No preview available
USS 2537B BLK 2 TR 16-B - Code EnforcementKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Telephones 486-5736.- 486-5737 — Box 1246 IMMO:, ALASKA 99615 September 20, 1979 Mr. Ted West International Seafoods of Alaska P.O. Box 2995 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: ' •City of Kodiak Tidelands Tract #1-28 Dear Mr. West, The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission has directed that the construction work taking place on the referenced property be stop- ped until a valid building permit has been issued. This action by the Commission was taken during their regular meeting held on Septmeber 19, 1979. The Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances requires that all con- struction must be consistant with the terms of the code. If you have any questions regarding the application of the code as it applies to your project we will be happy to review the matter with you. We look forward toyour cooperation and assistance in resolving this matter. HM/ jmj CC: Kodiak Building Official Borough Mayor Borough Assembly P & Z Commission City Manager Borough Attorney City Attorney L Sincerely, Harry Mil Planning Director KO IAK ISLA =y D BOROUGH Telephones 486 -5736 - 486 -5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: 6 October 1980 TO: Murray Snyder, Borough Manager FROM: Jacques Beck, Planner ilk/ RE: International Seafoods I spoke to Rick Garnett, our attorney, at 9:20 a.m. this morning concerning the letter from Herman Beukers, Superintendent of Public Works, Kodiak City, dated 3 October 1980, and addressed to my department (copy attached). At 9:30 a.m., I spoke to Gordon Ryan, City Manager, and relayed verbally that "The Kodiak Island Borough had no problems with the City of Kodiak issuing a building permit to International Seafoods, Inc., due to a settlement between Kodiak Island Borough and International Seafoods, Inc., and that a written, signed copy of this settlement would be forwarded to the City Manager's office as soon as the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Community Development Department received one ". cc: David Rogers, International Seafoods Gordon Ryan, City Manager Herman Beukers, Supt. of Public Works 426wittz, October 3, 1980 Kodiak Island Borough Box 1246 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Attention: Planning & Zoning Department OCT 1980 cs, RECEIVED Gentleten: International Seafoods has approached this department with a request for a Building Permit for their seafood processing plant located at Lot 12, Block 2 - Tidelands Tract 28. Before issuing this permit, I feel it is my responsibility to assure the City Administration that they have met all the zoning requirements. Would you please-advise us as to their status as soon as possible. Very truly yours, ie erman T. Beu Supt.Of Public Works HTB/ak cc: David Rogers,International Seafoods Gordon Ryan, City Manager POST 0 C€ 0 1397, KODIAK , 1LWt1 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Telephones 486 -5736 - 486-5737-- Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 DATE: August 24-1980. TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jacques W: Beck, planner 'SUBJ: International Seafoods Conditional Use Parking,Permit Per your request,,,on August. 1980, I. again conferred with Borough Attorney Rick Garnett'r.eferencing' the International :Seafoods Parking Permit. He'advised that there is currently an agreement between the Borough and International Seafoods to-the effect that the Borough would not - pursue any type of action until all litigation is 'settled. Therefore, Mr. Garnett recommends that the Commission table this request until the outcome of litigation. Further, Mr. Garnett.stated that-he .did'not-feel that this ,request made by International Seafoods actually constituted a variance according to the definition of same.. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 April 14, 1980 Mr. Mike Pendergrast International Seafoods, Inc. POUCH ISA Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: Bunk House at .Mr. Perez's Trailer Court. Dear Mr. Pendergrast, The bunk house that you are placingin Tony Perez's trailer court for International Seafoods requires a building permit. You are to apply for a building permit and an occupancy certificate before construction is resumed or within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. A revision in the approved plans may be required by the Planning and Zoning Commission before a building permit can be issued as the location of the units do not comply with the approved trailer court plans. I would like plans and other information on the mobile units that you are using as they may not comply with the zoning code as they appear, parking may also be a problem. Sincerely, ,r) Bryce Gordon Building Official CC: Mr. Tony Perez Mr. Ted West e _cf.( .,,7 Pe/11 2e4vZ <7g - - -se‘v -ce 4/ -4-4(2r 47"/ nrir; ,-f? -4° "Zi .4%2/ 42re•Z .2-1---*47;•$v=ez 77 el 42 Ze eyeV r ,'dc _ _ „ r• 7/4 .1. - - — • 44, 5 5 .4. • -Ay z,e• — "?--£ 2°d • g /- tY J-Je15-- — r 49P •';€>, <7;:' 4-fw :4?" ee./- -77 -- -5" : • SX ,4;?<' 213-Qd >cu. 7- 54;v-err 'ea p4/e5- s g •a /4-,:t err -x / $17_,G -44) • •e/7 7 ,;.er -"74:7 • %-e:, .4/ tv.S t's • -no°. •;•• -1g ?"7 -o--.0•••,--4‘ev • -s-4/ ------- - -7` ke-C4-7 - v.-4y/ "ow,. - Cit—A,IR/ ....-/-41/ - Jr - - 8 4 4- c, <242 14 zfz,,S tzs 7 1 ' , Sr __e AV: zo, 7,7 42 '14 r/472/4.7 5-v<vei, (lbfry PI/ - 9 , e-2 d-, 4re...■ ' gr .7 a 0'47 -C-V'etr:t .744-/-_-/- g / ;./ p .1 ze (2/ Q-Z _7 a/ 2/-zr - Q_ -- -1-72 c .Y..V,P"- 6-,243.1•°/ - ,„ 1.1/2 "f 06 Q-4 2714: - /7$ / p_ _ 4_6.0 "2_ _ _ actNe. ..../471edop id. ,i1.^ — - - - - - - /CC' ,40/r /7. e•,,,_5 _ - _ _ _ A4 t> _ r4 enoir "la" 7—o27/77.4, Pe-r — _______ ,e9;4„Z eve..."77 ..../7/?......?..7/6.7_./z _ - r - 7 • efe,_/"., 2! GE, _47 'ENV RON MR m/s ; 443. ENTAL PROTECT REGION X 1200 SIXTH A'. SEATTLE, WASHIN To -All Interested Persons; Public Groups, and Government Agencies: After extensive consideration of the potential environmental impacts from the International Seafoods of Alaska, Incorporated's proposed seafood processing plant (New Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Permit. No. AK- 002666 -2), I have concluded that the preliminary. Finding of No Significant Impact issued on November 2, 1979 is appropriate. Therefore, the draft permit circulated on the same date, with minor. changes, shall be issued in final form today without an Environmental Impact Statement. I have been impressed by the degree of citizen concerns and involve- ment during the public comment period and public hearing. The concerns brought to our attention during this period have been summarized in the attached Response to Comments, which also includes the Agency's responses. With your aid, we have carefully examined many aspects of this facility and the consequences of issuing a permit. However, no substantially new or significant issues within the Agency's jurisdiction were brought to our attention during the public review. The issues raised throughout the process are adequately addressed in the Environmental Assessment issued on November 2, 1979 and in the attached Responses to Comments. Therefore, the Agency's final decision is to issue the permit. This permit will become effective March 27, 1980 unless a request for an evidentiary hearing meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 124.74 is submitted within 30 days of receipt of this letter. A copy of 40 CFR 124.74 is attached. Sincerely, i 1,. r / _ 1 DonaTefv. Dubois Regional Administrator Attachment U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X 1200 SIXTH, AVENUE ATTLE, WASHINGTON .98101 REPLY TO ATM OF: NPDES Permit # AK-002666-2 International Seafoods of Alaska, Incorporated Kodiak, Alaska, RESPONSE TO. COMMENTS The Environmental Protection Agency's regulations require that the responsible official consider fully all comments submitted on the draft .permit and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) related documents before taking final administrative action on.a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. This Response to Comments is EPA's formal response to the comments and will become part of the final administration record. . The public involvement, in this application has been more extensive than for any previous new source seafood processing permit in this region. As noted in. the Environmental Assessment, a public notice, was circulated stating our i ntent to prepare an Environmental Assessment and requesting citizen input in determining the major issues. After the Environmental Assessment was completed, a pre- liminary Finding of No Significant Impact and draft permit were prepared and issued on November, 2, 1979. These and other documents were distributed for a public comment period of over 30 days. In response to the substantial interest, a public hearing on the documents was held on December 3, 1979. EPA extends its •gratitude .to all. those who participated in this process. LETTERS RECEIVED, SUMMARY. OF COMMENTS, AND, • EPA's RESPONSES Four -. written comments were received by EPA during the public comment period. The following is a summary of the comments, followed by EPA's responses: 1. Okey Chandler, citizen. Chandler made a number of points in his letter.. a. During the summer there is a housing. shortage. International Seafoods of Alaska (ISA);. has ' done nothing to provide housing for their workers. b. The labor force in Kodiak is not adequate for the present needs. He believes that "Moonie" workers will be sent for, which will make Kodiak undesirable. c. ISA does not have a building. permit. The dock extends 10' further into the channel than the Corps of Engineers allowed. This dock is hazardous to planes and fishing boats. He would like. the EPA_.permit delayed or denied until - the local ordinances are complied with EPA response: a. We agree. This housing situation, and the impacts of the alternatives are discussed on page 25 of the Environmental Assessment. b. The issue of whether "Moonies" or "non - Moonies ".will be employed at the plant is not within EPA's juris- diction. However, West and Rogers have stated that they hope to employ year -round Kodiak residents. c. Please see EPA's response to Harmony's issue b and-_ f on pages 8 and 12 in this document. d. It is not known when the case regarding the building permit and parking will come to trial. The Agency has decided that it would not be appropriate to wait before issuing our discharge permit. We thank Chandler for his interesting comments. 2. Scott Hickoff, Operations Foreman, International Seafoods of Alaska, Incorporated. Hickoff writes that most of the controversy regarding the proposed facility is due to its affiliation with Reverend Moon, not with the facility itself. The facility has the latest processing technology and equipment available. It is ISA'.s intention to comply with all governmental rules and regulations. The facility will be a benefit to the local fishermen, businessmen, and residents. The city should stop trying to block the facility, and start trying to solve the problems instead; EPA. response:. No response necessary. We appreciate Hickoff taking the time to write. 3. Bruce Barrett, State of Alaska, Department of Fish and, :Game. a. The proposed screening system and the 0.5 inch mesh conveyor system should prevent significant degradation of water quality. It is suggested that the holding tank discharge water be connected to the roto - strainer system. EPA response: a. No response necessary.. b. In the opinion of EPA, such a. connection to the roto- strainer would increase the Biological' Oxygen Demand .. (BOD) and Oil and Grease in the plant discharge. This is because of the additional contact between the solids on the screen and . the increased volume of water. There- fore, we will not require ISA to make this connection. Instead, the final permit will contain an added permit condition requiring that there shall be no discharge which causes solids to be deposited beneath or upon the surface of the water, within the water column, or on . the bottom or upon adjoining shorelines. According to EPA's conversations with Rogers of ISA, such a condition will be met by the installation of a, coarse screening device on the drain of the. holding tanks. We will be interested in comments on the effectiveness and /or problems of such a system to help us determine the . permit condition's usefulness for future NPDES permits.- 4 4. State of Alaska, Department of Natural. Resources. The State Historic Preservation Officer agreed that there would be no probable impacts to significant cultural resources., State Park Planning and LWCF had no comments. EPA response: " No response necessary, PUBLIC HEARING,. Summary The December 3, 1979 . public hearing began in the afternoon and continued into the evening after a dinner. break. Thirty -four people were registered as attending the hearing. In addition, because of the significant public interest in the matter, the entire hearing was, broadcast by a Kodiak radio station, KMXT, and thus was available to a larger audience than those braving the road conditions to attend the sessions. At the public hearing, eight individuals representing a broad 'spectrum of the community gave concerned and detailed testimony. Presentations were also made by EPA's staff and the applicant. The testimony did not disclose significantly different information from that already conveyed in writing to EPA during the August 1979 public comment period. However, the value of a public hearing was apparent both to hear the emotional importance of the issues and to have face -to -face questions and discussions. The hearing definitely made a strong impression on all the EPA staff who attended, and on those who have read the transcript. A highlight of the afternoon session was the testimony: of Mr. Clair Harmony, City Manager, City of Kodiak. Harmony reiterated and enlarged upon the city's three major concerns: cumulative impacts on water quality, the dock's interference with navigation, and >. parking and traffic on Tagura Road. •Both Harmony and Mr. Kenneth Covey, another afternoon speaker, said that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared because the full scope of the effects from this facility are not known. These, and other very relevant concerns are detailed and responded to on the following pages. The evening session openly brought out the most controversy. Addressing socio- economic aspects of the proposed project, most of the citizens expressed long -range concerns due to International Seafoods of Alaska's, (ISA's) association with Reverend Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Chruch. The speakers summarized their research and information on Reverend Moon's plans in general and on his followers' prior activities in the fishing industry. While most of the statements dealt with matters over which EPA does not have jurisdiction, even . under the National Environmental Policy Act, Mr. Ted West, manager of ISA, undertook answering a number of the public's concerns. A transcript of the public hearing and this'Response to Comments will be included in the final administrative record. The entire administra- tive record may be inspected and copies made in Room 11D, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, any time between 8 :30 am. and 4:00 pm., Monday-through Friday. Copies of any document'and other informa- tion may be requested by writing to EPA at the above address to the attention of Kim Wilson, New Source Permits: Section"- MIS 521, or by calling .(206) 442 -1270. A. copying machine is available in the office for public use at a charge of 20 cents per copy sheet.. Copies of the hearing transcript and Response to Comments will also be available in the A. Holmes Johnson Memorial Library," Kodiak, and in EPA's Alaska Operations Office, Anchorage. PUBLIC HEARING -- SPEAKERS, COMMENTS,.AND EPA's RESPONSES Afternoon session Dave Rogers, Assistant General Manager, International Seafoods: of Alaska, Incorporated (ISA) - -At EPA's request, Dave Rogers presented a brief description of the facility. The major points he made were: 1. The $6,000,000 facility will be on line some time after February 1, 1980. All seafoods, except shrimp, can be processed. It will use the best available waste control system as well as the most advanced processing equipment. 2. The plant has had more attention than usual on socio- economic issues. Contrary to what some think, ISA is building a fish processing plant, not a place of worship. It will have a (positive) effect on the local employment scene by providing year -round employment and cross- training for their employees. (Rogers, transcript pages 19 -21). EPA response: It is the opinion of EPA's staff that the waste- water treatment system and dry - capture process as described by Rogers is the best available demonstrated control technology (as required by Section 306 of the Clean Water Act) for seafood processing in Alaska. If the equipment is properly operated and maintained, the facility should be able to meet the effluent limitations for all seafood categories in EPA's NPDES permit. EPA will not comment on the socio- economic issues concerning the tie between ISA and the religious organization known as the Unification Church because the Federal government has no jurisdiction over religious matters. 1. Clair Harmony, City Manager, City of Kodiak - -Mr. Harmony was requested by the city council to present some of the concerns of the local government. The major concerns discussed by Mr. Harmony are: a. "Who enforces the law ?" Though there are many permits involved, there is no central control to ensure that the facility will not be a burden on the local community. In this case, it is the size and the location of the facility which causes the problems. Mr. Harmony expressed concern that a piecemeal process by which many Federal and state agencies act on different aspects of the project takes from the local government important decision - .making authority with resulting impacts on its community. (Harmony, transcript pages 22, 33). EPA Response: We agree that many decisions are made by EPA; regarding its national mandate under the Clean Water Act: However. EPA seeks the views of local government and where possible will attempt to accommodate the needs of the local government. Parking. The Borough Planning and Zoning ordinances require the facility to have at least 70 automobile parking spaces based on the facilities: square footage, or 100 parking spaces based on the top number of employees (300). However the project contemplates . only one automobile "parking,space. The city feels that the signoff by the Borough building inspector was not given appropriately. These ordinances 'exist because the local governments foresee problems.'" In this particu- lar case the city feels that there would be severe impacts on theiealth and welfare of the community. (Harmony, transcript pages 24,'.26,.27). EPA Response: The City's and Borough's authority to prescribe parking requirements for its waterfront area is being reviewed by the Alaska Superior Court. Thus a resolution of this issue is being sought by the City by the appropriate legal means. EPA has no direct jurisdiction over the number of parking spaces associated with this project because Kodiak is considered to be in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality standards If Kodiak was a nonattainment area, and if the State Implementation. Plan to achieve attainment included a review of industrial development's automobile air quality impacts, EPA could then have some direct juris- diction over the number of spaces. Mr. Harmony: The preliminary . injunction was issued by the Alaska Superior' Court, not the Alaska State Supreme Court as stated in the Environmental Assessment. Contrary to what was .stated in. the Environmental Assessment and what was characterized before the local Superior Court judge when he gave the preliminary injunction, the applica- bility of the parking requirement to waterfront industrial districts has come-up in the past when Eastpoint did some expansion work further down Tagura Road,• and. when :a boat . moorage and dry docking area was constructed. (Harmony, transcript pages 43 -45) EPA Response: Corrections noted. c. Emergency access along Tagura Road -- Tagura Road is frankly . an awful road for an industrial. area The right -of -way is only 20 feet wide, of which only 18 feet is usable but substandard. There are already great traffic problems in . the winter when snow and ice build up on the roadway.. The City is concerned about not being able to get 'fire and rescue equipment down to the other end of Tagura Road.. The facility is also. immediate adjacent to the Island's only civilian electrical supply. - The :fuel is brought into the plant by truck. (Harmony, transcript page, 26, pages 30 -32). EPA.Response: EPA agrees with the City that the Tagura Road situation is not ideal. However, .this road condition 15 within the jurisdiction of the local governments As the area appears to be becoming more industrialize it would appear to be in everyone's best interest if the local governments took positive action in correcting the situation, perhaps with the road improvements to be financially supported by all who use the area It appears that the City's concern about blockage. of Tagura Road by vans has been eased because the original ISA plans have been modified to provide an indentation of the first floor for a van docking area off the .right -of,. -way. The Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) is on the downtown side of ISA on Tagura Road, and thus the new seafood processing plant should not block, access to KEA's .facility. It should be noted that there is "an existing seafood processing plant on the other ,side of the KEA facility. d. Busing. ISA's. proposed busing of its ,employees would be a good concept if it was enforceable. As Harmony has pointed out in other letters to EPA; there is nothing to ensure that the busing concept 'would carry over to a new owner, or that it would continue after the first year of :operation. (Harmony, transcript page 27). EPA Response: There is a possibility that EPA's regulations :. may permit EPA to put a special' condition in the NPDES permit to require the discharger to provide buses.. There is some question however whether EPA ought to require of this NPDES permit applicant a special . condition for a busing system over which the local government may have far better legislative authority and implementation. Harmony is also concerned about the impacts of.ISA`s busing plan. If they do have busing, where are the employees going to park their cars so that they can be bused from that spot. Most of the public parking that is available downtown is in public parking malls. While these could be used, there is already pressure from the local business community to provide . more downtown parking. Therefore, even if busing is offered, . the details of it are not there, the enforcement is not there, and the continuation is not there. A busing plan is something that needs to be worked out with a planning commission, which has the proper authority to deal with it (Harmony, transcript pages 27 -28). 10- EPA Response: EPA agrees that a better and more,-appropriate -way of dealing with the parking and traffic problem would be to have a busing plan worked out by a planning commission. Such a: plan, 'if . implemented would probably reduce the problems of parking for all_, the businesses near the waterfront We recommend that the appropriate agency work with ISA on such a plan. However, until the local governments do such a worthwhile activity, we believe that ISA's plan to - :provide :busing: is . `a. rational and . noteworthy mitigation measure. EPA also contacted ISA in. late December to ask. about their pick up: plans. David Rogers said that their system will consist of four . or five pick up points .around-the city for each. bus.,' Employees wiT1. gather in neighborhood centers, generally getting to that point by foot. Therefore, ISA does ,not foresee a strain on parking facilities near the central business district; e. Cumulative Effects on Water Quality: The city is . concerned about the. cumulative effect on one moreoutfall into Near Island Channel. It has not been determined that there is not a cumulative effect... The city also does not know what the cumulative build -up of sediment material from all the Kodiak processors, has had on the environment of the surrounding reefs:.; (Harmony, transcript pages 23, 25, 35 -36). EPA Response: It is true that in the past a major contributor to -poor water quality in the Kodiak vicinity has been the cumulative . build up of solids from seafood processing discharges in Kodiak However, this situation has been changing.. As discussed in the Assessment, the water quality and biota of the Near Island Channel had been less stressed than the harbor as shown in the 1971 and 1974 EPA studies. Since the 1974 study, seafood processors were required to screen all solids from the processing wastewater prior to discharge. No further studies have been done to determine, how much this stricter ,requirement has improved the water quality, though it is generally accepted that there has been -an improvement. ISA will . not s i,gni f icantly_ffect the cumulative _water quality impact of seafood 'processing__In_Kodiak,- both-. s_ ince ...the_ather_processor-s.: are A screening_their_.wastewater with fine mesh screening (0..7 mm openings) and-because ISAls system will use an- even-finer` mesh. The City's concerns about water quality is also a concern of the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). As part of EPA's NPDES permit issuance process, EPA must request Section 401 of the Clean Water Act) that ADEC certify that discharges under the proposed permit will not violate any of the State Water Quality Standards. These water quality standards have been set by the State to protect the quality of the waters in the Kodiak area for water supply, water contact recreation, and the growth and propagation of and other aquatic life, as well as other uses. .ADEC has reviewed the slightly modified, permit and has certified that the discharges will not violate any State Water Quality Standard., One of the changes is the condition added to ISA's permit in response to comments from the State of Alaska Department of. Fish and Game. (See page 3:.of this Response to Comments): Navigation. The •City, i -s: still concerned about the -dock's potential interference with navigation in :Near Island Channel`. The city had a frustrating experience with Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard.- Despite a late objection from the State Ferry system, past disapprovals of such extensions, and the lack of standards for approving such extensions, the extension was approved by the Corps of Engineers: The Coast Guard's admonition on the approval was that only one medium -sized vessel :. could be parked at a•time at the dock. There are two problems with this: 1) .What is a medium -sized boat ? The city believes it . is in the range of 25 to 30 feet. (Mr. , Rogers of ISA later clarified that to mean 25 to 30 feet in beam, not in length). Who is going to enforce this? The Coast Guard said it will, if the city will let them know when more. than one boat is tied up there. This surveillance will cost the local taxpayers. money. Also, .there have been problems at Eastpoint's dock which extends a similar distance into the channel (and which was used as the reason for allowing ISA's extension). There are often three to four boats stacked up side by side into the channel at. Eastpoint's dock. The city foresees a similar problem at ISA's dock. ( Harmony, transcript pages 24 -25, 28 -29, 33). EPA Response: The dock extension request was subject to, . detailed review including a site visit, by the Coast Guard and the. Corps of Engineers: EPA considers these agencies to be the. Federal , authorities. in the " matter of navigability In addition, as Mr..' Harmony pointed out, the dock has been reduced in length, so that it is 10 feet shorter than the permit allows.' Land .Use.' Historically, the Council's understanding was that the property would never be developed into a cannery. When a person took over the site from the first person who intended to develop the property he was questioned very closely about his plans for a crab pot foundry operation which would have a dock, but not a heavy concentration of employees which would put a burden on the Tagura Road situation. The City Council wanted to be assured that there would never be a on that site (Harmony, transcript pages 29 -30). EPA Response: To EPA's knowledge, the site is not zoned -.to forbid a seafood processing facility. h. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The City Council would .like an EIS to be prepared. They would like to see studies which would indicate what effects to the eco- system would occur. and what impacts have been building up. One, specific issue is water quality in St. Paul Harbor: (Harmony, transcript pages 38 -39). EPA Response: There have been two long public comment periods during which EPA has actively sought out the issues. The environmental review process has included full open disclosure of all the information EPA was able to locate, and opportunities for public comments on the assessment and EPA's preliminary conclusions as listed in the assessment." It is EPA's opinion that all matters that have been brought to our attention have been dealt within the Environmental Assessment or in this Response to Comments. A number of problems do exist, and mitigative proposals identified. We believe that there are not any significant issues which an EIS on this particular facility would resolve; rather the issues which remain are predominantly issues which are better and more appropriately handled and resolved as a result of local analysis and decision-making. We appreciate the City's concern and interest in maintaining the existing quality of life in Kodiak. In recognition of this, we have tried to implement the National Environmental Policy Act process to provide far more than the usual amount of analysis for a new, source Alaskan seafood processing facility. In many ways - -early scoping of issues, wide public distribution of the environmental analysis, a public hearing, a formal: response to comments- -the Environmental Assessment procedure has followed EIS regulations and guidelines more than Finding of No Significant Impact guidelines. As a result of : the City's and other members of the public's concerns, this process has resulted in a "shorter dock, better :van loading'. facilities, and very.strict permit limitations on the, discharge of solids from the holding tanks and processing facilities. 2. Kenneth Covey - Mr. Covey's main point was that the impacts will be many and complex. Though there are many regulating agencies, each only looks at a narrow range of impacts, while Kodiak will feel the effect of the entire facility. The Superior Court injunction prohibits the City of Kodiak from dealing with the problems that are set before them as the City is no longer in control of the situation. He is also concerned about the long -range impacts if ISA should sell their facility' to others. Mr. Covey quoted and agreed with sections of the Environmental Assessment, such as on the parking and housing problems, and the alternatives. He did note that the alternatives seem to put the burden on what is to be done on the City.- (And, even then, in his opinion, there are no solutions to some problems, like additional traffic and occasional blockages of Tagura road). Mr. Covey mentioned the feelings of some of the citizens. that Moon would come in and overcome the population. The facility is controversial because nobody knows for sure what . the total impact on the City is going to be. , {Covey, transcript pages 45- 48 -55).• EPA Response: Please see EPA's issue by issue response to Mr. Harmony, as many of Mr. Covey's points were raised by Harmony. Covey's opinion that the type of controversy should result in the preparation of an EIS` has been considered. It is EPA's opinion that we cannot consider or address issues . related to Reverend Moon in our evaluation or decision. 3. Preston Kester. Mr. Kester stated that boats larger than 30 or 40 feet in length would have to be used. (Kester, transcript page 55). Dave Rogers responded that he thought Harmony was referring to the beam of the craft, not the length. (Rogers, transcript page 56). Mr. Kester was concerned that if someone loses their steering in the narrowest part of the channel, they will smack into one of the larger boats there. (Kester, transcript page 55). 14. EPA Response: Both the Coast Guard and the Corps of Engineers concluded that the dock, and a single vessel would not hinder navigation.. The Coast Guard defined . a' "medium- size" vessel as having a length in the, neighborhood of 70 to 150 feet, A 150 foot long crabber would have a beam in the neighborhood of 30 feet. Evening session After EPA staff presentations, the Hearing Officer asked Bill Lamoreaux to give some informati on on the effluent discharge location. The Hearing Officer suggested that the discharge location be added to the permit as a result of some off - the - record questions after the afternoon hearing. EPA Response; The effluent discharge location has been indicated in the final permit. 4. Patricia Lozinak - Mrs. Lozinak is concerned about Reverend Moon's impact on the canneries and fishing related business in Kodiak. She read from a notebook kept of a former ''Moonier ". These sections concerned Moon's ambitions to control the fishing industry and how he plans to do.it. Her question is then how can any business compete fairly with Reverend Moon's network and his members working in every . phase of the entire fishing industry. Their organization can buy fish for less and sell it for less in the markets, thus affecting other canneries and fishing related businesses. (Lozinak, transcript pages 65 -69, 71 -72). 5. Okey Chandler said he would send in a letter with his comments. (Chandler, transcript pages 73-75). 6. Louis B. Lindsey stated that he was opposed to the establishment of ISA._ They have an unfair advantage since they raise their money for such businesses through tax -free means. (LindseY, transcript pages 77 -79). 7. Craig Bishop stated that the "Moonies" are not wanted in Kodiak because they do not want their kids brainwashed and the free enterprise system and religious freedoms. mocked. (Bishop, transcript page 79). Kenneth Covey spoke again. He stated that what Reverend Moon has in mind is much more than just, a seafood processing plant, but political and religious control of the world. Covey also suggested that EPA contact some of the other cities where the Moon organization has opened businesses to find out what the impacts have been there. He does not feel that the testimony at the hearing is going to have enough strength to reach the truth of the matter. (Covey, transcript pages 79 -82). 8. Cathy Kester stated that it is the social impact which has been the main concern of the 'people in. Kodiak. They are concerned about what has happened in other communities because they are concerned about what will happen in the future to their community and children. (Kester, transcript pages 82 -83). 16 Okey Chandler spoke again. He said that the communists only had :a few thousand dedicated communists when they took over Russia, . and that is all they need for absolute control. (Chandler, transcript. pages. 83 -84). EPA, Response: These issues are not within. EPA's jurisdiction since they involve religious and,spiritual..matters.` 9. Ted West, Manager, ISA. Mr: West wanted to respond to some of the comments that were made. His major points were:: a. ISA decided to open in Kodiak because of the astounding potential for bottomfishing.in the area. b.. In regards to unfair competition, most of the canneries in Kodiak are run by two major Japanese companies. These hold a monopoly on .Kodiak because they control the prices paid to the fishermen for what they catch. ISA will be an American company, selling food in America to reduce the deficit in the balance of payments from food: As required by law, ISA will pay at least the minimum wage and often more, depending on skills and abilities. c. .ISA will be a tax paying company in Kodiak which will increase the tax revenue of Kodiak by $100,000 a year. He will use ISA's tax paying position to "yell" about the road and the public safety situation. d. ISA has a definite market for their bottomfish.in "Mrs. Pauls; who currently use fish harvested by the Russians. e. ISA will need approximately 30 draggers. They are trying to line up private boats in Alaska' and down below. They may bring in two ships owned by.a sister organization. f. It is impossible for a single company to control the market and prices because there are so many influences: There were other (religious) questions and answers. (West, transcript pages 84- 104).. EPA Response: We appreciate the comments made by everyone who participated in the evening session of our hearing. The exchanges provided useful and up -to -date information to the community as well as additional details on the viability of the project. EPA extends their gratitude to all those who spoke at the hearing. udiak 1sirul Borough KODIAK., AIM A FEB 2 8 19BB § 124.74 Requests for evidentiary hearing. (n) , ithirl JI) days following the service of notice of the Regional Administrator's issuance of n final permit under § 124.01, any interested person may submit a request to the Regional Administrator under paragraph (b) for an evidentiary hearing lo reconsider or contest the !elms of that permit. If such 9 request is submitted by a person other Than the permillee, the person shall simultaneously serve a copy of the request on the permillee. (h) In nccordancc with § 124.70. such requests shall stale each legal or factual question alleged to be al issue. and their relevance to the permit decision, together with n designation of the specific factual areas lo he adjudicated and the hearing time estimated lo be necessary for that ndjudirmtion. Information supporting Ihr, relines! or other (n•ritlen document relied upon to support the request shall be subnrilled as tequila! by § 124.7J unless it is already in Ihr. administrative Icc:ord required by § 124.01. (Comment: this paragraph allows the sulnnissron of trqursis fur evidentiary 'writings even (hough both lrl:.cl and factual issues may be 1uui,cd, or only Irl:nl issues roily be inked. In the 1;1111'1 t.aac.,brc I111Se 110 factual issues weer raised, the Regiunul Adminislrulor %Mehl be trquirrd to deny the trquenl. However. on iv %le v of Ihr denim. Ihr Adnrinlsltnlur is a11011/Iiicd by 17.4.I01(a)l1) to review policy or legal conclusions of the Regionail Administrator. EPA is requiring nn appeal Tr, the Adiniulalralur even of purely legal Issues Involved in a permit decision to ensure )hut the Administrator will have nn opportunity to review any permit before iI will be final and aubjecl to (odiciul review.) (c) Such requests shall also contain: (1) The name, mailing address and telephone number of the person making such request: (2) A clear and concise fnclual statement of the nnlure and scope. of Iho interest of the requester; (:I) The. narrnrs and nilchrssr.s of all persons whom the trimester trinesent% and (4) A statement by the rcq(icstcr that, upon motion of any party, or suit spontc by the Presiding Officer rind without cost or expense to any other party, the requester shall make available to appear and testify, the following: (1) The requester; (ii) All persons represented by the requester, and (iii) All officers, directors. employees, consultants and agents of the requester and the persons represented by the requester. (5) Specific references to the contested permit terms and conditions, as well us suggested revised or alternative permit terms and conditions (nol excluding permit denial) which, in the judgment of the requester. would be required to implement the purposes and policies of the Act. (0) In the case, of challenges lo the application of control or treatment technologies identified in the slltemerll of basis or fact sheet. identification of the basis for the objection, and the alternative technologies or combination of Technologies which the requester believes are necessary to meet the rcquitements of the Act. (7) Specific idenlificillinn of cnch of the discharger's obligations ‘vhi(:h should be stayed if the Irrpresl is granted. If the request contests more than one permit term or condition then each obligation which is proposed to be stayed must be referenced to the particular contested tern) warranting the slay. • (d) The Regional Administrator (upon notice to all persons who have already submitted hearing requests) may extend the time allowed for submitting hearing requests under this section for good (:al uae. Fact Sheet iHk Island Borough United States Environmental Protection Ag 00mx,ALWA Region 10 VE(1.11,0 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 442-1270 NOV 2 197g PO AliagdOdia le2arlIble Date: 10 91079 Application No.: AK-002666-2 FACT SHEET -- PROPOSED NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT TO DISCHARGE POLLUTANTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. Kodiak, Alaska has applied for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge pollutants pursuant to the provisions of the Clean Water Act. This fact sheet includes (a) the tentative determination of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a permit, (b) information on public comment, public hearing and appeal, (c) the description of the proposed discharge, (d) a listing of tentative effluent limitations, schedules of com- pliance and other conditions, and (e) a sketch or detailed description af the discharge location. We call your special attention to the technical material presented in the latter part of this document. This Regional Office of the EPA has tentatively determined to issue a permit to discharge to the above listed applicant subject to certain effluent limitations which may require the installation of treatment facilities, schedule of compliance, and other conditions necessary to carry out the provisions of the Clean Water Act. These proposed limitations, schedules and conditions are tentative. Persons wishing to comment on the tentative determinations contained in the proposed permit may do so by the Public Notice expiration date of December 7, 1979. All written and cral comments should be submitted to EPA as described in paragraph 4. Public Comments of the attached Public Notice. A public hearing to discuss the permit terms and conditions and the Finding of No Significant Impact will be held on December 3, 1979, in Kodiak, Alaska. Information on the hearing is in the attached Public Notice. After the Public Notice expiration date of December 7, 1979, the Director, Enforcement Division will make final determinations with respect to the permit. The tentative determinations contained in the draft permit will become the final determinations if no substantial changes are made in them. 2 - ' The permit will become effective 30 days after the final determinations are made, unless a request for an evidentiary hearing is submitted within 30 ,days after receipt of the final determinations. An evidentiary hearing will be granted only if it meets all the requirements of 40 C.F.R. S 124.74. The proposed NPDES permit and other related documents are on file and may be inspected and copies made in Room 11D, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, at any time between 8:30 am and 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Copies and other information may be requested by writing to EPA at.the above address to the attention of Kim Wilson, New Source Permits Section M/S 521, or by calling (206) 442-1270. This material also is avail- able from the EPA Alaska Operations Office, Room E535, 701 "C" Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99513. A copying machine is available in the Seattle office for public, use at a charge of 20 cents per copy sheet. The following materials contain a description of the applicant's discharge, a listing of tentative determinations .of effluent limitations, .schedules of compliance and other conditions of the permit, and a sketch or detailed descrip- tion of the location of the discharge. 3 FACT SHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION I. Applicant International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. Ted H. West, General Manager PO Box 2995 Kodiak, AK 99615 (907) 486-3994 NPDES Permit Number AK-002666-2 II. Activity International Seafoods proposes to operate a seafood processing facility (freezing), including crab, salmon and bottom fish. The proposed facility includes provisions for chilled seawater holding tanks and ice making tanks for fish processing. Receiving Water A. Kodiak Harbor B. Kodiak Harbor, as.well as all surrounding marine waters are classified as Type II/Marine Waters according to State of Alaska Water Quality Standards, February 1979 (18 AAC 70.010). Water quality parameters affected in marine waters include four section: II(A), II(B), II(C), and II(D). Section A''pertains to water supply to aquacultdre, seafood processing, industrial and any manufacturing or production enterprise (i.e., placer mining, energy development) waters. Section'B pertains to recreation waters, waters to contact recreation and secondary recreation. Section C pertains to those waters in which fish, shellfish, aquatic life and wildlife (including seabirds, waterfowl, and furbearers) inhabit the waters. Section 0 pertains to those waters for harvesting of raw mollusks or other raw aquatic life. C. Water quality parameters, outside an area of mixing, of significance to. this permit include: 1) dissolved gas - Surface dissolved oxygen (D.0.) concentrations in coastal water shall not he less than 6.0 mg/L for a depth of one meter except when natural 4 conditions cause this value to be depressed. D.O. shall not be reduced below 4 mg /L at any point beneath the surface. D.O. concentrations in estuaries and tidal tributaries shall not be less than 5.0 mg /L except where natural conditions cause this value to be depressed. In no case shall D.O. levels above 17 mg /L be permitted. The concentration of total dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% of saturation at any point of sample collection. 2) pH - Shall not be less than 6.5 or greater than 8.5, and shall not vary more than 0.1 pH units from natural conditions. 3) dissolved inorganic substances - No man induced alterations shall be made that would cause a change in the waters isohaline patterns of more than + 10% of the natural variations. 4) toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic substances - Substances shall not individually or in combination exceed 0.01 times the lowest measured 96 hr LC50 for life stages of species identified by the department as being the most sensitive, biologi- cally important to the location, or exceed criteria cited in EPA, Quality Criteria for Water or Alaska Drinking Water Standards, whichever concentration is less. Substances shall not be present or exceed con- centrations which individually or in combination' impart undesirable odor or taste to fish or other aquatic organisms as determined by either bioassay or organoleptic tests. 5) petroleum hydrocarbons, oils and grease - total hydrocarbons in the water column shall not exceed 15 ug /L or 0.01 of the lowest measured continuous flow 96 hr LC50 for life stages of species identified by the department as the most sensitive, biologically important species in a particular location, whichever concentration is less. Total aromatic hydrocarbons in the H2O column shall not exceed 10 ug /L, or 0.01 of the lowest measured continuous flow 96 hr. LC50 for life stages of species identified by the department as the most sensitive, biologically important species in a particular location, whichever concentration is less. There shall be no concentrations of hydrocarbons, animal fats, or vegetable oils in the sediment which cause deleterious effects to aquatic life. Surface waters and adjoining shorelines shall be virtually free from floating oil, film, sheen or discoloration. 5 (6) residues, floating solids, debris, sludge deposits, foam, scum - shall not alone or in combina- tion with other substances or wastes cause the water to be unfit, unsafe or cause acute or chronic problem levels as determined by bioassay or other ,appropriate methods. Shall not alone or in combination with other substances cause a film, sheen, or discoloration on the surface,of the water or adjoining shorelines; cause leaching of toxic or deleterious substances; or cause a sludge, solid, or emulsion to be deposited beneath or upon the surface of the water, with the water column, on the bottom, or upon adjoining shorelines. 7) temperature - Shall not cause the weekly average temperature to increase more than 10C. The maximum rate of change shall not exceed 0.50C per hour. Normal daily temperature cycles shall not be altered An-amplitude dr frequency. For further details on water quality standards, refer to the February 1979 publication of Water Quality Standards, 18 ACC 70.010. This document may be obtained from any office of the Alaska Department of • Environmental Conservation or the Environmental Protection Agency's,Regional Office in Seattle or in the Alaska Operations Office in Anchorage. IV. Background A. This is a new source and thus it is the first permit to be issued to International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. for discharges of seafood processing effluents to Kodiak Harbor. Proposed Situation 1) Seawater is pumped into holding tanks and ice added for holding fish prior to processing. Seawater is returned to seawater when fish proceed to proces- sing lines. Mixed processing water and offal will be separated, with offal solids conveyed to storage hopper for Bio-Dry process pick-up. Remaining liquid to be pumped into ocean a minimum of 36 feet below water surface. 2) Daily average in-plant treated intake water has a 92,060 gallon per day fTow. Daily average effluent • flow is 1,087,900 gallons per day. Solid wastes, garbage and paper will be processed at the Kodiak City Dump. Sanitary wastes will be processed at the Kodiak City Sewage System. Offal . 