe the biological resources of the refuges, issues of concern, and potential impacts from development activities and uses. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also maintains a computer data base for the locations, status, and current populations of seabird colonies within the region. In recent years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also prepared documents which address specific issues of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge including a public use management plan (1993), a refuge land protection plan (1992), and the potential for acquisition of selected private in -holdings within the refuge boundary which have special resource values (1988). Discussions with Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge staff in Kodiak and Anchorage have indicated that information describing the environment of the refuge, public use management, a land protection plan, and past issues concerning acquisition of in -holding are available from refuge personnel and the following reports: USFWS 1993b; USFWS 1992b; USFWS 1988a; USFWS 1998b; USFWS 1985b. Although not all of these reports are currently available from the Refuge personnel, they should be by September 1, 1993. It is the assessment of Kodiak refuge personnel that the information data base for seabirds, eagles, and marine mammals is good, and that available information concerning brown bears and Sitka black -tailed deer is improving. The refuge has begun to address the concerns of resource use and allocation for density of sport fishing guides by drainage systems. Although not formally identified, refuge personnel indicate that they use some form of evaluation criteria related to resource sensitivity when reviewing proposed projects and developments on in -holdings within the Kodiak refuge system. Twenty-five big game guiding areas have been identified for refuge lands. The refuge does have the ability to impose conditions and restrictions on transporters (hunting and fishing drop-off/pick-up) within the refuge boundary, including closure areas and seasonal restrictions on camping activities. The Kodiak refuge has recently begun a river management planning effort to identify and allocate an optimum number of guided fishing activity operations within a drainage system. 4-3 Chapter 4: Phase 1 Report The Realty office of USFWS in Anchorage (Gary Mullenhart) is involved with digitizing some biological resource information, including locations of salmon streams, bald eagle ..vv, v..v.., ..U. --.j, .vv.-­tf .v...v — vv...vu.w, .�� �. ,�./vnwn V.v Ci,ca.1 Jul VJQVR- tailed deer. The refuge staff includes personnel responsible for subsistence (Robert Stovall), fisheries (Tony Chatto), and brown bear biology (Vic Barnes). National Marine Fisheries Service - The National Marine Fisheries Service has conducted surveys of the status and populations of certain marine mammals in the Kodiak Island area, including the Steller sea lion, killer whales, and harbor seals. The recent designation of the sea lion as a threatened species has expanded interest in the occurrence and habitats of importance, including the preliminary identification of critical habitats in the vicinity of some important rookery sites. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Research - The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) provided an opportunity for expanded assessment of the distribution of biological resources and sensitive coastal habitats in the Kodiak Island Borough. It also provided insight to the relative effectiveness of oil spill response and cleanup actions in marine waters. At the present time, much of the EVOS-related data should be available for incorporation into the KIB resource inventory; ongoing studies may also provide additional information on resource populations and recovery from the effects of the spill incident. Minerals Management Service - Renewed interest in OCS development in the Shelikof Strait area will likely provide additional information on the marine resources of the area as the Minerals Management Service focuses attention on the planning area. Results of MMS studies pertinent to the coastal management planning effort will be incorporated into the resource inventory. Private Industry Research - As part of the resource inventory background for oil spill contingency planning for a fuel barge operation in the Kodiak area, Forty-Niner Transportation Services (Anchorage) assimilated selected information on coastal resources along the coastline of much of Kodiak and Afognak Islands in 1992; this effort addressed the locations of seabird colonies, eagle nest sites, anadromous fish streams, and harbor seal and sea lion rookeries and haul -out areas which could potentially be affected in the event of a spill incident. The information is available as colored pen mark- up on USGS 1/250,000 maps; Bill Schoephoester of Petro Marine Services has indicated that this draft resource information could be made available for Borough use to minimize unnecessary effort in data collection and display. In Chapter 4: Phase 1 Report Other sources of biological resource data are likely available in permit applications and environmental assessment documents prepared for proposed development activities within the Rorough, likely sources of M m-formarran include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Division of Governmental Coordination (Office of the Governor). 4.3 HUMAN RESOURCE INFORMATION Updated human resource information is needed in the areas: • general demographic and economic information for the Borough's rural communities • existing commercial recreation and tourism development, and future trends • commercial fishing harvest and processing activities, and future trends • historic and current commercial timber harvest activities and future trends, including product storage and transfer • potential OCS exploration and development activities General Demographic and Economic Information This information includes population, housing, and quarterly employment statistics. It is generally available on a Borough -wide basis, and for the City of Kodiak, less so for smaller communities. Appendix D presents updated Borough -wide population and employment data. Commercial Recreation and Tourism Develo ment This information is generally not available from literature but will have to be gathered from Borough zoning case files and state and federal agency permit files. Discussion with major landowners may also be necessary to determine potential development trends. Such information is necessary to evaluate potential environmental impacts, carrying capacity, and appropriate guides for coastal management classification areas (see Chapter 5) and zoning ordinance conditional use stipulations. 4-5 Chapter 4: Phase 1 Report Commercial Fishing Harvest and Processing Activities The economy of Kodiak has historically been based on commercial fishing, and many changes in fisheries have occurred since 1983. Coastal management can be used to protect anadromous and coastal marine waters important to fisheries. It also allows the Borough some influence in federal activities that might affect fisheries and their habitats, such as OCS development. Appendix E provides a current overview of Kodiak fisheries. Commercial Timber Harvest Activities Timber harvesting has become a significant component of the economies of some communities and Native village corporations, and many changes have taken place in the industry since 1983. While timber harvest activities are covered under the State Forest Practices Act, which coastal management references, the Borough has the option of providing more specific guidance through both coastal management and zoning. Current and proposed logging areas should be described in the plan, and the Borough may wish to coordinate with timber landowners to maintain the economic benefits of logging while supplementing measures to minimize adverse impacts to important habitat values. OCS Exploration and Development Activities A federal oil and gas lease sale has been scheduled for waters off of Kodiak, and an Environmental Impact Statement on the sale is scheduled for release this fall. This EIS represents a source of data for updating the KIBCMP, particularly with regard to subsistence. Other activities from earlier lease sales, such as cooperative efforts between fishermen and the oil industry should also be incorporated as appropriate. 4.4 RESOURCE ANALYSIS 4.4.1 Purpose A summary of the resource analysis was presented in Chapter 3 of the 1983 KIBCMP. There are four general objectives to a resource analysis: • assess present and anticipated demands on coastal resources • evaluate resource sensitivity and capability to meet use demands • project significant anticipated changes in resource characteristics 13H Chapter 4: Phase 1 Report • provide guidance to the areas classifications and associated guidelines presented in Chapter 5 4.4.2 Revisions to the Biological Resource Analysis The Resource Analysis of the KIB coastal program will be updated to include current harvest information for commercial finfish and shellfish, revised discussions of fishery activities (commercial, sport, subsistence), and revised discussions of sport hunting harvest activities. The discussion of natural resource management issues will be expanded to include the current status of logging, OCS development, coastal development, and hydroelectric development. In addition, the analysis will be supplemented with a discussion of current land management issues which affect habitats and resource productivity, such as the proliferation of remote development sites, including lodges. This issue is of particular importance to the Borough and the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Key resources values and potential impacts from development can be identified, and the collective knowledge of resource agency personnel relative to pertinent criteria for evaluating the effects of development on coastal resources will be assimilated. This information could then be used as guidance by the Borough when conducting reviews of proposed development activities. These review criteria would also provide invaluable guidance for incorporation into the Borough Comprehensive Plan, and where appropriate, into performance standard policies for the coastal management program. Due to the expanding nature of the biological information data base, the Borough should emphasize display and retrieval of mapped information in a GIS format which is easily updated, exchangeable with resource agencies, and readily reproducible in a manner which can be used by the coastal management program and other Borough planning programs. 