6 from fish processing will be picked up by Bio-Dny and processed. Bio-Dry operates. an independent fish meal processing facility in Kodiak and currently serves all of the proCessing•facilities-in Kodiak. Solid waste will be trucked to the dump area. Construction solid wastes will be stored as necessitated by construction activity on the site. The outfall, for screen process waters will be 36 feet below the water surface adjacent to the plant in Near Channel and opposite Near Island. V. Basis for Limitations A. The treatment requirements, and effluent limitations contained in the draft permit are essentially those defined as New Source Performance Standard for the Seafood Processing Point Source Category as found in the June 1974, January 1975, and December 1975 publication of the Federal Register (40 C.F.R. 408). In the case of bottomfish (other than Halibut) engineering judgment was used to derive allowable unit effluent limits assuming the same basic treatment tech- nology as applied in the crab and salmon guidelines. Current effluent guidelines have not addressed effluent limits for bottomfish other than halibut. The allow- able kilograms per 1000 kilograms (pounds per 1000 pounds) listed in the permit are therefore identical to effluent guidelines or in the case of bottomfish engineering judgment. The absolute effluent values in the permit (daily average and daily maximum) was based on maximum reported production rates multiplied by the allowable unit average and maximum amounts. The basis for the engineering judgment can be found in the attached document title "BASIS FOR NON-REMOTE ALASKAN BOTTOMFISH EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS". Note that these limits were developed for existing sources, and that this proposed facility is a new source. Since the bottomfish industry (other than halibut) in Alaska is relatively new, for even existing facilities, the limits developed should apply to both existing and new facilities. - Calculations for determining the absolute average and maximum limits as contained in the draft permit are shown below. The method of calculation is based on the concept of the maximum production per operating day. On any operating day the chance of processing sal- mon, crab and bottomfish is quite low, however, the 7 chance of processing salmon and bottomfish, or crab and bottomfish is quite possible. The latter selection of operations (crab and bottomfish, or salmon and bottom- fish) is based on the seasonality of raw materials. The The occurrence of both crab and salmon processing for any length of time at maximum production is infrequent. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Production Max Amt Allowable Absolute Allowable Absolute Schedule x 1000# Daily Avg Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Max 1. Crab Bottomfish 2. Salmon 180 5.3#/1000# 954 16 2880 275 8.8#/1000# 2420 16.2 4455 3374 = 3375 7335 168 1.4 235 2.3 386 Bottomfish 210 8.8 1848 2083 = 2085 . Scallops 30 1.4 . 42 • Bottomfish 390 • 8.8 16.2 3402 3788 = 3790 5.7. 171 3432 16.2 6318 3474 = 3475 6489 = 6490 Oil & Grease (0 & G) 1. Crab 180 0.52 93.6 1.6 288 Bottomfish 275 11.00 3025.0 29 7975 3118.6 = 3120 8263 2. Salmon 168 0.17 28.56 0.28 47.0 Bottomfish 210 11.00 2310.0 29.0 6090. 2338.6 = 2340 6137. = 6140 3. Scallops 30 .23 6.9 7.3 219 Bottomfish 390 11.0 4290 29.0 11,310 4296.9 = 4300 11,529 = 11,530 As the calculations indicate the absolute daily average and maximum limitations for TSS should be the limits when crab and bottomfish are processed, and for 0 & G when scallops and bottomfish are processed. These average and maximum limits are on page 3 of the draft permit. Note: In all cases for the above calculations, the highest allowable effluent numbers were utilized from the table in Part A.1.a. of the draft permit. (i.e. crabmeat instead of crab sections). The production levels (Maximum amount x 1000 #) and production schedules are from the data presented in the Environmental Assess- ment. VI. Recommendations Because this facility is a new source, the permittee is expected to meet all effluent limitations of the permit upon commencement of of discharge. Effluent limitations are listed for maximum production is Section V above. The permit, as drafted, is set to expire five (5) years from the effective date. EXIT. -ExiST.: .0. OUV. W,.O . rgoro5e0 STORY Go6luEVGIAL eJL914 gEjp. Cobra owe . gA156 eXiit Wag xist.PoGK 010V.12,01 IlEve.GaiGagg dul-INEAP_ TEL PILES 1JEW Do4K ;aa4S ;oej o; quawy0V ; ;V CD • • BOAT 1-1Age2lz was FILL Li ca es% at •s Z-999ZOO -)d Attachment to Fact Sheet re: International Seafoods, of Alaska AK-002666-2 BASIS FOR NON-REMOTE ALASKAN BOTTOMFISH .EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Mechanized Alaska Bottoxnfish Existing BPT effluent guidelines (Section 408.200) for Alaska mechanized bottomfish is titled "....bottomfish such as halibut..." and are not applicable to bottomfish other than halibut. Bottomfish processed in Alaska include at least pollock, sole, flounder, Pacific cod, rockfish, perch, and black cod. Since national limits have not been promulgated for Alaska bottomfish other than halibut, a "Best Engineering Judgement" determination must be made to establish BPT limitations. Bottomfish processing except that for halibut is separated into two subcategories because of the extreme difference of oil and grease content of the species (Ref. 2). The oil and grease content of black cod is much greater than that of pollock and most other bottomfish species (especially those processed in Alaska). The two sub- categories considered are, therefore, 1) Alaska bottomfish except halibut •and black cod, and 2) black cod. Alaska bottomfish except halibut and black cod have similar physical and chemical characteristics as New England whiting (Ref. 4 and 5). For this reason, the data in Ref. 1 pp. 117, 125 and other pages on mechanized bottomfish were the technical basis for establishing limits for Alaska bottomfish. The flow of wastewater per production unit for the Alaska plants considered to date are within or less than that presented for Wl, W2, or CFCI in Figure 45 (Ref. 1). Wastewater flow reductions common- ly result in pollutant reductions (Ref. 3). Therefore, the BPT limits for existing plants processing bottomfish other than halibut and black cod are determined from the data presented in Ref. 1, pp. 117 and 125. The following 30 day average limitations are established. Parameter 30 Day Average Limits (ing/1) Total Suspended Soiids 8.8 Oil and Grease 2.75 - 2 - According to the data presented in Figure 45 of Reference 1, these limits have been met at plant W1 and are approx- imately equal to the mean presented in Table 29 (Ref. 1). Mechanized processing of bottomfish in Alaska is similar to that at W1 according to the EPA effluent guidelines contractor (Ref. 3). In-plant features can be adjusted and managed to reduce pollutants in the discharge. These include the immediate dewatering and collection in totes of gross solids at the butchering machines. Wastewater flows and hence pollutant loads can • be reduced by optimiz- ing equipment flows by using high pressure-low volume nozzles and shut-off valves. Low water use equipment is available for new product lines.* Grinding prior to screening is not an acceptable procedure for compliance with these limits. Tests indicate oil and grease may be as much as 100 times higher after grinding (Ref. 6). The daily maximum limitations for total suspended solids and oil and grease are determined by multiplying the daily average (30 day average) limitation by 1.8 and 2.5, re- spectively. These ratios have been established by an analysis of Ref. 1 and ratios used for mechanized bottom- fish (lower 48 states) 1.8/2.5, conventional bottomfish (lower 48) 1.8/2.64, and mechanized salmon 1.7/2.6\4. The total suspended solids limitations for black cod are the same as other Alaska bottomfish. The oil and grease limits for black cod are determined to be the same as that promulgated for mechanized salmon Subpart Q Section 408.172(b)(1) because the carcasses contain similar amounts of oil and grease, and the mechanized processes are siMilar. The oil and grease in black cod varies seasonally. The ratios established above between 30 day average and "daily maximum have been used for black cod as well. Conventional Alaska Bottomfish The limitations for conventional bottomfish processing in Alaska are based upon Ref. 1 and the promulgated limits for the non-Alaskan Conventional Bottomfish Processing Subcategory Section 408.212 (41 FR 31820, July 30, 1976). General The factors within Section 304(b) (1) (3) of the Clean Water Act were considered in making the above BEJ determinations. Total costs related to benefits is not expected to be significantly different in Alaska compared to the lower 48 states. There are no anticipated significant differences between plant in Alaska and those in lower 48 states for the following factors: Age of equipment and facilities Engineering aspects of control techniques Process changes Non-water quality environmental impact, (includes. energy). Prepared by Robert L. Stamnes 9/24/79 Ref. 1 September 1975 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Fish Meal, Salmon., Bottomfish, Clam, Oyster, Scallops, Herring and Abalone Segment of Canned and Preserved Fish and Seafood Processing Industry Point Source Category (EPA 440/1- 75/041a, Group I, phase IV). Ref. 2 Telephone conversation with Harold Barnett (442 - 4563) 6/19/79. F Ref. 3 Telephone conversation with David Ertz, Jordan Company 1979. Ref. 4 Telephone conversation with. Harold Barnett, NMF (442 -4563) early 1979. Ref. 5 Fishes of the Atlantic Coast of Canada, A.H. Leim and W.B. Scott, Fisheries Research. Board of Canada Bulletin No. 155, 1966; and Fisheries of the Pacific Coast of Canada, W.A. Clemens, O.V. Wilby, Fisheries Research Board, of Canada Bulletin No. 68, 1961.(Second Edition 1967). Ref. 6 Telephone conversation with David Ertz, Jordan Company, May 29, 1979. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPLY 70 ATTN M/S 443 REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. To All Interested Persons, Public Groups, and Government Agencies: In accordance with the regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, an environmental assessment has been prepared on the following proposed Agency action: Issuance of New Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. AK-002666-2 to INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ALASKA, INC. for Wastewater Discharge from its proposed seafood processing facility to Near Island Channel at Kodiak, Alaska. The assessment process indicated significant impacts on the human environment are not anticipated to result from the proposed action. Consequently, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. This decision is based on careful review of environment impact information and other supporting data. A copy of the Agency's environmental assessment which summarizes the impacts and which explains why an environmental impact statement is not required is attached and is incorporated in this Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) by reference. Comments supporting or disagreeing with this decision should be submitted to the Agency for consideration. Comments will also be accepted at a public hearing on December 3, 1979 at the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Chambers. After evaluating all comments received, the Agency will make a final decision. However, no final Agency action will be taken on this permit until more than 30 days after the release of this Finding of No Significant Impact. Sincerely, """4.2 r■:: Or<it------- —.Donald P. Dubois Regional Administrator Attachment PROPOSED ACTION: APPLICANT: TYPE OF SOURCE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Issuance of New Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. AK-002666-2 International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. Seafood Processing Plant LOCATION OF SOURCE: Kodiak, Alaska DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes tolssue a New Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. AK-002666-2 to International'. Seafoods of Alaska.,—Inc..(ISA) for the discharge of processing wastes from their seafood processing plant into the waters of Kodiak Harbor at Near Island Channel. The . permit will authorize discharge only in accordance with the new source performance standards (40 CFR 408) for most_seafood products or in accordance with EPA's best engineering judgement for certain bottomfish products. The proposed permit authorizes ISA to discharge processing waste through an outfall to Kodiak Harbor at Near Island Channel. This discharge is subject to limitations and conditions which are described fully in the proposed permit which is being distributed for comment with this assessment. The permit terms limit the amount of total suspended solids, and, oil and grease, that can be discharge in the process waste waters in terms of pounds of pollutant per pounds of raw seafood processed. These vary with the type of seafood and with the processing method. The permittee will also be required to monitor the effluent at least once a week to see if effluent limitations are being met. The monitoring program requirments are described in detail on page 4 of the proposed permit. The permittee is required to submit monitoring results to EPA and the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation on a monthly basis. The receiving waters are classified as Type II/Marine Waters, classes A, B, C and D, according to the state's Federally approved water quality standards. Minimum water quality criteria have been set by the State to protect the quality of these waters for water supply, water contact recreation, growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, aquatic life, and wildlife (including seabirds, waterfowl and furbearers) and for harvesting for consumption raw mollusks and other raw aquatic life. 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE.FACILITY Details of ISA's plant and operation are described in Appendix A. In brief, the proposed facility will serve as a processing plant for crab, scallops,salmonand bottomfish. 8ottomfish include cod, pollack, perch, halibut, and various flatfish. Crab and salmon are processed at many other plants in Alaska; bottomfish processing so far is rare. However, the Alaskan bottomfish processing industry is expected to expand greatly in the fmtune. ISA estimates that after reaching maximum operational production, the facility will process 250 tons.of raw fish into 100 tons of frozen seafood products each day. ISA expects to reach maximum operational production two years after start up. The proposed ISA plant will be located in the City of Kodiak between Tagura Road and Near Island Channel. (See Figure 1). The plant will be a two-story building (14,000 3q ft on each floor) with an associated dock and 5 parking bays for container vans. (Figure 2 and 3). A former building and dock at the site has been removed and the site leveled' The building will include holding tanks, 6 processing lines, freezer units; and shipping facilities on the first floor. A salmon roe processing line, laboratory, toilets, showers, laundry and administrative offices will be included on the second floor. ISA proposes to off-load salmon and bottomfish from the fishing boats using a hydraulic unloading device, while crab and scallops will be unloaded by crane. Only one vessel will be unloaded at a time. The fish and crabs will be placed in holding tanks until the processing lines are ready to accept them. Seven major processing lines and two minor lines will be operating when the plant is at maximum operation capacity. The type of processing will depend on the fish and the market. All products will be packed by hand. ISA plans to freeze most of its products, and will have both plate and blast freezers. After packing and freezing, the cartons will be loaded into freezer container vans. In-plant water Deeds will vary with the time of year and seafood being processed. Approxiamtely 90,000 gallons per day(GPD) of freshwater from the City of Kodiak Water system will be used, with processing and ice making units using the most. The holding tanks will require about 50,000 GPD of saltwater, with an additional 960,000 GPD of salt water for crab cooling when crab are processed. Pillar Mountain . . _ St. Paul Harbor ' • - • „, Kodiak inner Harbor Dog Bay I "" ..... • • „ .• -• • ' ... • ' Near Island Channel - I Near Island •- - Figure 1 CITY OF KODIAK Principal water bodies, plant location, watershed 1..7kintlaries, and wetlands ',,,iiis.41,144a51,36:40.014.4.1.4.1.71;41MK04.1KZAVOIMIV444.5.ffeiirtfle4, 0 , al —I, - CD ; rF 1. CL LC) rt Di "I 1. Cr' CD CL (D ; (-1) • -P. 1. (D 0. 10 C 0 0. C.J CD •-$ 0 r a! re. • I (D1 kLENI. 16.0 Figure 2. . GENERAL LOCATION and CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS of ALASKA, INCORPORATED PLANT TA4u17,-. RoA -,EG1-10t) A - .4 1c4LE 1'; ▪ r2.0p05e0 t3ToRY C-0LILIERC.IAL PJL.-% C=1144... V.415E EXI51,PocK 1.JEW CoUci?Eff UL tt4) %151.PocK K . 14,,o • tALLW 89.(9' STEEL PILES re.apo6Eu 2 T 0,4:Bor: FILL .5r.-.CII01-.1 _V V .ELEV., ito.OP .M11144./ }ALLY,/ 0.a` we'd_ DoCK 1130411.4.4 ) "\\ Figure3 . GENERAL FLOOR PLAN of PLANT and DOCK, INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS qqH rr'' A.,/ 1 7 11 1►i �� �t, a'� I L'0:,011.1 ; , •.\x•, v 1 .\'•• • I, 1 Ic • i; ' \ • t___— •-, -- ' ,} • • '� • ' I _—ti = —� --� • • \'t\ =pf" —__._ ----- —_ . \ • :{ Ida 1 f • • \} �'• \ \`��.\ -i-� \`\`tom \ �:�; _... }. \ \ • • PLA}J 3 C,i Lc . 1 ' - `40.00 5.9'0'W -133.21' 110.0. -NEW COCK Note:. Dock length has been reduced from the 40 feet in indicated in this drawing to 30feet (sea- Section 5 p 705 _✓ ;0 K IQ floPi,f.;4 AT KOOI AK 144217,0R i30R Sam_ °j I cF 2 ISA estimates that the start-up labor requirements will be about 40, and hope to employ 100 people after one year of operation. They estimate that at maximum production, the labor requirement will be about 150 people an each of the two daily shifts, for a total of 30.0 people. The proposed seafood processingilandling procedure compares favorably with those in use in Kodiak presently. Process line waste (offal) will be flumed along a channel to a cross-plant conveyor. This conveyor, a 0.5 inch (13mm) endless grate chain link, will serve to filter the larger wastes from the liquids and smaller wastes, as well as to transport the larger wastes to two offal pits. The liquids and smaller solids will flow along a waste trench below the conveyor to two rotating roto-strainer with a screen size of 0.5mm (32 mesh). The roto-strainers will filter small solids from the liquid waste waters and dump the wastes in the offal pits. The liquids flowing through the strainers will be discharged in Near Island Channel through an outfall pipe at a depth of--40 feet (MLLW), 70 feet beyond the dockhead. The wastes in the offal pits will then be transported by truck to Bio-dry,Inc. for processing into fish meal. The waste handling and abatement process proposed by ISA differs from the existing processors in Kodiak in a few significant ways. The existing processors normally rely on a wet capture system for waste handling. This system involves transporting liquid waste and offal derived from the processing operation along flumes to the offal screens. The wet capture system relies entirely on a screening process ocurring as the offal exits the plant to reduce wastes to an acceptable level. Consequently, the amounts of suspended and settleable solids, greases, and oils in the liquid waste stream are increased because of the longer residence time of the solid fish wastes in the flume waters. In contrast, the ISA dry capture system ensures a higher quality liquid waste stream through early screening of the majority of the solids. ISA's screening system also uses a smaller mesh size and a rotating, clean screening surface. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED FACILITY On 3 August 1979, EPA Region 10 released a public notice to all interested government agencies, public groups and citizens, announcing the Agency's receipt of a NPDES permit application from ISA. The notice requested that written comments on the potential impacts of the proposed facility be sent to EPA's office to facilitate the identification of project issues. (See Appendix!). An examination of these responses and recent newspaper articles from Kodiak, Anchorage, Juneau, and Seattle indicated that there are a diversity of envi- ronmental and socioeconomic issues associated with the proposed ISA facility. Some of these issues are of a strictly local nature, while others involve potential impacts on State (e.g., effects on the water quality and biota of ' Near Island Channel) and national (e.g., effects on the navigability of Kodiak Harbor) resources. Further, some of the issues appear more related to the affiliation of International Seafoods of Alaska Incorporated with the Uni- fication Church than to the characteristics of the proposed facility. To conduct a proper environmental assessment of the ISA facility, EPA iden- tified'a full range of issues from the responses to EPA's public notice and other information on ISA's proposed facility. We have summarized each of the major issues in this section and addressed each in our discussion of the en- vironmental and socioeconomic impacts of the facility in the next section. The major issues associated with the ISA facility are: Environmental Issues • What effects will the discharges of wastes from the proposed facility have on the water quality of the Near Island Channel and adjacent water bodies? , - • Will there be serious effects on the aquatic biota of the receiving waters resulting from ISA's discharge? • Will the dock and off-loading activities interfere with navigation in the Near Island Channel or with tidal flow? • Are there serious engineering problems with the facility because of erosion, flooding or other environmental constraints? Socioeconomic Issues • Will the ISA plant be able to draw sufficient workers at all seasons from existing, available labor in Kodiak or will workers have to be hired from other processors or brought from other areas? 7 If additional workers must be brought to Kodiak, will sufficient, standard-quality housing:be avail- able at prices these workers can afford? • Are infrastructure facilities - water, sewers, electrical supply, parking and streets - sufficient to meet the demands generated by the facility? o What will be the impact of ISA's facility on other seafood processors already in operation in Kodiak? o What indirect impacts will result from employment and income generated by the plant? ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -Impacts of the .proposed facility on water quality- To estimate the potential water quality impacts that may result from the operation of ISA's fish processing facility, it is helpful to understand the characteristics of the effluents and the receiving waters. Although the data are not current, they indicate that the physical characteristics of the Near Island Channel are generally good for accepting and dispersing the effluents from ISA's facility. The effluents (described in Appendix A) will be discharged to the Near Island Channel. This narrow channel funnels a large volume of water that responds to the diurnal tidal flows (tidal amplitudes of 17 feet). The direction of the flood tide flow is 055° and the direction of the ebb tide flow is 230° (Interview, Lt. Trosvig, U.S. Coast Guard, 24 August 1979). The orientation of the channel (approximately 062°) establishes the tidal flow vector at close to perpendicular to the ISA outfall. Therefore, the direction of the dispersion of ISA's effluent parallel to shore is close to ideal. The impact of ISA's discharge on adjacent intake structures located in the shallower water near shore should be minimal. The net flow in the Channel is to the northeast and has been calculated to be 11,196 cubic feet per second (GFS) or 317 cubic meters per second (USEPA, Region X; 1975). Unpublished data obtained on 25-27 January 1968 indicated a mean velocity of 0.0154 knots (0.0285 km/hr) at a depth about five feet from the bottom (approximately-35MLLW) in the Near Island Channel near the proposed discharges by ISA (USEPA, Region X; 1975). The surface velocity of the waters in the Near Island Channel is estimated to vary from 1.0 to 2.0 knots (1.8 - 3.6 km/hr) (Interview with Lt. Trosvig, USCG; 24 August 1979). The waters of the Channel and Kodiak Harbor are decidely marine, only 2-3 ppt less saline than normal seawater. EPA gathered data in 1974 that suggested that the Gibson Cove waters were very stratified with a lense of less dense and poorly mixed brackish water overlaying the denser, marine bottom waters. In contrast the waters of Near Island Channel did not experience persistent density stratification. The waters of Near Island Channel appeared to be well mixed with salinity values not differing greatly between surface and bottom samples. An examination of water quality data collected by EPA in 1971 and 1974 indicates that the stratification of fresh water effluents above the denser salt water of Kodiak Harbor results in a significantly lower dissolved oxygen concentration near the surface of the receiving water. Although the stratification of brackish and marine waters in the Near Island Channel is less pronounced, the effluent will rise to the surface because it is more brackish and warmer than the cool, marine, bottom waters of the Channel. According to the. calculations presented in Appendix C, a surface boil will be created by the rising effluent, thereby forming a visible plume of color and some greases and oils. The length of the plume path resulting from this boil at slack'tide would be 60 feet. The oil and greases, color, and the very fine solid particles that may flow through the roto- strainers will become visible in the plume as the effluent rises to the surface but should be dispersed by the •trong currents in the Channel. Because there is no dispersion model for Kodiak Harbor and there are no values of effluent BOD, the exact extent of oxygen depletion to the surface waters resulting from this plume is impossible to estimate. If it were assumed that a BOD of 280-500 (typical of fish-processing wastes) characterized the plume, a relatively low value of 2-4 mg/1 BOD would occur as the plume moved to a distance of 60 feet from the outfall. Combine this condition with the relatively strong currents and the cold, oxygen rich waters of the Channel and serious depletions in oxygen levels are not expected. No,problem is anticipated with bottom disturbance and resuspension of sediments resulting from the outfall discharge. A 12-inch diameter outfall pipe is proposed to carry 1.9 CFS of effluent for a total of 130 feet through a drop of approximately 60 feet. An insignificant force is needed to overcome the friction of the pipe, the pressure of the water column at the end of the pipe, and the differences in the effluent and receiving water densities. The water will leave the outfall pipe at a velocity of 2.4 feet per second, which is within the 'normal ocean outfall design velocity of 2-4 feet per second (calculations presented in Appendix C). This velocity is not sufficient to cause a scouring of the bottom and resuspension of sediments. EPA considers the waste abatement and handling techniques of ISA to be capable of minimizing the negative impacts on the water quality of the Near Island Channel. The dry capture system proposed and the use of 0.5mm rotary screens should be sufficient to ensure high quality effluents. Cer-' tainly the system proposed by ISA is superior to the wet capture systems and static screening of offal commonly in use in Kodiak. - Effects of ISA's effluent on aquatic biota of the Near Island Channel and adjacent waters- The biota of Kodiak Harbor has been severely affected in the past by discharges from seafood processors southwest of the proposed plant site. EPA studies of the biology of Kodiak Harbor and Gibson Cove indicated that before a no-discharge zone was established in 1975, large sludge beds commonly occurred near the industrial outfalls. As a result of this situation, macro- scopic plants and animals were eliminated from the sluggish and oxygen-depleted bottom waters of Kodiak and St. Paul Harbors. Although the conditions are apparently improving in these waters, the biology of the area is probably still stressed by the decomposing sludge beds and continuing industrial ef- fluents. Scuba divers entering the area of these outfalls indicate that the sludge beds still are present in the Harbor and that a noticeable quantity of hydrogen sulfide gas is constantly escaping to the waters above (Telephone conversation with Guy Powell, ADFG; 5 October 1979). It is impossible to determine the extent and composition of the present biology of the stressed environments of Kodiak Harbor and Gibson Bay. _Mobile species such as juvenile salmon have been observed near the outfalls of the processors in the Harbor. However, the benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms are probably characteristic of a severely polluted environment. In contrast to the waters of Kodiak Harbor, the well-flushed waters of the Near Island Channel are of relatively high quality. The receiving waters for ISA's effluent are generally above State water quality standards for Class II A, B, C, and D Marine Waters. The most rigorous standards for these waters include: • DO levels above 5 mg/1 • pH ranges between 8.5 and 6.5 • Turbidity or color causes not more than a ten percent reduction in the compensation point for photosynthetic activity • No more than a 1°C weekly average temperature increase • Residual chlorine increase shall not exceed 2.0 ug/1 for salmon • Shall not create a film, sheen, or discoloration on the surface of the water or create sludge deposits. USEPA sampling of these waters in 1975 indicated that at no time did the DO values fall below 6.0 mg/1. In fact, samples taken from the waters adjacent to the proposed ISA outfall were less than 7.0 mg/1 DO on only one occasion (USEPA, Region X; 1975). The pH values for the waters adjacent to the outfall varied from 8.0 to 8.3, and the temperature did not vary signifi- cantly from the background sample. Consequently, it can be assumed that the water quality is good and the biota of the Near Island Channel is less stressed than the parts of Kodiak Harbor affected by the remaining sludge deposits. Although the biota of Near Island Channel has not been systematically inven- toried, sports fishermen frequently catch salmon, sole, flounders, halibut and herring. The effects of ISA's effluents on the biology of the Near Island Channel cannot be exactly determined without a more complete investigation. However, a few observations can be made regarding the potential effects of this discharge. The dry capture and roto-screening process proposed by ISA will result in a more complete removal of solid fish wastes from their liquid waste streams than is presently accomplished by the existing Kodiak seafood processors (screening with 0.7 mm screens is a common existing practice). The formation of sludge beds and excessive oxygen demands in the bottom waters of the Near Island Channel should not be a problem, consequently. Because the majority of the effluents will be less dense than the receiving waters, it is likely that the bottom dwelling organisms of the Channel will not be affected significantly by the discharge. The surface waters of the Near Island Channel ultimately will receive the discharges from the plant as the plume proceeds through the water column to the less dense surface waters. Here the tidal currents will carry the effluents to the north end of the Channel on the flood tide and to the south on the ebb tide. These effluents will carry various organics, color, some chlorine, and a small amount of phosphate. Although the discharge will not have significant effects some will result. These may include: • Slightly decreased oxygen levels in the surface waters in thevicinity of the outfall resulting from an increased biochemical oxygen demand a The formation of a small amount of chlorinated hydrocarbons • A slight decrease in the salinity of the surface waters near the discharge • A slight reduction in the light transmissivity of the surface waters. Although the severity of these water quality impacts on the aquatic biota of the area is impossible to determine, severe impacts are unlikely. Effluents transported on the ebb flow will not likely reach the stressed, semi-enclosed environment of Kodiak Harbor and Gibson Cove. In the event this did occur, however, the oxygen demand of the diluted receiving waters would certainly be satisfied before it entered this environment. Effluent transported on the flood tide, on the other hand, would enter an environment of higher quality waters. The diluted receiving waters may, in this case, impact the more sensitive biology of the north end of the Near,Island Channel. The rapid dissipation and mixing of the wastewater and the great amount of dilution in the Channel will minimize the negative effects of this discharge on the biota. Consequently, only marginal impacts are expected on the biology of the receiving waters from these discharges. -Interference of the dock structure with the navigability of the Near Island Channel- Earlier in the history of ISA's proposed project, there had been significant concern expressed that the dock as proposed would create a navi- gational hazard for ships using the Channel. This issue apparently has been resolved by a reduction in the total length of the new dock from the original 40 feet to the presently proposed 30 feet. Before its resolution, the matter developed into a controversy that resulted in a detailed review of the issue of the navigability 'cif the Channel by both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers. The District Office of the Army Corps of Engineers prepared an En- vironmental Assessment on the proposed dock extension and concluded that the issuance of the permit to ISA for construction of the_dock facility was not a federal action having a significant impact on the environment. The Environ- mental Assessment stated that no Federal or State agency objections to the construction of the dock structure had been received. Furthermore, no objec- tions had been received from the Kodiak Electric Association, an adjacent landowner. However, there were objections to the dock from Columbia Wards Fisheries and Pacific Pearl, both seafood processors north of the proposed project site, on •the basis that the structure would interfere with navigation. The U.S. Coast Guard conducted a site visit to confirm the validity of these objections and concluded that the proposed dock would not extend any further into the Channel than existing facilities. The Corps issued the permit on the basis of this finding but the controversy remained because of the objec- tions of local fishermen using the Channel. The issue now appears moot, however, because the dock facility has been further reduced in length from the design approved by the Corps of Engineers. This reduction in size occurred after the Corps discovered that the dock, as • constructed, violated the permit approved by them. The dock, .because of its modular construction, was subsequently moved a total of 20 feet shoreward, although the violation was cited as only 10.5 feet by the Corps enforcement personnel. The outfall pipe does not appear to be a navigational hazard. It will extend approximately two feet off the bottom of the Channel and well below the draft of vessels using the Channel. In light of these facts, the problem of navigability is no longer considered to be a significant impact. -Engineering constraints- The Kodiak Island Borough Regional Plan and Development Strategy, (Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc., 1978) listed three major natural constraints to development in Kodiak; steep slopes, water and wetlands, and natural hazards. The-ISA facility is affected by two of these three limitations;, natural haz- ards and steep slopes. The waterfront property selected by ISA is located within an identified Tsunamic inundation area, as is most of the industrial waterfront of Kodiak. Evidence of this hazard is offered by the wreckages and debris which litter the bottom of the Near Island Channel as a result of the 1964 earthquake (USEPA, Region X; 1975). If an earthquake were to repeat the conditions created by the 1964 event, a combination of subsidence and a 12-foot tsunami crest with six feet of wave runup would.inundate areas up to 32 feet in elevation. The ISA facility would be inundated and heavy damage could be expected. This situation would be immensely compounded if Pillar Mountain, which has been identified by the U.S. Geological Survey as unstable, slipped as a result of the earthquake from its present position west of Kodiak Harbor and fell into the Harbor. The wave created by this landslide would devastate the lower areas of Kodiak and obliterate the waterfront. Consid- ering the immensity of the potential damage to all seafood processors, ISA's losses would not be unusual. The other limitation of the ISA site is the steep sloped bank (greater than 25 percent slope) of the Near Island Channel. Because ISA plans to con- struct a piled dock above the bank, however, the slope should not be a constraint to the construction of the facility. 13 The steep faced area below the dock may experience some erosion from the tidal flow and boat wakes in the Near Island Channel but this will prob- ably not be a serious problem. Moreover, the pilings of the dock will act as breakwaters to reduce the force of the wave assaults. - Other environmental considerations - The facility will not cause significant impacts on air quality. Tagura Road is unpaved and the increased traffic will increase fugitive dust during dry times of the year. This duSt from all road users could be reduced by road watering or by the city oiling or paving this road. The increased emissions from traffic will not be significant and will not cause air quality standards to be violated. The air in Kodiak is considered to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Construction will increase the noise levels in the area. These impacts will be short-term. The negative effects can be reduced by limiting construction to coincide with the normal workday period, shutting off idling equipment, and the use of the quietest available machinery and equipment. Residences across Tagura Road would be the most affected by this noise. Operation of the facility will also produce more noise than is currently being generated at the site. However, this noise will not be significantly different from the noise of nearby seafood processing facilities. In addition, the adjacent Kodiak Electric Association generating facility is a year-round local noise source. The site has been previously developed with a metal fabrication shop and dock. It is likely that any historic or archaeological resources that may have been on the site were destroyed by this earlier development. In addition, the National Register of Historic Places listing in the Federal Register was checked. No site is located near the proposed facility. In addition, no threatened or endangered species nor their habitats should be affected by this facility in Kodiak's industrial waterfront. 14 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS General population, employment and housing characteristics Kodiak Island Borough is characterized by a relatively small total population and workforce, isolation resulting from its island location, and heavy economic dependence on seafood processing and military employment. Major economic growth in the Kodiak area has been associated with salmon canning (from 1880 on); the military (especially during World War II); harvesting and processing of king crab (especially from 1949 to 1964); and, more re- cently, halibut, shrimp and tanner crab. All of the major fishery resources are seasonal in nature, producing wide fluctuations in employment. Peak em- ployment generally occurs in late summer and minimum employment occurs in winter. Total civilian payroll has fluctuated on a quarterly basis during the period 1976 to 1978 from about 14 to 16 million dollars in the first (winter) quarter, to 20 to 26 million dollars in the third (summer -fall) quarter. Quarterly employment has fluctuated in a similar seasonal manner during\this period from 3,800 to 6,000 (Kodiak Island Borough Overall Eco- nomic Development Committee, 1979). Most recent available data from the Alaska Department of Labor indi- cate that for the first half of 1979 the Kodiak labor force ranged from 4,113 in January to 5,106 in July (U.S. Department of Labor, 1979). This suggests importation of significant numbers of seasonal workers. Unemployment during this period ranged from 12.4 percent in February to 4.6 percent in July. The number of unemployed ranged from 549 in February to 253 in July. Average unemployment for 1978 (the most recent full year for which data are available) was 8.3 percent. The fluctuations in the unemployment rate and size of the labor force in 1979 are typical of the 1970 to 1978 period, as is the rela- tively high overall rate of unemployment in 1978 (Kodiak Island Borough Over- all Economic Development Committee, 1979). Seafood processing represents a high, and apparently increasing, pro- portion of total civilian employment. The number of persons employed in manufacturing and the proportion this represents of the Kodiak, civilian labor force are indicated below. Approximately 95% of all manufacturing employment is in seafood processing (Kodiak Island Overall Economic Development Committee, 1979). Year Manufacturing Employment Percent of Total Number Civilian Employment 1970 743 26 1971 768 25 1972 866 28 1973 1,421 37 1974 1,274 32 1975 1,174 29 1976 1,626 33 1977 1,652 39 1978 1,801 39 (Source: Kodiak Island Overall Economic Development Plan, pp. 45 and 46) Most recent (1979) estimates indicated that the total population of Kodiak Borough was 11,809, of which 1,017 were military. Of this population, 53% lived in the City of Kodiak, 17% lived at the U.S. Coast Guard base, and 20% lived in unincorporated areas near the City of Kodiak. The population of Kodiak grew from 7,174 in 1960 and 9,409 in 1970 (Kodiak Island Borough Over- all Economic Development Committee, 1979). Relatively rapid population growth has been forecast for Kodiak Borough, even in the absence of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development. The Kodiak Island Borough Region Plan and Develop- ment Strategy forecast the following 1980 to 2000 populations without OCS development: Kodiak Borough Kodiak "Urban Area" Low High Low High Year Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate 1980 11,370 12,920 6,840 8,390 1985 13,440 17,180 8,670 12,410 1990 15,880 21,600 10,840 16,560 1995 18,770 26,100 13,470 20,800 Rates of increase as high as those estimated in the Region Plan would produce significant 'demands for additional housing and infrastructure (e.g., roads) improvement even in the absence of OCS development or additional employment generation by the ISA processing plant. 16 Availability of housing has been indicated as a major-issue in the Kodiak area in the Outer Continental Shelf Impact Study, the Regional Plan and Development Strategy, and the Overall Economic Development Plan. Major housing problems include a small existing housing stock, low vacancy rates, a large proportion of substandard units, and high cost. An inventory of housing in Kodiak Borough was undertaken as part of the Kodiak Island Borough Outer Continental _Shelf Impact Study (Simpson Usher Jones, Inc., 1977). A total of 2,791 dwelling units were inventoried. Of these, 1,973 were in the "Kodiak Road System Area" (City and environs) and 557 were at the Coast-Guard Station. The Kodiak Road System area housing was classified as being in good, fair, or poor condition, utilizing the following criteria: Good: All new housing; 'housing in obvious excellent or above average and average condition; no major structural defects or deficiencies from an outward appearance ▪ Fair: Basically structurally sound from an outward appearance; no obvious wall or roof structural defects; possibly in need of minor repairs such as window or door frame repair or replacement, or roof repair or replacement; obviously livable and safe for habitation • Poor: Structural integrity of the building is questionable as evidenced by sagging walls or roofor foundation defects or other problems that indicate that the dwelling is in need of major renovation. Based on these criteria, the following distribution of housing quality in the Kodiak area was obtained. Condition Number Percent Good 839 42.5% Fair 625 31.7% Poor 192 9.7% Mobile Homes (condition not specified) 317 16.1% TOTAL 1,973 100.0% (Source: Simpson, Usher, Jones; p. 109) This survey thus indicated that less than half of the housing stock was in "good" condition. A large proportion of the housing stock is in mobile homes, which may deteriorate rapidly in condition, have a much shorter useful life than conventional housing, and thusmay be expected to be removed from the available housing supply within the next 20 years. 17 Historical trends in construction activity do indicate a relatively rapid increase in the number of dwellings from 1975 to 1978. Based on a re- vieN'Of local building permits-, the number of dwellings constructed has declined rapidly in 1979, however. This decline may reflect national de- clines in housing construction because of high materials costs and interest rates. Construction activity in Kodiak Island Borough from 1975 through the first half of 1979 was as follows:- Year Units Constructed 1975 133 1976 134 1977 241 1978 . 203 1979 (1st 6 months) 24 TOTAL 725 Sources: 1975 and 1976 data from Simpson, Usher, Jones, Inc.; 1977 through 1979 data from Interview with Al Robinson, HUD, 14 September 7979, . The Regional Plan and Development Strategy (Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc., 1978) assessed the price of housing and local wages in order to determine . . affordability. This report concluded that: "Only some 10% of Kodiak households can afford large-lot, single-family housing. Another 40% can afford older housing on smaller lots, mobile homes, Or apartment rentals. A full 50% of households w0Uld appear to have difficulty finding housing on the private market." Present conditions are not expected to be markedly different. . Assumptions In this assessment of the social and economic impacts of the proposed ISA processing operation, the following specifications of operating and em- ployment characteristics have been assumed: m Estimated throughput will be approximately 500,000 pounds of raw product per day; solid waste produc- tion is estimated at 300,000 pounds per day Full capacity will be reached in approximately two years. At that time there will be two workshifts .9f 150 persons each, or a total of 300 employees at maximum seasonal employment • 18 The majority of employees will work in the processing of bottomfish and seasonality of employment will be minimized. All of these assumptions have been verified by Mr. David Rogers, Assistant General Manager of International Seafoods of Alaska (Interviews, 23 August and 30 August 1979). Analysis of Issues Availability of Labor ISA has stated that it hopes to operate its processing plant with employees from the local community rather than use transient labor (Interview with David Rogers, Assistant General Manager, International Seafoods of Alaska, 23 August 1979). Officials of other local seafood processors have indicated, however, that all local labor is committed during the peak (late summer) pro- cessing period and that ISA-would have to either import seasonal workers or hire workers away from other processors. Analysis of employment data indicates that it will be impossible for ISA to meet its anticipated requirement of 300 workers from available local labor, especially during the peak season. ISA's employment will represent a six to seven percent increase in total local employment and a 17 percent in- crease in seafood processing employment . ISA employment would exceed total unemployment during peak processing periods. For example, July 1979 unemployment.was 253, or 47 less than anticipated ISA employment. More- over, some of the more skilled employment categories (e.g., supervisory and engineering) will almost certainly have to be filled from outside the local area. The high labor force participation rate currently found in Kodiak Borough indicates that little "disguised unemployment" exists in the area and that little or no labor reserve beyond measured unemployment exists. Thus, it appears that the ISA processing plant would produce a sig- nificant increase in both seasonal and year round employment in the Kodiak area. This will also produce increased competition for existing skilled labor, assuming that the entry of ISA does not result in a reduction of output by other local processors as a result of competition for limited catches for some types of marine resources. Availability of Housing Housing in Kodiak is in short supply and housing costs are high. All previous studies of Kodiak have concluded that housing is a major prob- lem area. The Outer Continental Shelf Study (1977) concluded that "Housing has the potential for being the most serious problem facing Kodiak within the next five years" (p.124). The Regional Plan and Development Strategy (1978) found that "The current shortage of housing emerged as a major con- cern . . ." (p.34). This study found that overcrowding and bad housing conditions have resulted from the shortage and that some residents have built their own housing (p.35-). The strongest comments on the effects of the housing shortage are found in the Overall Economic Development Plan (1979), which stated: 19 ". . . there has been a chronic (and increasing) shortage of housing units available in the Borough during the past decade. Housing units that do come onto the market are highly priced and are often out of the effective purchasing range of many workers. The lack of available housing has probably caused more single workers to come to Kodiak and thus acted to discourage the in-migration of married workers with families. A third factor also relates to the lack of adequate housing. Due to the housing shortage, several of the food processing plants in the Borough have been providing dormitory space for their workers." The ISA processing plant will generate additional seasonal and perma- nent population growth in Kodiak. It appears that the great majority of new residents will have difficulty in finding affordable new housing. Average monthly wages in manufacturing were $1,006 in 1976, $1,018 in 1977, and $1,149 in 1978. The 1978 average monthly-wages would provide a family with a single income earner working for the full year with an income of approximately $13,700. This is far below the $17,000 estimated as the minimum income needed to purchase even a modest existing house, and only a fraction of the $30,000 income needed to purchase a new home (Kramer, Chin & Mayo, 1978, p.34). Moreover, manufacturing wages rose by only seven percent a year from 1976 to 1978, while the national average for housing rose approximately ten percent. Examination of recent Kodiak newspapers indicates that housing prices remain high and that the practical minimum rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $450 per month in the off (winter) season. This represents an incredible 40 percent of the 1978 average monthly manufacturing wage. The newly constructed subsidized housing in Kodiak has been filled and long waiting lists for future vacancies exist (Interview with Al Robinson, HUD Economist; 14 September 1979). Housing for any new ,permanent or seasonal workers at the ISA processing plant, therefore, will have to come from pri- vately owned apartments or rental units. Only limited single family housing will be available, even for families with two wage earners. The increase in demand for housing will probably produce even higher costs, and; consequently, increase the demand for shared apartments, boarding houses and other transient residences. It is difficult to determine how responsive the supply side of the market will be to this increased demand. Capacity of the Infrastructure The ISA processing plant will create additional demand on a number of infrastructure facilities including water supply, sewers, solid waste disposal, electricity, and roads. In addition, the availability of parking for ISA workers is a major issue. Various planning reports have indicated that water supply is a sig- nificant problem. The Outer Continental Shelf Impact Study (1977) stated: "At the present time, the Kodiak water system does not have the capacity to handle additional large customers . . . The downtown area is most seriously affected by the inadequate water supply. This is because most of the canneries are located in the down- town area and all are major water users." (p.7). 20 The Regional Plan and Development Strategy (1978) concluded that: "Current system storage capacity is inadequate to guarantee supply to industrial users during periods of low stream flow. Potentially, large fish product losses* could occur during peak harvests. . . ." (p.31.) The Overall Economic Development Plan also cites inadequate water supply as a major problem, especially for peak seasonal use (pp.15, 73, 102-103) and states that the Monashka Multi-Dam is "desparately needed" to ensure an ade- quate water supply for fish processing (p.103). However, the Superintendent of Public Works for the City of Kodiak has stated, in a letter to Mr. David Rogers, that the City would be able to supply the ISA facility with the required potable water (Appendix D). Although the fresh water requirements have changed slightly since the time of the inquiry, the water supply is apparently sufficient to meet - the needs of the plant. Provision of adequate wastewater treatment capacity does not appear to be a problem. A new wastewater treatment facility serving 4,000 persons in the Kodiak area, and having the capacity to serve approximately 9,500 persons, recently began operation. Availability of sufficient electrical capacity for the mid- and long- term future of Kodiak may hinge on the development of a reliable and cheap source of electrical power. The Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project was termed "critical" to Kodiak's future by the Overall Economic Development Commission (p. 102) for this reason. This project is currently under review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Energy Regulatory Commfssion, Alaska Power Commission, and Kodiak Electric Association. The project appears to be.years away from completion. However, Kodiak Electric Association has ensured ISA that the power requirements of their plant can be adequately met by existing capacity (Appendix D). A major issue in the development of the ISA processing plant is pro- vision of parking. A Borough zoning ordinance requires the provision of one parking space for each three employees of industrial concerns. In the past, it was thought that this requirement did not apply to the waterfront industrial district and, consequently, the employees of existing processors used the park- ing •spaces available on the street and municipal lots. However, the City of Kodiak requested that the Planning Commission review the application of this provision to the industrial area, and on 15 August 1979 the Planning Commission determined that the requirement did, in fact, apply to the waterfront indus- trial district and that all new permits would be subject to the parking requirement. On this basis, the Borough rescinded its original approval of the International Seafoods permit on 18 July 1979. The denial of a building permit by the City of Kodiak resulted in a lawsuit by International Seafoods of Alaska against the City. The litigation sought to restrain the City from interfering in construction activities, despite the lack of an approved building permit. A preliminary injunction was issued on 20 August 1979 by the Alaska Supreme Court enjoining the City of Kodiak from interfering with ISA's construction. 21 Currently, ISA intends to transport workers to the plant in three vans with 15-passenger capacity. These vans would use two spaces designed for them and any unused space in the loading bays used to ship the processed seafood (Interview with David Rogers, Assistant General Manager of ISA, 23 August 1979). Mr. Clair Harmony, Kodiak City Manager, has said that he is concerned by this arrangement because there is no legal requirement for ISA to provide van service and it could be stopped at any time (Interview 22 August 1979). Other shortcomings of the van service plan are that it would be difficult to schedule, especially for personnel with non-regular working hours, and that it would not alleviate the need for parking for plant suppliers and visitors. An additional question that has been raised is the impact that addi- tional traffic would have on Tagura Road at the plant. 1974 in-season traf- fic volume 1,000 feet west of the proposed plant site was estimated at 310 vehicles per day._ Assuming 20 round trips to transport workers_to and from the plant and 300,000 pounds of offal to be transported by Bio-Dry trucks daily (truck capacity = 8 or 13 tons/load), the increase in traffic over the recorded 1974 volume would amount to approximately 37 percent. Although these figures represent a significant increase in traffic, the total does not exceed the traffic volume ranges for the "local street class" of 1000 vehicle trips (Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc., 1978). The problem with traffic appears to be more related to the type of traffic on Tagura Road-than the amount. Container vans and truck tractors serving the industrial establishments on this road are disruptive, moreover, to normal traffic flow. Impacts on Existing Seafood Processors The entry of a new firm into the harvesting of a limited resource, such as crabs and salmon, may have many ramifications. For species already being harvested to the maximum allowable quotas established by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, an additional processor will represent another division of the resource with existing processors. This would undoubtedly raise the prices to be paid for species in limited supply. As has already been noted, existing labor supplies are not adequate to provide-the 300 per- son workforce proposed for ISA's processing plant without importation of additional labor or attracting employees from other employers in Kodiak, especially during the peak season. To the extent that the ISA workforce represents new fish processing employment (rather than a redistribution of old employment) it will lead to greater competition for labor and higher wage rates. This greater competition for, and consequent higher cost for raw ma- terials (salmon and crab) and labor, will force Kodiak seafood processors either to raise prices or lower their profit margins. It is impossible to determine if these higher prices would put Kodiak processors at a competitive disadvantage with processors elsewhere. Impact on Other Economic Sectors Possible increases in seafood processing employment generated by ISA may have complex and' extensive primary and secondary impacts on other sec- tors of the Kodiak economy. As previously indicated, increased demand and competition for raw materials may occur. This will lead to higher incomes for fishermen and processing workers. 22 Growth in bottom fish fishing and processing employment and income will also stimulate other sectors of the economy and generate a "multiplier effect" through the generation of additional jobs in retail sales, wholesale sales, construction, and government services. While it is difficult to accurately estimate the exact magnitude of the multiplier effect without detailed analysis, studies in other localities indicate that each new seafood processing (basic) job in a city the size of Kodiak will probably create 0.5 to 1.0 additional service or nonbasic jobs. Thus, the generation of 300 new jobs by ISA will create 150 to 300 additional jobs, or a total of 450 to 600 jobs. Therefore, the estimates of impacts provided in this study have been conservative, because they have been based only on primary job creation impacts. Relationship to Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil Exploration Outer Continental Shelf oil exploration in the Kodiak area is scheduled to begin in the near future, possibly 1980. This exploration could have profound impacts on the Kodiak economy. The Kodiak Borough Regional Plan and Development'Strategy (1978) found that the Kodiak fish processing indUttry would be particularly sensitive to OCS development because of the impacts that OCS development would have on the availability and cost of labor, the availability of housing, and electric and water supplies (pp. 15-16). 23 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION This section examines the practical alternatives to the proposed action and estimates the consequences of exercising these alternatives. Plant Sites The ISA facility is located at the only available parcel along the industrial waterfront of the City of Kodiak (Telephone conversation with Mr. Jim Russell, ISA staff, 27 September 1979). There seems to be no reasonable waterfront sites in St. Paul Harbor or along the Near Island Channel east to Pearson Cove. East of Pearson Cove there may be sites available but the City of Kodiak's sketch plan designates this area for med- ium residential development (Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc.; 1978). The ISA plant would be disruptive in this setting. Plant sites are undoubtedly available outside the City of Kodiak or on other islands in the vicinity. In fact, ISA considered locating the facility north of Monashka Bay on Spruce Island. The idea was rejected on the basis that the cost and logistics of providing infrastructure and support (e.g., housing, wastewater treatment, and roads) for the facility would be excessive. ISA could select other sites (e.g., Old Harbor and Port Lions, Kodiak Island; Cordova, Naknek, Cold Bay, Port Moller, and Chignik on the Alaska Peninsula; the Aleutian Islands). However, it is beyond the scope of this environmental assessment to investigate the possibilities. Waste and Wastewater Treatment The waste abatement and handling techniques adopted by ISA represent a relatively new technology for Alaskan processors. Specifically, the Carborundum roto-strainers have not been widely used and, consequently, limited data are developed on their performance. This method of screening is probably superior to the static 0.7 mm mesh screens used by existing processors in Kodiak, however. Other available screening alternatives do not appear to be superior to the system proposed by ISA. In addition, the use of conveyors with 0.5 inch mesh to transport offal to the offal pits for ultimate disposal is a new waste handling tech- nique for Kodiak. This technique removes the majority of the solid fish wastes from the liquid waste streams and therefore reduces the biochemical oxygen demand and grease loads in the effluent. Existing processors, on the other hand, commonly flume offal to the static screens and thereby increase the pollution resulting from their outfalls. Consequently, ISA's use of this dry capture technique is considered superior to alternatives in use. The waste abatement processes used by ISA could, however, be improved by instituting some,available alternatives. First, the draining of the hold- ing tanks through the roto-strainers would improve the quality_of their effluents . Second, the organics in the effluent 24 could be reduced by requiring dissolved air flotation (DAF) equipment to be installed. This would remove additional greases and oil but would also require additional plant space and money. As an alternative to the DAF equipment, either biological treatment or treatment using coagulating and mechnical separation might be investigated. However, before any of these systems are considered, a thorough analysis of the operational effectiveness of ISA's proposed system should be performed. Offal disposal is an important area of ISA's waste treatment system for which there are few alternatives. Bio-Dry, Inc., a fish mealing opera- tion, has agreed to accept the offal produced by ISA. If Bio-Dry for some reason were unable to handle this large volume of waste, the alternatives for ISA would be very limited. Because there is a scarcity of soil at the muni- cipal land fill, rock must be ripped for cover material (Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. 1978). Consequently, landfilling of the wastes at the City's landfill would be unacceptable considering the inadequacies of the rock material to ensure proper isolation of the wastes. In a discussion with the City Manager, it was discovered,that this problem has not been resolved and is expected to occur for an indeterminate time in the future (Telephone conversation with Clair Harmony, City Manager, City of Kodiak, 27 September 1979). The only alternative to disposal of offal at the Bio-Dry facility would appear to be barging the wastes to an offshore dumping area. The environmental effects of this alternative would have to be investigated before it is considered viable. Parking The alternatives to busing 300 employees to and from the plant are simple but no Tess difficult to implement. ISA could be required to pur- chase additional high cost industrial property adjacent to their facility for parking. The City of Kodiak could purchase parking areas or designate existing public parking areas for use by industrial waterfront workers, including ISA's. Alternatively, the City could institute a public transit system tailored to the working hours of the processors. Each of these alter- natives has serious limitations, mostly economic. However, the busing program operated by either ISA or the City, could be instituted on a seasonal basis only because weekday occupancy rates in the 850 total vehicle spaces downtown were only 40 to 60 percent in the offseason (Kramer, Chin & Mayo, 1978). More than adequate parking for the employees of ISA would exist within 2000 feet of the plant in all but the peak processing periods of July, August and September. This might reduce costs significantly. The cost of the busing program could be operated by the City and paid for by monthly assessment on the processors using the service. Housing The housing in Kodiak is indeed a serious problem. The alternative to requiring ISA employees to search for reasonable housing at acceptable costs is either the construction of company owned or private housing. The company owned housing may be the only reasonable alternative considering the present financial money markets. If this were pursued by ISA, negative reactions might be forthcoming from local residents fearful of the creation of a Unification Church enclave of sorts. In addition, the cost of land would be extremely high because of the limited supply of developable land 25 'close to Kodiak. However, unless additional private housing is constructed on Kodiak in the next two years, this will probably be the only reasonable alternative. Additional public housing beyond the 27 units under construc- tion by the Farmers Home Administration is not now planned (Interview with Al Robinson, HUD, 14 September 1979). Nevertheless, the City and Borough might be able to encourage additional public housing if grant applications are made to the appropriate Federal agencies and the necessary infrastructure is provided. MEASURES TO REDUCE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES - This'assessment identifies a few adverse environmental impacts which . may merit additional mitigation. These impacts include traffic and parking, availability of housing, water quality, and air quality. Their severity could be reduced. by (1) providing buses or parking to reduce traffic congestion; (2) increasing the housing supply; (3) straining holding tank water; and (4) paving or watering-Tagura Road to reduce the fugitive dust problem. Parking and housing problems and alternatives are detailed earlier in this assessment. ISA has made-a commitment to provide buses for their employees. If this service is used, it could reduce the peak- season parking problem. Housing problems are more difficult to ameliorate, and could require joint governmental and private actions. Since Tagura Road is a public road, its condition could be improved by the City, or perhaps by all property owners albng the road through a local improvement district. Holding tank water is not usually screened, and EPA has no information supporting the need for holding tank water screening. Some environmental evaluation staff members have suggested that the final permit for this facility (if issued) could contain terms and conditions which address these issues.- The provisions of 40 CFR 122.15(f)(9) (and the preamble to these regulations at 44 FR 32864) are cited as piroviding.the basis for such permit conditions. However, EPA believes that the parking and water quality impacts of the proposed facility would be adequately mitigated by the applicant's operational plans. EPA has also tentatively concluded that conditions dealing with.housing-.:and.r.fugitive dust willAot be included in the final NPDES permit. This conclusion has been reached based on EPA's judgement that the NPDES permit would be. an inefficient and ineffective vehicle for insuring that these impacts are appropriately mitigated. 27 BACKGROUND FOR EPA'S CONCLUSIONS In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), this Environmental Assessment evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the discharge of seafood wastes into Kodiak Harbor from ISA's proposed seafood processing plant. EPA prepared this detailed assessment to assist the Agency in making a preliminary decision whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI). As a result of this analysis, it has been concluded that the impacts expected to occur are not considered to be "significant" as defined by NEPA, and thus does not require the preparation of an EIS. To assist the Agency in making this determination, there are two sets of implementing regulations which provide interpretation and guidance for complying with NEPA. These are the newly published regulations prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ, effective_ -July 1979) and EPA's own regulations, 40 CFR Part 6. The CEQ regulations apply to all federal agencies and are necessarily general to accomodate the range of federal actions. EPA's regulations more specifically define procedures in relation to its own program actions. Although EPA's regulations for preparing EIS's are currently undergoing revision, the requirement to prepare a detailed environmental assessment will remain in effect. The criteria used to determine the environmental significance of a proposed action are included in both CEQ and EPA regulations are attached as Appendix F. Many of these criteria focus on the potential impacts to the "human environment." EPA has interpreted this to mean "human environment" as defined in the CEQ regulations: "40 CFR 1508.14 Human Environment. "Human Environment" shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment... This means that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement. When an environmental impact statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the human environment." 28 REASONS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. The new source will not have a significant adverse effect upon local ambient air quality. 2. The new source will not have a significant adverse effect upon local ambient noise levels. 3. The new source has been designed to meet EPA's waste water new source performance standards for seafood processing facilities and will not have a significant adverse effect upon local surface water quality. 4. The new source is not in ,proximity to historic or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, reservoirs, nor ecologically critical areas, and therefore will have no adverse effects. The new facility will not have any direct or indirect effects on any property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 5. The new source will not have any significant adverse effect upon floodplains, groundwater quality or quantity, or fish, wildlife and their natural habitats. 6. The new source will not have a significant adverse effect on the habitat of threatened or endangered species on the Department of Interior's lists of threatened and endangered species. 7. The new facility, including a 30 foot extension beyond the Previous, dock, will not have any significant adverse effect on navigation. 8. This new source will not induce or accelerate changes in industrial, commercial, or agricultural land use concentrations or distributions which have the potential for significant environmental effects. The new *source may induce changes in residential land use concentrations by indirect increases in the population of Kodiak, which will aggravate an existing serious housing supply problem. 9. The new source will affect public safety to some degree by creating additional traffic and occasional blockages of Tagura Road. This road is the only access to facilities further west. In case of emergency, short term blockages during the manuvering of the container vans could temporarily affect public health and safety at these facilities. However, this possibly is not considered significant. The lack of parking along Tagura and the availability of ISA buses may discourage ISA employees from traveling on Tagura Road. 29 10. The new source has not been identified as being in violation of any Federal or State law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The City of Kodiak and the Borough have denied a building permit to ISA due to an interpretation of a Borough zoning ordinance regarding parking requirements. However, a preliminary injunction by the Alaska Supreme Court has enjoined the City of Kodiak from interferring with ISA's construction on this basis. 11. The possible effects of this facility on the human environment (40 CFR 1508.14) do not involve unique or unknown risks. There are many other seafood processing plants in Kodiak and throughout Alaska. Kodiak has been a center for the seafood processing industry for many years and the citizens are familiar with its operation and impacts. 12. This permit is not related to any other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. EPA has no other outstanding permit applications for new seafood processing facilities in Kodiak. If this plant is successful, it is not known if other facilities would also be built or converted to bottomfish processing. 13. The potential effects of this new source on the quality of the human environment within Kodiak are controversial. The assessment has attempted to address all controversial concerns. Those identified were: water quality impacts in Kodiak Harbor, potable water supply, employee parking, traffic and emergency access on Tagura Road, housing, zoning, interference with navigation, and economic impacts in the fishing industry. Appendix B includes letters which highlight these sources of controversy. The potential effects of the facility on the natural and physical environ- ment have been assessed and have been determined to be not significant. The potential effects of the facility on the social and economic environ- ment have been assessed. While there are many social concerns, 40 CFR 1508.14 states that "economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement." As there do not appear to be significant effects on the natural or physical environment, EPA has concluded that an EIS will not be prepared. 14. The decision to prepare a FNSI on this proposal will not set a precedent for future agency action with significant effects. Instead, a decision by EPA to prepare an EIS on this facility could establish a precedent for new non-remote land-based seafood processing facility in a non-remote Alaskan site. This would increase the paperwork and delays for new processors who are generally welcomed and encouraged by communities. 30 Appendix A Description of the Proposed Facility DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY ISA plans to build a seafood processing plant and dock on Tideland Tract N-28 and a portion of Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsite, Kodiak, Alaska. The plant, as presently proposed, will be a two-story building with an associated dock and parking bays for container vans. The building and the docks together cover approximately 0.4 acres. Figures 2 and 3, excerpted from the ISA's NPDES ap- plication, provide a horizontal and vertical view of the building, dock and five parking bays. It should be noted that the dock length, indicated in Figure 3 as 40 feet, has been reduced to 30 feet. The building will include holding tanks, processing lines, freezer units, and shipping facilities on the first floor. A salmon roe processing line, lab- oratory, toilets, showers, laundry, and administrative offices will be included on the second floor. - Production Activities - The proposed facility will serve as a processing plant for crabs, scallops, salmon and bottom fish. .ISA estimates that after reaching maximum operational production the facility will process 250 tons (500,000 pounds) of raw fish into 100 tons (200,000 pounds) of frozen fish and crab products and approximately 30,000 pounds of frozen scallops daily. ISA expects to reach maximum operational production two years after start up. The production activities involved in ISA's processing of fish and shellfish can be separated into the following general categories: • Off-loading • Holding a Processing • Freezing and packing • Shipping. To understand the impact of the proposed facility on water quality and the ability of the plant to meet discharge limitations, a basic understanding of the production activities is necessary. The following is a discussion of these activities. Off-loading ISA proposes to off-load salmon and bottom fish from the fishing boats using a hydraulic unloading device that is capable of transporting 30 tons (60,000 pounds) per hour of raw fish to the in-plant holding tanks. Crabs and scallops will be unloaded using a crane capable of transporting ten tons (20,000 pounds) per hour of crab to the live tank located in the dock area. The number of boats and unloading time per boat will vary with the type of fish. A-1 Holding The fish will be separated into six holding tanks filled with a mixture of ice and salt water drawn from the channel. The crabs will be placed in a crab tank filled with salt water. The fish and crabs will be held until the processing lines are ready to accept them. Processing From the holding areas, the fish and shellfish will be placed upon a conveyor to be transported to the appropriate process line. Six major pro- cessing lineS and two minor lines for fish roe and scallops will be operating when the plant is at maximum operational capacity. Four of six major lines will normally process bottom fish and the two remaining major lines will be used for crabs and salmon or whole fish. The salmon and crab lines will be seasonal and may eventually be con- verted to the processing of bottom fish, depending upon market demand. As presently planned the following lines will be operating at maximum production, although not simultaneously: a Crab line o Salmon line a Hand fillet incentive line (cod, flatfish and perch) w Perch line m Small whitefish line o Large whitefish line w Whole fish line (cod, pollack, perch, herring) m Scallop line m Roe line. The operation of these lines will result in the processing of a variety of fish and shellfish types. The types Of fish to be processed, the appropri- ate processing lines to be used for each, and the resulting seafood products are indicated in the following table. Table 1 Products of the ISA Plant Type of Fish or Shellfish • Crab - King Crab - Tanner Crab - Opelio Crab • Crab - Dungeness Crab Salmon (all Alaskan varieties) Cod Pollack • Flatfish s Perch • Herring • Halibut Scallops Process Line o Crab line • Crab line Salmon line • Roe line • Large white- fish line • Same 3 Whole fish line • Hand fillet incentive line Large white- fish and small whitefish lines • Whole fish line o Roe line c Hand fillet incentive line • Same • Whole fish line • Hand fillet incentive line • Same • Whole fish line • Perch line • Whole fish line • Large white- fish line Scallop line 1 Princess dressed - gutted 2 Semi-dressed - headed and gutted A-3 Type of Product • Frozen crab sections • Frozen whole crab • Princess dressed 1 2 • Semi-dressed (frozen) • Salted salmon roe • Headed and gutted (frozen) •e Machine filleted (frozen) • Whole (frozen) • Hand filleted (frozen) Machine filleted (frozen) • Whole (frozen) • Salted pollack roe • Hand filleted (frozen) • Headed and gutted by hand (frozen) • Whole (frozen) • Hand filleted (frozen) • Headed and gutted by hand (frozen) • Whole (frozen) • Machine filleted (frozen) • Whole (frozen) • Headed and gutted (frozen) Whole (frozen) Each line involves a series of operations that results in a sequential processing of the product and consequent production of wastes. The following schematics outline the major operations and generated waste products for each line. Crab Line la. Crab Line (Crab Sections) (Whole Crabs Cooked) HOLDING Meat, Shells BUTCHERING COOKING z Viscera, Shells COOL GILL WASH INSPECT Solids, Water Water Vi scera Water Shells, Meat PACK HOLDING 1 COOK COOL PACK 2. Salmon Line 3. Hand Fillet Incentive Line HOLDING BUTCHERING' SLIMER RINSE PACKAGING -77 Liquid, Solids 7 Heads, Viscera Viscera, Liquid . Viscera, Liquid HOLDING L—....7Liquid, Solids SCALER Scales FILLETING 1 Heads, Body, I Fins, Liquid SKINNING 1 Skin , Oil PHOSPHATE WASH DRAIN PACKING Phosphate 4. Perch Line 5, Small Whitefish Line HOLDING SCALER BUTCHER | HOLDING � Scales | GRADING � FILLETING Heads . Body, Fins, Liquid SKINNING / Skin, Oils ' INSPECTION PHOSPHATE WASH Fillets � DRAIN | if Phosphate PACKING \ DEHEADING | / Heads FILLETING Body / --~ and Liquid, SKINNING ' Skin, Oil \ | INSPECTION PHOSPHATE WASH | | , DRAIN / PACKING Fillets / Phosphate 6. Large Whitefish Line 7. Roe Line HOLDING. 1 Salmon Pollack Roe GRADING DEHEADING / Heads SKINNING INSPECTION PHOSPHATE WASH DRAIN PACKING Carcasses, Liquids Skin, Oil Fillets Phosphate Sodium Salt PACKING Viscera Sodium Nitrite„ Salt 8. Scallops Line 9, Whole Fish Line SHELLED SCALLOPS RECEIVING WASHING PACKING Meat, � Shell Fragments, Liquid HOLDING PACKING Freezing and glazing ISA plans to freeze most of its products. The facility will be equipped with plate freezers and blast freezers, with an overall total capa- city of 10,000 pounds per hour. These freezers represent the major design limitation to the facility because the processing equipment is capable of greater output. The frozen fish will be glazed to avoid freezer burn. The process will involve the application of 2,000 GPD of fresh water to form an ice glaze on the frozen fish. Packing, scaling and shipping Finally, the fish and shellfish products will be pl8ced.in the ap- propriate shipping pack, scaled, taped and placed on conveyors for lOading. ISA plans to ship frozen products in the following units: m Crab - 25 pound cartons m Salmon - "market style" (depends on processing method and market) � Whitefish- 18,5 pound block m All other Fillets - 18.5 pound block. Some of the product will be master-cartoned, with more than one block con- tained in each. The cartons will be transferred to the shipping dock and loaded on container vans. The,ISA facility is designed to accommodate five container Vans in parking bay although only two bays will be used for loading simul- taneously. The remaining three bays will be used for storage of loaded vans and extra parking space. -Operations Schedule- The plant is designed for simultaneous processing of multiple fish types depending on the season and supply. The major limiting factor, as previously mentioned, is the freezer capacity of 10,000 pounds per hour. To operate at the maximum capacity ISA has developed the following operations schedule, assuming production at 75 percent of the line capacity. Schedule I. (September through February) Table 2 Operations Schedule Lines Operating Simultaneously Crab Line Small Whitefish Line Hand Fillet Incentive Line Whole Fish Line Schedule 2. Salmon Line (June through Salmon Roe Line September) Small Whitefish Line Schedule 3. (February through June) Small Whitefish Line Large Whitefish Line Hand Fillet Incentive Line Perch Line Whole Fish Line Scallops Line Product Output/Hour 5,000 pounds 2,250 pounds 1,000 pounds 2,000 pounds 10,250 pounds 8,400. pounds (no freezing) 2,250 pounds 10,650 pounds 2,250 pounds 1,500 pounds 1,000 pounds 750 pounds 3,000 pounds 1,500 pounds 10,000 pounds The facility will be able to produce approximately 200,000 pounds per day of frozen fish products assuming this production schedule. - Labor Requirements - At maximum operational production, the facility will be operated in two ten-hour shifts. The total labor requirements per shift were provided by Mr. David Rogers, ISA's Assistant General Manager, as follows: a Crab Line = 18 a Salmon Line = 32 a Hand Fillet Incentive Line = 25 • Perch Line 12 o Small Whitefish Line = 26 o Large Whitefish Line = 20 a Unloading = 16 • Freezer = 17 as Supervisory = 5 a Engineering 5. Theoretically, if all these lines were operating simultaneously the plant labor force per shift would equal 176 employees. The total labor force re- quired by the facility would then be 352 employees. However, since all lines will not be operating at the same time, ISA officials estimate that at maximum operational production the labor requirement would more likely be 300 em- ployees (150 per shift). ISA officials estimate that the start-up labor requirements would be 40 and the labor requirement after one year of operation would be 100 employees. - Water Use - • Fish processing requires a sizable amount of water. Therefore, it is important to understand the sources, uses, and ultimate disposal of water utilized in ISA's processes. The NPDES application submitted by ISA provided a schematic view of the general water requirements of the plant. Since the submittal of the application, there have been some adjustments in ISA's projected water use. Namely, ISA has indicated that water needed for ice making will be draWn from Kodiak's municipal water supply instead of from the Near Island_Channel as originally indicated, and a crab cooler with a continuous wash will be used. With this modification, the following table summarizes ISA's fresh and salt water requirements. Table3 In-Plant Water Use Source Use Quantity Fresh Water Kodiak Water Domestic 3,400 GPD Requirement System Disposal Kodiak Waste Treatment Plant Processing 70,600 GPD Outfall to Near Island Channel Glazing 2,000 GPD Frozen with Fish Ice Making 16,060 GPD .Holding Tanks and Boat Holds, eventually dis- charged to sea TOTAL 92,060 GPD Salt Water Near Island Holding 48,240 GPD Near Island Requirements Channel Tanks Channel Crab Cooler 960,000GPD Near Island Channel Perch Scaler216,000 GPD Near Island Channel TOTAL 1,224,240 GPO The water requirements for each major water use in the processing line is summarized in the following table. The water requirements presented in the Process Water Use Table are listed for each major processing activity. These activities are not continuous for the 20-hour processing period and, conse- quently, the addition of these figures does not provide an accurate total daily water demand. The table above, on the other hand, provides the total daily water requirements. Processing Line Crab Line Table4 Process Water Use Activity Crab Rinse Cooling Water Cooking Water Water Requirement 5 GPM continuous fresh water flow during processing 800 GPM continuous salt water flow during processing 6 discharges daily (approx. 3,400 gallons each) Salmon Line Slimer 40 GPM continuous fresh water during processing Rinsers 15 GPM continuous fresh water during processing Hand Fillet Line Skinner 4.5 GPM continuous fresh water flow during processing Rinse 5 GPM continuous fresh water flow during processing Phosphate Infeed 1 GPM continuous fresh water flow during processing Perch Line Processing Machines 17 GPM continuous fresh water flow during processing Phosphate Tanks 1 GPM continuous fresh water flow during processing Scaler 150 GPM continuous salt water flow during processing Small Whitefish Line Processing Machines 35 GPM continuous fresh water flow during processing Phosphate Tanks 1 GPM continuous fresh water flow during processing Large Whitefish Line Processing Machines 35 GPM continuous fresh water flow during processing Phosphate Tanks 1 GPM continuous fresh water flow during processing Whole Fish Line No water use Scallop Line Rinsing 10 GPM continuous fresh water flow during processing Roe Line Treatment Solution 20 GPM continuous fresh water flow Washing during processing All Lines Glazing Fish 1.7 GPM continuous fresh water flow Before Packing during glazing The phosphate infeed tanks do not require continuous fresh water inputs but continuously recycle approximately 312 gallons of phosphate solution per unit. A-12 The water use figures in Table3 provide data useful to the calculation of waste loads. This water is in contact with the fish being processed, and, therefore, it carries some quantities of waste. Most of the solid wastes are later separated from the liquids during the dry capture process and screening of offal later in this section. - Waste Production - The ISA processing facility, as other processing plants, has many sources of processing wastes. These include: • Fish waste and blood on the dock resulting from • the off-loading operation • Solid fish waste and blood in the holding tanks • • Fish heads, carcasses, viscera and blood resulting from the butchering operation • Fish skins and oil from the skinning operation • Rejected fish fillets from the inspection operation • Viscera and fish particles from the rinsing operation • Scales from scaling operation • Phosphate solution from phosphate wash operation .® Shells, fat and crab meat pieces from cooking, cooling, and rinsing operation a Saline solution and small amounts of viscera from roe processing • Small amounts of solid scallop pieces and shell fragments from scallop processing. Although each of these sources contribute noticeable quantities of waste, by far the greatest amount of waste (blood, viscera and fish remains) is produced from the butchering operation. Offal production To approximate the total solid fish waste (offal) produced from the operation of ISA's processing facility, an estimate of product recovery rates and, consequently, waste production rates is required. Product recovery rates provide an approximation of the percentage of the total fish that even- tually is used as a marketable product. The balance of the fish can be assumed to be waste. These figures are a convenient means of approxi- mating waste generated during fish processing operations. An EPA survey of 32 seafood processors in Alaska conducted in 1971 revealed that product recovery rates for salmon processing ranged from 55 per- cent to 77 percent and crab product recovery rates ranged from 12 percent to 25 percent (USEPA, 1973). It should be noted that the processors surveyed were salmon and crab canning operations. Similar data for bottom fish processing in Alaska were not collected because of the lack of processors. In 1975, EPA published the results of a detailed investigation of a variety of fish processing facilities in the United States. The study indi- cated that recovery rates for processing of fillets from west coast bottom fish ranged from 28 percent to 31 percent, depending upon species processed (USEPA 1975\. The study also indicated that mechanized processing of bottom fish (whiting) in New England reached as high as 50 percent product recovery with conventional bottom fish processing ranging from 20 percent to 45 percent. The same study listed recovery rates for scallops at almost 100 percent and fresh/frozen round salmon between 70 percent and 85 percent. It is difficult to compare ISA's recovery rates with the rates pub- lished in either of these EPA studies. Differences in processing methods, species processed, equipment, and product types greatly affect the estimated recovery rates. ISA estimates that their recovery rates will be: o Roe ' 98 percent m Crab 55 percent m Salmon 80 percent (gutted and gilled) m Salmon 50 percent (gutted, gilled and headed) o Large Whitefish 35 percent m Small Whitefish 20 percent w Perch . 35 percent m Hand Fillet 30 percent so Scallops 99 percent. A comparison of these estimated recovery rates with the previously cited data published by EPA indicates that they are reasonable. Therefore, using these values of product recovery, the waste production rates are as follows: o Roe 2 percent w Crab 45 percent w Salmon 20 percent (gutted and gilled) o Salmon 50 percent (gutted, gilled and headed) o Large Whitefish 65 percent w Small Whitefish 80 percent o Perch 65 percent w Hand Fillet 70 percent w Scallops 4 percent m Whole Fish 0 percent. These percentages of raw fish and shellfish that end up as waste products provide us with a means of calculating the total offal produced by ISA's facility. If we assume the production schedule provided by ISA and described in this section,we can calculate the rate of offal produced per hour of production and the total offal produced during two ten-hour shifts. The following table presents these data. Production Schedule 1. Crab Small White fish Hand Fillet Whole Fish TOTAL Table 5 Offal Production Total Weight of Seafood Pro- cessed Per Hour (75% Processing Capacity) 9,000 lb. 10,500 ib. 3,225 lb. Variable Waste Production Rate 45% 80% 70% No Offal Total Offal Offal Produced Produced Per Per Hour of Two 10-Hour Operation Shifts 4,050 lbs. 81,000 lbs. 8,400 lbs. 168,000 lbs. 2,257 lbs. 45,150 lbs. 14,707 lbs. 294,140 lbs. 2. Salmon (gutted & gilled) 4,200 lb. (head & gutted) 4,200 lb. Roe 700 lb. Small Whitefish 10,500 lb. TOTAL 20% 840 lbs. 16,800 lbs.. 50% 2,100 lbs. 42,000 lbs. 2% 14 lbs. 280 lbs. 80% 8,400 lbs. 168,000 lbs. 11,354 lbs. 227,080 lbs. • Small Whitefish 10,500 ib. Large Whitefish 3,150 lb. Hand Fillet 3,225 ib. Perch Line 2,625 lb. Whole Fish Variable Scallops 1,500 lb. TOTAL 80% 65% 70% 65% No Offal 4% 8,400 lbs. 168,000 lbs. 1,575 lbs. 31,500 lbs. 2,257 lbs. 45,150 lbs. 1,706 lbs. 34,125 lbs. 15 lbs. 300 lbs. 13,953 lbs. 279,075 lbs. Thus, the maximum offal production resulting from the processing.lines is calculated to be 294,140 pounds per day. Although a small amount of offal is produced by operations other than those of the processing lines, the most significant offal production by far occurs during the processing. Liquid processing wastes In addition to offal, the operations of the plant will result in significant volumes of liquid waste. Oil and greases, color, and suspended solids are the primary pollutants contained in the liq4id wastes created from ISA's processing of seafood. A small amount of chlorine and phosphate (approxi- mately 2,495 gallons of solution containing approximately 300 pounds of P20') also will be contained in the in -plant liquid waste stream. In addition, tfie wash down of equipment will introduce approximately 40 GPM over the period of washing of 700 PPM chlorine solution. The chlorine solution will be produced by disassociating salt water drawn from the Near Island Channel into the CL- and Na+ ions using a chlorine generator. The resulting chlorine solution will be used for washing equipment twice daily. Because of a lack of published data on the processing methods and equipment proposed by ISA, it is impossible to calculate the li quid waste characteristics before in-plant treatment. However, estimates of the effluent characteristics following in-plant treatment are presented in this section. Domestic and solid waste The plant will have domestic wastes from the laundry facility, toilets, and sinks. The NPDES application indicates that 3,400 GPO of domestic wastes will be produced and discharged to the City of Kodiak sewers. Solid waste (e.g., cardboard cartons, ruined laundry and miscellaneous material) will be picked up by the City's refuse disposal units for ultimate placement in the municipal landfill. -Waste Handling and Abatement Procedures - The ISA facility has three major waste producing activities: the processing, the holding, and the off-loading of fish. Waste handling proce- dures for each of these activities are described in this section. Processing activities The plant layout includes six processing lines on the first floor. As previously mentioned, these lines are the major source of offal and liquid waste production. ISA has designed a waste handling procedure for these lines (see Figure 4) that includes: o Process line waste washed along a flume to a cross-plant conveyor � Transporting offal along this endless chain link conveyor (0.6 inch grate) to two offal pits ,Liquids and solids filtering through conveyor links flow along a waste trench (flume) below the conveyor to two rotating drum roto-strainers (Carborundum Model 24 RD3 48) Crab shells and waste will be conveyed to'a shell shredder/crusher. The size of the waste will be reduced to one to two-inch cubes and suctioned via an eight-inch vacuum line to truck loading offal hoppers Roto-strainers with a screen size of 0.5MM (32 mesh) filter small solids and some oils and greases and dump wastes in the offal pits Liquids flow through strainers and are discharged through outfall pipe to Near Island Channel Solids and some liquids are conveyed to an offal hopper by means of a vacuum system Offal is picked up by trucks and transported to Bio-Dry plant (fish mealing operation) for processing. The system compares favorably with those in use in Kodiak presently. The conveyor system separates much of the offal from the liquids thereby reducing the amounts of oils, greases, and suspended solids in the effluent waters. ' Because of this early separation of solids and liquids, it is considered to be similar to a dry capture system. Further, the amount of water needed to transport wastes along the flume will be reduced because of thedecreased load of solids in the liquid stream and, consequently, reduce the volume of effluent discharged. The roto-strainers are rated at 1,000 GPM and 600 mg/1 total suspended solids (TSS) loading rate. Using the 32 mesh roto-strainers, the removal rate for TSS is 50 percent, according to the manufacturer's literature. In addition, some grease and oil reduction is expected, although the equipment has not been tested for this aspect. Bio-Dry employees will transport the offal to the Bio-Dry plant on Gibson Cove for processing into fish meal. The Bio-Dry plant will process ISA's offal through the typical fish mealing operations of dewatering the offal, cooking the fish, pressing the fish into presscakes, drying the cakes, grinding the material, and storing and shipping the meal. The main distinction between Bio-Dry's plant and other fish mealing plants is the greater percentage of shrimp and crabs processed by Bio-Dry as opposed to fish carcasses. Although this situation mandates that Bio-Dry use different equipment from other meal processors mealing primarily fish, the basic operations remain identical (Tele- phone conversation with Mr. Heiberg, Bio-Dry Inc., 8 October 1979). The waste handling and abatement process proposed by ISA differs from the existing processors in Kodiak in a few significant ways. The existing processors normally rely on a wet capture system for waste handling. This system involves transporting liquid wastes and offal derived from the pro- cessing operation along flumes to the offal screens. Consequently, the amounts of suspended and settleable solids, greases, and oils in the liquid waste stream are increased because of the longer residence time of the solid fish wastes in the flume waters. In contrast, the ISA dry capture system ensures a higher quality liquid waste stream through early screening of the majority of the • solids. Processing Lines FIGUE 4. WASTE HANDLING SCHEMATIC Offal and Liquid Wastes Wastes drop off processing lines into Channel below line Wastes flumed along Channel to conveyor Large sized offal are retained on conveyor as liquids and small offal fall through 0,5 inch mesh into main waste trench Product Remaining offal and liquids flumed along trench to roto-strainers Roto-strainers screen small sized offal from liquids using 0.5mm mesh openings Remaining solids and 7iQUids.fall through strainers and are dis- charged to Near Island Channel. Large offal moved by conveyor to Offal pit Small sized offal roto- r strainer into offal pit The wet capture system, on the other hand, relies entirely on a screen- ing process occurring as the offal exits the plant to reduce wastes to an acceptable level. The screening process normally involves the washing of the offal and liquid wastes from the process lines, through a main waste collection trench, and finally across an inclined static or vibrating screen. The screen sizes vary but many processors now use 40 mesh screens with 0.7 mm openings (Telephone conversation with Bill Lamoreaux, EPA Alaska Operations Office, 5 October 1979). A comparison of the effectiveness of ISA's roto-strainers to the static screens used by most processors is impossible without more data. . However, the roto-strainers present one advantage. The roto-strainers are continually cleaned by a blade that scrapes the offal off the surface of the drum and, therefore, a relatively clean screening surface is constantly used for offal separation. Most existing processors have an employee brush the offal from the static screens periodically to clear the surface. ISA's system has clear maintenance advantages, although there may not be any improvement in the effectiveness of waste removal. Holding activities Fish are held in six chilled saltwater tanks and crabs in a live tank. The holding tanks will contain fish wastes (e.g., scales, blood, and gurry) resulting from fish damaged during capture or off-loading. ISA plans to drain these tanks at least once a day. The drained water and ice will pass directly to the outfall without screening and will, consequently, result in a discharge of solid and liquid wastes to the channel. This system is sim- ilar to other processors in Kodiak. Off-loading The dock area will receive an undetermined amount of fish wastes from the off-loading operation. The hydraulic off-loading device also will intro- duce a significant amount of water and fish wastes to the dock's drain system. This occurs when the fish and water mixture, pumped from the boat holds, is separated. The fish are moved to the holding tanks on a vibrating screen after being vacuumed out of the boat hold and as the water falls through the screen onto the deck of the dock. Although not specified in the processing floor lay- out (McEntire & Pendergrast, undated), the architects are planning to have this waste material drain across the roto-strainers. This procedure will reduce the quantities of waste resulting from off-loading. Other Waste Soui.