4-7 Chapter 4: Phase 1 Report REFERENCES Alaska-Separtment of Fish and Game. 1986. Alaska Habitat Management Guide: Reference Maps (Mammals, Birds, Human Use, Fish). Southwest Region. Habitat Division. Juneau, AK. Federal Register. 1990. Listing of Steller Sea Lions as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act; Final Rule (50 CFR Part 227). Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, D.C. Hoover, A.A. 1988. Steller Sea Lion, Pp. 161-192 In: J.W. Lentfer (ed.), Selected Marine Mammals of Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommendations. Marine Mammal Commission. Washington, D.C. Kodiak Island Borough. 1985. Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Sensitivity Study; Technical Report. Prepared for Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department by J.D. Isaacs and Associates, Falls Creek Environmental, Dames and Moore, Polaris Seafood International, and Fineline Graphics. Kodiak, AK . 1985. Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Sensitivity Study; Citizen's Manual. Prepared for Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department by J.D. Isaacs and Associates, Falls Creek Environmental, Dames and Moore, Polaris Seafood International, and Fineline Graphics. Kodiak, AK 1983. Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program. Kodiak, AK Merrick, R.L., L.M. Ferm, R.D. Everitt, R.R. Ream, and L.A. Lessard. 1991. Aerial and Ship -Based Surveys of Northern Sea Lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands During June and July 1990. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-196. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle WA; Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, WA; Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Juneau, AK 138pp. or, Chapter 4: Phase 1 Report Petro Marine Services. 1992. Draft Biological Resource Inventory Information for Kodiak island Area (1 1250.00f) I ISGS Maps) sOum"ce A alysts for P%ftMarft Services. Anchorage, AK Sowls, A.L., S.A. Hatch, and C.J. Lensink. 1978. Catalog of Alaskan seabird colonies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS - 78/78. Computer data base updated colony information from Vivian Mendenhall, USFWS. Anchorage, AK. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993a. Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuge Complex: Draft Public Use Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. King Salmon, AK. . 1993b. Public Use Management Plan, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Final). Anchorage, AK ***should be available about 9/1/93*** 1992a. Alaska Seabird Management Plan. Prepared by Marine and Coastal Bird Project, Division of Migratory Birds, USFWS Region 7. Anchorage, AK Anchorage, AK 1992b. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Land Protection Plan. 1988a. Acquisition of Selected In -holdings in Alaska National Wildlife Refuges; Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Interior, Office of the Secretary. Washington, D.C. . 1988b. Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge: Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Wilderness Review. Anchorage, AK. 1985a. Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge: Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Wilderness Review. Anchorage, AK 1985b. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge: Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, and Wilderness Review. Anchorage, AK. me, Chapter 4: Phase 1 Report Chapter 5: Phase i Report CHAPTER 5 CLASSIFICATION AREAS AND POLICIES 5.1 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA CLASSIFICATIONS The Kodiak Island Borough coastal management program uses a classification system to separate lands into Development, Development with Restrictions, and Conservation areas to provide guidance for land and water uses and activities. The guidelines are based on environmental and human resource characteristics, and sensitivities to impacts identified in the resource inventory and analysis. While not enforceable by themselves, the guidelines have been incorporated into the enforceable policies of Chapter 5 of the KIBCMP, and in more recent revisions to the Borough zoning ordinance. During the revision of the KIBCMP, the linkage between the resource management area classifications, their identified use constraints, and the Borough zoning and subdivision ordinances should be evaluated. 5.2 SUBJECT USES AND POLICIES 5.2.1 Subject Uses. Uses of State Concern Proper and Improper Uses The Subject Uses section is a required element of a coastal management program and identifies uses and activities that are subject to consistency with the KIBCMP. It is out of date and needs to be revised. There are two separate aspects to consider. First, the consistency of uses and activities requiring a state or federal permit or approval is addressed by the State of Alaska's "ABC" list. This list describes, by permit, activities which are subject to Categorical Approval (automatically consistent), General Concurrence (consistent subject to general stipulations developed by the state), and Individual Project Reviews (where the district participates in the state consistency review). The KIBCMP predates the state consistency review process and the ABC list, which should be referenced in this section of the plan. Second, the Borough may wish to identify specific activities requiring local permits and approval that are subject to consistency with the KIBCMP. This could be accomplished in two ways: • listing specific uses/activities or approvals subject to consistency (as is often done as use by right or conditional uses in a zoning ordinance); disadvantages include leaving out activities that are important in retrospect 5-1 Chapter 5: Phase 1 Report • requiring that all permits and approvals under the subdivision and zoning $rriinenrec are s ih ec io consistency with the K[BCMP_1whinh ��nAangto he the current Borough practice; disadvantages include requiring consistency reviews for routine activities that probably don't need them, creating unnecessary paperwork. Uses of State Concern are uses and activities that are considered to be of state or national interest and must be recognized by local coastal management programs. This topic was generically addressed in the KIBCMP. Since plan approval in 1983, identified uses of state concern have been expanded under Coastal Policy Council Resolution 13, and in some cases, have been identified for specific geographic areas. This section can be updated using more recent coastal management programs; any Kodiak -specific uses of state concern should be included. Coastal management programs are also required to identify Proper and Improper Uses within the coastal area. Kodiak selected a now common approach, which was to determine proper uses by compliance with the enforceable policies of the plan. One additional feature of the Kodiak proper/improper use section was a statement that water- dependent/water-related activities will have priority use of the shoreline. While this is a sound planning principal, it should be reviewed to ensure that there have been no problems in implementing this priority during the last 9 years. 5.2.2 Definitions One feature missing from the KIBCMP found in more recent plans is a definitions section. The definitions include a number of terms that have specific regulatory and procedural meanings commonly used in coastal management, particularly with policies. The revised plan can incorporate a modified definitions section from a recently approved district coastal management plan. 5.2.3 Policies Policies are one of the most important parts of a coastal management plan; they are the enforceable rules with which uses and activities must comply. Proposed actions which require permits or other forms of approval must be consistent with the plan; the policies are used to evaluate proposed actions during federal, state and local permit review; and as the basis of attaching conditions of approval if necessary. 5-2 Chapter 5: Phase f Report State and Federal Review of Policies - Because agencies will require an applicant's project to be consistent with the policies of a coastal plan they get to pprove policyquElye, am _ agency acceptance of policy language is important. State agencies will comment on policy language during their review of Public Hearing and Concept Approved Drafts of a coastal management plan. If their concerns cannot be resolved, resolution may be required prior to or during Coastal Policy Council consideration of plan approval. Federal agencies also review and comment on policy language. In part, expected federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management opposition to Alaskan coastal management programs in the mid -1980's led to flexible policy language that is causing problems today. Since the Kodiak Island Borough Plan was approved in 1983, wording and use of policies in consistency reviews have undergone significant change. A major reason for this change are problems experienced by state and federal agencies in using older policy language that they feel is too vague or not enforceable. First, policies have evolved from general wording and flexibility (which was recommended to the KIB at the time the plan was prepared) to very specific language on what the coastal district wants. Second, as agencies have more experience with enforcing coastal management policies through state permits, they are paying more attention to policy language during plan review and approval. Policies need to provide clear direction regarding what is expected from the applicant and by the agencies and the Borough; they should not be open to different interpretations. Administrative policies are considered advisory by state agencies and they will not enforce them. Local Consistency _Review Considerations _ As a municipality with Title 29 powers, the Kodiak Island Borough can implement its plan through state and federal permits subject to coastal consistency, and through municipal land use regulations such as zoning and Platting. Unlike many other Boroughs, Kodiak has been using its coastal management plan as a review document in implementation of zoning and platting approvals. Both the resource classification system and policies are used, with specific coastal management Policies cited as a basis for conditions. Because the KIBCMP is to be updated and modified to function as a comprehensive plan for remote parts of the Borough and address current land use issues, revision and development of new policies will have to address these issues. 