-6-ei The domestic wastes will be handled by the Kodiak wastewater treat- ment system and the solid waste will be transferred to the municipal landfill. No systems have been designed to treat either the chlorine or amounts of phosphate that will be introduced in the liquid waste streams and discharged to Near Island Channel. A-19 -Water Intake and Effluent Discharge Structure and Flow - As indicated earlier, ISA plans to draw fresh water from the Kodiak water system and salt water from the Near Island Channel. Based on ISA's latest estimates of water needs, approximately 1,108,240 GPD will be withdrawn from the Near Island Channel and 92,060 GPD will be demanded from the Kodiak water system. ISA plans to use the fresh water primarily in the fish processing operations, ice making, and for domestic uses, while the principal use of salt water will be for the fish holding tanks, and the crab couler. The fresh water will be obtainedthrough a simple hook-up to the City's water lines, but the water withdrawn from the Near Island Channel requires the construction of an intake structure. The intake structure, as presently proposed, would be a 12-fnch diameter impact resistant fiberglass pipe that would extend below the dock and approximately 70 feet beyond the dock head. The channel width is approximately 450 feet at this point. The mouth of the intake pipe will be placed approximately 27 feet below mean low low water (MLLW). The last five feet of the pipe, of which the last three will be slotted, will extend upwards into the water column to avoid the intake of debris and sludge from the channel bottom. The slots are designed to in- crease the intake capacity of the pipe. The open end will be covered by a stainless steel screen.. A 130-foot long, 12-inCh diameter discharge pipe de from the same impact-resistant 'fiberglass will parallel the intake pipe and extend approx- imately 55 feet beyond the intake into the Near Island Channel. The discharge will occur 40 feet below MLLW. Both the intake and discharge pipes will be anchored by a series of six-foot long concrete pads. These pads will hold the pipes approximately six inches off the channel bottom. The pads are designed to secure the pipes in 15 knot currents. Using the NPDES application, the minimum discharge of effluent into the Near island Channel is 93,060 GPD and the maximum discharge is 127,900 GPD. The maximum discharge has been since modified to 1,224,240 GPD because of the addition of crab cooler and cooker waters. The timing of these dis- charges will vary depending upon the production schedule being used and on attendant intermittent discharges of water. Although the majority of discharge volume will be continuous, some will be irregular, such as the draining of the holding tanks at the end of a production run, which will release approxi- mately 5,040 gallons six times daily (NPDES application, 1979\. Each of these discharges will last approximately 20 minutes. In addition, periodic dumping Of the crab cooking waters /3,400 gallons released six times daily); the phosphate wash (250 gallons dumped three to four times daily); and modifications of the production schedule will result in some variability in discharge volumes. EFFLUENTS AND EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS The effluents resulting from ISA's fish processing operations have been clas- sified by EPA Region 10 under the following seafood product categories for purposes of establishing effluentstandards: • Salmon - hand butchered ts Whole crab and crab sections • Halibut (non-remote) • Bottom fish (mechanized) except for halibut and black cod • Bottom fish (conventional) except for halibut and black cod • Black cod (mechanized) • Black cod (conventional) • Scallops. The effluent limitations that will be imposed on ISA's facility vary for each product category. The limitations for salmon, crab, halibut, and scallops processing effluents are established by promulgated Federal new source per- formance standards (40 CFR 408; 39 FR 23134; Amended by 41 FR 31820; 42 FR 6813; 42 FR 9665). The performance standards for Alaskan processing (non-remote) of black cod and bottom fish have not been promulgated, and EPA, consequently, has developed effluent limitations for these categories using best engineering judgment. The Agency has relied upon published effluent data for bottom fish processors operating in other areas of the United States to establish reason- able performance standards. The terms of the limitations placed on ISA's processing effluents are as follows: Table 6 Effluent Limitations Seafood Product Discharge Limitations Daily Average Daily Maximum TSS* O&G** TSS* O&G** Salmon - Hand Butchered 1.4 kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs/raw salmon) 0.17 Whole Crab and Crab Sections 3.3 0.36 kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs/raw crab) Halibut (non-remote) 1.1 0.34 . (lbs/1000 lbs/raw fish) Bottom fish (Mechanized) except 8.8 2,75 Halibut and Black Cod kg/kkg /lb5/1000 lbs/raw fish) Bottom fish (Conventional) except 2.0 . 0.55 Halibut and Black Cod kg/kkg /lbs/1000 lbs/raw fish) Black Cod (Mechanized) 8.8 11 16.2 29 kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs/raw black cod) Black Cod (Conventional) 2.0 1.55 kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs/raw black cod) 2.3 0.28 9.9 1.1 1.9 2.6 16.2 7.0 3.6 1.0 Scallops (lbs/100 lbs/raw scallops) 1.4 0.23 3.6 2'9 5.7 7.3 The total discharge of total suspended solids shall be limited to a daily average and daily maximum of 3,375 lbs/day and 7,335 lbs/day, rS3pectively. The total discharge of oil and grease shall be limited to a daily average and daily maximum of 4,300 lbs/day anc1l,5301bs/day, respectively. * Total Suspended Solids ** Oil & Grease -Bottom Fish- To evaluate the ability of ISA's waste handling and abatement proce- dures to meet these standards, an understanding of the performance of similar processing systems is necessary. Unfortunately, data on Alaskan bottom fish processing are not available and only limited data are available on bottom fish processors with similar waste abatement techniques outside Alaska. The diffi- culties of estimating the quality of the effluents from ISA's plant are com- pounded because the equipment (e.g., roto-strainers and dry capture system) is not in wide use and its performance has not been well documented. In addition, the characteristics of the wastes resulting from bottom fish processing are not well established because of its only recent development in Alaska. Mindful of these limitations, it is possible to infer from investiga- tions of non-Alaskan bottom fish processors what the effluent characteristics of ISA's facility probably will be. Studies conducted on bottom fish processors in Canada indicate that the dry capture ofsolids, sim- ilar to the system proposed by ISA, results in a reasonable level of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Oils and Greases. The following characteristics were observed for bottom fish processors using dry capture systems. Table 7 Effluent Characteristics for Bottom Fish Processing Using Dry Capture Type of Fish Parameter Effluent Range (k/kkg) Average (k/kkg) Ocean Perch TSS 0.1 - 3.5 1.3 Oil & Grease 0.1 - 0.35 0.2 Grey Cod TSS 0.3 - 0.6 0.5 Oil & Grease 0.01 - 0.64 0.2 Source: Villamere, 1975; p 58,59 These values are within the ranges and averages established by EPA's effluent limitations. These data demonstrate the advantages of a dry capture system. Because the butchered fish does not mix with the liquid wastes and flume waters for an extended period, the effluent limitations are met even without screening. The additional screening of the effluent by the roto-strainers should reduce further the levels of TSS, and oils and greases. Therefore, it appears that ISA's facility would meet the TSS limitations and probably the oil and grease standards for bottom fish and black cod processing. -Crab- A review of published data on the effluent characteristics of whole crab and crab section processors indicates that the TSS and oil and grease levels are as shown in Table 8. without screening by 0.5mm mesh roto-strainers. Table 8. Effluent Characteristics of Whole Crab and Crab Section Process Waters Without Screening Type Parameter Effluent Range /k/kknl Average (k/kkg) Unspecified TSS 1.0 - 8.0 3.5 Oil & Grease 0.3 - 0.7 0'5 Source: USEPA, 1974b, p 136 Furthermore, these values are probably higher than ISA/s pre-screened crab processing line effluents because the values presented in the preceding table are for a wet capture system. ISA proposes, on the other hand, to vacuum the sections of crab meat and shells exiting from the shell shredder and crusher to the offal pit. Thus, the dry capture system prevents large solids from coming into contact with the flume waters and, consequently, less TSS and oil and grease will be in the effluent. The effluent quality would be ex- pected to further improve after screening. The effectiveness of Carborundum's roto-strainer in reducing the pollutant amounts has not been quantified for oil and grease, however. Tests run on shrimp waste effluents indicated that a 26'7 percent mean reduction in sus- pended solid and a 47.8 percent mean reduction of settleable solids was accomplished using a 0.5mm rotating drum screen (USEPA, 1974\' .No data are available on grease and oil reduction. The effectiveness of the Carborundum roto-strainers in removing solid crab wastes is probably similar if not slightly better than the figures quoted for shrimp 'processing. The amount of shells resulting from shrimp processing is greater per pound of live weight than for crabs and the size of the shrimp wastes allows a greater percentage to escape effective soreening. Nevertheless, assuming a similar removal efficiency for suspended solids (26 percent) and using the values in Table 8 , we would estimate that the TSS values for the crab line effluents would range between 0.74-5'9 kg/kkg and the approximate average TSS would be 2.6kg/kkg. These values are well within the limitations established by EPA'. Because of the lack of equipment performance values, no effluent values for grease and oil can be provided. However, it is likely that ISA can meet the limitations based on the effluent characteristics in Table8 and assuming only minor grease removal resulting from the dry capture system and screening to be used by ISA. ISA proposes to hand7butcher salmon. An examination of published information on :the effluent characteristics of salmon hand-butchering operations using 40 'mesh screens /0.7nm\ for strainers (identical size mesh to those used by most existing processors in Kodiak) indicate that ISA likely can meet the effluent limitations. The data examined (Table 9 ) indicated that a 40 mesh screen would remove an estimated 56 percent of the TSS. Table .9 TSS Effluent Characteristics for Hand-Butchered Salmon (kg/kkg) tin screened Screened (0.7mm) • Mean 1.19 0.52 Source: USEPA, 1975 5% Minimum 0.24 0.11 95% Maxim= 3.54 1.56 The 0.5mm screen used by ISA will result in a greater reduction in TSS than the values in Table 9 . Consequently, the TSS values would be below the limitations established by USEPA. The oil and grease values expected from ISA's salmon line should be relatively low. Published data indicates that hand butchering of salmon results in grease and oil values ranging between .04 and .20 kg/kkg. The mean value recorded during an EPA sampling of the effluent of salmon processors was 0.15 kg/kkg grease and oil (USEPA 1975). The dry capture system and screening proposed by ISA should reduce these typical effluent values. A comparison of the published effluent values and the effluent limitations developed by EPA indicates that ISA likely will meet the prescribed performance standards. -Summary- In summary, the ISA facility has incorporated all reasonable methods to in- stitute a dry capture system that should result in lower than typical values for TSS and oil and grease. ISA, in addition, has proposed using 0.5mm roto- strainers that should achieve excellent removal of suspended solids and some undetermined amount of oil and grease. Non-Alaskan bottom fish processing operations often ensure adequate removal of oils and greases through the use of Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF). ISA is not proposing to use this technique, and it may be unnecessary with the operation of the roto-strainers. However, their ability to meet the oil and grease standards for bottom fish could be considered marginal (e.g., 0.64 maximum 0&G observed exceeds conventional bottom fish average daily limitations). Therefore, the monitored oil and grease effluent levels should be examined to ensure that the waste abatement procedures adequately reduce oil and grease loads. It would be useful to future plants if the capability of roto-strainers to reduce oil and grease was dttermined. Appendix B EPA's Public Notice and Responses U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 REPLY TO XM4OF: M/S 443 AuCI 3 1979 To: All Interested Governmental Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit application (Application Number AK-002666-2) from International Seafoods of Alaska, Incorporated for the wastewater discharges from a proposed seafood processing. facility in Kodiak, Alaska. This facility has been determined to be a New Source. Such New Sources must be evaluated pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and implementing Federal regulations. As part of EPA's evaluation, we are preparing an Environmental Assessment on the proposed new seafood processing facility. An Environmental Assessment is a concise document which can serve to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Either an EIS or a FONSI must be prepared prior to EPA's issuance of a permit. The Environmental Assessment will include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives, and of the impacts (both beneficial and detrimental) on the human environment of the proposed action and alternatives. EPA interprets "Human Environment" to comprehensively include the,natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. We are interested in both direct and indirect potential effects. Social and economic effects will also be considered in this Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that the existence of economic or social effects, by themselvs, are not sufficient to require preparation of an environ- mental impact statement. To help EPA determine the significant issues that should be addressed in our Environmental Assessment, EPA is interested in written comments on the potential impacts of this proposed facility. These written comments should be sent to: 2 Judith Schwarz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, M/S 443 Seattle, Washington 98101 These comments should be received by EPA no later than August 27, 1979. There will be an opportunity for further public comment on the potential environmental impacts of this facility when EPA completes and publishes this Environmental Assessment and our decision on the significance of the proposal's environmental impaots. Please contact Judith Schwarz at the above address if you would like to receive a copy of the Environ- mental Assessment and decision when it is available, or if you would like additional information on the proposed seafood processing facility and EPA)s permit application process. Sincerely, /~ . ' ~nald'P. Dubois -Regional Administrator B-2 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH LECEIVED f.JG i 5 1979 Ms. Judith Schwarz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue M/S 443 ' Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 Box 1246 KODiAK, ALASKA 99615 RE: Permit Application #AK-002-666-2 Dear Ms. Schwarz, August 10, 1979 This is to acknowledge receipt of your published annoucement and comment request regarding the Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application submitted by International Seafoods of Alaska. In looking at the announcement we can not determine exactly what is meant by a "Pollutant Discharge Elimination System". What types of Pollutants are to be discharged? How are they to be discharged? The effect they could potentially have on the environment and whether other processors have similar permits or would apply for simliar considerat- ion The Kodiak Island Borough is interested in receiving a copy of the Environ- mental assessment being prepared for this new source. We would also appreciate a copy of the E.P.A. assessment review criteria. Once we have an opportunity to review the assessment criteria we can better analyze the situtation with respect as to whether or not the Borough feels an environmental impact statement would be required. We appreciated receipt of the notice and look forward to reviewing answers to our questions with the requested permit application review process. Sincerely,_ HM/jmj cc. Borough; Manager City Manager Borough Attorney Harry Mil Plannin ector ' 7- August 22, 1879 CERTIFIED MAIL Ms. Judith Schwartz Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Ave., H-443 Seattle, WA 98101 Dear Ms. Schwartz: The City of Kodiak strongly urges the U.S' Environmental Protection Agency to require a fu}} and complete environmental impact statement with appropriate public hearings in Kodiak for International Seafoods of Alaska, |nc,/s request for a national pollutant discharge elimination systems permit. As a new source, the City is concerned that Pull evaluation be given to the potential cumulative effects this cannery outfall line will have on the enviromnent. Particularly, as it is our understanding, since the firm plans to pursue bottom fisheries processing which would increase the solid particulant matter by at least 42 percent over current outfall eliminations. It is our understanding that bottom fisheries will increase suspended solids from an average of 50 percent to 75 percent waste so|ids. The flushing action from the Near Island channel not only disperses particulant matter from the seven or so canneries lined up in the channel, but also impacts the outfall lines from the remaining canneries in the St. Paul harbor as their outfall lines are extensively extended to fall into the current pattern of the Near Island channel. We also observe the potential for northeast flow current through the channel having a build-up effect on reefs and thereby creating a situa- tion where this would cumulatively add negatively to the aqua-environ- ment in the broader channel between Kodiak and Woody Island' We also ask for a full evaluation of the environmental impact of added captured waste material from this plant to the Bio-Dry processing which could increase air pollutants over current levels. Additionally, we are concern with the economic problems that an addi- tional and major plant could produce on City and Borough support services, l'e' the capacity to deliver sufficient quantities of water especially with the sudden and healthy reemergence of the shrimp industry that requires extensive quantities of water. International Seafoods has indicated that they need an average of 50 gallons per minute which POST [}f|CEBC)) 1397.KO0AK HlfalP9615 PHONE (907) 486'3224 8-4 Ms' Judith Schwartz Page 2 August 22, 1979 . computes to approximately 26 million gallons annually. That amount could dramatically increase and place an overload demand on City reser- voirs and mains. Another economic consideration relating to City 'iervices would be the additional cannery in an already overcrowded industrial section, thereby restricting traffic Flows (]80 additional employees) and even eliminating effective fire protection during winter and ice conditions on substandard right-of-ways For'cannaries beyond International Seafoods. The gravity of this concern is measured by th e fact that no provisions have been \ \ made for parking beyond one parking space. The same economic and public safety considerations apply to rescue/emergency and police services. There are no other roads into the Tagura Road area past International Seafoods. The City envisions literally hundreds of thousands of dollars required to repair the public right-of-ways and services to compensate For exis- tence of International Seafoods at the proposed site on Tagura Road. Finally, there should be an assessment of available housing in the community before a potential three hundred new employees, as stated by International Seafood executives, are added to the community's limited housing market. We feel the potential harm is sufficient to require full examination of International Seafood, |nc./s request for a wastewater discharge permit for the proposed processing plant in Kodiak, leading to a complete environmental impact statement. Please convey your department's copy of the environmental impact statement and decision when it is available to my office. Most sincerely, CITY OF KOD(&K -- Clair W. Harmony City Manager CWH/yb cc: Hal Horton, Attorney Judge Roy Madsen Co\, Smith, Army Corps of Engineers Rear Admiral Duin, U. S. Coast Guard International Seafoods, Inc. Ted West Representative Don Young Senator Ted Stevens Senator Mike Gravel Governor Jay Hammond Representative Fred Zharoff Senator Bob Mulcahy Capt. Beach, U.S.C.G. Support Center Kodiak Dan Crevensten, EPA, Anchorage 8-5 ��' September 17, 1979. Alexandra B. Smith, Chief Environmental Evaluations U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Dear Ms. Smith: RECEIVED SEP 2 4 1979 RE: International Seafoods of Alaska NPDES Application AK- 002666 -2 As an addendum to the City of Kodiak's timely objection to the issuance of discharge elimination systems permit for International Seafoods, we would like to add the following commentary on the specifics of the firm's application now that we are in receipt of the complete documents. The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission has forwarded the application sent to them by your office. Under the applicant's response to questions relating to future seafood plants, specifically section IV, Social Economic Impacts, we find that subparagraph 4 is not accurate as evidenced by the attached Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning letter concerning the matter. The Planning and Zoning letter indicates that International Seafoods is not in compliance with the Kodiak Island Borough parking ordinance which requires one parking space for every four hundred square feet of gross floor space or one parking space for every three employees, whichever results in the greatest number of parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning letter to the City of Kodiak in effect says that the off street parking ordinance applied to the industrial zoning code. There had been some confusion,as to its applica- tion, but since that time the Planning and Zoning Commission has clarified the issue. Since the City of Kodiak has not issued a building permit (though International Seafoods is building under court authorization) the project is clearly not in compliance with zoning requirements. Section II, subparagraph 5 of the same section of the company's application indicates, "water depth at midchannel is twenty -three plus fathoms ". However, our depth ratings indicate that the actual depth at midchannel is five to seven fathoms. (See attached sounding chart of Near Island Channel in front of International Seafoods). POSE OFFICE BOX 1397. VODIAK . A1._ASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486 -3224 B -6 Alexandra B. Smith, Chief~ Page 2 September 17' 1979 Under facility description, subsection ''E//, subparagraph 2, the application indicates that there were no public objections to the Army Corps of Engineers' dock approval and permit. This is not true and we have copied with this letter objections received by the Army Corps of Engineers from corporate ,. interests as well as a letter mailed in a timely manner, but received late from the State Division of Marine Highways. Additionally, we observed the following apparent errors: 1. On page 1-2, section V7/, Facility Intake Water, the application indicates 76 million gallons per day which should probably be 76 thousand gallons per day. 2. The proposed dock plat is incorrect according to current plans because the forward twenty feet have been removed, therefore cutting the dock in by twenty feet. However, since actual construction was ten feet forward of the presented plans to the Army Corps of Engineers, the net effect will be a thirty foot extension into the Near Island Channel forward of adjacent docks.- 3. Page 11-1 indicates a beginning discharge date of 79/5 which we now understand has been postponed. Please add these comments to our objections and areas of concern as stated in our initial correspondence with your office. Most sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK / / .,""^ � ~°_���� � Clair W. Harmony City Manager 1 / cc: Hal Horton, Attorney Judge Roy Madsen Col. Smith, Army Corps of Engineers Admiral Dean, U. S. Coast Guard International Seafoods, Inc. Representative Don Young Senator Ted Stevens Senator Mike Gravel Governor Jay Hammond Representative Fred Zharoff Senator Bob Mulcahy Capt. Beach, U.S.C.G., Kodiak Dan Crevensten, EPA, Anchorage Lt. Col. Morris, Army Corps of Engineers, D.C. Kodiak Planning and Zoning Commission B-7 Vs' N. V II' /to 330 , I% „,o,..,1,,,,/ o \‘°' 330 ,/,, ,,,c1),„...,,,,..\'''s2.,:;,„1,,I.1..../1,,,",,,,,,,, 64 ''',/,,••• V11.1.1'17".., ''''% /440 •;,,,:., '''.::„. > •/... %,.., uo / C. % ',,,,, ‘1.v. : -----; t 7.- : -:▪ ::,, -:„..- *I( c) N ■-": rS i -14.0 • -- - .... 0—. \,,' s,‘"\ 4, " ''..---.5 00 ------.'-'''''' >,, ;'"', ' ....0 >,,,7/,,r ,iflaIN‘\ ' ■N'A '''''' „0 711,1rio,stiitto,o.t."'‘ I ' 0.0 e 11,44norfottim..tvolli.:04 -1C 2 To riticISPEE-15-474-1,44-11. 14' /**•• ri„I1Doln I on 60a:aceh°n"°'nr q.'"1";;.;;.:$ 810,1)0144,1i Mon orlcl'n Spot, Taw, r4 0„ ▪ —■"- • ' • .......... P.' 9 • - • rh, • 1, Oft$,,e /01 4 ... ".• HOS 7. A N C Ft 6 4sec 1..../.'' INN E .8:: 774 8 7: i eii S4t 7 s 2 6,s4 ., 4" S °: 6,/ ? ),"...,.:::..." ...' ,..." *4/...:•-•i' 91 se ,;• ,:* .... '?A ' 7: 8 • •••: :;;::...41 ID; ' \, .,:' i' . CW"1 , , ..... • ,7.: 64, 0 8: 9/ ,....•;.; * ,.• • . • 6; ,... ..... .5,, --- 8' 13 7' .''' • l' I ..... :..., . .., . , , . .................. ......, .. ......... 'Ns 2; r 8 aki/ ..• • 184 • 2;‘.• •q1". " 5 6 I ...• ' ...... !,* ' ' , .° LI 6. : "....• . 4, . . , . IP ...i /.' ' : .. i 6" I..... .. , . .. ,... 6; ; 17 . • 4.- 6 ....• , • , - 0 % ‘C.. „,„,...... ...:..g., :1 . , ... )' .' • 1 r • ....... ,, • • - • ...*/ ' ., ' ...• • °Of :''' 124' /76 KODIAK BOROUGH ISLAND ���������J���� ��������=�� �~° �~� ��-���-� -���~~� 7 7' Mr. Clair Harmony City Manager Box 1396 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Telephones 486~ 736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 ALASKA 99615 September 6, 1979 Dear Mr. Harmony, This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 4, 1979, to the-Planning and Zoning Commission' During a work session on September 5, 1979, the Commission reviewed your letter and asked that I respond on their behalf. The Commission stated it was their intent that the interpretation is applicable to all permitt issued on or after August 16, 1979' Thus any permit in process but not yet issued as of August 16, I979 is sub- ject to the interpretation. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the verbatim text of the motion of interpretation and the text of the motion establish- ing an effective date. As to the application of the ComtissiVn's action to International Seafoods of Alaska's building permit application if the permit was not .issued until on or after 8:00 a.m. August 16, 1979, the application is subject to the Commission's interpretation. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If ymu_ have any questions regordinq this or other matters do not hesitate to call upon us. CC: Borough Mayor Borough Assembly P & Z Commission Borough Attorney Borough Manager International Seafoods of Alaska Enclosure: 8-9 Sincerely, Harry �' fgan Planning Director ',�s? /5; i5-7.'/,- 4 'Z�or— Mrs. Crowe moves that the Commission intreoret the Ordinance to reT2ire off- street parking in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.57.010 in the Industrial and Industrial Reserve districts, but no retroactive effect on the existing buildings in these zones. Seconded by !1r. Pugh. ::otion PASSED by unanimous roll ca 1l vote. 1r. Pugh moves the Commission directs the staff as of August 15, 1(..'7" that all building oermits that are issued in the Industrial and Industrial Reserve zones be renuired to Peet the intrerretation of this ordnance that we made tonight. Seconded by ;otion PASSED by unanimous roll call vote. __ Fetruary Z . :L • Y" Public :otice 11 ,PCU No. 7 t - LYL -L- ' :02::v Alaska Dis_tr1% . .Corps of tn�inzers P. O. o.- 1 . P c::orazr, Alar,ka Attentior atorr 'uncLio:rs -Lear S We h2re'zy protest ti: pro ;oscti as outlined I n • i e captioned r u:. Cur ob sc iu:. ; are b sicoi iy the January -20. iy73 (cep, enciose::) Eastpoirit r:.:.:.;.an . ^son -i into ;gear Isian. 4 :: r. ca. r 1 t r Jf to the pro;;os 1 atic;. by H•e With advent or: 2C) mil, limit _nd resultant i nc L ai r e s c activ i t f ar, { fer th.:tnr e;c; sac.. a -cn. i: _ •a channel l wu:l ;/ . T y 1y:7 1 very real it3Z3"t':+s z�? the : �� I T`.:j r w':....�: and her pa5z::;i',:cr5. r. T::7 • E:ic i tsar= Very t. yours Captain N. A. St tson . . Port Captain bc:: ii st r, +f i •::.�- .Ci'��:"- 1 �':j r.:, ��V aiet li create .i V-r: i TRLN 6. YAGMISOH. WASH.. CNNRYAN C. S1 =NNii. MISS, ,...(1.1T C. BIRO. W. VA, r,WAl1 PROXMIRC. WIS. p.U.EL K. INOUTE. HAWAII ZANIEST T. HOLLINGS. S.C. Qt RCN LATH. INO. THOMAS r. (AGLETON. MO. LAWTON CHILLS. rLA. J. sLNNCrr JOHNSTON, LA. WALT(R 0. HUOOLZSTOM. KT. QUENTIN M. BUROICX. N, OAR, PATRICK J. LEAHY, VT. JIM SASSIER, TENN. CENNIS OL CONC H% ARIZ. CALL BUMPERS, ARK. JOHN A. DURKIN. M.H. MILTON R. YOUNG. M. OAR. YARN O. HATTIGLD. 00(0. TLO STCV((S, ALASKA CHARLES RIC C. MATMIAS. JR.. MO. RICNARO S. SCNW(IKER. NLMRY •LLL.MON. OKLA. LCNGLL P. W(ICKER, JR., CONN. SAM(S A. MC CLURL. i0ANO PAUL LAXALT. NCV. JARG CAMP. UTAH HARRISON SCHMITT. M. MEX. W. rCATMCRSTONC RE10. STAPP OIRGCTOR 30t. E. BOMMCR. JR., MINORITY STArr OIRCCTOR Mr. Donald Dubois Regional Administrator, Region X Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Mr. Dubois: ?JCrrifeb .- fczfes Zerrafe COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510 August 31, 1979 Enclosed is a copy of a letter that was recently sent. to Ms. Judith Schwartz of the EPA Region X staff from Mr. Clair Harmony, City Manager of the City of Kodiak, Alaska, Mr. Harmony was extremely concerned about the proposal to construct the International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. cannery. It would be appreciated if you would review this matter and give serious consideration to the request of the representa- tive of Kodiak for a complete environmental impact statement on the proposal. It is significant that the local government has made this request since it will have a dramatic and direct impact on the local environment. In addition, it would be appreciated if you would provide my office with a copy of Ms. Schwartz' response to Mr. Harmony's letter of August 22. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. With best wishes, Enclosure "'La =RV' NS Unite: States Senator rL), I '_I(.I l.i . • -12 R . E1VED " SEP../ 71979 HATER alY /S1pR 4 RECEIVED SEP 17 1979: . ��n_ci e • P.O. Box 1293 Kodiak, Ak. 99615 Aug. 22, 1979 Judith Schwarz U..S: Environmental Protection Agency . • Region 10 1200 Sixth Ave. M-S 443 Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Ms. Schwarz: As a member of the Kodiak coMmunity, I feel it is my duty to write and tell you my feelings on International Seafoods of Alas- ka, Inc. and their proposed plant and dock. Kodiak is &small community with alot of.:new construction and alot of poor plan- ning in the past. Many canneries in town do not have adequate . parking for their employees right now.. :These are the canneries that came and founded the fisheries here. I believe these can- neries are given Grandfather rights and that.our local officials .need to establish rules for futurd-grb1=.7th. All building should develop with community growth in mind. The ISA site has one parking space. Their dock permit only allows for one medium width vessel to be tied at it. There is no room for future addi- tion to the building. The State ferry has objected the dock ex- tension for navigational hazards. Our local habormaster has voiced his objection publicly until ISA had a court order put on the City to leave construction alone. As a fisherman's wife, I have .read about Moon Corp.'s on the East Coast dealing unfairly. Many communities have tried to stop them from coming in and are faced with court battles, and average citizens commit acts of violence against Moon out of fear. The Vice President, Ted West, quoted from an article in the-Seattle Times, said he knew a sister corporation plans to bring at least two fishing vessels up right away. My husband fishes very hard and would not want to share on a limited quota with a vessel that was owned by Moon. After it was announced that International Seafoods was linked with the Unification Church and Moon, I began researching this and other cults. 1 have access to the report, "Investigation of Korean-American Relations" by the Subcommittee of the Committee on International Relations, U. S. House of Representatives-dated Oct. 31, 1978, printed by-the U.S. Government Printing Office. Page 313--Reverend Moon was the key figure in an international network of organizations engaged in economic and political as well as religious activities. The numerous churches, businesses, committees, foundations, and other groups associated with' Sun Myung Moon emerged as parts of what is essentially one world-wide organization, under the centralized direction and control of Moon. Page 315--Moon states "We must approach from every angle of life; Page Two otherwise, we cannot absorb the whole population of the world. We must besiege them." If Kodiak is forced, without Government help in this issue, to allow this dock extension, vessels will move on to other Alaskan areas. This will create a hardship for the entire State of Alas- ka. The city will have the burden of parking problems on Tagura Road. I also wonder if the ISA discharge line will not also create problems with passing vessels, either at low water or if two vessels meet in the narrow channel and have to swing wide to pass. I personally feel that your agency should hold public hear- ihgs on the complete issue. Thank you for your time on this matter. Sincerely, Shari Wick /VUk . SPA hQa re ce.ive.d �4�nts September 20.1979 1 t.},Qr ��cre� I /�, G� i z¢ns o 4 IZokia k. P.O. Box 34 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Judith Schwartz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue -M -S 443 Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Ms. Schwartz, RECEIVED OCT 9 1979 EPA- EIS As a resident of Kodiak, Alaska watching the_ proceedings of the International Seafoods. Inc. cannery, under the spiritual oversight of the Unification Church (Rev. Sun Myung'Moon); I would like to express my concern over the impact such a plant is likely to have upon the city in general and•the neighborhood in particular. All testimony that I can gather from other communities where this organization has established a business shoes that the community has suffered economically as well as socially. In the Seattle Times, July 22,1979, Stanley a Twardy Jr. minority counsel for the Senate Select Committee on Small Business, is conducting a preliminary investigation of the project. "The investigators apoarpntly are trying to link Moon with possible unfair fishing industry activities. Senator Lowell P. Weicker,Jr. of Connecticut is the ranking Republican on that committee. Senator Weicker is particularly concerned because the (fishing) industry is made. up of small businesses that could be ripe for economic•dominance." Moreover, according to Dave Woodruff, vice president of Alaska Fresh Seafoods Inc. and deputy mayor of Kodiak states that" "It•s nothing but a money making organization using religion a;a a front." -Tn simple words,these people of the Unification Church are classified as "undesirables" by those who have had to live and work with them. Such as in Gloucester, Mass. where the Moonie firm was buying lobster from fisherman for 10:cents over the market price and'selling 30 cents low. Their plant is being built-in an area which is partly residential and partly industrial.. The road leading to this area is very narrow and congested, already creating a traffic hazard. The employment of approximately 150 more employees by International'Seafoods would completely overload the area beyond capacity. Futhermore, -there is no parking space available and the cannery has made provision for only one (1) parking spot. -Their plan is to bus the workers to the cannery utilizing- mini - busses which carry 1'0 to 13 passengers each. B -15 With 3 mini - busses`; that comes up to 5 trips each, at least twice a day at shift change time, and still does not provide ananswer to where the busses will be parked. There are numerous houses close by, with small children and it is my concern that the increased traffic may cause a hazard to those children. The road is unpaved also, and on =dry days the dust rises in billows to the point of waking driving unsafe even with lights on, Not to mention the difficulty to homeowners trying to keep their homes clean. Other canneries in the area have approved disposal methods for their waste products but Intl. Seafoods has a "new method" which has not yet been utilized enough to be proven efficient. There seems to be some question as to the acceptance of this method even by our city building officials. .Add to all of this the fact that International Seafoods does not yet have a build- ing permit but is continuing construction on a restraining order from the superior court in Anchorage, simultaneously suing the City of Kodiak. I think that you will see that•the physical, social, and spiritual impact of this organization could be more that this small fishing community can stand. Sincerely, (_ 1 Admiral Duin Commander of the 17th Coast Guard District P.O. Box 3-5000 Juneau, AK. 99802 Dear Admiral Duin: P.O. Box 1293 Kodiak, AK. 99615 Aug. 21, 1979 ill= IMO . 2 7 1979 . Coast Guard Commandant, John B. Hayes, spoke to City Council members when he came to Kodiak, Aug. 15-17. He assured the Council members, after he viewed the site and learned of all the problems with the project, that he was going to recommend that the Army Corp of Engineers withdraw the .dock permit. He requested the Corp begin the complete permit process over again and hold new public hearings before issuing a Corp permit for International Seafoods of AK, Inc. We feel that our City Council members are responding to the public concern over the proposed cannery and dock.of ISA. Tagura Road is quoted as the most narrow and limited road in Kodiak. Vessels using the channel must engage in a course chanze in the area of the dock extension. The channel is used for the benefit of the entire community, as well as for the fishing industry. Kodiak is a growing community and the City Council is trying to protect the residents fro ALL hazards that-ISA cannery and dock will create for the City now and in the future. Upon reading a letter written to Nr. Bittner, from Capt. E. Nelson Jr., in Juneau dated Aug. 16, it appears that the Coast Guard hasn't followed through with Commandant John Hayes's recommendations on the International Seafoods project problems. We also feel that the Coast Guard and the Army Corp of Engineers have a roll that must be exercised to ensure that Kodiak residents and an expanding fleet are afforded safe channel travel and orderly waterfront development. zteLe.),__ td,t, 11471,-;;L6, cc: Army Corp. of Senator Ted Stevens Governor Jay Hammond Senator Robert Mulcahy Rep. Fred Zarhoff City of Kodiak .Judith Schwarz.-EFL . (Seattle) Jim Sweeny--EPA (Anal.) Tom Donley- Water Re_ScufGe...C.,,Ismitw Edneers /Sr Sincerely yours, (-4)`,1e-g Shari L. Wick -NN tzr .4t24:4,c,„ 411—J21, 15 tit 171 // / ) Aug. 22, 1979 The enclosed petition has been in the local Kodiak stores since-Aug.14, 1979. The local people are very concerned on the International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. This protest of the people in just one week shows that there is a very sincere interest in the planning of the proposed dock and cannery site. LAWL- ---cL•A- --C?-2-4-.-3 CI cL Cr- 1"-C) •-• • , ..LCEIVED I5 r; ; iVt7te.: \_,*; 0-0 44'1- fLtir,,, 11 #L Ol LS C. CI rX rOt B-18 PETITION International Seafoods Dock Extension We the undersigned petition the Army Corp of Engineers and the U. S. Coast Guard to deny construction of the entire proposed dock plan of International Seafoods of Alaska. • We request that the international Seafood of Alaska dock be required to extend no further into the channel than the existing Columbia Ward dock line. We the undersigned community members arc the ones who have to utilize this channel and we have determined the proposed International Seafoods of Alaska dock plan will create a safety hazard for the entire Kodiak community. ure Printed Name . Vessel/Aircraft Address (box no./street) /euizi_,4 4/../(1- ,)//i/e.g .6) . .-.P.--5‘ . // ..? 2 (2.7t. CQG c- 1\ ittlC-- .. •K V'. :-1 ' - • ,.7y 2-5-, i • e 377% S,' _?(,0 dr / . • ' ri t--7 -P. 5' / /7.. - • , ' • LEE' gtrIMC 6 &-7,- 8 --x /52 "....-\ 4 01-1 k.) •Z (_i A-1 i","' , Eta_ A e • R) 8 I - j? vrd.„ . .. •-Box a? Li i • • (.Pt' D re ‘4,-L .e.- 0- t ' .- 6, q q • \72»,-5 Eii 2 < Scile /K_i_t___ a • _ 5 ',4 TAVi/ 30 P e.) . ) . 0 Zez-fsr 6/1-'6 "/A).2 1 Rtsf-4crec. /.74:x i 7, i pciffig 14?, A i k.: bi-e:i_s 1 t LL__0111±A-re-s qvc 8cx...,--6.'... V. 6--c60101_ c' DEPARTMENT OF FMB AND GAME . August 16, 1979 RECEIVED ��� T.;~ 9O 1979 0/ r°," * � / 7 o — �� ;J.," /Lc JAY S. HAMNIONO, GOVERNOR 3zz RASPBERRY ROAD ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 9e502 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X . 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop 443 Seattle, Washington 98101 Attention: Judith Schwartz Gentlemen: Thank you for advising us of the proposal by International Seafoods of Alaska for a wastewater discharge at Kodiak. We are interested in reviewing the full proposal. Please forward us the plan for comment. Thank you. Sincerely, Ronald O. Skoog, Commissioner BY: c Bruce M. Barrett Projects Review Coordinator Habitat Protection Section B-20 ~244~ /754 rr t. • 0.7e /i ( ) r 7 NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Ltd. Ms. Judith Schwarz U.S. Environmental Protection - Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, M/S 443 Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Ms. Schwarz: ' RECEIVED u 2.0 1979 rrt �= r� 1% °; r- The proposed• seafood processing facility at Kodiak, Alaska may significantly affect both the natural and physical environments of the area. Aesthetically, the facility will have a visual impact as well as .possible'odor emissions and.attraction of scavengers to the waste discharge area. Depending on the design and operating efficiency of the facility, however, these affects can be minimized. The quality of the waste discharge receiving waters could be adversely affected if the amount of waste received exceeds the threshold capability of the water to disperse and mix the wastes. This would be of particular concern if other waste discharge facilities are in close proximity to the proposed facility. - Another consideration is a freshwater source of sufficient quantity to maintain full operation of the facility during peak periods. Although the amount of water used is usually not excessive compared to other industrial users, the affects of consumption on other users of the water resource should be considered. Engineering impacts such as slope stability, type of soils, -and potential erosion problems resulting from plant and dock facilities are potentially significant in the Kodiak area. Due to the seismic instability of the Alaskan coastline, the environment can potentially cause severe impacts upon, the facility as well : Earthquakes and potential landslides, snowslides, and tsunamis resulting from them are significant hazards which should be addressed in the Environmental Assessment. The unique and fragile Alaskan environment calls for consideration of affects upon vegetation and wildlife habitats surrounding the proposed facility. Off ected habitats may include wetlands, fish spawning streams, and wiId. fo i1inesting grounds.' Human resources should be appraised from a social and economic viewpoint. Assessment of available technical expertise to design and maintain the operation,'as well as the impacts of the plant on state and local economy are significant issues to be addressed. 835 WEST NINTH AVENUE ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 (907) 276-4216 • 600 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FAIRBANKS. ALASKA 99701 (907) 479.3115 B -21 2 We would be interested in receiving a copy of the completed Environmental Assessment and any additional information you have regarding the proposed seafood processing plant. Environmental Services Limited is an Alaskan firm with strong experience and capabilities in development suitability determination„resourse inventor and analysis, and local land use planning. We have recently completed the design and construction of a seafood processing plant for Salamatof Seafoods, Inc. \and we are currently completing an Environmental Impact Statement of tthe Settler's Bay Development Area for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In the event that an EIS is deemed necessary and you are in need of professional*assistance from an Alaskan Company, we are confident that we have the best available team to perform the service for you- lm:LM Very Truly Yours, Lynne M. Minton Environmental Services Limited ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES B-22 Appendix Calculations of Characteristics of Outfall o Head loss o Depth of water boil o Dilution o Length of plume o Width of plume o Dilution after 4 hours residence time 1. Assumptions Depth of outfall Shoreward Flow in Channel Quantity of discharge (Q) Pipe diameter Pipe material Density of seawater Density of wastewater CALCULATIONS -40 MLLW 3 ft./min. 1,023,600 GPD 12 inches fiberglass 1.021653 (surface water) 1.021664 (bottom water) 1.018714 2. Solve for velocity of discharge Velocity = Q/A V = 1,023,600 GPD/7.48 gal/ft3 (171 )(3600 sec/hr)(20 hrs) 4 V = 2.42 ft/sec • Solve for head loss Head loss according to Darcy-Weisbach equation = f 1 /d v 2 /2g f = friction factor = 0.009 1 = length = 130 ft. diameter v velocity gravity = 1 ft. = 2.42 ft/sec2 32.2 Assume friction factor f = 0.009 for fiberglass. pipe 0.009 (130)(2.42)2 = 0.1 ft. 1 2(32.2) 4. Solve for plume length using figure 15.13 in Metcaff and Eddy, Wastewatererin, McGraw Hill, Chapter 15, pages 691,-700. V „ t(dS/s) g D] 1/2 V 2 —ET gD V = dS S = D F2 Froude number Velocity at outlet Density difference between seawater and wastewater Density of wastewater Acceleration due to gravity 32.2 ft/sec Diameter of the outfall 2.42 2 1.0217 - 1.0187 (32.2)(1) = 62.72 1.0187 F2 Using Figure 15,13, enter at r- dDd find L/D L/D = 62 feet L = 52(1) or 62 feet This plume would break surface at slack tide as the horizontal component of the tide would be zero velocity. The length of the plume approaches half a parabola. As the current distorts it the sides would be distorted and lengthened. This would probably ensure that the plume would not surface when the tide ebbs and flows. However, when the tide is slack the plume length would have a strong upwelling force and until the water depth over the outfall was at least 60-65 feet the plume would show at the surface. 5. Approximate width of plume (w) = L/3 1 = 62 ft W = 62/3 = 20.6 ft. '- 6. Solve for initial dilution using Figure 15.11 from Metcaff and Eddy Yo = 40 F = 7.92 Enter graph at Yo = 40 and F = 7.92 The initial dilution is 20 times. 7. Solve for dilution due to eddy dispersion. Use Figure 15.11 Tidal velocity = 3.37 ft/sec (from Coast Guard information) Assume shoreward component = 3 ft/min low assumption From Figure 15.11 - the D 2 would be 15 times. 8. Solve for waste decay factor /03l. See Figure 15.12. Assume T = 4 hrs. ` D 3 would De 3-6 times Assume low value of 3. 9. Total Dilution = (D l/D2 = 20(15)( = 900 times dilution. Appendix D Commitment of Services to International Seafoods of Alaska • Potable Water • Bio-Dry • Kodiak Electric Association June 20, 1979 Mt. David Rogers Mantire and Pendergrast 4773 Business Park Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Tcwnsite Tideland Tract N-28 Dear Mr. Rogers: In reference to your telephone call on June 18, 1979, please be advised that the City of Kodiak will be able to handle yotir water requirements of 80 gal- lons per minute average and peak flow of 300 gallons per minute. Be further advised that the City of Kodiak rates and water shortages are covered by Ordinance, which you should familiarize yourself with. If I interpret your message correctly, you are asking for a 300 gallon a min- ute flow to the sewer sy5tem. This indicates to me you intend to dump your industrial waste into the system, which at this time is not allowed. The sewer system is not designed to accept industrial waste at this time and you will have to install ycur own outfall for this type of waste like all the -- other plants have. It will be required for you to have a seer hookUp for your other wastes, such as, restrccms and etc. Very truly yours, erman T. BeuJs Supt. of Public Works HTB/lr CC: City Manager Building Inspector JC) Ti■)CCS-TM/X-- CUASTE. wiJJ A/70 1,41Z 7-11". . Cprs/ k4trER- t-‘344)-5 cc= cLoskqwEyrobicT-FALaiinf.42; POST OFFICE DOA 1397. KODIAK . ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3(224 FISH WASTE PROCESSING CONTRACT BIO-DRY, INC. AND jnternational Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. , This contract made and entered into as of this 6Ih clay of J,„„, 197 , by and between Bio-Dry, Inc., an Oregon corporation, (hereinafter called Bio-Dry) and IntPrna•ional SAa Foods nf A[aska. Inc. (herein- after called Processor). W ITNESSETH 1. Bio-Dry operates a processing plant in Kodiak, Alaska, for the pro6essing of fish and other marine wastes (except clam and scallop sh‘lls), and desires to acquire from Processor all waste resulting from Processor's fishing operations, for processing in such plant; 2. Proccssor has fish and other marine waste resulting from Processor's fishing operations, and desires to dispose of such waste to Bio-Dry; • Mci 13ox 787 KC)D|/\K, ALASKA 99615 September 24, 1979 Mr, Ted West Vice President & General Manager International Seafoods of Alaska • Box 2995 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mr. West: This letter is to inform you that 277/480 volt three phase four wire electric service will be available to your cannery site on Tagura Road. A 1000 KVA pad-mounted transformer is in our yards and is Scheduled to be installed at your site. It is the responsibility of the consumer to provide: a) Concrete pad for the transfO r in a mutually agreed to location. b) Service conductors from the secondary bushings of the transformer to the consumer-owned switch gear. c) Outdoor-mounted cabiOet'f0r instrument transformer and meter base. d) Trench, bedding and backfill for high voltage conductors from source pole to pad-mounted Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Edwin K. Kozak, P.E. Staff Engineer EKK/lap Appendix E Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Contacted Appendix E Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Contacted EPA Alaska Operations Office Anchorage, AK Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Alaska Ecological Services Anchorage, AK Bureau of Land Management Outer Continental Shelf Office Anchorage, AK Department of Transportation U.S. Coast Guard Support Center Kodiak, AK Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Anchorage, AK Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District, Regulatory Functions Branch Anchorage, AK Department of Housing & Urban Development Federal Housing Administration Economist Anchorage, AK Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Anchorage, AK Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Agriculture Sanitarian Kodiak, AK Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries Fin Fish Management Staff Kodiak, AK Bill Lamoreaux Wally Scarboro Bill Lawrence Mike Nishimoto Larry Albert Lt. Trosvig Brad Smith Claire Jaeger Jim Wolfe Al Skinner Al Robinson Everett Stone Guy Powell Appendix E - continued Shell Fish Management Staff Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Water Quality Section Anchorage, AK Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Protection Section Anchorage, AK Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Community Planning Anchorage, AK University of Alaska Alaska Sea Grant Program Kodiak, AK City of Kodiak City Manager Kodiak Island Borough Borough Manager Planning Department Planning Director Kodiak, AK Alaska Fresh Seafoods Kodiak, AK Bio-Dry, Inc. Kodiak, AK New England Fish Company Kodiak, AK Alaska Shrimp Trawlers Association Kodiak, AK McEntire & Pendergrast - Architects Anchorage, AK Valley Mechanical, Inc. Wasilla, AK International SeafoO'ds of Alaska, Incorporated E-2 Bill Nippes Kyle Cherry Bob Flint Bruce Barrett Mark Stevens Hank Pennington Clair Harmony Stewart Denslow Harry Milligan Dave Woodruff Harry Heiberg Russ Johnson Al Burch Mike Pendergrast Ron McEntire W. F. Hunsuck David Rogers James Russell • BIBLIOGRAPHY Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 1979. Water quality standards, Juneau, AK, 34 p. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1979. Westward region shellfish report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Division of Commercial Fisheries, Westward Regional Office, Kodiak, AK, 254 p. Anonymous, 1979. Seafoods file EPA application. Kodiak Times (14 August), p 1,2. Anonymous, 1979. International Seafoods dock violates Army Corps permit. Kodiak Times (17 August), page 1,6. Dubois, D.P., 1979. Public notice to all interested government agencies, public groups and citizens on NPDES permit application from Inter- national Seafoods of Alaska, Incorporated. Regional Administrator, USEPA, Region X, p 2. International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc., 1979. National pollution discharge elimination system application for permit to discharge wastewater, standard form C - manufacturing and commercial. Kodiak, AK, unpaged. International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc., undated. Equipment data sheets. Kodiak, AK, unpaged. Kodiak Island Borough, Overall Economic Development Committee, 1979. Kodiak Island Borough overall economic development program, Kodiak, AK, p 111. Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc., 1978. Kodiak Island Borough regional plan and development strategy, summary report. Seattle, WA, p 84. Madsen, R.H., 1979. International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc., vs. the City of Kodiak, et. al. Superior Court for the Third Judicial District of Alaska, Kodiak, AK, 11 p. Nelson, D., 1979. Judge says nay to dock stoppage. The Kodiak Daily Mirror (21 August), pages 1, 3. Provant, S.G., W.T. McFall, R.K. Stewart, 1971. Studies on industrial effluent and its effect on water quality in St. Paul and Kodiak Harbors, and Gibson Cove. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, Alaska Operation Office, Anchorage, AK, p 44. Simpson Usher Jones Inc., 1977. Kodiak Island Borough outer continental shelf impact study, volume 2. Anchorage, AK, p 173. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975. Small boat harbor improvement, feasi- bility report, Kodiak Harbor, Alaska. Alaska District, Anchorage, AK, variously paged. U.S. Department of Labor, 1979. .Historical report on labor force and employ- ment, OMB. 44R1521' Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C., p 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, 1973. Alaskan seafood processing, working paper No. 83. Surveillance and Analysis Division, p 39. U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, 1974 a shrimp canning waste treatment study. EPA technical series. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974 b Development document for pro- posed effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the catfish, crab, shrimp and tuna segment of the canned and preserved seafood processing point source category. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C., 470p. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, 1975, Effects of industrial wastewater effluents on water quality in Gibson Cove and Kodiak Harbor, Kodiak, Alaska. Alaska Operations Office and Region X Surveillance and Analysis Division, Seattle, WA, p 62. U.S. Environmental Protection AgeDcy,-1975, Development document for interim final effluent limitations guidelines and proposed new source performance standards for the fish meal, salmon, bottom fish, sardine, herring, clam, oysters, scallop, and abalone segment of the canned and preserved seafood processing point source category. Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C., 539p, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, 1879. NPDES permit no. 8K-002686-2, draft permit to International Seafoods of Alaska. Alaska Operations Office, Anchorage, AK, p 13. Villamere, J., 1975. The characteristics of wastewater from British Columbia fish processing plants. Seminar on Fish Processing Plant Effluent Treat- ment and Guidelines. Sponsored by Environment Canada, Montreal Quebec, p 47-71. Zimmer, A., 1979' No time to drop International Seafoods issue. Kodiak Times (24 August), page 4. Appendix F • EPA and CEQ Criteria for determining environmental significance From: Council on Environmental Quality, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National EnVironmental Policy Act. £joc5 § 1508.27 Significantly. "Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both con- text and intensity: (a) Contest. This means that the significance of an action must .be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, nation- al), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Signifi- cance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, signifi- cance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. (b) Intensity. This refers to the se- verity of impact. Respon.sible offi- cials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be con- sidered in evaluating intensity: (1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. (2) The degree to which the pro- posed action affects public health or safety. (3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. (4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human envi- ronment are likely to be highly con- troversial. (5) The degree to which the possi- ble effects on the human environ- ment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. (6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. (7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually in- significant but cumulatively signifi- cant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumula- tively significant impact on the envi- ronment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action tempo- rary or by breaking it down into small component parts. (8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or his- torical resources. (9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be criti- cal under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. (10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. From: Environmental Protection Agency, Implementation.of Procedures on the National Environmental Policy Act. Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 118 / Monday, June 18, 1979 / Proposed Rules § 6.6a5 Criteria for preparing EISs. (a) Genera/guidelines. (1) When determining the significance of a proposed new source's impact. the responsible official shall consider both its short term and long term effects as well as its direct and indirect effects and beneficial and adverse environmental impacts as defined in 40 CFR 1508.8. (2) II EPA is proposing to issue a number of new source NPDES permits during a limited time span and in the same general geographic area. the responsible official shall examine the possibility of tiering EISs. If the permits are minor and environmentally insignificant when considered separately, the responsible official may determine that the cumulative impact of the issuance of all these permits may have a significant environmental effect and require an EIS fofthe area Each separate decision to issue an NPDES permit shall then be based on the information in this areawide EIS. • (b)Specific criteria. An EIS will be prepared when (1)The new source will-induce or • accelerate significant changes in _ industrial, commercial, agricultural. or residential land use concentrations or distributions which have the potential • for significant environmental effects. Factors that should be considered in determining if these changes are environmentally significant include but are not limited to The nature and extent of the vacant land subjuct to increased development pressure as a result of the new source: the increases in population or population density which may be induced and the ramifications of such changes: the nature of land use regulations in the affected area and (heir potential effects on develoment and the environment and the changes in the availability or demand for energy and the resulting environmental consequences. (2)The new source will directly, or .through induced development. have significant adverse'effect upon local ambient air quality, local ambient noise levels, floodplains, surface or groundwatei quality or quantity. fish. wildlife, and their natural habitats. (3) Any major part of the new source will have significant adverse effect on the habitat of threatened or endangered species on the Department of Interior's lists of threatened and endangered species. (4) The environmental impact of the issuance of a new source NPDES permit is likely to be highly controversiaL (5) The environmental impact of the issuance of a new source NPDES permit will have significant direct and adverse effect on a property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. (6) Any major part of the source will have significant adverse effects on parklands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, reservoirs or other important bodies of water. navigation projects, or agricultural lands. Permit No.: AK-002666-2 Application No.: AK-002666-2 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 5 1251 et seq; the."Act"), International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. is authorized to discharge from a facility located in Kodiak, Alaska, to receiving waters at Kodiak Harbor, in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth hereof. This permit shall become effective on This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, (five years from the effective date). Signed this day of DR &FT Director, Enforcement .Division Page 2 of 16 Permit No.: AK-002666-2 A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS, WATER QUALITY LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1. During the period beginning on the effective date and lasting through the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge process waste water from outfall serial number 001. a. Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: Discharge Limitations Daily Average Daily Maximum Total Suspended Oil & Grease Seafood Product Solids (TSS) (0&G) TSS 0&G Scallops 1.4 0.23 5.7 7.3 kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs/scallopmeat) Salmon - Hand Butchered 1.4 0.17 2.3 0.28 kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs/raw salmon) Crab Sections 3.3 0.36 9.9 1.1 kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs/raw crab) Crab Meat 5.3 0.52 16 1.6 kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs/raw crab) Halibut Kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs/raw halibut) Bottomfish (Mechanized) except Halibut and Blackcod Kg/kkg (lbS/1000 lbs/raw fish) Bottomfish (Conventional) except- Halibut and Blackcod Kg/kkg (lbS/1000 lbs/raw fish) Daily Average Total Susliended Solids (TSS) Page 3 of G Permit No. AK-002668-2 Discharge Limitations Oil & Grease 1.1 0.34 8.8 2.75 2.0 0.55 Daily Maximum TSS O&8 1.9 2.6 16.2 7.0 3.6 1.0 Blackcod-Mechanized kg/kkg (lbm/1000 lbs/raw blackcod) 8.8 11 16.2 29 Glackcad-Conventional kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs/raw blackcod) 2.0 1.55 3.6 2.9 The total discharge of total suspended solids shall be limited to a daily average and daily maximum of 3375 lbs/day and 7"335 lbs/day, respectively. The total discharge of Oil and grease shall be limited to a daily average and daily maximum of 4300 lbs/day and 11"530 lbs/day, respectively. Parameter Page 4 of 16 Permit No. AK- 002666 -2 Monitoring Requirements Measurement Frequency Sample Type Flow Continuously Total Suspended Solids 1 /week 24 hour composite Oil and Grease 1 /week Grab Settleable Solids 1 /week 24 hour composite Quantity of Raw Product Processed 1 /week - - - - in pounds or kilograms for each product listed in Part A.1.a. Production shall be measured during the same period the 24 hour composite samples are collected. The permit loading limitation based on kg /kkg Seafood (lbs /1000 lbs Seafood) shall be calculated and reported as Kg /day (lbs /day). See sample calculations on Table I. The Quantity of Raw Product Processed (pounds or kilograms) each day shall be reported with each Discharge Monitoring Report form (DMR) for the period covered by such DMR. b. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard -units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored by grab samples once weekly. c. There shall be no discharge of floating solids, visible foam in other than trace amounts or oily wastes which produce a sheen on the surface of the receiving water. d. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken after treatment and prior to discharge from outfall serial number 001. e. In the event the permittee is temporarily unable to dispose of collected seafood waste by conventional means of byproduct recovery, approved sanitary fill, or ocean dumping as allowed in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Public Ow 92 -532, the permittee may dispose of said waste in the "seafood dumping zone" identified on Figure 1. This zone is generally bordered by the Base Line to the east and the fifty (50) fathom line plotted on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Map No. 8534. Page 5 of 16 Permit No: AK-002666-2 . MONITORING AND REPORTING 1. Representative Sampling Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. 2. Reporting Monitoring results obtained during the previous month shall be summarized and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1), postmarked no later than the 14th day of the month following the completed reporting period. The first report is due . Duplicate signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the Director, Enforcement Division, and the State at the following addresses: United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Attn: Water Compliance Section M/S 513 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Region II MacKay Bldg., Room 1206 338 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 3. Definitions a. The "daily average" discharge means the total discharge by weight during a calendar month divided by the number of days in the month that the production or commercial facility was operating. Where less than daily sampling is required by this permit, the daily average discharge shall be determined by the summation of the mea- sured daily discharges divided by the number of days during the calendar month when the measurements were made. b. The "daily maximum" discharge means the total discharge by weight during any calendar day. c. •kkg = 1000 kg d. 2.2 lbs = 1 kg e. Kg = Kilogram f. lbs = pounds Page 6 of 16 Permit No.: AK-002666-2 g. Bottom-fish is Pollock, Black Cod, Pacific Cod, Sole, Flounder, and Halibut for purposes of this permit. h. Conventional bottom-f,ish processing includes the processing of bottom-fish in which the unit operations are carried out predominantly through manual methods. However, the use of scaling machines and/or skinning machines are considered to be normal practice within conventional bottom-fish processing. i. Mechanized bottom-fish processing includes processing of bottom-fish in which' the unit operations (particularly the butchering and/or filleting operations) are carried out predominately through mechanized methods. j. "Bypass means the intentional diversion of wastes from any portion of a treatment facility. k. "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which would cause them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. 1. "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary non-compliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include non-compliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. 5. Test Procedures Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to 40 C.F.R. Part 136, which contains a list of approved methods. Test procedures for analysis of oil and grease shall conform to the Sothlet extraction method with Freon TF, described in EPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes and Standard Methods, 14th Edition. 6. Recording of Results For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the re- quirements of this permit, the permittee shall record the following information: Page 7 of 16 Permit No.: AK-002666-2 a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling and measurements; b. The dates the arlalyses were performed; c. The person(s) who performed the analyses, sampling or measurements; d. The analytical techniques or methods used; and e. The results of all required analyses. 7. Records Retention All records and information resulting from the monitoring • activities required by this permit including all records of analyses performed, calibration and maintenance of instrumentation, and recordings from continuous monitoring instrumentation shall be retained for a minimum of. three (3) years, or longer if requested by the Director, Enforcement Division or the State water pollution control agency. 8. Non-Compliance Reporting a. Non-compliance notification will be made when any of the following situations occur: (i) Bypassing of any treatment facilities (Part C.5., below); ) Facility upset (Part C.6., below); ) Failure of facility (Part C.7., below); (iv) Other instances not covered by above. b. Non-compliance notification shall consist of at least the following: (i) A description of the discharge and cause of non-compliance; The period of non-compliance to include exact dates and times and/or the anticipated time when the discharge will again be in compliance, and; (iii) Steps being taken to reduce, eliminate and • prevent recurrence of the noncomplying discharge. Page 8 of 16- Permit No.: AK-002666-2 c. , Timing of report shall be consistent with the . following: ) Permittee shall report telephonically within 24-hours from the time of becoming aware of any violation of a daily maximum. A written submis- sion shall be provided within five (5) days of becoming aware of the non-compliance. Permittee shall provide a written report of any violations of the monthly average. This report shall conform to a. and b. above and be submitted concurrently with the Discharge Monitoring Report as a separate report. TABLE I Page 9 of 16 Permit No.: AK-002666-2 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS This is a sample calculation of permit loading limitations for determining compliance and reporting. Given: Discharges were sampled only 3 days within the month of May 1979. Only crab and blackcod were processed. The following table provides production data for each species processed. Pounds of Raw Product Processed Date to Crab Sections to Crab Meat as Blackcod-Mechanized 5/1/79 20,000 15,000 5/8/79 7,000 8,000 5,000 5/15/79 3,000 2,000 5,000 5/16/79-5/31/79 No Discharge from Facility Calculation of Daily Maximum Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Limitation for 5/1/79: Daily Maximum TSS Limitation = 16.2 lbs/1000 lbs raw Blackcodif x 15,000 lbs raw Blackcod + 12 lbs/1000 lbs raw Crab x 20,000 lbs raw Crab = 243 + 240 = 483 lbs/day for 5/1/79. Calculation of the Daily Average Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Limitation for previous month: Daily Average TSS Limitation = [(3.9 lbs/1000 lbs x 20,000) + (3.9 x 7,000) + (3.9 x 3,000) + (6.2 x 8,000) + (6.2 x 2,000) + (8.8 x 15,000) + (8.8 x 5,000) + (8.8 x 5,000)1 3 days?! = 333 lbs/day. 1/ From Part A.1.a 2/ This is the number of days within the month on which discharges and sampling occurred. Page 10 of 16. Permit No.: AK-002666-2 C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Reopener Clause If any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established under section 307(a) of the Act for a toxic pollutant and that standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation upon such pollutant in the permit, the Director shall institute proceedings under these regulations to modify or revoke and reissue the permit to conform to the toxic effluent standard or prohibition. 2. Modification The permit may be modified, terminated, or revoked during its term for cause as described in 40 C.F.R 122.31. Any permittee who knows or has reason to believe that any activity has occurred or will occur which would constitute cause for modification or revocation and reissuance under 40 C.F.R. 122.31 must report its plans, or such information to the Director. 3. Right of Entry The permittee shall allow the Director or an authorized representative, upon the presentation of credentials and such other documents as may be required by law, a. to enter upon the permittee's premises where a point source is located or where any records must be kept under the terms and conditions of the permit; b. to have access to and copy at reasonable times any records that must be kept under the terms and conditions of the permit; c. to inspect at reasonable times any monitoring equipment or method required in the permit; d. to inspect at reasonable times any collection, treatment, pollution management, or discharge facilities required under the permit; and e. to sample at reasonable times any discharge of pollutants. Page 11 of 16 Permit No.: AK -00 2666-2 4. Operation and Maintenance , The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and operate as efficiently as possible all facilities and systems (and related appurtenances) for collection and treatment which are installed or used by the permittee for water pollution control and abatement to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. Proper operation and maintenance includes but is not limited to effective performance based on designed facility removals, adequate funding, effective management, adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls including appropriate quality assurance procedures. 5. Bypass a. Bypass is prohibited unless all of the following four (4) conditions are met: (1) Bypass is unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage; (ii) there are no feasible alternatives to bypass, • such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment down-time; (iii) permittee makes notification in accordance with Part B.8.b. and c.; and (iv) where the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, prior notification shall be submitted for approval to the Director, if possible at least 10 days in advance. The bypass may be allowed under conditions determined to be necessary by the Director to minimize any adverse effects. The public shall be notified and given an opportunity to comment on bypass incidents of significant duration, to the extent feasible. b. Prohibition of Bypass The Director may prohibit bypass in consideration of the adverse effect of the proposed bypass or where the proposed bypass does not meet the conditions set forth in Part C.5.a., above. 6. Upsets a. Effect of an Upset An upset shall constitute an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology-based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph b. below are met. Page 12 of 16 Permit No.: AK-002666-2 b. Conditions Necessary for a Demonstration of Upset The permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: (1) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the specific cause(s) of the upset; (ii) the permitted facility was at the time being operated in a prudent and workman-like manner and in compliance with proper operation and maintenance procedures; ' (iii) the permittee submitted information required in Part 8.8.b. and c. c. Burden of Proof In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset shall have the burden of proof. 7. Failure of the Facility The permittee, in order to maintain compliance with its permit, shall control production and all discharges upon reduction, loss, or failure of the treatment facility until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies in the situation where, among other things, the primary source of power of the treatment facility is reduced, lost, or fails. The permittee shall report such instances in accordance with Part 8.8.b. and c. above. 8. Adverse Impact The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact to waters of the United States resulting from noncompliance with the permit. 9. Removed Substances Collected screenings, grit, sludges, and other solids removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner such as to prevent entry of those wastes or runoff from such materials into navigable waters unless otherwise authorized in this permit. • Page 13 of 16. Permit No.: AK-002666-2 10. Transferability of Permits This permit may be transferred to another person by the permittee if: a. The permittee notifies the Director of the proposed transfer; b. a written agreement containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility and coverage between the current and new permittees (including acknowledgement that the existing permittee is liable for violations up to that date, and.that the new permittee is liable for violations from that date on) is submitted to the Director; and c. the Director within 30 days does not notify the current permittee and the new permittee of his or her intent to modify, revoke and reissue, or terminate the permit and to require that a new application be filed rather than agreeing to the transfer of the permit. Page 14 of 16 Permit No.: AK-002666-2 . RESPONSIBILITIES I. Availability of Reports Except for data determined to be confidential under section 308 of the Act, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the State water pollution control agency and the Director, Enforcement Division. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not,be considered confidential. Knowingly making a false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for in section 309 of the Act. 2. Civil and Criminal Liability Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypass" (Part C.5.) and "Upset" (Part C.6.) and "Failure of Facility" (Part C. 7.), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance. 3. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under section 311 of the Act. 4. State Laws Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State'law or regulation under authority preserved by section 510 of the Act. 5. pLtyiligroer hts The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations. 6. Severability The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit shall not be affected thereby. Page 15 of lb' Permit No.: AK-002866~2 E. OTHER REQUIREMENTS This permit may be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to comply with any applicable effluent limitdtion issued pursuant to the order the United States District Court For the District of Columbia issued on June 8, 1979, in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. et, al v. Russell E. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (O.O.C. 1976), if the effluent limitation so issued: 1. is different in conditions or more stringent than any effluent limitation in the permit; or 2. controls any pollutant not limited in the permit. FIGURE 1. ry S. 4 bra a 5, rrr • Tq6' Page 16 of 16 Permit No.: AK- 002666 -2 ;'Gt2 t' 11'7 : t1 _ 9_'` 12 ,IJ 42 1C) 1)I:AAK RA• DAIl iq • t'Itt 11 i':tl. •..',�. `, 16 I� 20 14 17 Ir 11 I 19 21 ! :4. .11 �r I $545? i' :6 4,.'. 33' 17 70 ,� 41 ir• -IJ 48 .� 14 fh 11 16 . ri Gtic 9 IV g T :.� 4(..11. W."( r .+ 011 8 ..l' 12:. 13 .6 JI I41 . 8,,iyl) 10 . T ,.. r�°; . !J Y, i 5;' 1. ,„ T • Y1 :e4! 13`` 27 14 �''S( . 4. 6, 1 .,82•,,. { 4 13 •''. 14 .36 . r .. '' 12 1 ? GOL3t1....;. 9 ,6... ' lrr. t7 5 /Y t'r i4r'1J' 7 ,3`y Cj u, /�..'In:ir.: •.•n ul IJ 29 ^e0 r7 . 5 4''16 5i 7,;.rsr�.. r 1 14 Oilll; t' I l 4 • 17 . / ••r, • °' • 1' 'r 10 64 12 ��."'•Z' •' 13 t5 /nm•r !i:•.•,,h,'.•1I lek�'; 25 6 6(ttr7,81 "...:..„,ii '� L'r4I 16 JS 12 ,y 1; 70 :11 1 P!' • 9 (w•,,.f.",: . 15 28 1Q ` 4'utslir' l/r 10 8 .r 25 4 tr eG C"/1"‘ % ,dt /c.y+.r4 «i1 4j1 ~1C(( a3 i6'1� ..'�12 46 1ty /rPauc 5: 7 :J1.3;. ,u�. Syr IG , . 4 ti ` _ t 2 13 rrr /i. ili l 4 ,„•14, . 7 ?' II .9' 13 ' . . 311 16 10 27 31. 42 15 22 3l ' 15 12 12 II 13 ' 114 119 7'I AI 1'( . % i+ 12 I4. IJ '1 '1 33 .' % 13 � riy 17 15 ,1 t. rat, 14 / 1`1, Id 11 t7 32 a/ 's Bel( Ji /� r n' C4d 19 �•2 If 51 44 :44 211 4I 21 36 3/ 7') fly 20 62 SO 64 60 . 1 -• 10 16 1; !.zi' 17 20 n It • s1 _ :/ 12 3>� r,.• s, !.4•' 17: 26 "5 Via/ 40.•. .– ,'` ,r''' t4 i,; "3, 19 39s"«• IJ7 ray 11 ! ( 1D•.;4.••g•-• ' 18 23 311 R1� 54 121 • 21 1' +_ 119 f"-I'' vy. c9 20. 16 (l• J4 64 56 116 a+>.,m„...........,1 -1. R 104 ,,,. _ 60 p 11 { 60 N 14 54 ) '1Y 95 G2 73 70 � 70 86 99 f1? � r, i1 79, /6 �' 7th 06 Ji2(, 2y s2 103 1L ors4 °taq 4J l °I:IC 70'1:, ;;,1. '.V+,- 79 41) .4 10 / ; 9 21 • 1, 143 9 :1 pri <..•; n,:li 1' 15 r%� 19 /1 S9 4Sa — 11 11 14 li.G 1L r ./.t ,,• l/' '._ "''Il umpl.... 4. Illy 1, • 1'/ 79 5 l0 3/ 1 13 3 (I SEAFOOD -DU? ;tl 7'• • 1; I C.r' If IC r " Jule• rl/ , •• 15 �,C� f. -► ->- + 9 4+ , 111 41 • .°•y ' -'' t 11; 441 1/ '• 4 f.' II 44 IG e 14 • 44 11 '!r • „n I/ 8 • If, "l- Il Mt 1 - - - '43 •. 4 1l+'• f! 7 I' It 3. 1) li t. - _ _. :11 11 It, .hl r I } Vii '. I :3 , 1, // (I/mitt 4'11 .. .......:.:1-:ii;"f : tllr' rra,Jr 'T ;,. 1;17111717 :17..-91'�1''•lv :Lrn....17IC''. 'r�',1', ,'"°'!. oast 17411 41 co, lei 11 1.1 14/, 119 13, 19 741 25 ,• 79 140 •'16 • �1• • 1111 105 !19 11 . 34 111 124 15 - 1 , i ) 14 .51 14,,,3. • h,,., v ....0 1 ,ia ' _ 1i0. 20 it: /•t Il, 67 4: r} JI �J1�� I/, ' u j+ : i •'� 3/ 191 1:3 1 (1 :: ; 5 . 'I ' 7114 41 i 41.1 u't :14' 11 1 • :111' ! 1:, 4 71"1 11: 1.1 1 1 1 ,:•i■ 3•l 26 1•; 13 33 7n' 25 24 1; I.1 s 4• 4.• nl •; 31 1'3 I•) 1/ Su 1 +: t1 .0 34 lj .. 71 ' v4 tt.l Ir Ti:ait 1 rot.. • 73 SEA tiJ '.4: 61 all '41 76 I ti Ilill:i7" :11(1.,1...(1: ' -f - 1,4 : United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 442-1270 OTICE-OF PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NATIONAL POLLUTANT ISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT(S) TO DISCHARGE TO WATERS OF -THE UNITED STATES, NOTICE OF A PRELIMINARY FINDING OF NO STGNEK. • • KODi . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, AND RUM" NOTICE OF STATE CERTIFICATION- N 0\J 2, 197'3 US 2 31400 1ft 00141112‘11 AK-002666-2 - November 2,.1979 December 7•, 1979 Public Notice No.: Public Notice Issuance Date: Public Notice Expiration Date: 1. Applicant: International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. P.O. Box 2995 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 (a) ' The applicant has applied for a National Pollutant -Discharge. Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge pollutants to navigable Waters pursuant to the provisions of the Clean Water Act. The applicant proposes to operate a seafood processing facility.(S.I.C. 2092) located in Kodiak.,' Alaska. Discharges resulting from the processing operations will be to Kodiak Harbor (Near Island Channel), which is ' classified as Type II/Marine Waters according to the State's federally approved-water quality standards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has tentatively determined to issue a dischatge perMit to the above listed applicant subject to,certain effluent limitations and other conditions necessary to carry out the provisions of the Clean Water Act. (b) The applicant has been determined to be a new source. As a new source, the proposed facility has been evaluated under the environmental review procedures for the new source NPDES permit program. This review process included the preparation of an environmental assessment. The assessment has indicated that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated from the proposed facility. Consequently, EPA has made a preliminary decision to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) wh±ch includes a decision to not prepare an environmental impact statement. 2. Public Hearing This Notice serves as a public notice for a Publi Ong:Itto discuss EPA's proposed actions to issue an NPDES permit ; n FNSI. The hearing will be held on Monday,•Decembe 3 in the Kodiak Island • Borough Assembly Chambers, BEoul.��'.,' Administration Building, 700 .Upper Mill Bay Road, odia,c Alaska. The hearing will begin at 3:00 pm, with 'a bre k at about 5:30 pm, and resume at 7:00 pm. Any .person appeaVt g at this hearing may submit written and /or oral comments. 3. -State Certification: This Notice also serves as public notice of the intent of the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation to consider certifying. that the subject discharges will comply with the applicable 'provisions of Sections 208(e),301, 302., 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water ,Act. The NPDES 'permit will not be 'issued until the certification requiremen'ts of Section' ' 401 have been met. • 4. Public Comments The issuance of the NPDES permit and 'FNSI as described above are EPA's proposed actions. Before any final actions are taken, EPA solicits comments from all interested persons and agencies on the proposed actions. :EPA ;shall consider all comments before any final .actions are taken..; EPA is espe- cially interested in comments on the potential environmental significance of the proposed actions, adequacy, of the en- vironmental assessment, and the effluent limitations and conditions of NPDES permit.:, All comments - should .include. the name and' address * of the commentator,'and concise statements of the relevant..back- ground,'documentation or facts which the-Comment is based upon. Written comments should be submitted to. the Director,. En- forcement Division (Mail .Stop 521) EPA, :1200" Sixth Avenue, ' Seattle, Washington -98101, by December 7, 1979, or presented to EPA at the Public Hearing. Oral comments will be accepted at the Public Hearing. Persons wishing to comment on the State Certification should submit written comments to the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, Central Office, Pouch 0, Juneau, Alaska 99811, by December 7, 1979. 5. Administrative Record The proposed NPDES permit, FNSI, EA and other related doc- uments are on file and may be inspected and copies made in Room 11D. at the above address any time between 8:30 am and 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Copies of the documents and other information may be requested by writing to EPA at the above address to the attention of Kim Wilson, New Source Permits Section-M/S 521, or by calling (206) 442-1270. A copying machine is available in the Seattle office for public use at a charge of 20 cents per copy sheet. 6. Availability of Documents The proposed NPDES permit, Fact Sheet, FNSI, and EA are available from the EPA Seattle office, the EPA Alaska Operations Office, Room E535, Federal Building, 701 C Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99513, A. 'Holmes Johnson Memorial Library (Kodiak,Alaska), City Clerk, City of Kodiak, and the Borough Clerk, Kodiak Island Borough.. Please bring this information to the attention Of other persons who may be interested in this matter. �._ t'f (`I 4 oc 4 '9 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH • Telephones 486-5736 - 486.5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 4, 1979 TO: Harry Milligan FROM: Bryce Gordon SUBJ: Infromation Report RE: International Seafoods of Alaska On September 18, 1979, John Stafford and Morris Lee posted a stop work order on the International Seafoods of Alaska Inc. On September 24, 1979, Judge Madson resended the stop work order. The City Building Official questioned the validity of constructing a building without. inspections. Morris Lee, said he.would not be able to issue a Certificate of Occupancy without knowing what took place with in the building. The City lawyer and International Seafoods' lawyer came to an agreement that.it should be inspected, they said that all inspections . have been made just as though a permit had been issued. On October 1, 1979, I inspected the foundation.with Morris Lee; we inspected the area where the loading dock will be. The have formed the side foundation walls and will pour:them on October 5, 1979. The three pictures were taken at 2 p.m., October 4, 1979. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD VV. GARNETT III THOMAS F. KLINKNER SUITE 540, 900 WEST FIFTH AVENUE ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 TEL. (907) 276-2221 TO: Mayor and Assembly FROM: Richard W. Garnett, III, Borough Attorney DATE: September 28, 1979 RE: International Seafoods CONFIDENTIAL • K(ANAK, 2 1979 A You have asked for the current legal status of the International Seafoods controversy. As you know, Judge Madsen enjoined the City of Kodiak from interfering with construction on the project. On July 18, 1979, the manager of the City of Kodiak requested that the Borough Planning Commission review the Borough Administration's decision that off-street parking was not required in industrial-zone districts. The commission decided to conduct such a review, and moved to revoke the Borough Administration's approval of International Seafoods' building permit application in the interim. At its August 15 meeting'the Commission interpreted the zoning ordinance to require off-street parking in industrial zone districts, but directed that this decision apply only prospectively. When asked to clarify the scope of the application of its decision, the CoMmission responded that the decision applied to all building,permits issued on or after August 16,A.979, specifically stating that the decision applied to the pending building permit application of International Seafoods. On September 25, I received a copy of a new complaint by International Seafoods against the Borough and the Planning Commission. International Seafoods attacks the Commission's action on three principal grounds: (1) the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue a decision having binding legal effect, (2) the Commission's interpretation is incorrect in any event, and (3) the Borough's past practice of approving construction without off-street parking in industrial zone districts now prevents the Borough from adopting a contrary position. With regard to the first issue, International Seafoods may be correct - the ordinance does not appear to confer specific authority on the Commission to enforce its interpretations directly. However, the City still is required by law to adhere to the zoning ordinance in issuing building permits. While the issue is not free from doubt, it is my opinion that the zoning ordinance does require off-street parking in industrial zone districts. A more detailed discussion of that issue is attached. Whether the Borough's alleged past failure to enforce off-street parking requirements Law Offices of RICHARD W. GARNETT 11T Mayor and Assembly September 28, 1979 Page' Two 4n industrial zone districts prevents it from adopting a contrary position now is a more difficult question. The general rule is that the erroneous issuance of a building permit does not preclude the enforcement of the law against the permittee by revocation of the permit or issuing a stop work order once the error has been discovered. However, if the Borough has approved several permits in the past contrary to the present, interpretation of the zoning ordinance, it is difficult to know whether that past practice would lead to a result contrary to the general rule. I contacted the attorney for International Seafoods. He takes the position that the Borough's stop work order is without legal effect. Accordingly, if the Assembly wishes to pursue enforcement of the Commission's decision it would be necessary for the Assembly.to authorize that action. I have also spoken to the attorney for the City in this matter. Naturally, he welcomes the Borough's,involvment, and suggests that we move to consolidate the two cases in order to obtain certain procedural advantages. If-the Borough persuaded the Court that the Commission's interpretation of the ordinance is rational, timely, and motivated by sound planning considerations, the interpretation could be enforced by injunction or misdemeanor citation. If the Borough is unsuccessful in this regard, it could become liable to International for costs and attorney's fees. The complaint includes a claim for actual and punitive damages, but it is difficult to see how International can suffer substantial damages so long as construction continues under court order. Moreover, state statute, AS 09.65.070(d), provides that municipalities are immune from suits for damages: based on the grant, issuance, refusal, suspension, delay or denial of a permit, appeal, approval, exception, variance, or other entitlement, or a rezoning. This provision should protect the Borough in this case from liability for damages. However, I should indicate that the statute has not been tested in the State Supreme Court and, in some cases, might not be applied according to its original terms. Moreover, it is always possible in a case of this sort that plaintiffs will claim violation of their rights under the Federal Civil Rights laws. If the plaintiffs could convince a judge or jury that the Borough's actions RICHARD W. GI-ARNE Mayor and Assembly September 28, 1979 Page Three were arbitrary or discriminatory, an award of damages is a possibility. Basically the decision is a matter of Borough enforcement policy. The circumstances of this case make it unusually difficult legally. The main problem is the apparent lack of enforcement in the past, coupled with the fact that International application was complete prior to the Commission's interpretation. On the other hand, if substantial harm can be shown to result from the lack of adequate parking, the Borough may have some chance of prevailing. It would be important to point out to the court the planning grounds for the decision and the fact that the Borough recently publicized its intention to enforce zoning provisions strictly. At best, though, it is impossible to predict a successful outcome to this litigation with any degree of confidence. In summary it seems that the Borough has four basic options. It could: 1. direct that the Commission's decision not apply to International's application because the decision came only after the filing of that application 2. seek immediate injuctive relief enforcing the Commission's decision. answer the complaint in the current action and simply litigate on the merits of the validity of the Comissions's interpretation. 4. Argue that since the Commission's interpretation is not legally binding, the only controversy is between the City and International Seafoods, and that the Borough is not a proper party to the litigation. Please let me know whether you have any additional questions regarding this matter. Yours truly, Richard W. Garnett, III RWG/1 Thursday, September 6, 1979— KODIAK DAILY MIRROR-:-Page ter ti r (Continued from Page 1) Rogers, plant manager, and wasn't a decision the Rev. Moon favored. tell him, what we should do, ". West said, stressing that the processing plant would be run like any other business; and employees would be hired on the `- -is of .technical skill, not a religion. '.c.' "I've • had to 'fire ''church members," Rogers said, ex- plaining that zeal' and good will did not compensate for. lack of skills or technical knowledge:,;:: The. church members involved nr: `setting'::up'. lnternationaI Seafoods expressed; :pleasuref at " :being able-A° de-a :job they en: joyed that they also felt would be helpful to the community within the goals of their church. " Non - church members '."expressed enthusiasm at the chance to carry but their ideas on how to :develop. ; a : modern , seafood processing : and . marketing operation: Lindner' said that "Moonie5 Dear Sir, The projected establishment of a seafood processing facility here in Kodiak by the Unification Church appears - to be a frequently discussed and highly emotional issue, :inducing - a variety of reactions ranging from complacent . apathy to vociferous outrage. This plethora of dissimilar opinions about the potential influx of "Moonies" tends to support the conclusion that a great many " -liak residents are unsure or lequately informed about this ___ and its range of activities:: We, as individuals and members of a community, must thus ensure that our evaluations of this organization are based not on prejudicial misconception or spurious hearsay. but thorough interpretation of facts.,. - The Unification Church, since its founding in 1954, has grown to a present membership of ap- proximately two -. million worldwide, including over 30,000 in the U.S, alone, the majority of whom are young people in their wenties and thirties.' • The "Moonies", " s , or: followers' of the patriarchal Reverend Sun Myung Moon; are involved in a wide v.ariety of projects -and' financial investments which serve to supplement the income derived from contributions, -which . according . to :the Washington; :Post amount to $6,000,000 yearly. • Indeed, a cursory observation tends to provide us with a picture of dedicated; hard working in- dividuals with a shrewd business sense and an innate flair for fund raising. But let us look deeper into the reality of this . cult and its 'diligently devoted members. This in itself is no easy task, as their adeptness at showing the public only what they -'wish it.to . see: is: only;:one many- - talents ..that. this —cult displays,.: Nonetheless; it is not difficult to perceive' the - secrecy and social alienation that are integral- parts of this cult's basic framework: We must delve past the readily proffered .exterior and, much H mm rod t gun Gov. Jay Hammond said, on the eve of his meeting with the heads of government . of the tr nks 'Stuart. M. Hodgson ;. will be "presented : to 'the`: team; thit participates in the 1980 games.in • like,a.;surgeon seeking a tumor; investigate, the- ideals and in- tentions that - remain so faithfully concealed. - We- :cannot equitably chastise this group for their forthright desire- to expand'financially, :• provided that expansion is at tained within the limits of the law.. Nor can we usurp their right...to. ,believe in . their own religious .convictions, however much or little they may differ from our own. - It is their recruitment techniques . and , subsequent' tearing down and rebuilding of character that ..should• :receive - our. unhesitant -and unrestrained condemnation. To.,witness the ideological 'alterations in .young persons after their induction into the •Unification Church is to see a shock.ing'- metamorphosis . of -spirit.and- ego-that inevitably `results • in the- forsaking of family, friends and all previous values: • Where once was a sense of ...individualism,. now exists • only .the-,hopeless and perfunctory dedication ! of an automaton. Where existed an energetic imagination, . now only the • pragmatism -of duty remains. Indeed,, where once there was a human. identity, 'replete with didn't want to found a church" but wanted people to worship God in their everyday lives. "We don't support church buildings. We don't support ministers," Lindner said. Church members, worship together in each other's homes, she explained. Church funds are used to develop study programs, she said. Lindner, West and Rogers all 1' Kole der FRIDAY Square Dance Class - 7 - 8:30 . p.m. KEA; Square Dance Club 8:30 - 10 p.m. KEA. Museum 11 a.m. - 3 p.m. Well Baby Clinic, Call for ap- pointment, 486 -3319, Health Center. A. Holmes Johnson Library 1 -9 p.m. Ram Committee Weekly break- fast meeting, 6:45 a.m. Shelikof Lodge. Kodiak Women in Crisis IiELPLINE 486 -3625 said the appea of the church to them had been its stress on taking an active role. There are no plans to bring in church members to work in the proposed International Seafoods plant, West said. Right now the staff of eight contains only four church members, he said, and, at most, the processing plant would not employ more than 10 church members. Rewards offered A reward of $1,000 is being offered by the United Fisher- men's Marketing Association for any information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone found stealing fishing gear either from storage or the fishing grounds, and anyone found robbing pots of crab. A further policy is being developed, Jeff Stephan, association . manager, said, which will allow the association to offer a larger reward for any information leading to the conviction of gear and pot robbers as well as creek rob- bers— those who illegally fish harvest salmon commercially from streams. A A Planning & Zoning Commission Kodiak Island Borough 700 Upper Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Ak. 99615 Dear Sirs, Ted West asked me to send you the enclosed. 01 MI VIVO internationalG8eafart OF ALASKA, INC. September 26th, 1979 The project to date has been complex and multifaceted and, while the enclosures reflect various aspects, they do not reveal our vision for an Alaskan'product -.