5-3 Chapter 5: Phase 1 Report Policy Deficiencies There are several general problems with policies in older coastal management programs like the Borough's: • some policies are so broad that any project could be considered consistent with a minimum amount of effort. These policies do not provide enough direction as to what is expected from them, and lead to vastly different interpretations of consistency between agencies the region. This becomes a problem when the State and Borough disagree on consistency, or the applicant challenges the finding of the consistency determination. • some policies accurately reflect local concerns; however, state and federal agencies consider them too general, vague, and unenforceable; such policies could be listed as administrative policies. • some policies rely on compliance with existing state or federal regulations; if such regulations were to change in an unacceptable manner (or are currently unacceptable), the Borough is stuck with relying on them. • in some cases, much better language can be found in policies from more recent coastal management plans (AWCRSA, Northwest Arctic Borough). Better language means more clarity regarding the policy intent, and provide more protection for local concerns Administrative Policies - Recognizing that there are limits to the authority of state agencies in implementing coastal management, more recent coastal management plans use administrative policies. Administrative policies cannot be enforced by the state through coastal management, primarily due to limits on what types of actions are subject to a State coastal consistency determination. However, by including them in the coastal management plan, the Borough can enforce them through local ordinances, or different groups may try to voluntarily comply with them. Administrative policies can also provide additional direction for government, private industry, regional, and community efforts to attain objectives important to the Borough. 5-4 Chapter 5: Phase 1 Report 5.3 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Use of Special Areas Recent coastal management programs, notably the Northwest Arctic Borough and Aleutians East Borough programs, have identified specific geographic areas where more specific policies apply, in addition to the general program policies. These areas are identified on the basis of specific resource values, sensitivity to development, or areas of use conflicts. The purpose is to allow use of more specific or stringent policies that would not be appropriate on an area -wide basis. There are likely to be several instances where this could apply to the Kodiak program, particularly in linkage to the zoning ordinance and zoning districts. This option will be more closely considered during Phase 2 revisions. 5-5 Chapter 6: Phase 1 Report CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 INTRODUCTION A coastal management implementation chapter should accomplish the following things: • provide the Borough with instructions on how to participate effectively in state consistency reviews; • explain to state and federal agencies how best to work with the coastal district in implementing its coastal management plan; • outline how coastal management will be implemented using borough land use regulations and planning powers; and • provide residents, land owners and applicants with an understanding of how the plan will be used. The Implementation Chapter of the KIBCMP contains most of the elements of more recent coastal management plans: implementation procedures for local, federal, and state actions; criteria for consistency determinations, and discussion of enforcement and amendments. However, the chapter needs updating and more specific instructions for state and local implementation. The state has recently distributed new guidelines for implementation of local coastal management programs. In addition, development of new policies will have to be coordinated with implementation procedures for local land use controls. 6.2 STATE AND FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION The KIBCMP was written before the establishment of permit reform and the ACMP consistency review process in 1984. The description of the current state and federal permit consistency review process can be added from a recently approved coastal management plan. This will include a description of the following items: • the 30 and 50 day consistency reviews, and key milestones in the process (a standard description is presented in Appendix A); • the role of the Borough (including staff and Planning Commission roles) and state agencies in the consistency review process ; and • state and federal actions subject to individual project reviews. MI Chapter 6: Phase 1 Report 6.3 LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION A long-standing concern among coastal districts and state agencies is the linkage between coastal management and Title 29 land use control powers. Traditionally, many local districts have relied on coastal management to provide greater participation in state and federal permit review and decision-making, while remaining silent on how it is linked to local controls such as zoning and platting. The Kodiak Island Borough has been unusual in that it has been routinely reviewing local land use permits and approvals for consistency with its coastal management program, and has developed a standard procedure for this review. The Borough is continuing to look at coastal management as a supplement to its comprehensive plan, and providing a basis for developing or modifying Title 29 land use controls. A major philosophical issue to be addressed is to what extent should Borough land use controls (zoning, platting) be linked to coastal management or be kept separate. This involves political considerations at state and Borough levels. The procedure used by the Borough in determining coastal consistency of local land use permits and approvals is sound, but needs more elaboration in the implementation chapter in a few areas: • Where an activity only requires a Borough permit or approval subject to consistency, the coastal management plan is a resource document for the local ordinance review process; reviews, approvals, and appeals will follow procedures set out in the relevant Borough code. These processes should be summarized in the implementation chapter, particularly how coastal management policies will be used in addressing conditional uses and establishing stipulations or conditions of approval. • Where an activity requires both a state/federal and borough local permit or approval, some thought will have to be given to coordinating state and Borough consistency review processes; it may be that the Borough has already instituted such a procedure and that it just needs to be described. If not, the North Slope Borough and other programs have addressed the problem of mismatched review time frames and what happens if a project is approved under one review process but denied under another. • The use of advisory (as compared to mandatory) advanced coordination and planning between the Borough, applicant, and agencies on major development 6-2 Chapter 6: Phase 1 Report projects has been included in more recent coastal management programs. On large or controversial projects, advanced coordination to identify issues And permitting requirements has been extremely productive in minimizing conflicts and delays, if done prior to filing permit applications. Several recent coastal management programs have included advisory but detailed advanced planning processes in their implementation chapters. Such advanced coordination could also be required through Borough land use regulations and implemented through coastal management. 