- • We have zeroed our sights at a first of the year target date and are more determined than ever to push beyond the barriers and to win for Alaska the reputation of the highest quality. of seafood products. Yours sincerely, Isabella Maka Secretary to Ted H. West Vice President & General Manager Encs. JHR /IAM Kodiak island Borth Engineering Departraecat RECEIVED SEP A 1979 6 PM Pouch ISA, KODIAK,AK.99615 TELEPHONE: 907- 486 -3994 SIME OF 111MM DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POUCH EE DIVISION OF ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811 Ay S. NANNOND, GOVERNOR August 17, 1979 Mr. Ted H. West, General Manager International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. P.O. Box 2995 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mr. West: Thank you for taking the time to stop in Juneau last week and brief us on the progress of your plant development in Kodiak, the effort which has been made to design the most efficient and modern processing facility possible is obvious. I would expect that it will offer a model for others to follow. The State has actively encouraged the development of shorebased processing facilities for bottomfish species and the diversification of the seafood industry which that kind of production implies. Your project seems to fit those objectives very well. The addition of this facility in Kodiak will substantially increase existing capacity to handle bottomfish and should provide a welcome market to local fisher- men. S i n 1 y, RER/jar5/6 Richard E. Reynolds Development Specialist V' IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ALASKA, INC., an Alaska Corporation, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF KODIAK; DAVE WOODRUFF, ERNIE MILLS, WILTON WHITE, GAYNELL HATCHER, TOM LOGAN, CAROL LECHNER, JAMES POTTER, TONY EATON, Council Members of the City of Kodiak; GARY STEVENS, Mayor of the City of Kodiak; MORRIS LEE,' Building Official of the City of Kodiak; and, JOHN STAFFORD, Engineer of the City' of Kodiak, Defendants. Piled STATE oF 41' .1.;7A JUL1 Cie,* 8y I I COurts deputy Civil No. 3AN 79-5015 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THIS MATTER came on regularly for hearing upon the plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order supported by the pleadings, affidavits, and memoranda .of record. The Court, being fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that the refusal of the City of Kodiak to issue a building permit for a dock facility to International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. will result in immediate and irreparable harm to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has raised substantial questions. regarding the propriety of defendant City of Kodiak's action in denying the issuance of the building permit in that it appears that all requirements for the issuance thereof have been met by the plaintiff, and that all that remains to be done is the ministerial act of issuance by defendants. All requirements for the granting of a temporary restraining order having been met; therefore: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED That the defendants, their officers, agents and employees and those persons in active concert or participa- tion with them are temporarily restrained from: ( ) 1. Interfering in any way with plaintiff's construction of a dock and seafood processing facility on land described as Tidelands N 28 and Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsite, due to the absence of the required building permit. 1 2. This temporary restraining order will remain in full force and effect until a determination is made upon plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction which shall be heard on the 24th day of July, 1979, at 9:00 o'clock a.m., at Kodiak, Alaska. 3. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of $500 with the Clerk of this Court. DATED this 19th day of July, 79, at Anchorage, Alaska. CC: Superior Court Judge, pro tem -2- I certify that on 969 a copy of thf: document was sent to: Eij--"thw'10Y(c) of ikcord, er /tragamp-K.-- Deputy Cleric IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ALASKA, INC., an Alaska Corporation, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF KODIAK; DAVE WOODRUFF, ERNIE MILLS, WILTON WHITE, GAYNELL HATCHER, TOM LOGAN, CAROL LECHNER, JAMES POTTER, TONY EATON, Council Members of the City of Kodiak; GARY STEVENS, Mayor of the City of Kodiak; MORRIS LEE,' Building Official of the City of Kodiak; and, .JOHN STAFFORD, Engineer of the City of Kodiak, Defendants. Filed In thy .P,4;:-A [Y STArE .1.;7A rt3 r40+ JUL 1 If Clef f3y Courts Civil No. 3AN 79-5015 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THIS MATTER came on regularly for hearing upon the plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order supported by the pleadings, affidavits, and memoranda .of record. The. Court, being fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that the refusal of the City of Kodiak to issue a building permit for a dock facility to International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. will result in immediate and irreparable harm to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has raised substantial questions. regarding the propriety of defendant City of Kodiak's action in denying the issuance of the building permit in that it appears that all requirements for the issuance thereof have been met by the plaintiff, and that all that remains to be done is the ministerial act of issuance by defendants. All requirements for the granting of a temporary restraining order having been met; therefore: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED That the defendants, their officers, agents and employees and those persons in active concert or participa- tion with them are temporarily restrained from: ! _ 1. Interfering in any way with plaintiff's construction of a dock and seafood processing facility on land described as Tidelands N 28 and Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsite, *due to the absence of the required building permit. 2. This temporary restraining order will remain in full force and effect until a determination is made upon plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction which shall be heard on the 24th day of July, 1979, at 9:00 o'clock a.m., at Kodiak, Alaska. 3. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of $500 with the Clerk of this Court. Alaska. CC: DATED this 19th day of July 79, at Anchorage, 4mitoK 4, . Ar Edmons Burke Superior Court Judge, pro tem -2- 1 cr:rtify that on q/79 copy of tiii: clocoment Was sent to: t tori'ov(c) af Plf:eord, or : . p.ar.._11224L__ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ) ALASKA, INC!, an Alaska ) corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) . -vs. ) ) THE CITY OF KODIAK; DAVE - ) WOODRUFF, ERNIE MILLS, WILTON ) WHITE, GAYNELL HATCHER, TOM ) LOGAN, CAROL LECHNER, JAMES ) POTTER, TONY EATON,' Council ) Members of the City of Kodiak; ) GARY STEVENS, Mayor of the City ) of Kodiak; MORRIS LEE, Building ) Official of the City of Kodiak; ) and, JOHN STAFFORD, Engineer ) of the City of Kodiak, ) ) Defendants. ) Case No. 3K0 -79 -353 Civ. (3AN -79 -5015 Civ.) FILED IN Ataska Trial Courts Third Judicial District at Kor'lak 2 L 1979 rk a; Ulf trial -ports D DUTY O R D E R On Motion of Plaintiff, International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc., for approval of Security and Vacation of Order Dissolving Preliminary Injunction and Defendant City of Kodiak's opposition thereto and upon consideration of briefs of the parties filed herein and oral arguments given, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. shall be allowed to post security in the form of a $100,000.00 cashier's check with the Clerk of the Court and upon so doing, the Order dated September 18, 1979 shall be vacated. DATED at.Kodiak, Alaska this 24th day of September, 1979. John Hedland Hal Horton ROY DSEN, SUPERIOR COURT JUDG IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ALASKA, INC., an Alaska corporation, Plaintiff FILED IN Alaska Trial Courts Third Judicial District at Kodiak AUG 20 1979 vs. ] Clerk of the ri THE CITY OF KODIAK, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3AN 79-5015 By: STATEMENT OF THE CASE DLPUTY This case involves a dispute over the propriety of the City of Kodiak's refusal to grant Plaintiff a building permit to construct a seafood processing plant on Tideland Tract N-28 and a portion of Lot 12, Block 2 Kodiak Townsite. Plaintiff made application to and received from the Department of the Army, Alaska. District, Corps of Engineers, a permit to construct a dock on the navigable portion of said property which extends into the Near Island Channel. After applying for a building permit and having it approved by the city building official and having it signed off, by the borough building official which sign-off is for the purpose of indicating non-objection by borough officials, the city, through its manager and council, directed its building official not to issue the permit, stating as a basis, various reasons such as (1) That the dock would interfere with navigation in the channel; (2) impede tidal flow; (3) That plaintiff was dumping fill material on its', the city's, property; (4) That the proposed construction might impede access to Near Island. It was then suggested that a review of Plaintiff's application by the Corps of Engineers would be appropriate. This review was made by the Corps of Engineers and U. S. Coast Guard and resulted in reaffirmation' of their prior opinion that the structure would not affect the navigability of Near Island Channel. The city still refused to issue or allow the building official to issue a building permit and requested of the borough an "interpretation" of their off-street loading and parking requirements in industrial zones. Thereafter the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission "rescinded" the borough building official's sign-off on the permit and scheduled a public hearing for August 15, 1979 to decide "whether their previous interpretation of the zoning laws in which they interpreted the off-street parking requirement as not applying to waterfront property should be revised". The Plaintiff filed this action re- questing a Declaratory Judgment determining that Plaintiff has met all applicable building and construction standards of the city and that a building permit must be issued as a ministerial act and for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction ordering the city to grant and issue a building permit for the construction of Plaintiff's facility and for damages for the city's wrongful refusal and withholding of the permit. The court, after having heard the testimony of the witnesses on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant and having considered the exhibits offered and received and having reviewed the briefs on the law filed by the parties and having considered the authorities cited therein, now makes the following findings of fact and states the following conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff, International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc., is an Alaskan corporation authorized and qualified to do business in the State of Alaska. 2. The Defendant, City of Kodiak, is a municipal corpor- ation organized and existing under the laws of Alaska and its charter, as a Home Rule City of First Class. 3. Plaintiff owns real property located in the City of Kodiak, Kodiak Island Borough, known and described as Tidelands Tract N-28 and Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsite, which Plaintiff purchased for the purpose of constructing a dock and seafood processing facility. 4. This Tideland Tract, N-28, was owned by the City of Kodiak, sold by it at auction with the city council reserving the right to approve or disapprove the development plan presented by the bidder and to accept or reject the bids on that basis. 5. The tract was zoned for industrial use by the action of the City of Kodiak in adopting and approving a Comprehensive Plan for the city (Court's Exhibit #1). 6. Plaintiff made application to and received fromthe Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, a permit to "retain and preserve an existing fill and dock and to construct additional facilities consisting of a dock extension in Kodiak Harbor." 7. Plaintiff made application to the City of Kodiak for a building permit, submitted plans and specifications to its building official and gained his approval for the construction, which approval was given orally with the understanding that the building permit would be issued later that day when he had determined what the rec7aired fee would be and it had been paid. The borough building official signed off, i.e., indicated his approval of Plaintiff's plans or non-cbjection to them. 8. The city building official was told by his superior, the city engineer, not to issue a building permit to Plaintiff; that the city council had decided that they wanted to review the matter first. 9. The city then held a work session or informal meeting at which various objections were raised by the city to Plaintiff's proposed construction, such as (a) that the dock would interfere with navigation in the channel; (b) would impede tidal flow through the channel; (c) that Plaintiff was dumping fill material on city property without authority and unlawfully; (d) that the proposed construction might impede access to Near Island and finally it was suggested that the permit would not be issued until the Corps of Engineers and U. S. Coast Guard had re-evaluated their first appraisal of the project and reaffirmed their previous approval. 10. The Corps of Engineers reluctantly re-evaluated their first appraisal of the project along with the U. S. Coast Guard and reaffirmed their prior approval. 11. The city held a meeting at which the council went into executive session to discuss this matter and, without explanation as to their reasons, remained adamant in their denial of the building permit to Plaintiff. 12. The city, through its manager, then requested from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a "clarification" of its interpretation of industrial zoning district regulations as to 'off-street loading and off-street parking requirements (Plaintiff's Exhibit #3). 13. The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning, Commission then issued a Memorandum (Plaintiff's Exhibit #4) to the effect that it had, by motion, withdrawn approval of Plaintiff's building permit and directed the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly to instruct the borough attorney to take legal action to insure no further construction would take place on Plaintiff's behalf until after a public hearing was held to "interpret" how off-street parking re ments applied to industrially zoned lands. 14. Plaintiff has exnended some five to six hundred thousand dollars to date and had anticipated a completion date of October 15, 1979, in order to process King Crab and hadordered and now has on order, being fabricated or being shipped, the building, materials for .4e dock, metal, ice-making machinery and offal removal equipment amounting to some $2.6 million dollars, some of which is being specially fabricated in Sweden, Germany and Virginia, all being shipped to Seattle, Washington, for assembly prior to being shipped to Kodiak for installation. The completion date has now been set back by thirty (30) days because of delays in issuing the building permit, costs will escalate with further delays putting construction into the winter season which make building more costly. In addition, Plaintiff will not be able to participate in the coming King Crab season, thereby losing -4- any profit to be realized from that venture. 15. Defendant contends and has presented evidence to the effect that if the proposed dock were to be constructed, vessels now using the channel, such as the Alaska Standard, the M/V Tustamena and possibly even smaller vessels would have to detour around Near Island; that is, use a longer, more circuitous route to reach the inner harbor. These points were brought out by two ships' pilots who have piloted vessels into Kodiak in the past, although one of them testified that he had not piloted a vessel through the channel in the last ten years. 16. That although prior to issuing a permit to construct the dock, the Corps of Engineers issued a public notice to all interested parties of the proposal and the State of Alaska, City of Kodiak, Western Alaska Pilots Association and other interested parties were so put on notice of the proposed construction, which notice was dated January 5, 1979, and allowed comment in writing and a public hearing on request with a cut -off date for such comment of February 6, 1979 and the permit was not issued until April 10, 1979 ( Defendant's Exhibit "A "), the City of Kodiak did not object until July 6, 1979. 17. That although pilings! for the dock have been driven into the channel bottom (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5D, E & F) and a pile driver is moored to the same (Plaintiff's Exhibit n5B, C & D) The State ferry Tustamena passes through the channel and passes other vessels in that vicinity (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5A, 3, c, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N and Plaintiff's Exhibits 12A, B &C). 18. That although the Defendant has now raised the issue of off - street parking, this issue was raised for the first time on July 25, 1979 in Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for'Preliminary Injunction, which was six days after the issuance of the temporary restraining order and had not been mentioned or discussed by Defendant at the work session or discussions with Plaintiff concerning the objections to the construction, it appears from the evidence and the Court so finds, that the City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island Borough had interpreted the off - street parking and loading requirements of the borough -5- zoning code,not to apply to waterfront industry and there is not now any processing plants in Kodiak that comply with or provide off-street parking as set forth in the ordinance. That the city building official informed Plaintiff that there was no such requirement, that this was a policy determination based on the borough's interpretation of the ordinance. 19. That Tagura Road, on which the proposed facility would be situated, is a narrow, dead-end road which generally parallels the waterfront on the Near Island Chanel, but that there was recently constructed a new processing facility (East Point Seafoods) and an addition to the Rural Electric Association Co-op plant, both of which are on the road prior to Plaintiff's proposed plant and on beyond Plaintiff's proposed plant is Columbia Ward Fisheries, another processor, Whitney-Fidalgo, another processor which has had recent additions and a boat storage yard; that these and all other processors in the community use thirty- ive to forty foot vans for shipment of their products which vans when traveling down the streets or being backed into loading docks, tend to create traffic congestion. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 10A through P) C=LUSIONS OF LAW 1 The Federal Government, by virtue of its constitutional power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, has paramount control, for such purpose and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States, the regulatory authority of the States being subject to such federal control United States v. Chicago MSP & PR Co., 312 U.S. 592, 85 L.Ed. 1064, 61 S. Ct., 772. The United States has power to control the erection of structures in navigable waters United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, 85 L. Ed. 243, 61 S. Ct. 291, this federal authority has been exercised by the Congress in enacting 30 Stat. 1151, Title 33, United States Code, Sec. 403, Chapter 9 and where Congress has legislated upon a subject which is within its constitutional control and over which it has the right to assume exclusive jurisdiction and has manifested -6- its intention to deal therewith in full, the authority of the States is necessarily excluded and any State legislationon the subject is void. Farmers Grain Co. v. Langer, 258 U.S. 50, 66 L.Ed. 458, 425 Ct. 244. Therefore, the refusal of the City of Kodiak to grant a building permit on the grounds that the structure would create a hazard to or impede the navigability of Near Island Channel is not well taken, as neither the city government, the State government nor the State Court System has jurisdiction over this issue. 2. Immediate responsibility for the issuance of building permits is fixed by Section 302(a) of theUniform Building Code, 1976 Ed. adopted by Ordinance No. 535 on November 30, 1978, which reads in part: "the application, plans and specifications filed by an applicant for a permit shall be checked by the building official. Such plans may be reviewed by other departments of the city to check compliance with the laws and ordinances under their juris- diction. If the building official is satisfied that the work described in an application for a permit and the plans filed therewith conform to the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws and ordinances and that the fee specified in Section 303 (a) has been paid, he shall issue a permit thereforeto the aoplicant." The acts called upon by Plaintiff when they asked for a building permit under the city building code, is not discretionary, but ministerial! The building official has no discretion to refuse a permit save to ascertain if the proposed structure complies with the building code. Once that is done and the required fee tendered by the applicant, the building official must issue the building permit. State v. City of Tacoma, 385 P.2d 372. Since the building official of the City of Kodiak ascertained that Plaintiff's proposed structure was in compliance with the city's building code, he would be compelled to issue the building permit. 3. A property owner has a vested right to use his property under the terms of the zoning ordinance applicable thereto! State ex rel Hardy v. Superior Court for King County, 155 Wash. 244, 284 Pac. 93. A building or use permit must issue as a matter of right upon compliance with the ordinance. The discretion permissible in zoning matters is that which is -7- exercised in adopting the zone classifications with the terms, standards and requirements pertinent thereto, all of which must be by general ordinance applicable to all persons alike. The acts of administering a zoning ordinance do not go back to the questions of policy and discretion which were settled at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. Administrative authorities are properly concerned with questions of compliance with the ordinance, not its wisdom. To subject individuals to questions of policy in administrative matters would be unconstitutional. Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska provides: "that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities and protection under the law". and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark decision of Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 30 L.Ed. 220, 6.S. Ct. 1064 decided in 1885 as follows: "the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens." It says: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to anv person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of she laws." These provisions are aniyersal in th;-- .7-14-n to persons within the territorial jurisdiction without regard to any differences of race, of color, of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a ?ledge of the protection of equal laws. When we consider the nature and theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of the law. However, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. The law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, -8- and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and, in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of suffrage. But, the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the Commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men." For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable to any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence be fair applied of slavery itself", and further, on its face and imoartial in "though the law itself arance, yet if it is and dministered _ic a'thoritv 'it: an evil eye and an uneaual hand, so as practically to lake unjust and illegal discrimination between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution". ']he present case, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, is within this class. It appears that Plaintiff has com- plied with every requisite, deemed by the law or by the public officers charged with its administration necessary under the Uniform Building Code, the City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island Borough.codes of ordinances, no reason whatever except the will Of the city council is assigned why they should not be permitted to proceed with the proposed construction, and while this consent is being withheld from them, others are permitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusions cannot be resisted that no reason for it exists except hostility to the parent corporation or entity of Plaintiff, and which in the eye of the law is not justified. The discrimin- ation is therefore illegal and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws and a violation of Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 4. Defendant's contention that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust its amdinistrative remedies is without merit. Plaintiff is asking the court to order and direct the building official to issue a building permit, this building official indicated his will- ingness to issue such a permit but has been prevented from doing so by the city council, obviously an appeal to that body would be futile if such were a proper remedy as there is nothing to be appealed to that body but their own actions. It is a general principle of law that the exercise of discretion as to the issuance of building permits cannot be arbitrary, abusive or discriminatory. City Council & Co. of Denver v. United Negroes Protective Association, 76 Colorado 86, 230 P.593; 1?-gol.=,st.--in 7. Dsho,-ne, 156 Md. 40, 143 A 666; Mobridge v. Brown, 39 S.D. 270, 164 N.W. 94 and that an ordinance providing for deferring the issuance bv a council of a building permit until the proposed building conforms.to the standard of other build- ings in the block or until it does not create a fire or other hazard to the immediate community has been adjudged to set up no adequate standard, to vest the council with arbitrary power and to be void. Bowman v. Board of Councilmen of City of Elizabethtown, 303 KY 1, 196 S.W. 2d. 730 and ordinances conferring power on authorities to grant or refuse a building permit within their discretion and on the basis of their opinion as to what the safety, health, comfort, con- venience, order or good government of the municipality requires, have been pronounced an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Weicker Transfer & Storage Co. v. Denver 75 Colorado 475, 226 P.857, Herein lies the problem in this case, the city Council has directed the.building official not to issue the building permit to Plaintiff because of their opinion and belief of what the safety, health, comfort, convenience, order and good government of the municipality requires, although the Corps of Engineers has twice stated that the proposed structure does not pose a hazard or threat to navigation, the city council wishes to substitute its collective judgment for that of the Corps of Engineers, even though it has no authority in the matter and although the Kodiak Island Borough zoning ordinance has since its inception, been interpreted to not require off-street loading or off-street parking in areas zoned for water- front industires, due to the scarcity of such property and due to the fact that such an interpretation would have the effect of using more waterfront property for parking than for industry and no such industry has been required to provide such parking to date, nevertheless, the city has now urged the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission to "review" this determination to see if it is correct and has instructed its building official not to issue a building permit until the matter is resolved by the borough planning and zoning commission. 5. Norlually a controversy of this nature would be re- solved in a proceeding a Writ of Mandamus and although such writs are within the jurisdiction and general powers cf the Superior Court (A.S. 22.10.020, A.S. 22.10.050) , Writs of Mandamus as such have been abolished by Rule 91(b), Alaska. Rules pf Civil Procedure. However, this same rule provides that relief heretofore available by Mandamus, may be obatined by appropriate action or by appropriate motion under the practice prescribed in the Rules of Civil Pro- cedure. The Plaintiff in this case has sought this relief by way of injunction and since this relief is an extraordinary alternative to the usual court action, it is available only on compliance with certain conditions precedent. Among these, Plaintiff must establish the clear right to a ministerial act by Defendant, the Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with that burden of proof and has estab- lished a clear right to a ministerial act by Defendant. In review- ing the proceedings in light of the relief requested, that is,on the balance of hardships, as set forth in A.J. Industries, Inc. v. Alaska Public Services Comm. 470 P.2d 537, the court finds that three factors required in order to justify the issuance of a prelim- inary injunction are present. (a) The Plaintiff is faced with irreparable harm if the building permit is not granted in that it has expended some five to six hundred thousand dollars to date and contracted and is liable to some extent for $2.6 million dollars worth of Materials on order, being fabricated and being shipped, it stands to lose profits from the delay in construction, and increased costs due to winter construction, none of which can be recuperated by way of damages, as A.S. 09.65.070(d) (2) provides that no action for damages may be brought against amunicipality or any of its agents, officers or employees if the claim is based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty by a municipality or its agents, officers or employees, whether or not the discretion involved is abused." (b) The opposing party, i.e., City of Kodiak, can be adequately protected by requiring Plaintiff to post a bond in a sufficint amount to .-"rie cosi- of the remodeling to =Ply with s..." structure in violation of any building or zonin; ordinance,if an order granting the relief is reversed and (c) Plaintiff has raised serious and substantial questions which go to the merits of the case. TH EREFORE, IT 1S ORDERED that the Defendants, their officers, agents and employees and those Persons in active concert or partici- pation with them are enjoined, pending determination of this action, from 1. Interfering in any way with Plaintiff's construction of a dock and seafood processing facility on land described as Tide- lands Tract N-28 and Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsite, due to the absence of the required building permit; 2. This preliminary injunction will remain in full force and effect until a hearing on the merits has been held; 3. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars.($100,000.00) with the Clerk of the Court under- taking to pay, if Defendant receives judgment herein, the costs of remodeling any structure erected on the premises to comply with, or the removal of any structure insofar as it may be in violation of any building or zoning ordinance if defendants receive judgment herein. J)ONE at'Kediak, Alaska, this day of August, 1979. ROY H. PA cc: Hedland Horton SEN, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE kodiak wrap -up Church mem by NELL WAAGE acting editor Ted West, other mem- bers of the Unification Church, and employees of International Seafoods of Alaska, the firm West heads, poured their hearts out to members of the press during a luncheon press conference at West's home Wednesday. The conference was 'called, apparently, in re- sponse to a planned pro- test march and meeting set for Sunday by a group formed to "educate the public" into "cults." The conference seemed a genuine and sincere effort to impress media representatives that fears of an agressive "Moonie" movement here and fears of unfair competition in the seafood business are without basis. ISA is in the process of constructive a $3 million (with dock, building and equipment) fisheries plant here West says will be the most modern and efficient in Alaska. West began his informal presentation by taking a shot at one of his chief e s ask FRIENDLY FACES — Scott Hickoff, left, "Non- Moonie" who works as operations foreman for the International Seafoods of Alaska, joins church members, left to right, David Rogers, Christa Lindner, who is church leader for Alaska, and Ted West on the deck of West's home and office here in Kodiak. advocates, Harold Ward. During the past few months Ward has functioned as a KT staff will mss Cindy's friendly smile CINDY WEBER If you've got the idea that typing is strictly a mechanical job and those that peck away at the keys are interested only in print, you should spend some time with Cynthia (Cindy) Weber, sophomore at the Kodiak High School. This past summer, Cindy was the typesetter for Kadiak Times. It was obvious to Kadiak Times employees that she en- joyed her job and didn't look at it as a mundane way of making money. As soon as she came into the office, Cindy had a special greeting for 3ach person. Her "Good mofnings" were accom- panied by,ir hearty smile, and when it came time to go home her "Good- byes" had just as much warmth and vitality. Cindy managed to con- vey cheerfulness, even when she was loaded down with scripts that had to be typed in a short time. But, perhaps that was to be ex- pected, since Cindy likes typing so much. She says that she got A's in typing class and that she found out about the summer job at Kadiak Times from her typing teacher, Ms. Dindinger. "I came down here for an interview and the next day I found out that I was hired," recalls Cindy. Now that school is back in session, Cindy is doing something else that she likes: playing basketball, a sport which she and twin sister Helen have faired well in. Last year both Cindy and Helen were on the Junior Varsity team and hope to be just as active this year. Cindy is the daughter of Bill and Rika Weber. She also has a younger sister, Francis Lynn, age 10. Her mother is a native of Ouzinkie and her father hails from Missouri. According to Cindy, it was her mother who encouraged her to type. Says Cindy, "She was amazed at my hands and fingers, so I decided to put them to use." Whatever Cindy decides to do with her dexterity, Kadiak Times wishes her the best of luck and says "Thank you, Cindy, (or being a part. of our staff this summer." self- appointed organizer of opposition to the presence of "Moonies" in Kodiak and plans West has to es- tablish a foothold in the seafood business in Alaska. West reminded that Ward had asked him for a job as public relations officer for ISA in January. West said he had turned Ward- down because he "didn't feel I needed a public relations man in Kodiak. I had done what I felt was necessary," West explains. Scott Hickoff, opera- tions foreman for ISA and himself not a member of the Unification Church, turned the tables on media people by asking if any of us know where he (Ward) got his financial backing." A young woman who has recently moved here from Anchorage and who is a member of the Unification Church said she can't understand the fear Kodiak's "Christian Community" seems to be showing towards members of her religion. She says she has experienced some hostility since moving here and feels hesitant to tell people what her religion is. Her children have also g been targets of some show of mild hostility she says, noting that in some cases other parents had refused to allow their own chil- dren to play with hers. "They're kids," she said. "They don't think about religion.. .they just want to play like other kids." "I feel the Christian Community here is very strong. If they are strong, why do they have to worry about us ?" asked Diane La Cau, UC member. Diane certainly doesn't look frightening. Nor does Christa Lindner, leader of the UC in Alaska, who was also present to meet with media representatives. Christa, in her soft German accent, says she feels Kodiak people are- "very much searching for what is the church. interested in the church." Someone noted the church has had "25 years of bad press. . .since the beginning we've had bad press." Under question- ing West said of the local press, "I have been treated fairly fairly." But he and others objected to the "fear created by the letters to the editor." David Rogers, who is plant manager for ISA and a UC member, remarked, "We don't steal people's kids, where do they get the idea we steal people's kids ?" Nobody in the group had a satisfactory explana- tion for the multitude of first person accounts of mind control and brain- washing in connection (Continued on Page 5) COME SEE US FOR ALL YOUR CARPENTRY, WOODWORK, GLASSWORK, INSULATING, TILING, CARPETING, HOUSEHOLD MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENT, AND DECORATING NEEDS. WE CARRY: OWENS /CORNING FIBERGLASnPOPE & TALBOT RUFFCUT DUTCH BOY PAINTS • ANDERSON WINDOWS" ARMSTRONG TILE" KIRSCH SHELVES" MAJOR LINE CABINETS "NUTONE FANS & INTERCOMS "CARRIAGE HOCJSE COLLECTION PAGE 2 - FRIDAY, SEPT. 7, 1979 - KADIAK TIMES BUILDING SUPPLY C. 8 AM to 5 PM — Mon. to Sat. 1718 Mill Bay Road Phone 486 -4350 :HURCH MEMBERS :ontinued from Page 2) , association with the Lurch. Bill both West and ogers told of their own ,litary search and explor- ion that let to them ,ining the organization itablished by Rev. Sun ,yang Moon. They said they feel goon's comments have yen misconstrued leading e.ople to believe he plans , take over the world, ,lablishing himself as ead of a world -wide lurch- state. As West puts , "The goal of the opinion /forum Unification Church is to bring about a harmony and unity on this earth with (god as the head." ..,There's 00 way we plan to lake over the gov- ernment," he said, adding that the goal of the Rev. Moon and the UC is to "instill in the hearts oI' those in government. . .a link to (god." Being a Moonie, West said, is "not easy." Asked, "What's not easy ?" he said, "The per- secution..." The UC members present said they sonte- Limes feel fear when deal- ing with people who are clearly opposed to them on the basis of their reli- gion. And, "We hate to see people that are so afraid." But, they said, their religion also is "very ful- filling." "We can feel Cod behind us." "The lour of us you see here are the Moonies in Kodiak. . .we're it," West told the gathering. "We have no intention of open- ing churches here. . or trying to steal anybody's K w who rid where t.c coo° 9!e with the sc m ;' , : Pane = do® When you set out to sail Alaskan waters, it's nice to know who — and where you can call for assistance. The Alascom Marine Radio Map can show you. It's a coverage map of each of Alascom's Marine Radio System stations. It's waterproof, and tells you the call letters and frequency of each station. Next time you're out on the briny deep, make sure you're not in over your head. Send for your complimentary copy of the Alascom Marine Radio Map. ALASCOM Clip this coupon and mail to: Alascom Inc. Office of Public Affairs Pouch 6607 Anchorage, AK. 99502 Name Address City State Zip Vessel Registration # children." West said he has, "No plans to import any mem- hers in place of anyone local who has the qualifi- cations to do the job." Ile added that he would not exclude hiring church members solely on the reli- gious basis. Rogers added that he had found it sometimes necessary to "fire mem- bers" at the East Coast plants he ran prior to corning here. He said the religious zeal was there but sometimes got in the way of the work. West said the plant they are building in Kodiak will he, "one of the most effi- dent, first -class operations in America today." He and Rogers aid the Tagura Road plant, to be open in January is to be more highly automated than ex- isting plants and that with a crew of 150 they would turn out twice the product of other plants of equal size. "'Phis business is here to act as a business. . . we're going to do business according to the highest moral and ethical codes that we can," West promised. Rogers added, "We're asking people to please be- fore they judge, investigate for themselves, not just go on hearsay." Reader urges us off the wall of spectators (Editors Note: This number five in a continuing series of letters to the Kadiak Times editor by Art Zimmer. The Kadiak Times does not necessarily agree with various points of view expressed in letters to the editor. It is our policy to allow readers space to present their own viewpoints.) Dear Editor: It seems to me I'm either growing older, or it may be due to some other cause, but I am of late impressed by an old nursery rhyme we all learned as kids. In fact, several years ago I actually got to see the rhyme's animated figure sitting on the wall in Edmonton's Storyland Valley Zoo. The general setting is a bit like Disneyland's —so many childhold fancies really "real" (or are they "real " ?) Well, there he sat, fat, jolly and leaning from side to side as though he were "king of the wall." Maybe I was slow to catch on as a child, but just between us, I admit I never really realized till I saw him, that Humpty Dumpty was really an enlarged egg! Further though, I lately began won- dering if the old nursery rhyme may not have been someone's adage; at least I think it could be. As 1 recall, it goes about like this: "Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again." Perhaps the first thing I've been wondering about is, why did I-lumpty Dumpty sit on the wall? Was it his naive pride that set him in such a precarious place? Evidently he never thought in terms other than remaining on the fence -like wall indefinitely. Then ,I wonder, why did he fall? Who shoved him off`? Did he overbalance by himself in his conceited stupor of smugness? Was hisfall indeed fatal or at least serious enough to alert him and others to true life situations? Now if I sound like I'm getting carried away with this thing, I guess maybe I am! Why couldn't all the king's horses and all the king's men put Humpty together again? It seems to me the natural course Cod intended for any egg (be- sides its being eaten) is to be brooded upon until it breaks open from within. The new life formed inside now emerges, leaving the broken shell be- hind. But for an egg to teeter upon any wall never was its intended function. Elijah in the Bible once asked, "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him" (Kings 1 8 :21 ). Finally, I wonder who of us would have judge- ment enough to volunteer off the fence and sub- ject out beings to the warm love of God until he imparts and develops a new life within us. How awful after sitting up there in a self -willed style, we'd find ourselves at the bottom, crushed and unmendable! To rightly counter what appears to be a religion camouflaged in a "seafoods in- dustry" cloak, we must get off the wall of the the spectators, and get under the protective wings of God! Sincerely, /s/ Art Zimmer Box 1582, Kodiak KADIAK TIMES - FRIDAY, SEPT. 7, 1979 - PAGE 5 Pacific Pearl Seafoods. At last' night's meeting' association members. established a "tie up" agreement to be used if a price settlement is not reached. l Pacific Pearl has offered two 'options, ., ;manager .4 the association, Jeff Stephan, 'Said this morning. , One option is 90- cents a pound plus 6 -cents a pound, retroactive, over the Bering Sea price which has not yet been settled: The second option is a flat 92- cents a pound, Stephan said. The Kodiak king crab season begins. Sept. 10. At last night's meeting association members set up a tie -up agreement to be used if there is not a price settlement prior to Sept. 10. Under the tie -up agreement vessels May set their gear on the grounds, .Stephan: .said; 0,, but . should note. prospect foF crab; have 'crab Aboard or "stuff" pots with crab. .)RECAST: fair to partly. cloudy. NDS N 5-10 m.p.h.. HIGH 64 )RECAST: Small craft advisory. ig to 15 knots. ?. SEAS rough to •o 8 feet. OUTLOOK: NW FRIDAY a.m. =1.6 8:29 p.m.. -0.8 a.m! 10.0 2:27 p.m. • ,9.4 • By Martini Father Tero officiates at a baptism last weekend at St. Mary's Church. Being baptised is Jeffrey Allen Agmata. Left to right are Tessie Dora!, parents Fred and Nora Agmata, and Roger David, By CHRIS BLACKBURN Mirror Staff Writer Excesses, fear, misun- derstandings and ignorance have resulted in apprehension in the Kodiak community over International Seafoods' efforts to build a seafood processing plant in Kodiak, company vice - president Ted West said during a press conference held yesterday to respond , to an unnamed group's intention of holding an "anti- cult" march Sunday in Kodiak. The four Unification Church members employed by Inter- national Seafoods in Kodiak are caught in an awkward position of being unable to distribute in- formation on their religion to allay community fears without appearing to be proselyting or recruiting in Kodiak, West said. Traffic Flow Study Belson Avenue Drawing by Virgil David raffic lanes on Benson are supposed niy has the 'state so far failed to what to do with the recently pain - as put up an erroneous sign in front of the Sheffield House saying the third lane is to be used "for left turns only." The yellow lines on Benson south of Marine Way are also incorrectly located. P r•H^'{�w3tNKW Christe Lindner, state director of the Unification Church from Anchorage, said she had manned a booth at the Alaska State Fair •• in Palmer and a number of Kodiak residents had stopped by the booth to pick up information brochures. West acknowledged that some church ' leaders and .recruiters, out of zeal, had been excessive in' their recruiting methods in the past. Further problems have been created by public misin -` terpretation of the Rev. Sun - Myung Moon's statement and difficulties in translating his statements from Korean to English. ' Some fund raisers from the church have misrepresented. themselves, Lindner said, out of fear after encountering hostility.. .• "We tell them not to do it (misrepresent themselves), Lindner said. "It falls back on the whole membership of the 'church," West added. Some employees of Inter- national Seafoods in Kodiak, church and nonchurch members, said they have experienced some discrimination based on religion when . looking for , housing in Kodiak. "Church and state separation is good," West said. "Moon is not out to take over the gover- nment." Those in Kodiak most out- spoken in their opposition to the Unification Church's opening a seafood processing plant, "have never talked to me, never tried to inform themselves about the church," West 'said. He also noted that, despite constant investigations and continuous " allegations of illegal activities, the Unification Church had never been charged with any illegality. West said the decision to develop a seafood processing . plant in Kodiak was a decision - made by himself and David (Continued on Page 3) KODIAK LAND BOROUGH Telephones 486-5736 .- 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 September 20, 1979 Mr. Clair Harmony City Manager 'P.O. Box 1396 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mr. Harmony, The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission has directed this department to issue a notice to stop work to International Seafoods of Alaska until a valid building permit for their construction work taking place on City Tidelands Tract N-28 has been issued. We would appreciate your assistance in having Mr. Morris Lee take the necessary action to insure that the Commission's action is followed. Attached is a letter to International Seafoods stating the Commission's action taken on September 19, 1979. If you have any questions regarding this matter please advise. Sincerely, HM/jmj CC: P & Z Commission Borough Mayor Borough Assembly Borough Manager Borough Attorney International Seafoods of Alaska Harry Mil, an Planning Director KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH - Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 September 20, 1979 Mr. Ted West International Seafoods of Alaska P.O. Box 2995 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 RE: •City of Kodiak Tidelands Tract #N-28 Dear Mr. West The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission has directed that the construction work taking place on the referenced property be stop- ped until a valid building permit has been issued. This action by the Commission was taken during their regular meeting held on Septmeber 19, 1979. The Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances requires that all con- struction must be consistant with the terms of the code. If you have any questions regarding the application of the code as it applies to your project we will be happy to review the matter with you. We look forward toyour cooperation and assistance in resolving this matter. Sincerely,. HM/irrd CC: Kodiak Building Official Borough Mayor Borough Assembly P & Z Commission City Manager Borough Attorney City Attorney. Harry Mil Planning Direct() September 19, 1979 Mr. Dan Busch, Chairman Kodiak Planning & Zoning Commission P.O. Box 1246 Kodiak,sAK 99615 Dear Mr. Busch: As you know, Judge Roy Madsen has dissolved the injunctionagainst the City of Kodiak concerning 1lnternational_Seafood's construction project.;' Therefore, the issue is now clear from legal obstacles. With this being the case,. the City of Kodiak requests of the Borough Planning and Zoning Commission that directives be given to staff for a stop work order to be issued on that construction project. The City of Kodiak Building Inspector has issued a stop work order (see attached). Therefore, we feel it is important for the Borough to issue a similar stop work order exercising its own authority. Your concerned help in-this matter, as evidenced by quality decisions in the past, will go a long way in assurring that the law is upheld in the City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island Borough. We hope the stop work order can be issued no later than Friday, September 21, 1979. Most sincerely, CITY OF. KODI:K Clair W. Harmony :City Manager CWH /yb cc: Borough. Mayor Wallin Borough Assembly . P & Z Commissioners Hal Horton, Attorney Kodiak City Council POST OFFICE BO)S 1397, KODIAK , ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486 -3224 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE. INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ALASKA, INC., an Alaska h Corporation, Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) ) ) ) � ' THE CITY OF KODIAK; et. al. Defendants. Civil No. &/-0' -J') -3 5~3 C^/' EX PARTE ORDER (Rule 65 C\ 8y^ FILED IN ATaska Trial Courts Third Jvd:ia/District »�N,'iaU THIS COURT having reviewed the file in the above entitled case finds that no securlty has been posted as required by the August 20, preliminary injunction issued by this court and as required by rule 65 C. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED: That the preliminary injunction issued on Augus.t 20, 1979, in the above entitled case is hereby dissolved. ' ` DATED this day of September, 1979, at KodYak, Alaska. Roy Mads Superior ourt Judge ~_11,1_~_���`� ._- ~ •=� September 18, 1979 International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. P. 0. Box 2995 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Attention: Mr. David L. Roaers Assistant General Manager Dear Dave: I have been instructed by City of Kodiak legal council to issue a stop work order on the International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. building project at Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsite and Tidelands Tract N-28. No further work can be accomplished at this building site until the following items have been done: 1. Obtain approval from the Kodiak Island Borough Planning De- partment indicating compliance with zoning requirements re- lated to parking. 2. Obtain a City of Kodiak building permit. I must emphasize that all work must cease upon receipt of this letter. The stop work order will remain in effect until both requirements listed above have been satisfied. Sincerely, (City (%e7 rris L. Lee City Building Inspector MLL/1 POST OFFICE B0 1397, KODIAK , ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 September 17, 1979 Alexandra B. Smith, Chief Environmental Evaluations U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Dear Ms. Smith: RE: International Seafoods of Alaska NPDES Application AK- 002666 -2 . As an addendum to the City of Kod.iak's timely objection to the issuance of discharge elimination systems permit for International Seafoods, we would like to add the following commentary on the specifics of the firm's application now that we are in receipt of the complete documents. The Kodiak Island Borough. Planning and Zoning Commission has forwarded the application sent to them by your office. Under the applicant's response to questions relating to future seafood plants, specifically section IV, Social Economic Impacts, we find that subparagraph 4 is not accurate as evidenced by the attached Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning letter concerning the matter. The Planning and Zoning letter indicates that International Seafoods is not in compliance with the Kodiak Island Borough parking ordinance which requires one parking space for every four hundred square feet of gross floor space or one parking space for every three employees, whichever results in the greatest number of parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning letter to the City of Kodiak in effect says that the off street parking ordinance applied to the industrial zoning code. There had been some confusion as to its applica- tion, but since that time the Planning and Zoning Commission has clarified the issue. Since the City of Kodiak has not issued a building permit (though International Seafoods is building under court authorization) the project is clearly not in compliance with zoning requirements. Section II, subparagraph 5 of the same section of the company's application indicates, "water depth at midchannel is twenty -three plus fathoms ". However, our depth ratings indicate that the actual depth at midchannel is five to seven fathoms. (See attached sounding chart of Near Island Channel in front of International Seafoods). POST OFFICE BOA 1397, KODIAK , ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486 -3224 Alexandra B. Smith, Chief Page 2 September 17, 1979 Under facility description, subsection nE//, subparagraph 2, the application indicates that there were no public objections to the Army Corps of Engineers' dock approval and permit. This is not true and we have copied with this letter objections received by the Army Corps of Engineers from corporate interests as well as a letter mailed in a timely manner, but received late from the State Division of Marine Highways. Additionally, we observed the following apparent errors: 1. On page 1-2, section V||, Facility Intake Water, the application indicates 76 million gallons per day which should probably be 76 thousand gallons per day. 2. The proposed dock plat is incorrect according to current plans because the forward twenty feet have been removed, therefore cutting the dock in by twenty feet. However, since actual construction was ten feet forward of the presented plans to the Army Corps of Engineers, the net effect will be a thirty foot extension into the Near Island Channel forward of adjacent docks. 3. Page 11-1 indicates a beginning discharge date of 79/5 which we now understand has been postponed. Please add these comments to our objections and areas of .concern as stated in our initial correspondence with your office. Most sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK Clair W. Harmony City Manager cc: Hal Horton, Attorney Judge Roy Madsen Col. Smith, Army Corps of Engineers Admiral Dean, U. S. Coast Guard International Seafoods, Inc. Representative Don Young Senator Ted Stevens Senator Mike Gravel Governor Jay Hammond Representative Fred Zharoff Senator Bob Mulcahy Capt. Beach, U.S.C.G., Kodiak Dan Crevensten, EPA, Anchorage Lt. Col. Morris, Col Horris Army Corps of Engineers, D.C. dlak Planning and Zoning Commission - • Area.* • Storostirksre-ANC ' . . LOGARITH!.. 2 3. 4 5 6 I I I I I 1 I • ' I To find SPEED. place one point at on c,starce run on any right point on 60 and lett ooint .: c rj cry, sz'of:.d In unis per ho.. 152°251 23' K •DIAK ISLANI SSUG Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 September 6, 1979 Mr. Clair Harmony City Manager Box 1396 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mr. Harmony, This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 4; 1979, to the'Planning and Zoning Commission. During a work session on September 5, 1979, the Commission reviewed your letter and asked that I respond on their behalf. The Commission stated it was their intent that the interpretation is applicable to all permits issued on or after August 16, 1979. Thus any permit in process but not yet issued as of August 16, 1979 is sub- ject to the interpretation. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the verbatim text of the motion of interpretation and the text of the motion establish- ing an effective date. As to the application of the Commission's action to International Seafoods of Alaska's building permit application if the permit was not issued until on or after 8:00 a.m. August 16, 1979, the application is subject to the Commission's interpretation. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions regarding this or other matters do not hesitate to call upon us. Sincerely, Harry ligan Planning Director CC: Borough Mayor Borough Assembly P & Z Commission Borough Attorney Borough Manager International Seafoods of Alaska Enclosure: c.?0,5 r ,g CzPe7/7•5 $-14"—. r 5-7 • '/-• 4 iFe_reo/r1,-;.,e 411,,7 " Ffr rDef.sr Mrs. Crowe moves that the Commission intreoret the Ordinance to require off7street.parkin.g_in accordance with_the provi.sjonsof Section 17.57.010 in the indulrial and Industrial Reserve clistriCtis, Et . have no retroactive effect on the existing buildings in these zones. Seconded by Mr. Pu9h. 1otion PASSEDTby unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Pugh moves the Commission ct!rects the staff as of Auoust 16 1979 that all buildino_pernits that are issued in the Industril and_ Industrial Reserve zones be required to meet the intrepretation of this ordinance that we made tonight. Seconded by Hr. Motion PASSED by_unanimous roll call vote. - laska.District Corps of Enr_jin_' rS g, .. '3ox i CO "a ' t 05.,'510 Functions Dear Si - ,yam . ',Ions L:1 •f J enclose,! 1.i1 the pi o, ;,o + -i in;tallaci eeu rya; 3fl.Y. • i €:tter ? -With j ^-: advent of the 2C:i A l _' limit :od resultant inc vessel activity a:y•rur er Y nc rO:c ;.e z on izazards 4o the T 3 Y ti .. a U he-'very real r :r�7 " jay -„:i'S. .. f truly jciurs En l osu re hN.. t i k Ar:ktiit ishing Captain i1. A. SteLso7r . Jo Captain C2'i ,"'� WHITNEY- FIDALGO SEAFOODS, INC. 2360 WEST COMMODORE WAY P. 0. BOX 99008, SEATTLE, WN. 98199 TELEPHONE (CODE 206) AT 5-0300 CABLE ADDRESS "WHITNEY" July 13, 1979 . Kodiak City Council. Kodiak, Alaska 'Gentlemen: This letter is written in protest of the dock extension proposed by Inter- national Seafoods. The proposed extension would be a navagational hazard. Apparently the Army Corps of Engineers failed to realize that normally when the sea conditions are fairly good we have fishing.boats tied three deep at the face of the dock in the channel leaving less navigable water. It certainly-is no secret to the industry that this piece of waterfront property has been available for sale. But; the judgement of knowledgeable operators has been that a dock extension would never be possible due to the narrow width of the channel. • "No one would like to buy a ranch that can't grow grass': Also, of as much concern to us is the Tagura Road situation. We all suffer trying to operate on this disgraceful trail- Only one way traffic in most spots for Sea vans and little to no parking. Where does International Sea- foods propose to acquire parking space being they have one of the narrowest spaces on the Waterfront? We are not protesting because of competition, we actually enjoy our competitors. SincereiN2 • Gary K. Wiggins Vice-President Whitney Fidalgo Seafoods, Inc. KODIAK IS ND WROUGH Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 September 6, 1979 Mr'. Clair Harmony City Manager Box 1396 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mr. Harmony, This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 4, 1979 to the Planning and Zoning Commission. During a work session on September 5, 1979, the Commission reviewed your letter and asked that I respond on their behalf. The Commission stated it was their intent that the interpretation is applicable to all permits issued on or after August 16, 1979. Thus any permit in process but not yet issued as of August 16, 1979 is sub- •ect to the interpretation. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the verbatim text of the motion of interpertation and the text of the motion establish- ing an effective date. As to the application of the Commission's action to International Seafoods of Alaska's Building permit application if the permit was not issued until on or after 8:00 a.m. August 16, 1979, the application is subject to the Commission's interpretation. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions regarding this or other matters do not hesitate to call upon us. CC: Borough Mayor Borough Assembly P & Z Commission Borough Attorney Borough Manager International Seafoods of Alaska Enclosure: Sincerely,_ Harry Mil' igan Planning Director Mrs. Crowe moves that the Commission intreoret the Ordinance to reluire off-street Tarking in accordance withthe.provisi-o—ns —of Section 17.57.010 in the Industrial and industrial Reserve no retroactive effect on the existing buildius in thes7,,zon—e's.---- — Seconded by Hr. Pugh. !..lotion PASSED y unanimous roll- EaT Hr. Pugh moves the Commissiond-:rects the staff as of August....16„.1979. that_ all_ bui ldinperni ts. that_a_re issued_in the Industria1._ and Industrial Reserve zones be reouirerT to meet the intrenrP tition - of this- ordinance thatwe madetonight.__Seconded_by Hr. Erwin. motion PASSED by unanimous roil call vote. 0!�° ��.~ ��w~� SeptemI;er Planning and Zoning Commission Kodiak Island Borough P.O. Box 1245 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Legally and on grounds of good planning, the City concurs with your interpretation of the parking ordinance applying to industrial zoning. But there still seems to be some confusion whether this was applicable to International Seafoods, Inc. We request that the Planning and Zoning Commission send a recommendation to the Borough Assembly for clarification of this matter to run concur- rently with the City's inquiry to the Assembly through the attached letter addressed to Mayor Betty Wallin. Most sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK Clair W. Harmony City Manager CWH/yb Enclosures POST OMCE BOA 1397. K(]DIN . (I[A{101 99615 PHONE (9(l7) 486-3924 ELF—I— Jo 0 400 800 /too Fr Beae Drewr4d M Tryck Nyman Hoym end SlmDeon Ualwr Jonu 6rc LEGEND OFLAT t5% OACCESSIBLE 5.10% 1111111111 BUILDABLE 10.25% VERY STEEP 925% -111u1 Ippu�!IlI ' 1 II \ '11111111111111811 .,dull 11111 '...a�.'48• V'A >,,,. b T? N ,111 *1111111. .Trt"S nvrSi EL. 400 FT • LIMIT OF MAPPING 1 �7 .IgIINIP II {�� 111111 IIRIml111� l III 1�L —+ } h 111111 1 I iii Ip11111 r'Il tIII�1I111111111V� mIO�711Q11PIVi1flillll+ , • II kik '11VNIIIImill1am111, X111 VIII !y+- .raY;.Ia. «.. . G1a , � 11111161 • IIR t j�rfl 1pje il(IIhliiI1111111111ui1' �'polpul ; r�1o��111111illiDll�llllllllll" �I�ul; 1j111t : L, IIIIIIIIINII111 Illlr I 1jp, 'IN. . •':.mod IIII .1 7 i ` III 0 4 llil1l1l1l; Uulin l 1�.ieIllaIFiiiugll�6l�ollrl-lw li ln < 1117 111 I 11 .1,nnim WI a�, d llI hU0;punlIllll '11 Iy .. !lIIIImilll111l11I�IIIIII�' ilIIii�li <li;!r;.,_ ;!SIgIIIRIIII���If: }. F. 'Az `Ilh1 ;111 il!INli1;'ilgliiilNll ` "1 kOdnak island borough . ban area regional plan and development strategy STEEP SLO Prepared by Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. for Kodiak Island Borough and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, State of Alaska MAP 6 f. SlitH niniSNI DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POUCH EE DIVISION OF ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811 JAY S. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR August 17, 1979 Mr. Ted H. West, General Manager International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. P.O. Box 2995 Kodiak, Alaska 99615. Dear Mr. West: Thank you for taking the time to stop in Juneau last week and brief us on the progress of your plant development in Kodiak, the effort which has been made to design the most efficient and modern processing facility possible is obvious. I would expect that it will offer a model for others to follow. The State has actively encouraged the development of shorebased processing facilities for bottomfish species and the diversification of the seafood industry which that kind of production implies. Your project seems to fit those objectives very well. The addition of this facility in Kodiak will substantially increase existing capacity to handle bottomfish and should provide a welcome market to local fisher- men. RER/jar5/6 08-H5LH Sinc y, Richard E. Reynolds Development Specialist IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ) ALASKA, INC., an Alaska ) Corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Clot- V. ) By ) THE CITY OF KODIAK; DAVE ) WOODRUFF, ERNIE MILLS, WILTON ) WHITE, GAYNELL HATCHER, TOM ) LOGAN, CAROL LECHNER, JAMES ) POTTER, TONY EATON, Council ) Members of the City of Kodiak; ) GARY STEVENS, Mayor of the City ) of Kodiak; MORRIS LEE, Building ) Official of the City of Kodiak; ) and, JOHN STAFFORD, Engineer ) of the City of Kodiak, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Filed le tho STATE Of • • " JUL ij al Courts Deputy Civil No. 3AN 79-5015 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THIS MATTER came on regularly for hearing upon the plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order supported by the pleadings, affidavits, and memoranda .of record. The. Court, being fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that the refusal of the City of Kodiak to issue a building permit for a dock facility to International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. will result in immediate and irreparable harm to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has raised substantial questions_ regarding the propriety of defendant City of Kodiak's action in denying the issuance of the building permit in that it appears that all requirements for the issuance thereof have been met by the plaintiff, and that all that remains to be done is the ministerial act of issuance by defendants. All requirements for the granting of a temporary restraining order having been met; therefore: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED That the defendants, their officers, agents and employees and those persons in active concert or participa- tion with them are temporarily restrained from: 1. Interfering in any way with plaintiff's construction of a dock and seafood processing facility on land described as Tidelands N 28 and Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsite, due to the absence of the required building permit. 2. This temporary restraining order will remain in full force and effect until a determination is made upon plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction which shall be heard on the 24th day of July, 1979, at 9:00 o'clock a.m., at Kodiak, Alaska. 3. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of $500 with the Clerk of this Court. DATED this 19th day of July, 79, at Anchorage, Alaska. CC: • Ediifd W. Burke Superior Court Judge, pro tem -2- 1 cprtify that on cor,y of (loorent 'vas son -Attoioov(c) of ilreord, or is .1d. Q/79 Deputy Clod( - IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ALASKA, INC., an Alaska Corporation, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF KODIAK; DAVE WOODRUFF, ERNIE MILLS, WILTON WHITE, GAYNELL HATCHER, TOM LOGAN, CAROL LECHNER, JAMES POTTER, TONY EATON, Council Members of the City of Kodiak; GARY STEVENS, Mayor of the City of Kodiak; MORRIS LEE, Building Official of the City of Kodiak; and, JOHN STAFFORD, Engineer of the City of Kodiak, Defendants. Fifod C:q•drt3 STATE Of 44.1.77A ri-w;cr 4scr JUL 19 1:•)/'i clerk 8y W l Courts Deputy Civil No. 3AN 79-5015 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THIS MATTER came on regularly for hearing upon the plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order supported by the pleadings, affidavits, and memoranda .of record. The. Court, being fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that the refusal of the City of Kodiak to issue a building permit for a dock facility to International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. will result in immediate and irreparable harm to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has raised substantial questions. regarding the propriety of defendant City of Kodiak's action in denying the issuance of the building permit in that it appears that all requirements for the issuance thereof have been met by the plaintiff, and that all that remains to be done is the ministerial act of issuance by defendants. All requirements for the granting of a temporary restraining order having been met; therefore: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED That the defendants, their officers, agents and employees and those persons in active concert or participa- tion with them are temporarily restrained from: 1. Interfering in any way with plaintiff's construction of a dock and seafood processing facility on land described as Tidelands N 28 and Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsite, - due to the absence of the required building permit. 2. This temporary restraining order will remain in full force and effect until a determination is made upon plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction which shall be heard on the 24th day of July, 1979, at 9:00 o'clock a.m., at Kodiak, Alaska. 3. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of $500 with the Clerk of this Court. Alaska. CC: DATED this 19th day of July, 979, at Anchorage, cimoUgeBur e Superior Cour Judge, pro tem I certify that on (17* a ovy of (hi clo;':■nlent was sent to: LC-4--Attorok‘v(c) of Po-cord, or /crzzartassr-K---- • -,,d. DCPUIYCJk IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ALASKA, INC., an Alaska corporation, Plaintiff • VS. THE CITY OF KODIAK; DAVE - WOODRUFF, ERNIE MILLS, WILTON WHITE, GAYNELL HATCHER, TOM LOGAN, CAROL LECHNER, JAMES POTTER, TONY EATON, Council Members of the City of Kodiak; GARY STEVENS, Mayor of the City of Kodiak; MORRIS LEE, Building Official of the City of Kodiak; and, JOHN STAFFORD, Engineer of the City of Kodiak, Defendants. Case No. 3K0-79-353 Civ. (3AN-79-5015 Civ. By • FILED IN Ataska Trial Courts Third Judicial District at Kw:ia): 2 1979 k of thf trai curls D PUTY ORDER On Motion of Plaintiff, International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc., for approval of Security and Vacation of Order Dissolving Preliminary Injunction and Defendant City of Kodiak's opposition thereto and upon consideration of briefs of the parties filed herein and oral arguments given, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. shall be allowed to post security in the form of a $100,000.00 cashier's check with the Clerk ,of the Court and upon so doing, the Order dated September 18, 1979 shall be vacated. . DATED at. Kodiak, Alaska this 24th day of September, 1979. ROY h. P DSEN, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE .7- : John Hedland Hal Horton IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ) ALASKA, INC., an Alaska ) corporation, Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) THE CITY OF KODIAK, et al., ] ) Defendants. ) ) Case No. 3AN 79-5015 STATEMENT OF THE CASE FILED IN Alaska Trial Courts Third Judicial District at Kcdtok AUG 2 0 1979 Clerk of the "riol r urts DEPUTY This case involves a dispute over the propriety of the City of Kodiak's refusal to grant Plaintiff a building permit to construct a seafood processing plant on Tideland Tract N-28 and a portion of Lot 12, Block 2 Kodiak Townsite. Plaintiff made application to and received from the Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, a permit to construct a dock on the navigable portion of said property which extends into the Near Island Channel. After aoplying for a building permit and having it approved by the city building official and having it signed off, by the borough building official which sign-off is for the purpose of indicating non-objection by borough officials, the city, through its manager and council, directed its building official not to issue the permit, stating as a basis, various reasons such as (1) That the dock would interfere with navigation in the channel; (2) impede tidal flow; (3) That plaintiff was dumping fill material on its', the city's, property; (4) That the proposed construction might impede access to Near Island. It was then suggested that a review of Plaintiff's application by the Corps of Engineers would be appropriate. This review was made by the Corps of Engineers and U. S. Coast Guard and resulted in reaffirmation of their prior opinion that the structure would not affect the navigability of Near Island Channel. The city still refused to issue or allow the building official to issue a building permit and requested of the borough an "interpretation" of their off-street loading and parking requirements in industrial zones. Thereafter the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission "rescinded" the borough building official's sign-off on the permit and scheduled a public hearing for August 15, 1979 to decide "whether their previous interpretation of the zoning laws in which theyjmterpreted the off-street parking requirement'as not applying to waterfront property should be revised". The Plaintiff filed this action re- questing a Declaratory Judgment determining that Plaintiff has met all applicable building and construction standards of the city and that a building pellait must be issued as a ministerial act and for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.ordering the city to grant and issue a building permit for the construction of Plaintiff's facility and for damages for the city's wrongful refusal and withholding of the pelmit. The court, after having heard the testimony of the witnesses on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant and having considered the exhibits offered and received and having reviewed the briefs on the law filed by the parties and having considered the authorities cited therein, now makes the following findings of fact and states the following conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff, International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc., is an Alaskan corporation authorized and qualified to do business in the State of,Alaska. 2. The Defendant, City of Kodiak, is a municipal corpor- ation organized and existing under the laws of Alaska and its charter, as a Home Rule City of First Class. 3. Plaintiff owns real property located in the City of Kodiak, Kodiak Island Borough, known and described as Tidelands Tract N-28 and Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsite, which Plaintiff purchased for the purpose of constructing a dock and seafood processing facility. 4. This Tideland Tract, N-28, was owned by the City of Kodiak, sold by it at auction with the city council reserving the right to approve or disapprove the development plan presented by the bidder and to accept or reject the bids on that basis. . 5. The tract was zoned for industrial use by the action of the City of Kodiak in adopting and approving a Comprehensive Plan for the city (Court's Exhibit #1). 6. Plaintiff made application to and received from the Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, a permit to "retain and preserve an existing fill and dock and to construct additional facilities consisting of a dock extension in Kodiak Harbor." 7. Plaintiff made application to the City of Kodiak for a building permit, submitted plans and specifications to its building official and gained his approval for the construction, which approval was given orally with the understanding that the building permit would be issued later that day when he had determined what the re..-17.:4red wo”" be nd it had been paid. The borough building cicia1 signed off, i.e., indicated his approval of Plaintiff's plans or non-cbjection to them. 8. The city building official was.told by his superior, the city engineer, not to issue a building permit to Plaintiff; that the city council had decided that they wanted to review'the matter first. 9. The city then held a work session or informal meeting at which various objections were raised by the city to Plaintiff's proposed construction, such as (a) that the dock would interfere with in—the channel; navigation (b) would impede tidal flow through theChannel; (c) that Plaintiff was dumping fill material on city property without authority and unlawfully; (d) that the proposed construction might impede access to Near Island and finally it was suggested that the-permit would not be issued until the Corps of Engineers and U. S. Coast Guard had re-evaluated their first appraisal of the project and reaffirmed their previous approval. 10. The Corps of Engineers reluctantly re- evaluated their first appraisal of the project along with the U. S. Coast Guard and reaffirmed their prior approval. 11. The city held a meeting at which the council went into executive session to discuss this matter and, without explanation as to their reasons, remained adamant in their denial of the building permit to Plaintiff. 12. The city, through its manager, then requested from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a "clarification" of _its interpretation of industrial zoning district regulations as to- off- street loading and off - street parking requirements (Plaintiff's Exhibit r3). 13. The Kodiak*Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission then issued a Memorandum (Plaintiff's Exhibit 44) to the effect that it had, by motion, withdrawn approval of Plaintiff's building permit and directed the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly to instruct the borough attorney to take legal action to insure no further construction would take place on Plaintiff's behalf until after a Public :earin� was hall to "interpret" how off - street parking recuirements aPolied to industrially zoned lands. 14. Plaintiff has exoended some five to six hundred thousand dollars to date and had anticipated a completion date of October 15, 1979, in order to process King Crab and had ordered and now has on order, being fabricated or being shipped, the building, materials for the dock, metal, ice - making machinery and offal removal equioment amounting to some $2.6 million dollars, some of which is being specially fabricated in Sweden, Germany and Virginia, all being shipped to Seattle, Washington, for assembly prior to being shipped to Kodiak, for installation. The completion date has now been set back by thirty (30) days because of delays in issuing the building permit, costs will escalate with further delays putting construction into the winter season which make building more costly. In addition, Plaintiff will not be able to participate in the coming King Crab season, thereby losing -4- any profit to be realized from that venture. 15. Defendant contends and has presented evidence to the effect that if the proposed dock were to be constructed, vessels now using the channel, such as the Alaska Standard, the M/V Tustamena and possibly even smallervessels would have to detour around Near Island; that is, use a longer, more circuitous route to reach the inner harbor. These points were brought out by two ships' pilots who have piloted vessels into Kodiak in the past, although one of them testified that he had not piloted a vessel through the channel in the last ten years. 16. That although prior to issuing a permit to construct the dock, the Corns of Engineers issued'a public notice to all interested parties of the proposal and the State of Alaska, City of Kodiak, Western Alaska Pilots Association and other interested parties were so put on notice of the proposed construction, which notice was dated January 5, 1979, and allowed comment in writing and a public hearing on request with a cut-off date for such comment of February 6, 1979 and the permit was not issued until April 10, 1979 (2efendant's Exhibit "A"), the City of Kodiak did not object until July 6, 1979. 17. That although Pilings''. or the dock have been driven into the channel bottom .(Plaintiff's Exhibit 5D, E & F) and a pile driver is moored to the same (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5B, C & D) The State ferry Tustamena passes through the channel and passes other vessels in that vicinity (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5A, B, c, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N and Plaintiff's Exhibits 12A, B &C). 18. That although the Defendant has now raised the issue of off-street parking, this issue was raised for the first time on July25, 1979 in Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion forTreliminary Injunction, which was six days after the issuance of the temporary restraining order and had not been mentioned or discussed by Defendant at the work session or discussions with Plaintiff concerning the objections to the construction, it appears from the evidence and the Court so finds, that the City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island Borough had interpreted the .off-street parking and loading requirements of the borough -5- zoning code,not to apply to waterfront industry and there is not now any processing plants in Kodiak that comply with or provide off-street parking as set forth in the ordinance. That the city building official informed Plaintiff that there was no such requirement, that this was a policy determination based on the borough's interpretation of the ordinance. 19. That Tagura Road, on which the proposed facility would be situated, is a narrow, dead-end road which generally parallels the waterfront on the Near Island Chanel, but that there was recently constructed a new processing facility (East Point Seafoods) and an addition to the Rural Electric Association Co-op plant, both of which are on the road prior to Plaintiff's proposed Plant and on beyond Plaintiff's proposed plant is Columbia Ward Fisheries, another processor, Whitney-Fidalgo, another processor which has had recent additions and a boat storage yard; that these and all other processors in the community use thirty-five to forty foot vans for shipment of their products which vans when traveling down the streets or being backed into loading docks, tend to create traffic congestion. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 10A through P) C=LUSIONS OF L7'..",-; 1. The Federal Government, by virtue of its constitutional power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, has paramount control, for such purpose and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States, the regulatory authority of the States ng subject to such federal control United States v. Chicago MSP & PR Co., 312 U.S. 592, 85 L.Ed. 1064, 61 S. Ct., 772. The United States has power to control the erection of structures in navigable waters United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, 85 L. Ed. 243, 61 S. Ct. 291, this federal authority has been exercised by the Congress in enacting 30 Stat. 1151, Title 33, United States Code, Sec. 403, Chapter 9 and where Congress has legislated upon a subject which is within its constitutional control and over which it has the right to assume exclusive jurisdiction and has manifested -6- its intention to deal therewith in full, the authority of the States is necessarily excluded and any State legislation on the subject is void. 'Farmers Grain Co. v. Langer, 258 U.S. 50, GG L.Ed. 458, 425 Ct..244. Therefore, the refusal of the City of Kodiak to grant a building permit on the grounds that the structure would create a hazard to or impede the navigability of Near Island Channel is not well taken, as neither the city government, the State government nor the State Court System has jurisdiction over this issue. 2. Immediate responsibility for the issuance of building permits is fixed by Section 302(a) of the Uniform Building Code, 1976 Ed. adopted by Ordinance No. 535 on November 30, 1978, which reads in part: "the application, plans and specifications filed by an applicant for a permit shall be checked by the building official. Such plans may be reviewed by other departments of the city to check compliance with the laws and ordinances under their juris- diction. If the building official is satisfied that the work described in an application for a permit and the plans filed therewith conF-orm to the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws and ordinances and that the fee sneci-Fied 'n Section 303 (a) has been paid, he shall issue a permit thereforeto the anplicant. The acts called upon by ?laintiff when asked for a building permit under the city building code, is not discretionary, but • ministerial! The building official has no discretion to refuse a permit save to ascertain if the proposed structure comPlies with the building code. Once that is done and the required fee tendered by the applicant, the building official must issue the building permit. State v. City of Tacoma, 385 P.2d 372. Since the building official of the City of.Kodiak ascertained that Plaintiff's proposed structure was incompliance with the city's building code, he would be compelled to issue the building permit. 3. A property owner has a vested right to use his property under the terms of the zoning ordinance applicable thereto! State ex rel Hardy v. Superior Court for King County, 155 Wash. 244, 284 Pao. 93. A building or use permit must issue as a matter of right upon compliance with the ordinance. The discretion permissible in zoning matters is that which is -7- exercised in adopting the zone classifications with the terms, standards and requirements pertinent thereto, all of which must be by general ordinance applicable to all persons alike. The acts of administering a zoning ordinance do not go back to the questions of policy and discretion which were settled at the time of the adoption of the'ordinance. Administrative authorities are properly concerned with questions of compliance with the ordinance, not its wisdom. To subject individuals to questions of policy in administrative matters would be unconstitutional. Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska provides: that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities and protection under the law". and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark decision of Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 30 L.Ed. 220, 6 S. Ct. 1064 decided in 1885 as follows: It says: "the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the Protection of citizens." "nor shall any State deprive any liberty or pro:Dertv without due nor deny to anv person within p,=r=on of life, rocess of law, -:u-,---isdiction the equal protectIon o' the laws." These provisions are urJ.;ersal in their a licatiori to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction without regard to any differences of race, of color,- of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a .oledg,=. of -L-,,,rotection of equal laws. When we consider the nature and theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the-history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of the law. However, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. The law" is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, -8- and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and, in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of suffrage. But, the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws so that, in the fainous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the Commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men." For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable to any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself", and further, "though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in aPpear -ce, vet i..t it is applied and acLinistersd by public a ut"----4~7 with an evil eye and an uneaual hand, sc-, as practically t ake =just and iliegal discrimination between persons in similar circustances, material to their rights, the den al of F:qual justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution". The present case, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, is within this class. It appears that Plaintiff has com- plied with every requisite, deemed by the law or by the public - officers charged with its administration necessary under the Uniform Building Code, the City of Kodiak andi<odiak Island Borough codes of ordinances, no reason whatever except the will of the city council is assigned why they should not be permitted to proceed with the proposed construction, and while this consent is being withheld from them, others are permitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusions cannot be resisted that no reason for it exists -9- 47 except hostility to the parent corporation or entity of Plaintiff; and which in the eye of the law is not justified. The discrimin- ation is therefore illegal and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection-of the laws and a violation of Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United. States. 4. Defendant's contention that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust its amdinistrative remedies is without_ merit. Plaintiff is asking the court to order and direct the building official to issue a building per.dit, this building official indicated his will- ingness to issue such a pelLAit but has been prevented from doing so by the city council, obviously an appeal to that body would be futile if such were a Proper remedy as there is nothing to be appealed to that body but their own actions. It is a general principle of law that the exercise of discretion as to the issuance of building permits cannot be arbitrarv, abusive or discriminatory. City Council & Co. of Denver v. United N.c,-ces 76 Colorado 86, 230 P.598; A 1esti n :sbcrne, 156 Md. 40, 143 A 666; Mobridge v. Brown, 39 S.D. 270, 164 N.W. 94 and that an ordinance providing for deferring the issuance by a council of a building peLwit until the proposed building conforms to the standard of other build- ings in the block or until it does not create a fire or other hazard to the immediate community has been adjuda=--d to set up no adequate standard, to vest the council with arbitrary power and to be void. Bowman v. Board of Councilmen of City of Elizabethtown, 303 KY 1, 196 S.W. 2d. 730 and ordinances conferring Power on authorities to grant or refuse a building peiluit within their discretion and on the • basis of their opinion as to what the safety, health, comfort, con- venience, order or good government of the municipality requires, have been pronounced an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Weicker Transfer & Storage Co. v. Denver 75 Colorado 475, 226 P.857. Herein lies the problem in this case, the city council has directed the building official not to issue the building permit to Plaintiff because of their opinion and belief of what the safety, health, comfort, convenience, order and good government of the municipality requires, although the Corps of Engineers has twice stated that the proposed structure does not pose a hazard or threat to navigation, the city council wishes to substitute its collective judgment for that of the Corps of Engineers, even though it has no authority in the matter and although the Kodiak Island Borough zoning- ordinance has since its inception, been interpreted to not require off-street loading or off-street parking in areas zoned for water- front industires, due to the scarcity of such property and due to the fact that such an interpretation would have the effect of using more waterfront property for parking than for.industry and no such industry has been required to provide such parking to date, nevertheless, the city has now urged the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning. Commission to "review" this detei_uination to see if it is correct and has instructed its building official not to issue a.building permit until the matter is resolved by the borough planning and zoning commission. 5. Normally a controversy of this nature would be re- solved in a Proceeding fcr a Writ o Manda=s and although such writs are within the juri iczon SierOr Court (A.S. 22.10.020, A,3 22.10.050) , Writs of Mandamus as such have been abolished by Rule 91(b), Al Rules of Civil, Procedure. However, this same rule provides that relief heretofore available by Mandamus, may be obatined by approoriate action or by appropriate motion under the practice prescribed in the Rules of Civil Pro- cedure. The Plaintiff in this case has sought this relief by way of injunction and since this relief is an extraordinary alternative to the usual court,action, it is available only on compliance with certain conditions precedent. Among these, Plaintiff must establish the clear right to a ministerial act by Defendant, the Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with that burden of proof and has estab- lished a clear right to a ministerial act by Defendant. In review- ing the proceedings in light of the relief requested, that is,on the balance of hardships, as set forth in A.J. Industries, Inc. v. Alaska Public Services Comm. 470 P.2d 537, the court finds that three factors required in order to justify the issuance of a prelim- inary injunction are present. (a) The Plaintiff is faced with irreparable harm if the building permit is not granted in that it has expended some five to six hundred thousand dollars to date and contracted and is liable to some extent for $2.6 million dollars worth of materials on order, being fabricated and being shipped, it stands to lose profits from the delay in construction, and increased costs due to winter construction, none of which can be recuperated by way of damages, as A.S. 09.65.070_(d)(2) provides that 'ho action for damages may be brought against a municipality. or any of its agents, officers or employees if the claim is based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty by a municipality or its agents, officers or employees, whether or not the discretion involved is abused." (b) The opposing party, i.e., City of Kodiak, can be adequately protected by requiring Plaintiff to post a bond in a su"ic4nt aount reode1ing to ccmPly with violation of any building s-r the cost of the ra=oval of any structre in - .cerif an order granting the relief is revarsed and (c) Plaintiff has raised serious and substantial questions which go to the merits of the case. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that th Defen ts, their officers, agents and employees and those Persons in active concert or partici- pation with them are enjoined, pending determination of this action, from 1. Interfering in any way with Plaintiff's construction. of a dock and seafood processing facility on land described as.Tide- : lands Tract N-28 and Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsite, Oue to the absence of the required building permit; 2. This preliminary injunction will remain in full force and effect until a hearing on the merits has been held; 3. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) with the Clerk of the Court under- -12- taking to pay, if Defendant receives judgment herein, the costs of remodeling any structure erected on the premises to comply with, or the removal of any structure insofar as it may be in violation of any building or zoning ordinance if defendants receive judgment herein. DONEat cc: Hedland Horton Kodiak, Alaska, this day of August, 1979. SEN, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE e kodiak wrap -up Church mem by NELL WAAGE acting editor Ted West, other mem- bers of the Unification Church, and employees of International Seafoods of Alaska, the firm West heads, poured their hearts out to members of the press during a luncheon press conference at West's home Wednesday. The conference was called, apparently, in re- sponse to a planned pro- test march and meeting set for Sunday by a group formed to "educate the public" into "cults." The conference seemed a genuine and sincere effort to impress media representatives that fears of an agressive " Moonie" movement here and fears of unfair competition in the seafood business are without basis. ISA is in the process of constructine a $3 million (with dock, building and equipment) fisheries plant here West says will be the most modern and efficient in Alaska. West began his informal presentation by taking a shot at one of his chief i ers ask for un erstan FRIENDLY FACES — Scott Hickoff, left, "Non - Moonie" who works as operations foreman for the International Seafoods of Alaska, joins church members, left to right, David Rogers, Christa Lindner, who is church leader for Alaska, and Ted West on the deck of West's home and office here in Kodiak. advocates, Harold Ward. During the past few months Ward has functioned as a KT staff will miss Cindy's friendly smile 4 CINDY WEBER If you've got the idea that typing is strictly a mechanical job and those that peck away at the keys are interested only in print, you should spend some time with Cynthia (Cindy) Weber, sophomore at the Kodiak High School. This past summer, Cindy was the typesetter for Kadiak Times. It was obvious to Kadiak Times employees that she en- joyed her job and didn't look at it as a mundane way of making money. As soon as she came into the office, Cindy nad a special - greeting for each person. Her "Good mofnings" were accom- ?anied by h hearty smile, and when it came time co go home, her "Good- byes" had just as much warmth and vitality. Cindy managed to con- vey cheerfulness, even when she was loaded down with scripts that had to be typed in a short time. But, perhaps that was to be ex- pected, since Cindy likes typing so much. She says that she got A's in typing class and that she found out about the summer job at Kadiak Times from . her typing teacher, Ms. Dindinger. "I came down here for an interview and the next day I found out that I was hired," recalls Cindy. Now that school is back in session, Cindy is doing something else that she likes: playing basketball, a sport which she and twin sister Helen have faired well in. Last year both Cindy and Helen were on the Junior Varsity team and hope to be just as active this year. Cindy is the daughter of Bill and Rika Weber. She also has a younger sister, Francis Lynn, age 10. Her mother is a native of Ouzinkie and her father hails from Missouri. According to Cindy, it was her mother who encouraged her to type. Says Cindy, "She was amazed at my hands and fingers, so I decided to put them to use." Whatever Cindy decides to do with her dexterity, Kadiak Times wishes her the best of luck and says "Thank you, Cindy, for being a part of our staff this summer." self- appointed organizer of opposition to the presence of "Moonies" in Kodiak and plans West has to es- tablish a foothold in the seafood business in Alaska. West reminded that Ward had asked liim for a job as public relations officer for ISA in January. West said he had turned Ward down because he "didn't feel I needed a public relations man in Kodiak. I had done what I felt was necessary," West explains. Scott Hickoff, opera- tions foreman'for ISA and himself not a member of the Unification Church, turned the tables on media people by asking if any of us know where he (Ward) got his financial backing." A young woman who has recently moved here from Anchorage and who is a member of the Unification Church said she can't understand the fear Kodiak's "Christian Community" seems to be showing towards members of her religion. She says she has experienced some hostility since moving here and feels hesitant to tell people what her religion is. Her children have also been targets of some show of mild hostility she says, noting that in some cases other parents had refused to allow their own chil- dren to play with hers. "They're kids," she said. "They don't think about religion. . .they just want to play like other kids." "I feel the Christian Community here is very strong. If they are strong, why do they have to worry about us ?" asked Diane La Cau, UC member. Diane certainly doesn't look frightening. Nor does Christa Lindner, leader of the UC in Alaska, who was also present to meet with media representatives. Christa, in her soft German accent, says she feels Kodiak people are "very much searching for what is the church. interested in the church." Someone noted the church has had "25 years of bad press. . .since the beginning we've had bad press." Under question- ing West said of the local press, "I have been treated fairly fairly." But he and others objected to the "fear created by the letters to the editor." David Rogers, who is plant manager for ISA and a UC member, remarked, "We don't steal people's kids, where do they get the idea we steal people's kids ?" Nobody in the group had a satisfactory explana- tion for the multitude of first person accounts of mind control and brain- washing in connection c° (Continued on Page 5) COME SEE US FOR ALL YOUR CARPENTRY, WOODWORK, GLASSWORK, INSULATING, TILING, CARPETING, HOUSEHOLD MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENT, AND DECORATING NEEDS. WE CARRY: i1) OWENS /CORNING FIBERGLAS "POPE & TALBOT RUFFCUT DUTCH BOY PAINTS • ANDERSON WINDOWS" ARMSTRONG TILE" KIRSCH SHELVES" MAJOR LINE CABINETS•NUTONE FANS & INTERCOMS • CARRIAGE HOUSE COLLECTION BUILDING SUPPLY INC. 8 AM to 5. PM — Mon. to Sat. 1718 Mill Bay Road Phone 486 -4350 ?AGE 2 - FRIDAY, SEPT. 7, 1979 - KADIAK TIMES :HURCH MEMBERS :ontinued from Page 2) r 1 association with the lurch. But both West and tigers tole( of their own (litary search and cxplor- ion That let to them •ining the organization .tablished by Rev. Sun .ytlllg ?loon. They s:tid they feel :eon's comments have :icn misconstrued leading ;ople to believe he plans take over the world, .tablishing himself as ead of a world -wide nu-ch- state. As West. puts "The goal of the opinion /fori���r Unification Church is to bring about a harmony and unity on this earth with (lud as the head." "'There's no way we plan to lake over the gov- ernmenl," he said, adding that the goal of the Rev. Moon and the t'C, is to "instill in the hearts of those in government. . link to (god." Being 0 Mow said, is "nut easy. Asked, "What 's not easy' ?" he said, "The per- secution..." The LIC members present said they somc- times feel fear when deal - ing with people who are clearly opposed to them on the basis of their reli- gion. And, "We hale to see people that are so afraid." But,' they said, their religion also is "very ful- filling." "We can feel (fort behind us." "'I'Ite lour of us you see here are the \In(1nies in Kodiak.. .we're it.," West told the gathering. "We have no intention of open- ing churches here. . or crying to steal anybody's t ,t Kn h® end where to c4 Di, wa46a the AB co _, Marine Redo,. Map. When you set out to sail Alaskan waters, it's nice to know who — and where you can call for assistance. The Alascom Marine Radio Map can show you. It's a coverage map of each of Alascom's Marine. Radio System stations. It's waterproof, and tells you the call letters and frequency of each station. Next time you're out on the briny deep, make sure you're not in over your head. Send for your complimentary copy of the Alascom Marine Radio Map. AIPSCOM Clip this coupon and mail to: Alascom Inc. Address Office of Public Affairs Pouch 6607 Anchorage, AK, 99502 Name City State Zip Vessel Registration # children." \Vest said he has, "No plans to import any mem• hers in place of anyone local who has the qualifi- cations to do the job." Ile added that he would not exclude hiring church 1nen1bers solely on the reli- gious basis. Rogers added that he had found it sometimes necessary to "fire mem- bers" at the 'lust coast plants he ran prior to coming here. He said the religious zeal was there hut sometimes got in the way of the work. West said the plant they are building in Kodiak will be, "one of the most effi- (lent, first -class operations in America today." He and Rogers aid the '1'agura Road plant, to he Open in .January is to he more highly automated than ex- isting plants and that with a crew of 150 they would turn out twice the product of Other plants of equal size. "'Phis business is here to art as a nosiness, - . ing to do business according to the highest moral and ethical crudes that we can," West promised. Rogers added, "We're asking people to please be- fore they judge, investigate for themselves, not just go on hearsay." r 124 Reader urges us off the wall of spectators (Editors Note: This number five in a continuing series of letters to the Kadiak Times editor by Art Zimmer. The Kadiak Times does not necessarily agree with various points of view expressed in letters to the editor. h is our policy to allow readers space to present their own viewpoints.) Dear Editor: It seems to me I'm either growing older, or it may be due to some other cause, but I am of late impressed by an old nursery rhyme we all learned as kids. In fact, several years ago I actually got to see the rhyme's animated figure sitting on the wall in Edmonton's Storyland Valley Zoo. The general setting is a bit like Disneyland's —so many childhold fancies really "real" (or are they "real ""?) Well, there he sat, fat, jolly and leaning from side to side as though he were "king of the wall." Maybe I was slow to catch on as a child, but just between us, 1 admit I never really realized till I saw him, that Humpty Dumpty was really an enlarged egg! Further though, I lately began won- dering if the old nursery rhyme may not have been someone's adage; al least 1 think it could be. As 1 recall, it goes about like this: "Humpty Uwnply sat on the wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put limply Dumpty together again." Perhaps the first thing I've been wondering about is, why did Humpty Dumpty sit on the wall? Was it his naive pride that set him in such a precarious place? Evidently he never thought in terms other than remaining on the fence -like wall indefinitely. Then 1 wonder, why did he fall? Who shoved him off? 1)id he overbalance by himself in his conceited stupor of smugness? Was his fall indeed fatal or at least serious enough to alert him and others to true life situations'? Now if 1 sound like I'm getting carried away with this thing, I guess maybe I ant! Why couldn't all the king's horses and all the king's men put Humpty together again? It seems to me the natural course (god intended for any egg the- sides its being eaten( is to be brooded upon 1111 111 it breaks open from within. The new life formed inside now emerges, leaving the broken shell be- hind. But for an egg to teeter upon any wall never was its intended function. Elijah in the Bible once asked, "How long halt ye between Iwcl opinions? 