6.4 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 6.4.1 Training Requirements Training for Borough staff on the federal and state process should be done at least once a year and should address the following topics: • use of pre -application meetings • effective use of information and extension requests • preparing effective consistency recommendations in state reviews • development and justification of permit stipulations • changes or trends in the state consistency review process Implementation Manuals have been prepared for other coastal districts to help them with consistency reviews (guidelines from one of these manuals is included in Appendix B). The Borough staff and state DGC permitting staff should meet each year to go over program requirements and procedural changes. The meeting should provide a forum for the exchange of ideas about what are priorities and where responsibilities lie. 6.4.2 Area Plans The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prepares Area Plans to manage and classify state lands and waters in specific geographic areas of the state; such plans have been prepared for many areas, including Bristol Bay and Northwest Alaska. These plans often have significant implications for local areas, because they influence how state lands should be managed (for example mining, oil and gas, recreation, timber harvesting, and wildlife habitat) and also identify lands for disposal into private hands. An Area Plan has never been prepared for state lands within the Kodiak Island Borough, but there is AN Chapter 6: Phase 1 Report currently talk of initiating such a planning effort. Where there is an existing district coastal management program in place, the Area Plan is required to be consistent with the The Borough should coordinate with DNR on any efforts to initiate an Area Plan. It might be possible to use portions of the revised coastal management plan as a basis for an Area Plan. This would provide the Borough with additional influence over the management direction of such an Area Plan. lM Appendix A: Phase 1 Report APPENDIX A A-1 Appendix A: Phase 1 Report PERMITS AND ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION Under the provisions of 6 AAC 50, the State of Alaska is required to make a determination of consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (as amended by approved local district plans) for certain permits and other activities requiring approvals. The state resource agencies (the Departments of Natural Resources, Environmental Conservation, and Fish and Game) and the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) have developed a list of permits which will be subject to a Coastal Consistency determination. This list is divided into three permit types: " Categorical Approval ("A" List) - permits for activities that have been determined to have no significant impact on coastal lands and waters " General Concurrence ("B" List) - permits for activities that can be made consistent with the ACMP by imposing standard stipulations • Individual Project Reviews ("C" List) - permits for activities that must be individually reviewed in order to determine consistency with the ACMP Normally, a Borough participates only in the Individual Project Review ("C" List). A Borough may request notification of "B" list projects within their district. Permits Based on an evaluation of the Classification of State Agency Approvals (A -B -C) list, projects which require one or more state or federal permits will be subject to state and local consistency review. The A -B -C list is currently being revised and approved updates to the document will be incorporated or referenced into the Borough coastal management plan, as appropriate. A local district may request notification from DGC or the coordinating agency of any permit which may affect the district. The Borough will regularly review "A" and "B" List projects, and may request that certain projects from these lists be reclassified. For informational purposes, the Borough should request notification of all "A" and 'B" list projects where permits or approvals are required within the Borough. Other Approvals Certain types of actions by state and federal agencies do not require permits but are A-2 Appendix A: Phase 1 Report subject to Individual Consistency Review. Most of these actions can be categorized as a "Disposal of Interest' which means that the agency transfers the use of a resource to qnnther party_ nes nsal of Interest actions inch irie'anti flic osal and laaooc /inh dann tidelands), mineral leases, oil and gas leases, timber sales, and sand and gravel sales. The Department of Natural Resources must issue a Best Interest Finding (BIF) on the disposal. While development of these resources by a private party may eventually require a permit subject to coastal management, Disposal of Interest actions do require a consistency determination. Since it is not a permit action, a Disposal of Interest consistency determination is subject to a different review schedule that conforms with the schedule for reaching a Best Interest Finding. Under a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, federal oil and gas lease sales are not subject to a consistency determination. Native Corporation Lands The status of Native lands determines whether activities on those lands are subject to a coastal consistency determination. Activities on lands conveyed through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, including selections by village and regional corporations and former reserve lands, are subject to coastal management when pertinent federal, state, or local permits are required. Activities on Native Allotments and Native Townsite lots are not subject to a consistency review because they are considered Native Trust lands, unless there is a spillover effect on coastal resources outside the property. However, some times they may require a dock or fill on adjacent tidelands, which can trigger a consistency review through a Corps of Engineers permit. If the allotment is sold or a party leasing a Native Allotment proposes a project that requires a permit, the activity would then be subject to a consistency determination. Relationship Between Federal Land and Activities and Consistency Review The coastal area includes all lands and waters within its boundaries not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government (Section 307(c), Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended). There are two types of activities described in the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): (1) Federal permits to non-federal applicants for activities proposed in the coastal zone are subject to the consistency review (2) Direct federal actions in the coastal zone are also subject to the consistency review A-3 Appendix A: Phase f Report Direct actions on federal lands excluded from the coastal zone are subject to the consistency review if activities are likely to have a direct effect on the coastal zone, and its resources. All uses and activities on these federal lands and waters must be consistent with the district program to the maximum extent practicable when such activities are likely to have a direct effect on the coastal zone (Section 307(c), Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended). on Appendix A: Phase i Report Major Procedures Under the 30-Dav and 50-Dav Consistency Review Schedules 30 -Day 50 -Day Early contact with district by the applicant -- -- Applicant submits completed packet; coordinating 1-2 1-2 agency distributes packet and schedule Review period 3-17 3-34 Last day for information request via coordinating agency 15 25 Last day for public hearing request 17 34 Deadline for consistency recommendation to 17 34 coordinating agency; verbal comments must be followed in writing within 5 days Coordinating agency preliminary position; 24 44 notifies applicant and districts with approved programs Last day for written statement requesting 29 49 elevation to the Director level If concensus reached, consistency determination 30 50 to reviewers" If project elevated, issue paper sent to reviewers 30+ 50+ - Coordinating agency must decide within 7 days whether to hold hearing. If so, agency must provide 15-30 days of notice and a summary of hearing 5 days after. Parties also have the same 7 days after receipt of summary to provide additional comments. Agency permit decisionsto be issued 5 days after consistency determination is received, unless statutorily impossible. "' Elevation process can take up to 15 days at each level. If no concensus during elevation to Directors, then elevated to Commissioners for policy direction. A-5 Appendix B: Phase 1 Report APPENDIX B rm Appendix B: Phase 1 Report BOROUGH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES 1. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE OF THE GUIDELINES 1. help understand how the coastal consistency review process works 2. make the borough more effective in the process and using its coastal management plan B. WHAT THE GUIDELINES ACCOMPLISH 1. review the elements of the Borough CMP and approved AMSA Plan 2. run through the consistency review process and how it works 3. outline the role of the borough in the process 4. help the borough use its coastal management plan more effectively 5. help the borough participate in the consistency review more effectively C. GUIDELINES ELEMENTS 1. the consistency determination 2. consistency review procedure 3. consistency review checklist 4. sources of information 5. local notification and comment ll. THE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION A. PURPOSE OF THE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 1. to determine whether a proposed activity is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program and approved local district coastal management programs B. ROLES IN THE DETERMINATION 1. coordinating agency a. conducts the consistency review b. makes the draft and final consistency determination 2. review agencies a. includes the borough and other state resource agencies b. makes consistency recommendations to the coordinating agency based on its interpretation of the district coastal management plan AN Appendix B: Phase 1 Report 3. the applicant a. -could be a privat party aae loty or the born, b. is subject to information requests from review and coordinating agencies c. can request timeline extensions d. can comment on and appeal consistency determinations C. HOW THE PROCESS PRACTICALLY WORKS 1. power of the coordinating agency a. has the final say b. must be convinced of review agency concerns and recommendations 2. burden of proof is on the review agency - "golden rules"... a. make it difficult to ignore the borough position b. support district concerns with facts and information c. justify requests for information, extensions, and public hearings 3. coordination among review agencies (includes adjacent coastal districts) a. find out what other agencies think of a proposed action b. work together on common concerns and recommended permit stipulations 4. stopping a project vs. conditioning it with stipulations a. coastal management is generally not designed to stop a project b. stipulations are used to bring a project into compliance with policies c. certain activities are not allowed in a special use areas /it. CONSISTENCY REVIEW PROCEDURE A. THE TIMELINE 1. determined by type of approval needed 2. 