1f the Lord be God, follow.1lim (Kings 1 5 :21 ). Finally, I wonder who of us would have judge- ment enough to volunteer off the fence and sub- ject out beings l) the warn) love Of Gucl 1)11111 he imparts and develops a new life within us. How awful after sitting up there in a self - willed style, we'd find ourselves at the bottom, crushed and unnlendable! '1'o rightly counter what appears to be a religion camouflaged in a "seafoods in• duslrv" cloak, we must. gut off the wall of the the spectators, and get "under the protective wings of God! Sincerely, /s/ Art Zimmer Box 1552, Kodiak - KADIAK TIMES - FRIDAY, SEPT. 7, 1979 - PAGE 5 Pacific Pearl Seafoods. At last night's meeting association members established a "tie up" agreement to be used if a price settlement is not reached. Pacific Pearl has offered two options, manager of. the association,Jeff Stephan, said this morning. One option is 90- cents a pound plus 6 -cents a pound, retroactive, over the Bering Sea price which has not yet been settled. The second option is a flat 92- cents a pound, Stephan said. The Kodiak king crab season begins Sept. 10. At last night's meeting association members set up a tie -up agreement to be used if there is not a price settlement prior to Sept. 10. Under the tie -up agreement vessels May set their gear on the grounds, Stephan. said, • but should not {prospect for crab; have crab t:.nboard or "stuff" pots with crab. 'RECAST: stair to partly cloudy. IDS N 5 -10 m.p.h. HIGH 64 RECAST: Small craft advisory. g to 15 knots. SEAS rough to 8 feet. OUTLOOK: NW FRIDAY :.m. —1.6 8:29 p.m. —0.8 m. 10.0 2:27 p.m. 9.4 By Martini Father Tero officiates at a baptism last weekend at St. Mary's Church. Being baptised is Jeffrey Allen Agmata. Left to right are Tessie Doral, parents Fred and Nora Agmata, and Roger David, Inn 11 SeafoOdsineets with By CHRIS BLACKBURN Mirror Staff Writer Excesses, fear, misun- derstandings and ignorance have resulted in apprehension in the Kodiak community over International Seafoods' efforts to build a seafood processing plant in Kodiak, company vice - president Ted West said during a press conference held yesterday to respond to an unnamed group's intention of holding an "anti- cult" march Sunday in Kodiak. The four Unification Church members employed by Inter- national Seafoods in Kodiak are caught in an awkward position of being unable to distribute in- formation on their religion to allay community fears' without appearing to be proselyting or recruiting in Kodiak, West said. 1Jp {NN 9 KEG Traffic Flow Study Berson Avenue Drawing by Virgil David 'fie lanes on Benson are supposed iy has the state so far failed to .what to do with the recently pain- s put up an erroneous sign in front r of the Sheffield House saying the third lane is to be used "for left turns only." The yellow lines on Benson south of Marine Way are also incorrectly located. rem Christe Lindner, state director of the Unification Church from Anchorage, said she had manned a booth at the Alaska State Fair in Palmer and a number of Kodiak residents had stopped by the booth to pick up information brochures. West acknowledged that some church leaders and recruiters, out of zeal, had been excessive in their recruiting methods in the past. Further problems have been created by public misin- terpretation of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's statement and difficulties in translating his statements from Korean to English. Some fund raisers from the church have misrepresented themselves, Lindner said, out of fear after encountering hostility. "We tell them not to do it (misrepresent themselves)," Lindner said. "It falls back on the whole membership of the 'church," West added. Some employees of Inter- national Seafoods in Kodiak, church and nonchurch members, said they have experienced some discrimination based on religion when looking for housing in Kodiak. "Church and state separation is good," West said. "Moon is not out to take over the gover- Those in Kodiak most out- spoken in their opposition to the Unification Church's opening a seafood processing plant, "have never talked to me, never tried to inform themselves about the church," West said. He also noted that, despite constant investigations and continuous - allegations of illegal activities, the Unification Church had never been charged with any illegality. West said the decision to develop a seafood' processing plant. in Kodiak was a decision made by himself and David (Continued on Page 3) Thursday, September 6, 1979 — KODIAK DAILY MIRROR-LPage 3 nter na l e (Continued from Page 1) Rogers, plant manager, and wasn't a decision the Rev. Moon favored. "We tell him what we should do," West said, stressing that the processing plant would be run like any other business and loyees would be hired on the Is of technical skill, not religion.' "', "I've had to fire church members," Rogers said, ex- plaining that zeal and good will did not compensate for lack of skills or technical knowledge. : The church members involved insetting "up: International. Seafoods expressed;_ pleasure 'at being able to do 'a job they en joyed that they also felt would be helpful to the community within the goals of their church. Non - church members expressed enthusiasm at the chance to carry out their ideas on how to 'develop a .modern seafood processing . and marketing • operation: Lindner' Said that "Moonie5 5 Dear Sir, • The projected establishment of a seafood processing facility here in Kodiak by the Unification Church appears to be a frequently discussed and highly emotional issue, inducing a variety of reactions ranging from complacent - apathy to vociferous outrage. This plethora of dissimilar opinions about the potential influx of "Moonies" tends to support the inclusion that a great many odiak residents are unsure or inadequately informed about this cult and its range of activities. We, as individuals and members of a community, must thus ensure that our evaluations of this organization are based not on prejudicial misconception or spurious hearsay but on a thorough interpretation of facts. The Unification Church, since its founding in 1954, has grown to a present membership of ap- proximately two million worldwide, including over 30,000 in the U.S. alone, the majority of whom are young people in their • Hammond to give Gov. Jay Hammond said, on the eve of his meeting with the twenties and thirties. The "Moonies ", or followers of the patriarchal Reverend Sun Myung Moon; are involved in a wide variety of projects and' financial investments which serve to supplement the income derived from contributions, which . according . to the. Washington _ Post amount to $6,000,000 yearly. Indeed, a cursory observation tends to provide us with a picture of dedicated, hard working in- dividuals with a shrewd business sense and an innate flair for fund raising. : . But let us look deeper into the reality of this cult and its diligently devoted members. This in itself is no easy task, as their adeptness at showing the public only what they wish it to see is. only of many talents that this "cult displays. Nonetheless; it is not difficult to perceive the secrecy and social alienation that are integral parts of this cult's basic framework. We must delve past the readily proffered exterior and, much trophy thanks Stuart M. Hodgson; will be presented to the team that .: .. . .► a oan _ like a surgeon seeking a tumor, investigate the ideals and in- tentions that remain so faithfully concealed. • We: cannot equitably chastise this group for their forthright desire to expand financially, provided that expansion is at- tained within the limits of the law,' Nor can we usurp their right to believe in their own religious convictions, however much or little they may differ from our own. It is their recruitment techniques and , subsequent tearing down and rebuilding of character that should 'receive our unhesitant and unrestrained condemnation. To witness the ideological alterations in young persons after their induction into the Unification Church is to see a shocking . metamorphosis of spirit and ego•that inevitably results in • the forsaking of family, friends and all previous values: Where once was a sense of . -individualism, now exists only the•hopeless and perfunctory dedication :of an automaton. Where existed an energetic imagination, now only the pragmatism of duty remains. Indeed, where once there was a •••non i`ianFi l., e•nnlata with didn't want to found a church" but wanted people to worship God in their everyday lives. "We don't support church buildings. We don't support ministers," Lindner said. Church members worship together in each other's homes, she explained. Church funds are used to develop study programs, she said. Lindner, West and Rogers all K •dick Ka lend r FRIDAY Square Dance Class - 7 - 8:30 p.m. KEA; Square Dance Club 8:30 - 10 p.m. KEA. Museum 11 a.m. - 3 p.m. Well Baby Clinic, Call for ap- pointment, 486 -3319, Health Center. A. Holmes Johnson Library 1 -9 p.m. Ram Committee Weekly break- fast meeting, 6:45 a.m. Shelikof Lodge. Kodiak Women in Crisis 11ELPLINE 486 -3625 said the appea of the church to them had been its stress on taking an active role. There are no plans to bring in church members to work in the proposed International Seafoods plant, West said. Right now the staff of eight contains only four church members, he said, and, at most, the processing plant would not employ more than 10 church members. Rewards offered A reward of $1,000 is being offered by the United Fisher- men's Marketing Association for any information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone found stealing fishing gear either from storage or the fishing grounds, and anyone found robbing pots of crab. A further policy is being developed, Jeff Stephan, association . manager, said, which will allow the association to offer a larger reward for any information leading to the conviction of gear and pot robbers as well as creek rob- bers —those who illegally fish harvest salmon commercially from streams. ( JOHN S. HEDLAND HUGH W. FLEISCHER SAUL R. FRIEDMAN JAMES T. BRENNAN JANALEE R. STRANDBERG EDWARD P. NOLDE PATRICK M. ANDERSON ■.■ LAW OFFICES DEDLAND, FLEISCIIEI{ & FRIEDMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1016 WEST 6TH AVENUE. SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 (907) 279-5528 AND (907) 278-3633 Richard W. Garnett, Esquire 909 West 9th Avenue, Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 September 25, 1979 RE: International*Seafoods v. Kodiak Island Borough and Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission Dear Rick: PFL Pursuant to our conversation of September.25, 1979, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the Complaint filed in the above entitled action. I understand that you will accept service and appear on behalf of the defendants without the necessity of formal service. Additionally, as I advised you earlier, the case was filed in Anchorage as a matter of convenience. Clearly, venue is proper in Anchorage as an initial matter and we are willing to stipulate to a change of venue to Kodiak if you so desire. This also confirms our understanding that the intent of Mr. Milligan's letters of September 20th, 1979, to Mr. Ted West and Mr. Clair Harmony (Exhibit E to the Complaint) is to request that the City take action to stop construction of plaintiff's facility, and is not intended to be a directive from Mr. Milligan or the Planning & Zoning.Commission directly to Mr. West or International Seafoods. In other words, Mr. Milligan and/or the Commission is requesting that the City shut down the project, and is giving Mr. West notice of that request. Since the City has already been enjoined from so doing, and since the letters do not purport to order International Seafoods to shut down, International Seafoods may continue the project at the present time insofar as the Borough or the Planning Commission is concerned. If I have misunderstood your understanding of the situation, please advise me. Sincerely, (E,6, John S. Hed JSH/bjm Enclosures S.odialc liiii iiiJame KoDIAK, ALA:4(A GUI 2 1979 • 718191101�.11211120140 , „ • 1 2 4 5 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE pF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ) ALASKA, INC., an Alaska ) corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH; and ) THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No. 3AN-79- COMPLAINT Plaintiff International Seafoods of Alaska,. Inc., an Alaska corporation, by and through its attorneys, Hedland, Fleischer & Friedman, for its claim of relief against the Kodiak Island Borough and the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission, alleges as follows: 1. International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. (Inter- national Seafoods) is an Alaska corporation duly qualified to conduct business in Alaska, having filed its last annual report due and having paid its last annual tax. International Seafoods has been incorporated and formed to build and operate a seafood processing plant in the City of Kodiak. 2. The Kodiak Island Borough, sometimes herein referred to as "Borough", is a second class borough organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Alaska. The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and,Zoning Commission, sometimes herein referred to as "Commission", is the planning and zoning authority for the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak. 3. On June 26,,1979, International Seafoods filled out a building permit application form pursuant to MIDLAND. FLEISCHER a FRIEDMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 400 I m wr$T GT II AVENUE NCHORAGE, AK. 99501 (907) 279-'5528 AND ( 907 ) 270-3033 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ordinances of the City of Kodiak. Said form required approval by the Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Administrator (Exhibit A) that the plans and specifications of the project for which the permit was applied for was an acceptable use in the Kodiak Island Borough planning and zoning scheme. Said approval was granted on June 26, 1979. 4. Then, on July 18, 1979, after a request by the City of Kodiak for 'an interpretation of Kodiak Island Borough Ordinance 17.57.010 (Exhibit A) the Commission purported to rescind the approval which had beengranted.to International Seafoods by the Borough's Zoning Administrator. (Exhibit B). 5. Thereafter, the Commission scheduled a public hearing for August 15, 1979, to consider its interpretation of,. Ordinance 17.57.010. 6. Ordinance 17.57.010 prior to the public hearing of August 15, 1979, which required certain minimum free off- street parking facilities constructing certain facilities in Kodiak. Ordinance 17.57.010 had never been applied or inter- preted to apply to construction in the waterfront industrial zone of the City of Kodiak. (Exhibit C). 7. At the public hearing on August 15, 1979, the Commission adopted a resolution purporting to require all applications for building permits in the waterfront industrial zone of the City of Kodiak to include a plan for off-street parking. (Exhibit D, p.2) 8. Then, at a work session on September 5, 1979, the Commission interpreted their acts of August 15, 1979 to apply the new interpretation requiring parking to all permits issued on or after August 16, 1979., (Exhibit D, p. 1) The position taken by the Commission, pursuant to an inquiry by the Kodiak City Manager was that the new interpretation 1EDLAND, FLEISCHER 11 FRIEDMAN ATTOIINEYS AT LAW SUITE .100 1,16 %Vf"51- GTII AVENUE. NCHORAGE. AK. 99501 )907) 279-5520 (NO (907) 270.3633 -2- 1 apparently applied to International Seafoods, and International Seafoods could not therefore be issued a building permit until it had complied with the ordinance or had sought a variance. 9. Thereafter, on or about September 18, 1979, Mr. Pugh, a member of the Commission, delivered a letter signed by Harry Milligan, Planning Director for the Commission, to Ted H. West, General Manager of International Seafoods, ordering International Seafood S to stop work on its project unless it complied with Ordinance 17.57.010. (Exhibit E) 10. At the time of its' submission of the building permit application form, the plans and specifications submitted by International Seafoods conformed in all respects to the requirements of Title 17 of. the Kodiak Island. Borough Code of Ordinances and Title 14 of the City of Kodiak Ordinances. A building permit should have been issued on June 26, 1979, but was not. 11. The actions of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission in purporting to rescind the Zoning Administrater's approval of the plans of International Seafoods is null and void because the Planning and Zoning Commission has not gained jurisdiction over the matter. The Planning and Zoning Commission gains jurisdiction over the acts of the Zoning Administrator only if an appeal is made to it pursuant to Ordinance 17.66.060, by filing an appeal . with the Commission within 10 days after an decision has been rendered. The actions of the Planning and Zoning Commission were taken at least 22 days after approval had been granted by the Zoning Administrator to the plans and specifications of International Seafoods. 12. Theactionsof the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission in reinterpreting Ordinance HEDLAND, FLEISCHER & FRIEDMAN ATTonr4F:rs AT LAW SUITE 400 ;010 WI !;1' 6111 AVI1UE ,NCHORAGE. AK. 99501 (907) 279-5520 'NO (907) 270-3633 17.51.010 to require off-street parking in industrial zones is null and void and of no effect. The original interpretation that off-street parking was not required in said zones is the correct one. Therefore, the interpretation of August 15, 1979, is of no effect. 13. Even if the reinterpretation of Ordinance 17.57.010 is correct, as stated on August 15, 1979, by the Planning and Zoning Commission, it is of no force and effect against International Seafoods. Defendant Commission is estopped from asserting that the ordinance applies to Inter- national Seafoods by virtue of the interpretations given to International Seafoods prior to the reinterpretation, and' the subsequent material reliance of International Seafoods upon that interpretation. Substantial planning and construc- tion based in reliance on the prior interpretation long preceded the reinterpretation by the Planning Commission. 14. The procedure'followed by the Commission in issuing a Stop Work Order to International Seafoods is in error and contrary to law, and therefore of no force and effect. Ordinance 17.75.040 requires the •Commission to refer actions to be taken to,the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, which Assembly must then authorize action by the Borough attorney to enjoin any violations of Title 17 of the Kodiak Island Borough ordinances. Such procedure was not followed. Therefore, the Stop Work Order issued by the Commission is null, void and of no effect. 15. TheKodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission and Kodiak Island Borough are further bound by the decision rendered in the case of International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. v. City of Kodiak, et'al., Civil No. 3K0-79-353, Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District. f.LDLAND, FLEISCHER ELMA AN ATTOliNEYS AT LAW SUITE A00 WEST ATH AVENUE CHORAGE, AK. 99501 (907) 279-5528 AND (907) 278-3633 11_ -4- 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 The Kodiak Island Borough was represented by its attorney at hearings held on July 24, 1979, and presented testimony with respect to their position concerning the building permit, and did not object to counsel's statement that, if they presented testimony, they would be viewed as a party for whatever involvements they may have at some later point. (Exhibit F) The Borough and Commission are bound by the decision of August 20, 1979, particularly as set forth on page 3 in Exhibit F, attached hereto. 16. In any event, the retroactive application of the re-interpretation of Ordinance 17.57.010 would be an invidious application of the law, would be arbitrary, capricilnis, and contrary to law, and would be a denial of equal protectiop and due process of law if applied to International,Seafoods. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for relief as follow: 1. For declaratory judgment determining that the interpretation of Ordinance 17.57.010 as of June 26, 1979, whyl the Zoning Administrator of the Kodiak Island. Borough origina4ly approved the plans and specifications, applies to and governs the application of International Seafoods for a building permit; 2. For a declaratory judgment determining that the Stop Work Order issued by the Commission is null and void and contrary to law; 3. For recovery of its damages, actual and puniti1, if any, caused by the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zonirg Commission wrongfully refusing its authority for granting of said building permit; 4. For recovery of the plaintiff's attorney fees ar0 costs in this matter; and 5. For such other,relief as this Court may deem just and equitable, including a Temporary Restraining Order and {.E.DLAND. FLEISCHER a FRIEDMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 400 PI6 WEST GTH AVENUE UCHORAGE, AK, 99501 907) 279-5528 (907) 278-3633 -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Preliminary Injunction should the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission or Kodiak Island Borough attempt to enforce its Stop Work Order, purportedly issued on or about September 18, 1979. DATED this 24th day of September, 1979, at Anchorage, Alaska. I (GOLAND, FLEISCHER FRIEDMAN ATTCNINEYS AT LAW SUITE 400 INS WI SI 1,114 AVENUE NCHORAGE, AK, 99501 (907) 279-5529 Ar.40 (907) 278.3633 HEDLAND, FLEISCHER & FRIEDMAN 'Attorneys for Plaintiff B : at ick M..Anders n -6- KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Mr. Clair Harmony City Manager P.O. Box 1396 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mr. Harmony, • • Telephones 486-5736 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 September 20, 1979 The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission has directed this department to issue a notice to stop work to International Seafoods of Alaska until a valid building permit for their construction work taking place on City Tidelands Tract N-28 has been issued. We would appreciate your assistance in having Mr. Morris Lee take the necessary action to insure that the Commission's action is followed. Attached is a letter to International Seafoods stating the Commission's action taken on September 19, 1979. If you have any questions regarding this matter please advise. Sincerely, HM/jmj CC: P & Z Commission -Borough Mayor Borough Assembly Borough Manager Borough Attorney International Seafoods of Alaska Harry Mil 'an Planning Director Minutes, September 1-9, 1979 Page 3 2. S-79-045. A request to subdivide into two lots, lot 8, Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision. (John Lindsey) STAFF REPORT: Mr. Milligan presented the staff report based on a memorandum prepared by the planning department. Mr. Busch closed the regular meeting and opened the public hearing: Hearing no comments he closed the public hearing and reopened the regular meeting. Mrs. Crowe moved to grant a request to subdivide into two lots, lot 8, Russian Creek Alaska Subdivision as per the maps that we have that were prepared by Mr. Eckland on 8-27-79. Seconded by Mr. Perez. Motion PASSED by unanimous roll call vote. C. OTHER I. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, LIBRARY/CLASSROOM. STAFF REPORT: Mr. Milligan presented the staff report based on a memorandum prepared by the planning department. The Commission and Mr. Milligan discussed the parking area. Presentation by Mr. Vahle, Project director for the University. More discussion between the Commission and Mr. Vahle. Mr. Pugh moved to grant site plan approval for the University of Alaska library/classroom addition at the Kodiak Community College provided that within a two year period the University of Alaska, at the Kodiak Community College comes into compliance with the Kodiak Island Borough regulations regarding parking requirements for the College and also comes into complianc with Section 17.57.020 of the current zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Perez. Motion PASSED by unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Pugh moved that the Commission direct the staff to prepare a Resolution for us to pass on to the Borough Assembly and our Legislative Delegation requesting that the State come up with the funds so that the Community Coll- ege can fix up the parking and the parking lot improvements be funded as soon as possible. Seconded"by Mr. Perez. Motion PASSED by unanimous roll call vote. (For the November 21, 1979, meeting.) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None VII. OLD BUSINESS None VIII. NEW BUSINESS - None IX. INFORMATION. AND REPORTS-- - - A. Communications - Mr. Milligan state that items 1-9 were just for information The letter from Mr. Harmony's office regarding a stop work order to Internation- al Seafoods of Alaska. The City is requesting that the Borough Building Inspector also issue a stop work order until permits have been obtained and the Borough and City Ordinances have been complied with. — . Mr. Pugh moved to request that a stop- WOrk order be issued against International: ;Seafoodsuntil such time that they Cometb the Planning Staff and show that they have adaquate parking for their development. Seconded by Mr. Perez. Motion PASSED by unanimous roll call vote. (and they come up with a City Building permit. B. Reports - Staff report from Mr. Milligan on crab pot storage. Letters that Bryce sent out to three persons storing pots on land that they do not live on. X. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS - they would like to have some way to mark the plats that go with the subdivisions or other cases. put on cases #. September 17, 1979 Alexandra B. Smith, Chief Environmental Evaluations U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Dear Ms, Smith: RE: International Seafoods of Alaska NPDES Application AK-002666-2 . As an addendum to the City of KodYak/s timely objection to the issuance of discharge elimination systems permit for International Seafoods, we would like to add the following commentary on the specifics of the firm's application now that we are in receipt of the complete documents. .The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission has forwarded the application sent to them by your office. Under the applicant's response to questions relating to future seafood plants, specifically section IV, Social Economic Impacts, we find that subparagraph 4 is not accurate as evidenced by the attached Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning letter concerning the matter. The Planning and Zoning letter indicates that International Seafoods is not in compliance with the Kodiak Island Borough parking ordinance which requires one parking space for every four hundred square feet of gross floor space or one parking space for every three employees, whichever results in the greatest number of parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning letter to the City of Kodiak in effect says that the off street parking ordinance applied to t industrial zoning code. There had been some confusion as to its applica- tion, but since that time the Planning and Zoning Commission has clarified the issue. Since the City of Kodiak has not issued a building permit (though International Seafoods is building under court authorization) the project is clearly not in compliance with zoning requirements. Section ||, subparagraph 5 of the same section of the company's application indicates, "water depth at midchannel is twenty-three plus fathoms". However, our depth ratings indicate that the actual depth at midchannel is five to seven fathoms. (See attached sounding chart of Near Island Channel in front of International Seafoods). POST OFFICE BOA 1397, KODIAK ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 Alexandra B. Smith, Chief . Page 2 September 17, 1979 Under facility description, subsection "E ", subparagraph 2, the application indicates that there were no public objections to the Army Corps of Engineers' dock approval and permit. This is not true and we have copied with this letter objections received by the Army Corps of Engineers from corporate interests as well as a letter mailed in a timely manner, but received late from the State Division of Marine Highways. Additionally, we observed the following apparent errors: 1. On page 1-2, section VII, Facility Intake Water, the application indicates 76 million gallons per day which should probably be 76 thousand gallons per day. 2. The proposed dock plat is incorrect according . to current plans because the forward twenty feet have been removed, therefore cutting the dock in by twenty feet. However, since actual construction was ten feet forward of the presented plans to the Army Corps of Engineers, the net effect will be a thirty foot extension into the Near Island Channel forward of adjacent docks. 3. Page 11 -1 indicates a beginning discharge date of 79/5 which we now understand has been postponed. Please add these comments to our objections and areas of.concern as stated in our initial correspondence with your office. Most sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK C Clair W. Harmony City Manager cc: Hal Horton, Attorney Judge Roy Madsen Col. Smith, Army Corps of Engineers Admiral Dean, U. S. Coast Guard International Seafoods, Inc. Representative Don Young Senator Ted Stevens Senator Mike Gravel Governor Jay Hammond Representative Fred Zharoff Senator Bob Mulcahy Capt. Beach, U.S.C.G., Kodiak Dan Crevensten, EPA, Anchorage Lt. Col. Morris, Army Corps of Engineers, D.C. diak Planning and Zoning Commission A.. LOGARITH! 2 3 4 5 6 11,1"L.1 To find SPEED, place ono ro.n: n!,1 ,:0,;, on c.:s*Ince• right point on 60 and lefidoin!A:' C 1" KODIAK ISLANtt BO UGH Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 September 6, 1979 Mr. Clair Harmony City Manager. Box 1396 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mr. Harmony, This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 4; 1979, to the Planning and Zoning Commission. During a work session on September 5, 1979, the Commission reviewed your letter and asked that I respond on their behalf. The Commission stated it was their intent that the interpretation is applicable to all permits issued on or after August 16, 1979. Thus any permit in process but not yet issued as of August 16, 1979 is sub- ject to thejnterpretation. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the verbatim text of the motion of interpretation and the text of the motion establish- ing an effective date. As to the application of the Commission's action to International Seafoods of Alaska's building permit application if the permit was not issued until on or after 3:00 a.m. August 16, 1979, the application is . subject to the Commission's interpretation. .1: hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions regarding this or other matters do not hesitate to call upon us. CC: Borough Mayor Borough Assembly P & Z Commission Borough Attorney Borough Manager International Seafoods of Alaska Enclosure: Sincerely, Harry )4 igan Planning Director 9t7 e'i ee 1:/r-±'—'"•• • ft-Ae rp.ei ,t• 11 7.re r- P e c, Mrs. Crowe moves that the Commission intreoret the Ordinance to require off-street pal-kiq in accordance with the provionsof Section 17.57.010 in the industrial and InEstriWIE,serve iiislricts but hve no retroactive effect on the existinn buildings in_these zones. Seconded by Mr. .Pugh. 1otion PASSED py unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Pugh moves the Commission directs the staff as of A-nust- 16 1c79 that all building_pernits that are issued in the Industrial and Industrial Reserve zones be required to meet the intrepretation of this ordinance that we made toniaht. Seconded by Hr. Erwn. PASSED by unanimous roll ca11. vote. Fe a4 ;a r1 1 '.. i r:. • Re: Public :: ;.ic °a Al ask a Dis::rict r—,0 J.c E ;jisivery • � . . ^ C ; chora•-0[ A±a.'„ is (..7=5;510 Attoati r„"' ' ft-`+:.71 a tvry 3 uiiictic s Branch Lear Sirs: We r?re5y protest thl3 pro oscd dock extension into Near Island r:;,•.;r.yi -as Obtlined in•ne captioned Public Notice. . • �:Cur j `s basically s�N_+ .•ss noted in of %. ter o ..:' L.1;�.:l. •Z ti:i are ...'iC •:+t........ ri �1 Lia.! i) (i ��y t tT �3H a J 20, 137:3 (":7✓ enclosed t o rie pro c.: C+: installation b,. , .the u Eastp}! iL Seafood Ci:i: aat:y . .:Z t` the advent of the 2C3 limit :.: resul y =2; .i ':t _ar; i i fishing . Vessii activity ant fur h2rt encr o cht.,&it on the channel would cr 2ate vary real hazards to the WY T ;J i JnE: \ and her passenc :rs. Very truly ,d curs , Captain 1 .-Pert Captain bcc• i:ase.ei , t;J.` TUS4I Z.� `4 ;'i/co: ` Cry'« i 4:i f t r. l'VHTNEY- FDALGO SEAFOODS, INC. 2360 WEST COMMODORE WAY P. 0. BOX 99003, SEATTLE, ‘VN. 98199 TELEPHONE (CODE 206) AT 5-0300 • CABLE ADDRESS "WHITNEY" July 13, 1979 • Kodiak City Council Kodiak, Alaska -Gentlemen: This letter is written in protest of the dock extension proposed by Inter-. national Seafoods," The proposed extension would be a navagational hazard. Apparently the Army Corps of Engineers failed to realize that normally when the sea conditions are fairly good we have fishing.boats tied three deep at the face of the dock in the channel leaving less navigable water. It certainly is no secret to the industry that this piece of waterfront - property has been available for sale. But, the judgement of knowledgeable operators has been that a dock extension would never be possible due to the narrow width of the channel. "No one would like to buy a ranch that can't grow grass': Also, of as much concern to us is the Tagura Road situation. We all suffer trying to operate on this disgraceful trail, Only one way traffic in most spots for Sea vans and little to no parking. Where does International Sea- foods propose to acquire parking space being they have one of the narrowest spaces on the Waterfront? We are not protesting because of competition, we actually enjoy our competitors. Sincerely,"/ • Cary K. 1,Teggins Vice-'President Whitney Fidalgo Seafoods, Inc. KOD1AK ISLAND BO Mr'. Clair Harmony City Manager Box 1396 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mr. Harmony, Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 September 6, 1979 This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 4, 1979 to the Planning and Zoning Commission. During a work session on September 5, 1979, the Commission reviewed your letter and asked that I respond on their behalf. The Commission stated it was their intent that the interpretation is applicable to all permits issued on or after August 16, 1979. Thus any permit in process but not yet issued as of August 16, 1979 is sub- ject to the interpretation. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the verbatim text of the motion of interpertation and the text of the motion establish- ing an effective date. As to the application of the Commission's action to International Seafoods of Alaska's Building permit application if the permit was not issued until on or after 8:00 a.m. August 16, 1979, the application is subject to the Commission's interpretation. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions regarding this or other matters do not hesitate to call upon us. Sincerely, Harry Mi igan Planning Director CC:, Borough Mayor Borough Assembly P & Z Commission Borough Attorney Borough Manager International Seafoods of Alaska Enclosure: Hrs. Crowe moves that the Commission intrepret the Ordinance to reciire off-street _parking in accordance with the nrovisions of Section 17.57.010 in the Industrial and Industrial Reserve districts, but have no retroactive effect on the existing buildings in these zones. Seconded by Hr. Pugh. Motion PASSED by unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Pugh moves the Commission directs the staff as of Aunust 16 1979 that all building permits that are issued in the Industrial_ and_ Industrial Reserve zones be required to meet the intreoretation of this ordinance that we made tonight. Seconded by Hr. Erwin. rbtion PASSED by unanimous roll call vote. '-� September 4, 1979 Planning and Zoning Commission Kodiak Island Borough P.O. Box 1245 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Legally and on grounds of good planning, the City concurs with your interpretation of the parking ordinance applying to industrial zoning. But there still seems to be some confusion whether this was applicable to international Seafoods, Inc. We request that the Planning and Zoning Commission send a recommendation to the Borough Assembly for clarification of this matter to run concur- rently with the City's inquiry to the Assembly through the attached letter addressed to Mayor Betty Wallin. Most sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK .�� � {��'�z� � e Clair W. Harmony City Manager CWH/yb Enclosures '_)' ���_' 1 POST OHCE BOA 1397, KODIAK AIRS-IC(1 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 wx.Ilitk KODMK., ALA Case No. 3AN 79-5015 RECEIVE0 ../e6,-?1- 3 2 7 RECT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS OF ALASKA, INC., an Alaska corporation, Plaintiff, 1 vs. THE CITY OF KODIAK, et al., ] Defendants. UGT 2 1979 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ::'5.6.194911.id2glg2A3alifiga Ey: FILED IN Afos%a Trial Cour!: Third Jud:ciol Dizrict of Kcc.lok - AUG 2 Ci 1Q7° Cork c! TKat DEPUTY This case involves.a dispute over the propriety of the City of Kodiak's refusal to grant Plaintiff a building permit to construct a seafood processing plant on Tideland Tract N-28 and a portion of Lot 12, Block 2 Kodiak Townsite. Plaintiff made application to and received .from the 'Department of the Arrry, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, a permit to construct. a doe:: on the navigable portion of said property which extends into the Near Island Channel. After applying for a building permit and having it approved by the city building official and having it signed off, by the borough building official which sign-off is for the purpose of indicating non-objection.by borough officials, the city, through its manager and council, directed its building official not to issue the permit, Stating as a basis, various reasons such as (1) That the dock would interfere with navigation in the channel; (2) impede tidal flow; (3) That plaintiff was dumping fill material on its', the city's, property; (4) That the proposed construction Might impede access to Near Island. It was then suggested that a review of Plaintiff's application by the Corps of Engineers would be appropriate. This review was made by the Corps of Engineers and U. S. Coast Guard and resulted in reaffirmation of their prior opinion that the structure would not affect the navigal ity of Near Island Channel. ' city still refused to issu allow'the building official issue a building permit and requested of the borough an "interpretation" of their off-street loading and parking requirements in industrial zones. Thereafter the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission "rescinded" the borough building offidial's sign-off on the permit and Scheduled a public hearing for August 15, 1979 to decide "whether their previous interpretation of the zoning laws in which they interpreted the off-street parking requirement as not applying to waterfront property Should be revised". The Plaintiff filed this action re- questing a Declaratory Judgment determining that Plaintiff has met all applicable building and construction standards of the city and that a building permit must be issued as a•ministerial act and for a temporary restraining' order and preliminary injunction ordering the city to grant and issue a building permit for the construction of Plaintiff's facility and for damages for the city's wrongful refusal and withholding of the permit. The court, after having heard the testimony of the witnesses on behalf of Plaintiff and • Defendant and having considered the exhibits offered and received and having reviewed the briefs or, the law filed by the parties and having considered the authorities cited therein, now makes the following findings of fact and states the following conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff, International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc., is an Alaskan corporation authorized and qualified to do business in the State of Alaska. .2.: The Defendant, City of Kodiak, is a municipal corpor- ation organized and existing under the laws of Alaska and its charter, as a Home Rule City of First Class. 3. Plaintiff owns real property located in the City of Kodiak, Kodiak Island Borough, known and described as Tidelands Tract N-26 and Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsitc, which Plaintiff purchased for. the purpose of constructing a dock and seafood processincj facility. 'This\ Tideland Tract, N-28, 's owned by the City of \ J Kodiak-, --sold by it at auction with the city council reserving the right to approve or disapprove the'develOpment plan presented by the bidder and to accept or reject the bids on that basis. 5. The tract was zoned for industrial use by the action . of the City of Kodiak in adopting and approving a Comprehensive Plan_ for the city (Court's Exhibit. M. 6. Plaintiff made application to and received from the Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, a permit to "retain and preserve an existing fill and dock and to construct additional facilities consisting of a dock extension in Kodiak Harbor." 7. Plaintiff made application to the City of Kodiak for a building permit, submitted plans and specifications to its building official and gained his approval for the construction, which approval was given orally with the understanding that the building 'permit would be issued later that day when he had determined what the ' ±e .c1 4thad been baid.. The borough building official sijned z7', indicated his approval of Plaintiff's plans or non-objection to the. 8. The city building official was told by his superior, the city engineer, not to issue a building permit to Plaintiff; that the city council had decided that they wanted to review the matter first. 9. The city then held a work session or informal meeting at which various objections were raised by 'the.city Plaintiff's proposed construction, such as that the dock would interfere with navigation in the channel; (b) would impede tidal flow through, the channel; (c) .that Plaintiff was dumping fill material 'on city property without authority .and unlawfully; (d) , that the proposed, construction might impede access to Near Island and finally it -was sugqested that the permit would not be issued until the Corps of .Engineers and U. S. Coast Guard had re-evaluated their first appraisal of the project and reaffirmed. their previous approval. :10. The Corps of Engineers r etantly re-evaluated their st appraisal of the project & g with the U. S. Coast Guard and reaffirmed their prior approval. 11. The city held a meeting at which the council went into executive session to discuss this matter and, without explanation as to their reasons, remained adamant in their denial of the building permit. to Plaintiff. 12. The city, through its manager, then requested from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a "clarification" of its interpretation of industrial zoning district regulations as to off-street loading and off-street parking requirements (Plaintiff's Exhibit §3). 13. The Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission then issued a Memorandum (Plaintiff's Exhibit ;=...4) to the effect that it had, by motion, withdrawn approval of Plaintiff's building permit and directed the Kodiak land Borough Assembly to instruct the borough attorney to take legal action to insure no furtherconstr._!ction-would tae place on Plaintiff's behalf un1 atar was held f-o "internret" how off-street Eiar-.inej re:'„uiremen applied to industrially zoned lands. 14. Plant:: has expended some ie to six hundred thousand dollars to date and had anticipated a completion date of October 15, 1979, in order to process 1:ing Crab and had odered and now has on order, being fabricated or :being shipped, the building, materials for the dock, metal, ice-making machinery and offal removal ecluipment amounting to some $2.6 million dollars, some of which is being specially fabricated in Sweden, Germany and Virginia, all being shipped to Seattle, Washington, for assembly prior to being shipped to Kodiak for installation. .The completion date has now been set back by thirty (30) days because of delays in issuing the building permit, costs will escalate with further delays putting construction into the winter season which make building more costly. In addition, Plaintiff will not bc able to participate in the coming, King Crab season, thereby losing -4- any prOl to DO realiz(.° trom that ven4--e. 15. Cbefendant contends and presented evidence to the effect that if the proposed dock were to be constructed, vessels now using the channel, such as the Alaska Standard, the M/V Tustamena and possibly even smaller vessels would have to detour around Near Island; that is, use a longer, more circuitous route to reach the inner harbor. These points_were brought out by two ships' pilots who have piloted vessels into Kodiak in the past, although one of them testified that he had not piloted a vessel through the channel in the last ten years. 16. That although prior to issuing a permit to construct the dock, the Corps of Engineers issued a public notice to all interested parties of the proposal and the State of Alask,,, City of Kodiak, Western Alaska Pilots Association and other interested parties were so put on notice of the proposed construction, which notice was dated January 5, 1979, and allowed comment in writing and a public n aring on request with a cut-off date for such comment of February 6, 1979 and the cermit was not issued until April 10, 1979 :Defenant's Exhibit "A"), the Citv of Fk did not object until J..;:lv 6; 1979. 17. That although pillngs for the dock have—been dril:an into the channel bottom (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5D, E & F) and a pile driver is moored to the same (Plaintiff's Exhibit :45B, C D; The State ferry Tustamena passes through the channel and passes other vessels in that vicinity (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5A, P C, H, I, J, L, M, N and Plaintiff's Exhibits 12, B E,C). 18. That although the Defendant has now raised he issue of off-street parking, this issue was raised for the first time on July 25, 1979 in Defen•ant's Opposition to Plaintiff's notion for Preliminary Injunction, which was six *days after t.:12 issuance of the.temporary restraining order and had not been mentioned or discussed by Defendant at the work session or discussions with Plaintiff concerning the objections to the construction, it appears from the evidenceand the CoOrt so finds that the City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island Borough had interpreted the of .eet parking and loading requirements of the horow2h ',J. CS 1. 1= not n tny pi*essing plants in Kod.i" that comply with or • — providoff-street parking as set forth in ,the ordinance. That the city building official informed Plaintiff that there was no such requirement, that this was a policy determination based on the borough's interpretation of the ordinance. 19: That Tagura Road, on