30 and 50 day reviews 3. optional 10 days in the unorganized borough B. WHAT STARTS A CONSISTENCY REVIEW 1. applicant applies for state or federal agency permit 2. state or federal agency initiates action requiring consistency review 3. Borough will usually receive a completed coastal questionnaire and supporting material L- Appendix B: Phase i Report C. KEY MILESTONES IN THE REVIEW 1. requests for additional information - -- - 3. requests for public hearing 4. submittal of borough consistency recommendation 5. draft consistency determination 6. final consistency determination 7. appeals and elevation D. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, EXTENSIONS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. request for additional information a. information is missing from the coastal questionnaire b. information is needed to determine if the action is consistent with CMP policies c. identify what information is needed, justify why the information is needed, refer to specific policies involved d. make a formal written request for additional information an fax it to coordinating agency and applicant, send written copy as backup 2. reauest for an extension a. an extension is a request to stop the consistency review b. can be requested by applicant, review agency, or coordinating agency (must be approved by the coordinating agency) c. reasons for requesting an extension (1) a request for additional information has not been met (2) a public hearing is needed d. identify why the extension is needed, justify why the extension is needed, refer to specific circumstances involved e. make a formal written request for additional information and fax t to coordinating agency and applicant IV CONSISTENCY REVIEW CHECKLIST A. DETERMINE IF THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE 1. is the project within the coastal zone? a. is it within the Borough CMP boundaries b. is it adjacent to the coastal zone M., Appendix B: Phase 1 Report 2. where is the project within the coastal zone? a. near what communities b. within what special use areas B. DETERMINE IF THE ACTION IS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW 1. have you received a coastal questionnaire from the state 2. is the borough being approached first and does the applicant need to contact the state to fill out a coastal questionnaire? C. REVIEW THE COASTAL QUESTIONNAIRE 1. note what state and federal permits are required 2. note the critical timeline dates a. deadlines for request for additional information, extensions and public hearings b. Borough comments (consistency recommendation) due c. final consistency determination made d. deadline for elevating the determination 3. note what types of activities the proposed action involves a. water withdrawal b. power generation c. waste disposal 4. list any questions or concerns that come up during review of the questionnaire 5. start listing areas of information needs a. where there is not enough information to understand what is being proposed b. where there is not enough information to determine if the project complies with CMP policies 6. if application is not complete, contact coordinating agency D. LOG IN THE PROJECT 1. fill out project record form 2. set up project file E. INITIATE PUBLIC NOTICE AND INVOLVEMENT 1. identify and contact affected communities and organizations 2. prepare public notice and distribute 3. obtain public response in time for incorporation into consistency recommendation F. REVIEW THE PROJECT USING CMP POLICIES 1. general policies 2. use area policies C� Appendix B: Phase 1 Report 3. list key policies a. where project is clearly not consistent b. where more information is needed for a determination -- - G. DETERMINE NEED TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, EXTENSIONS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. be aware of the deadlines 2. the sooner requests are made the better 3. contact coordinating agency or DGC representative as soon as possible 4. justify the request,fax copy with written backup H. DETERMINE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1. use draft consistency letter formats provided 2. coordinate borough recommendation with other review agencies if appropriate 3. if project is consistent with plan with no conditions needed ... a. use appropriate letter format 4. if stipulations are required to make project consistent... a. list the policies where the project is not consistent; explain why b. develop stipulations that will make the project consistent with the specific policies listed; stipulations must be justified c. use appropriate letter format 5. if the project cannot be made consistent with stipulations a. list the policies where the project is not consistent b. explain why the project cannot be made consistent c. use appropriate letter format 6. send out consistency recommendation a. fax copy of consistency recommendation to coordinating agency b. send copies to review agencies and applicant as backup 1. REVIEW THE DRAFT STATE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 1. evaluate how they have used the recommendations of the borough and other review agencies 2. decide if you agree with the draft determination a. if you agree, prepare and fax appropriate letter b. if you disagree, prepare letter explaining why, and reiterate what stipulations would make the project consistent M Appendix B: Phase 1 Report J. ELEVATIONS AND APPEALS 1. Elevation is the process to appeal consistency recommendation -- — - - - . review the ina consis ency recommendation a. decide if you agree with it b. if not decide if you wish to elevate the determination 3. good reasons to elevate a. if agency staff did not follow proper procedure b. if staff overlooked facts or was biased c. if the borough will receive a fair hearing at a higher level 4. be aware of deadlines to request elevation 5. fax or send written request with justification to coordinating agency V. LOCAL CONSISTENCY REVIEWS A. CONSISTENCY REQUIRED WITH BOROUGH PERMIT AND APPROVALS 1. comprehensive plans 2. Subdivisions 3. Zoning 4. Property Acquisition, Control and Disposal B. REVIEW PROCEDURES 1. Use enforceable and administrative policies 2. Request additional information if required C. CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 1. procedures IV, H, 3-6 of this outlines applies VI. USING SOURCES OF INFORMATION A. COMMUNITY SOURCES 1. community residents can provide information on subsistence, community impact, and natural hazard concerns a. try to get detailed information b. keep your policies in mind when requesting information 2. it may be useful or necessary to coordinate with adjacent coastal districts B. PUBLISHED REPORTS AND OTHER DATA 1. reports provide information to help determine consistency 2. referencing other reports in Borough consistency recommendation will support borough position Appendix B: Phase 1 Report 3. potential data sources a. KIB coastal management plan b. ADE&G Regional Habitat Guides - -- _-- c. federal lands management plans and studies C. STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES 1. agencies may have useful unpublished data 2. agencies may have suggestions for what data will support the boroughs position V11. LOCAL NOTIFICATION AND INVOLVEMENT A. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. borough is responsible for notifying affected communities and organizations within the borough of pending consistency review 2. prepare a list of community and organization contacts (name, address, phone #) ahead of time and keep it updated 3. be aware of the consistency review deadlines, and when you need comments from communities and organizations B. IDENTIFY AND NOTIFY AFFECTED COMMUNITIES 1. have community contacts identified in advance 2. determine what communities will be affected 3. let them know the timelines for providing comments to the borough 4. tell them what types of information you want them to provide C. IDENTIFY AFFECTED REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED 1. have organization contacts identified in advance 2. determine what organizations will be affected 3. let them know the timelines for providing comments to the borough 4. tell them what types of information you want them to provide D. PREPARE PUBLIC NOTICE AND GATHER MATERIALS TO SEND TO AFFECTED COMMUNITIES 1. use a standard public notice form 2. fax to community and have it posted 3. run notice in local newspaper if appropriate W., Appendix C: Phase 1 Report APPENDIX C C-1 Appendix C: Phase t Report LAND USE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Fifth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment 1 - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The main objective of performance standards is to minimize the negative impact of a new development on the site and its surroundings. This is done by regulating development on the basis of measurable performance criteria. The criteria are things like; open space ratio, density, floor area ratio and noise level. They are usually not used to address social or economic goals. Implementation occurs in this way. The community is classified into general use districts; for example, rural, residential, urban core, or industrial. Each district contains general guideline on allowable uses; however, usually more uses can be accommodated than under traditional zoning. Uses are approved through a site plan review process. In preparing the site plan for development, the property owner first calculates the net buildable area. This done by subtracting set back requirements for the total lot area. The open space ratio, density and floor area ratio are applied to calculate the number of dwelling units or building square footage that can be built. Each district may have its own performance standards. The ordinance may also have provisions that limit development on sensitive sites such as wetlands, steep slopes, shorelines, bluffs, salmon streams, and flood plains. Other design standards mat apply to elements such as landscaping, lot dimensions, road design, traffic flow, and off site effects. care must be used to provide buffering between different uses to minimize adverse impact. The performance standard system is designed to provide the developer with a great deal of flexibility in the number and design of uses within each district so that rezonings are greatly reduced. Advantages • Site specific. The unique features of a site may be preserved or incorporated into the design of the development. C-2 Appendix C: Phase 1 Report • More flexibility for the developer. The developer is not limited to the usual pattern of wremen o the district are not exceeded. Commercial development can be accommodated in difficult areas. Unusual sites with special needs can be developed at a reasonable rate of return. • Obiective. Performance standards are directly measurable and therefore subject to a less subjective approval process. Disadvantages • Standards difficult to determine. Adopting standards that fairly reflect the character goals for the area is difficult and, in many instances, subjective. The standards must be specific enough so as not to be arbitrarily applied, but not so specific that they are overly restrictive. • High cost to the developer. The developer may need a detailed site plan and undergo extensive administrative review. Each design standard must be addressed and justified by the proposed development. This results in a high front end cost that traditional zoning doesn't have. • Less widely known. Performance standards are a relatively new concept and not used as often as zoning. Extensive public education is desirable prior to their adoption. The community may be hesitant about trying a new system which many may view as a nonreversible experiment. 2 - PERMITTING SYSTEM The permitting system takes performance standards into the realm of implementing social and economic goals. Under the permitting system, proposed uses are review against absolute and relative policies. Proposals are accepted or rejected on the basis of points awarded for complying with the policies. Absolute policies describe standards that must be met by the development or the proposal. A development must either implement the policy or obtain a variance or it can not be issued a permit. Relative policies are other standards that are important to the community but can be traded off. They are meant to evaluate a developments impact on the community. Each relative policy is weighted according to its importance. Points are awarded or subtracted according to how well the relative policies are met. A proposal which accumulates less than 0 points is disqualified. The system allows a developer to make up a weakness in one area with strength in another. For example, points that are subtracted for having higher than optimum density can be made up through better landscaping and open space provisions. C-3 Appendix C: Phase 1 Report The permitting system is similar to performance standards in that the absolute policies are standards that must be met. The ability to trade off points with respect to relative policies builds in flexibility. Advantages More flexibility for the developer. A great deal of discretion is left to the developer as long as the desired outcome (compliance with absolute policies and a sum of zero or higher on relative policies) is achieved. Moreover, a proposal that is weak in one area can be bolstered in another so that there is a better chance of being approved. Responsive to the community. This system requires a periodic review so that the policies reflect changing conditions, needs and attitudes in the community. Site specific. Like performance standards, the permitting system compels developments to be harmonious with the site and the surrounding environment. • Comprehensive. The system requires a review of all new developments. Disadvantages • Difficult to draft policies. Policies need to be finely balanced between being too restrictive in order to achieve community goals but flexible enough to encourage development and good design. • Unfamiliar. This system has not been used extensively and it is a very new concept compared to other systems. Wasilla and Haines are two Alaskan communities that are trying this approach. • Unpredictable for the developer, public and Commission. Although the absolute policies are clear cut, the relative policies are very subjective. The weights given to relative policies and points awarded to the developer based upon the degree of compliance is a subjective decision made by staff. Thus the developer and public can not predict whether a proposal will be accepted or rejected. High cost to the developer. The developer is required to prepare detailed site plans and address each policy in writing for staff review. This results in a high cost to the developer and in many cases the developer will need specialized help to put together to proposal. • No direct control over use. This system does not provide control over the location of use. The community is divided into districts, and each district is governed by a set of performance policies. C-4 Appendix C: Phase 1 Report The policies may not be strong enough to affect development to be sited correctly in some The community may find that the trade-offs may not be such a good idea after they happen. Anchorage has a five story height limitation on buildings in the downtown core (4th avenue to the park strip). The ordinance was enacted because of concerns about blocking views and creating a dark, cold and imposing downtown area. Pre -earthquake Anchorage had only one really tall building, the McKay building at fourth and Cordova. After a local hotel owner built a large high-rise hotel in 1966, the concerns started to rise. By the early 1970's it was clear that many more high-rises were on the way. An ordinance was past to limit the height of buildings in the downtown area. Landowners said that this amounted to a taking of their property rights and a severe reduction in the value of their land. Included in these landowners were two brothers from Texas named Hunt. The municipality came up with performance standards for the downtown height restrictions. What to go up? Put in some textured sidewalks, add some trees or plantings, widen the sidewalk. Want to really go up? Provide off street parking. The result of the ordinance is downtown Anchorage today. 3 - TRADITIONAL ZONING Zoning is the most widely used system of land use control in existence. It separates incompatible land uses by districts. Within each district the regulations address several general topics: • Dimensional requirements include such things as lot size, building height, and setbacks. • Uses are the activities that are allowed in the district. Sometimes uses are only permitted if they comply with certain requirements, these are usually referred to as conditional uses or special exceptions. • Miscellaneous provisions cover things like parking requirements and axillary buildings. A traditional zoning ordinance is made up of four basic parts which work in concert to provide a system of land use control. Administration A good deal of the ordinance is devoted to the administrative details. This section establishes the mechanics of how things get done and who is responsible for what job. Definitions and notice requirements are an important part of this section and the whole thing is sprinkled with legal boilerplate. The procedures for issuing permits, granting approvals and enforcement are here. The process to amend both the text and the map are spelled out. This section is the most boring part of the ordinance and often C-5 Appendix C: Phase 1 Report puts its readers to sleep. For this reason and others the courts often overturn land use decisions because Uses The use section is the most exciting part of the ordinance. This is the section where districts and uses are established. Not many property owners can read through this section without getting a little excited. Allowed uses are those activities which are compatible with the surrounding area and other uses in the district. In many ordinances no review is required of these uses although some require a short administrative review that may include some stipulations. Conditional uses are those types of development or activities that can be compatible with the surrounding area and uses if it is sited and conducted properly. A general notice is usually given when a request is made to establish a conditional use. The planning and zoning commission conducts a hearing and measures the proposed use against criteria which are listed in the ordinance. Conditional uses are very specific and the planning commission will usually attach special conditions to their approval of the request. Map The zoning map is an official map of where the districts are physically located. The lines on the map mean a lot to every body. They are the difference between your next door neighbor being a single family residence or a bar. Rezonings establish, by changing the zoning map, new or expanded districts in which many different uses occur. Rezonings follow a process similar to conditional uses by need the approval of the City council. Dimensions This part of the ordinance establishes size requirements. What people in the trade call the zoning envelope. These are things like setbacks, lot sizes, height limitations and parking requirements. Setbacks are the minimum distances that structures may be located away from streets, lot lines and other buildings. Lot sizes are the minimum area that larger parcels can be subdivided into. Height requirements govern how high buildings can be built. Parking requirements establish places for our cars and trucks so that none of them are left out in the trafficway where they might get hurt. C-6 Appendix C: Phase f Report Advantages that is already developed. • Stabilizes property values. By preventing adverse or different uses next to established uses, property values will not change radically. Controls uses. By establishing separate districts, location of land use is strictly defined. • Widely understood and predictable. Zoning has been in existence for many decades and its use and administration is generally understood by the public. It is the most predictable type of land use control. Disadvantages Freezes uses the way they are. No mechanism for gradual improvement. Zoning changes are sudden, not incremental. • This stability can be misleading. Zoning amendments and variances have a cumulative effect. Over time this can result in a patchwork development pattern and loss of certainty. • Not site specific. There is little or no flexibility in site design; thus, unusual or unique features of the land or existing development are not likely to be preserved. Planned unit development regulations offer flexibility, but require lengthier and more costly reviews. • No design consideration. There is no opportunity for review of allowed uses even when they are large and/or can significantly effect the character of the neighborhood. 4 - ANALYSIS OF LAND USE REGULATION SYSTEMS. Each system of land use regulation has its advantages and drawbacks. No one system is perfect or suitable for every area. The key questions for each community are: What are your purposes? Which system will fit your purposes? Which system is best suited for your abilities? Which system will easy for people to understand? C-7 Appendix C: Phase 1 Report Both performance standards and the permit system can be attractive to developers because: Difficult sites can be utilized. There is always a chance they can get their development ideas approved. Developers who can figure out the ordinance have a lock on building. The community can achieve more sensitivity to the environment and more efficient use of difficult sites. There is increased ability for the community to implement its goals. However, most people tend to be conservative when it comes to regulation and the higher front end costs and length of review time are often greatly disliked. The creation of the districts and standards must be done very carefully. The community needs to avoid creating large areas of non-conformining uses and structures and a feeling of down -zoning. The recommended approach is to develop a system that combines elements of all three approaches. The system should be based on traditional zoning, but incorporate site plan review and the social engineering of the permit system. Some handy things to remember when drafting an ordinance are: Time is money. You are the developer. There is no Over bullet. The constitution does not guarantee wealth. M Appendix C: Phase f Report COMMERCIAL RECREATION DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ISSUES There is a natural evolution of different types of development and land use patterns. The Muldoon area in Anchorage and the Parks Highway in Wasilla are examples of the natural development of commercial uses. In these areas the government has allowed people to act in their own individual best interest. The only substantive control has been the economics of demand and supply. Supply will usually catch up with and, because of speculation, exceed demand. The result to some is unpleasant appearing development and over -building. Other types of uses are subject to this natural evolution. We are all familiar with the management problems faced by our National Parks. People are 'loving" the parks to death; demand has exceeded existing capacity. Over -use of parks has resulted in additional regulations by the federal government as landowner to not only protect the park environment, but also to improve the quality of the experience. The Denali National Park has for many years banned private motor vehicles from the park road, limited concessionaire activity and camping, and shuttle bus space through a reservation system. One of the results of these policies has been extensive development of commercial lodging and recreation uses outside park boundaries to meet the additional demand. There are few land use controls that currently apply to this outside development (the Denali Borough was just formed in the area), which is apparent in the appearance of the new development. Recreational demand by Alaskans and non-residents are resulting in overcrowding and degradation of the recreation experience in other parts of the state. The Deshka River, Russian River, Little Susitna River and Deep Creek are examples of recreational fishing evolving to its maximum. Improved access to these areas have brought increased use despite regulations to limit the amount of fish taken. Indeed, for some people the enjoyment of the experience includes crowd contact and interaction. The State Fish and Game regulations are aimed at balancing the level of use with the welfare of the resource. Special interests groups on several sides apply pressure to get their share and the result is a maximizing of the use. The quality of the experience tends to suffer for those whose standards include seclusion and privacy. Those who can afford it will seek alternatives to these popular areas. They move into less used areas usually further away from population centers and with limited access. This spill over starts to compete with local people in the new prime recreational areas. Access to these areas has usually limited to boat or airplane. The need for lodging increases with the increase in travel time. The additional demand for lodges leads to the development of additional facilities. Land ownership on Kodiak Island is not consolidated under an omnipotent owner such as the National Park Service; while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can set conditions for use of its lands, private inholdings and state lease of tidelands complicates more comprehensive management. Therefore, more C-9 Appendix C: Phase 1 Report of the responsibility for managing this growth falls on the Borough. The choice about how much commercial recreation development is enough, and what kind of experience will be offered in the may come to rest with the elected and appointed officials. A public policy needs to be formulated to address these issues, if the Borough wants to act. Without effective and enforced land use controls the natural evolution of development and use patterns will occur. This can result in the following problems: • environmental damage (water quality, trash, and habitat damage) from overcrowding • fish and wildlife impacts from over harvest or disturbance • increased competition between recreation, commercial, and subsistence activities • degradation of the recreation experience for residents and non-residents There are several elements of recreation use control which will require coordination between the various levels of government and the landowner: • ownership - the land owner can set limits on the type, density and characteristics of recreation development; this works best when large blocks are under single ownership • allocation of fish and wildlife - ADF&G can set seasonal and harvest limits by species and area • land use controls - local government can set conditions or requirements regarding minimum lot (recreation development) size, density, setbacks, and operating conditions We can identify environmental parameters to be considered such as distance from seabird rookeries, bear dens and intensive feeding areas, vegetative buffers or setbacks from salmon streams, sea lion rookeries and haulouts, bald eagle nest sites, and deer wintering areas. Some of the use concerns include timing of activities. These parameters are relatively easy to address through coastal management or conditional use permits. Parameters related to overcrowding and degradation of recreation experience include sight distance from other development, number of boats/planes/vehicles, size and design of buildings, and hours of operation. One approach could be to assign levels of development to each arm or bay and set some parameters through land use controls. However, there are no "silver bullets" to solve potential problems; the Borough will have to gauge its comfort level with different degrees of land use. The Borough needs to make a commitment to do something about the issue now before it becomes a critical problem. The commitment will mean work (reading, thinking, commenting, and making decisions using materials and information supplied to you by the planning department); time (an additional amount C -lo Appendix C: Phase 1 Report of borough staff time and your free time) and money (additional expenditures of public funds will need to be made to cover the project cost). If the commitment is made then the next step will be to formulate a program and time 11ne thatdevelops the necessary land use controls with adequate public input. C-11 City Kodiak Population Characteristics: 1980-90 By Age and Sex 1980 . 1990 change Total 4756 6365 33.8% Male 2563 3496 36.4% Female 2193 2869 30.9% YEAR POPULATION Age 1980 1990 1980 4756 0-4 394 0-4 603 1981 5-9 388 5-17 1155 1982 10-14 401 18-20 254 1983 15-19 419 21-24 445 1984 20-24 452 25-44 2626 1985 25-29 446 45-54 625 1986 30-34 400 55-59 208 1987 35-39 322 60-64 161 1988 40-44 269 65-74 193 1989 45-49 256 75-84 78 1990 50-54 219 85+ 17 55-59 144 60-64 118 65-69 36 70-74 32 +75 28 total 4324 6365 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 1990 KODIAK CITY HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 2177 Occupancy Housing Value Occupied Housing Units 2051 (specified owner -occupied units) owner ocupied 870 renter occupied 1181 less than $50,000 13 Vacant Housing Units 126 $50,000-99,000 260 $100,000-149,000 $150,000-199,000 219 113 Unite in Structure 1 Unit detached 1005 $200,000-299,000 56 1 Unit attached 58 $300,000 or more 9 2 - 4 Units 450 Median value $113,800 5 - 9 Units 210 10 or more units 360 Rental Rates mobile home, trailer 94 less than $250 $250-499 90 233 Households by type Families 1399 $500-749 449 Married couple 1106 $750-999 258 Male Householder 97 $1,000 or more 88 female Householder 196 Median rent $642 Non -Family 652 Persons per Household 2.92 Persons Living in Group Quarters 377 1990 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 4885 Occupancy Housing, Value Occupied Housing Units 4083 (specified owner -occupied units) owner ocupied 2043 renter occupied 2040 less than $50,000 100 Vacant Housing Units 802 $50,000-99,000 507 $100,000-149,000 $150,000-199,000 428 239 Units in Structure 1 Unit detached 2565 $200,000-299,000 112 1 Unit attached 118 $300,000 or more 25 2 - 4 Units 874 Median value $111,500 5 - 9 Units 353 10 or more units 368 Rental Rates mobile home, trailer 607 less than $250 $250-499 144 585 Households by type Families 2982 $500-749 604 Married couple 2447 $750-999 368 Male Householder 204 $1,000 or more 206 female Householder 331 Median rent $602 Non -Family 1011 Persons per Household 3.03 Persons Living in Group Quarters 955 fA N N GZ} N Lu r C N C Z m O Y N Of r O •- C O r O N LO * 0 0 C t`0 f"I 00)_ ON) 0 GOO 0) N to C > LO N • r Q r O I O O v O OD N (O 1 00 tD M N* O V 0) w« O N N m� 0 M tO t0 O Cl r t7 Cl) to O 00 r r N f - N r r r r N q O co N (NNy Il V 93 fO N r� 0 1l (D • O) 0 pOH O tO r OD) C� N Lo CD N N N O M M " O CO Gp r • �{ p0rn tD CO0 tO 000 +- DI r N O t7 CA 0 r O r r N 1l LN N NIt r r O n O co * coO N r tD r O OND a Cl) 0 O Cl) OD O^) O tN0 '- N 1l N N r NO N O OD r N t7 O r CO M tCOO r Op • r O N N CO lO 00 CO C` C n O a) Cl) ON) M r O • r N 0 Cd) N N r r r Q Q 0 0 O O Cl) a t0 w O nt0 M N• N O) N O NQ CO t0 N C? r t0 V M O OD O r r C, LO r r r r t0 O O O_ • N n M M V M^ t0 000 Cl) N r O r N LO 0 N N 1 r O r 0 0'T C7 r n Cl) of N r« CO r N O I� r n N r r C7 0) IT O M r. 0) r O Ie} tp r O N Op tO to N N r r O O co O O7 N r b N N l•) n co O O Cl) fO 2 r, M• r, n cor« r t7 tO C: N O to to r r N CZ LC) r r r L a ca U) 5 ui v ca c y d LL m O C E d N iA C 10 Y Q d y 10 y v 2 v y o LL E N m c c_ c c' o c v$� m v 0 U r2 U 2 LL 2 x 4 Q LL. to J Z F F- (n Q < kk cc 2\ cr k\ k \ ko \�\ w ■o co Q - § §§§}k kmak _/ Ra£± '§w N§\ } (o 4) _6 aa= }2# k2£ @4RAR% $ 264). #§k _V2 k�/± & 7k$f(K (m2 £�& 2=244== #§k 42/ / co Cl) G » e e e -_ §222$ #§k 2ƒt k8 a# ,mm,m§� Ln a\f 7 & }k}k k# }#� 42£ §\@ k�k}kk a $ _77/ kk/# &� 'Qkk§7\ )i~ !#f §=249=69 a_� 42� % @ fid_ Ccm G =E @oc o 2ar}§ §kd02 e)mC)A2a»- §)//EaI-j Kodiak: Overview of the Fishing Industry Kodiak is a one of Alaska's most dynamic fishing communities. Commercial fishing is the main base for a large portion of the total economic activity and employment for its residents. Although Kodiak is a relatively small community, it is major port in volume and value of fish harvested and landed, both in Alaska and nationwide. The value of the fish harvest in Kodiak ranks high among all of the nation's fishing ports. In 1991, Kodiak ranked third in the nation. In the past, Kodiak has achieved the number one ranking as the port with the highest value for fisheries landings. Although Kodiak is adjacent to very rich fishing grounds, fishing success in different fisheries have developed over time. There are also cyclical fluctuations in harvests of traditional fisheries. These factors keep the fishing industry in a continual stage of change, both from the harvesting and processing sides Kodiak has witnessed some of the largest peaks and crashes of all fisheries in Alaskan waters. The salmon fishery on Kodiak was probably the earliest commercial fishing enterprise in Alaska. In 1785, Grigorii Shelikov developed a business to dry salmon harvested from the Karluk River (Cooley, 1963). Salmon provided the early mainstay of fishing activity in Kodiak, with other species adding to the harvest totals. Foreign nations, primarily Japan and the USSR fished shrimp and groundfish in waters off Kodiak until they were displaced through bilateral treaty with the U.S. in the 1960's and 1970's and by provisions of the passage of the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MFCMA). The community has witnessed the exploration, development phase, intensive harvest and collapse of many species over the relatively recent past. Perhaps the best examples are the king crab fishery and the shrimp fishery. Prior to the 1964 earthquake, the king crab fishery in Kodiak grew slowly, from around 2.5 million pounds in 1953 to 50 million pounds in 1963. With a rebuilt fleet after the earthquake, including vessels with live tanking capacity, the landings quickly grew to 117 million pounds in 1966. The fishery began to decline in 1967 and has never regained the level of production achieved in 1966. The shrimp fishery in Kodiak went through a similar pattern. The major development of the shrimp fishery in Kodiak began in 1958, with the installation several mechanical peelers in one of the processing plants (Jackson, 1968). Shrimp harvests grew to a peak of 82 million pounds in 1971 and declined sharply thereafter. Tables 1 and 2 show the recent harvest history, by species, for the Kodiak management area. Table 1: Kodiak Commercial Salmon Harvests by species, 1960-1992 (in numbers of salmon) 1960 2,000 362,000 54,000 1,133,000 6,685,000 1961 1,000 408,000 29,000 519,000 3,296,000 1962 1,000 785,000 54,000 795,000 14,189,000 1963 0 407,000 57,000 305,000 5,480,000 1964 1,000 478,000 36,000 932,000 11,862,000 1965 1,000 346,000 27,000 431,000 2,887,000 1966 1,000 632,000 68,000 763,000 10,756,000 1967 1,000 284,000 10,000 221,000 188,000 1968 2,000 760,000 56,000 750,000 8,761,000 1969 2,000 604,000 35,000 537,000 12,493,000 1970 1,000 917,000 66,000 919,000 12,045,000 1971 1,000 478,000 23,000 1,541,000 4,333,000 1972 1,000 222,000 14,000 1,165,000 2,486,000 1973 1,000 167,000 4,000 318,000 512,000 1974 1,000 409,000 14,000 248,000 2,685,000 1975 0 137,000 25,000 85,000 2,945,000 1976 1,000 641,000 24,000 740,000 11,078,000 1977 1,000 623,000 28,000 1,072,000 6,252,000 1978 3,000 1,072,000 49,000 814,000 15,004,000 1979 2,000 632,000 141,000 358,000 11,287,000 1980 1,000 651,000 139,000 1,076,000 17,290,000 1981 1,000 1,289,000 122,000 1,345,000 10,337,000 1982 1,000 1,205,000 344,000 1,266,000 8,076,000 1983 4,000 1,232,000 158,000 1,085,000 4,603,000 1984 5,000 1,951,000 230,000 649,000 10,884,000 1985 5,000 1,843,000 284,000 431,000 7,335,000 1986 4,000 3,155,000 168,000 1,126,000 11,504,000 1987 5,000 1,793,000 192,000 682,000 5,073,000 1988 22,000 2,698,000 303,000 1,426,000 14,262,000 1989 5,000 2,629,000 141,000 836,000 22,649,000 1990 18,800 5,248,000 293,700 577,740 5,983,810 1991 22,200 5,704,000 324,900 1,029,100 16,642,800 1992 24,300 4,167,700 280,100 679,500 1 3,310,500 Source: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Annual Reports to the Board of Fisheries Table 2: Kodiak Commercial Shellfish Harvests by species, 1960-1992 1960 420,636 0 21,064,781 0 31,797,985 0 1961 381,971 0 28,962,900 0 11,083,500 0 1962 297,516 1,904,567 37,626,703 0 12,634,027 0 1963 323,757 2,487,512 37,716,223 0 10,118,472 0 1964 0 4,254,565 41,596,518 0 4,339,114 0 1965 20,000 3,311,571 94,431,026 0 13,823,061 0 1966 15,400 1,416,174 73,817,779 0 24,097,141 0 1967 15,429 6,663,668 43,448,492 7,718 38,267,856 110,961 1968 2,155 6,829,061 18,211,485 872,803 34,468,713 2,560,687 1969 6,384 5,834,628 12,200,571 1,012,860 41,353,461 6,827,312 1970 12,029 5,741,438 11,719,970 1,417,612 62,181,204 8,416,782 1971 132,261 1,445,864 10,884,152 841,211 82,153,724 6,744,163 1972 190,394 2,059,536 15,479,916 1,038,793 58,352,319 9,475,902 1973 152,116 2,000,526 14,397.287 935,705 70,511,477 30,699,777 1974 165,282 750,057 23,582,720 147,945 56,203,992 29,820,899 1975 198,381 639,813 24,061,651 294,142 58,235,982 13,649,966 1976 6,188 87,110 17,966,846 75,245 49,086,591 27,336,909 1977 0 113,026 13,503,666 0 46,712,083 20,720,079 1978 400 1,362,306 12,021,850 0 26,409,366 33,281,472 1979 1,352 1,311,275 14,608,900 24,826 20,506,021 29,173,807 1980 0 2,011,736 20,448,654 371,018 12,863,536 18,623,875 1981 8,006 5,566,463 24,237,601 424,394 27,101,218 11,748,629 1982 8,186 4,546,311 8,729,761 435,645 19,112,367 13,756,159 1983 11,608 4,752,148 0 147,747 10,391,207 18,927,061 1984 7,920 5,303,052 0 309,502 2,779,030 14,478,066 1985 33,972 4,160,435 0 46,971 2,942,922 12,024,553 1986 16,945 967,423 0 180,600 1,145,980 8,996,151 1987 3,993 1,450,983 0 253,451 455,468 4,833,473 1988 0 2,125,114 0 302,73810,841 3,888,906 1989 0 3,077,937 0 464,421 0 5,208,999 1990 0 2,879,955 0 898,277 0 3,456,314 1991 0 1,414,499 0 683,261 0 1,917,713 1992 0 1,656,793 0 508,534 0 2,400,213 Source: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Annual Reports to the Board of Fisheries Halibut and herring are other important 'traditional' fisheries in Kodiak. . Landings of halibut in recent years in Kodiak are shown in Table 3. Table 3: Halibut and Herring Harvests in Kodiak, 1980-1992 year herring sac roe (tons) halibut ('000 pounds) 1980 2,383 1,736 1981 2,065 3,446 1982 1,771 6,246 1983 2,319 10098 1984 2,163 12,950 1985 1,968 15,991 1986 1,558 17,456 1987 2,146 17,036 1988 2,171 18,064 1989 2,249 16,482 1990 2,347 11,573 1991 2,432 11,285 1992 4,283 n/a Source: Alaska Department of Fish & Game and International Pacific Halibut Commission Yearbooks, various years Beginning with joint -venture fishing operations in the early 1980's, Kodiak quickly became the center of the domestic groundfish development for the Gulf of Alaska. The Shelikof joint - venture pollock fishery produced huge volumes in the early 1980's and then declined sharply. As the groundfish harvest became 'Americanized' through the joint venture fisheries, domestic processing plants were developed in Kodiak to be able to handle and process groundfish on shore. The groundfish resource in waters off Kodiak are managed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, through the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Management Plan. Fishing seasons, quotas and other management measures are set by the Council each year. Groundfish landings for major species in Kodiak for the past several years are shown in Table 4. Fishing issues in Kodiak include: general opposition to the individual transferrable quota system for halibut and sablefish, bycatch in the inshore groundfish fishery and salmon interception discussions with Cook Inlet fishermen. Kodiak's fishermen and processors led the fight against factory trawlers operating in the Gulf of Alaska. Largely due to their efforts, the Gulf of Alaska groundfish are now allocated mostly to on -shore processors. Table 4: Groundfish Landings in Kodiak (metric tons) 1990 49,669 24,841 1,810 961 6,795 1991 40,596 22,389 3,013 1,294 9,804 1992 59,348 18,887 2,855 1,055 11,354 source: National Marine Fisheries Service, unpublished data AUG 2 31993 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE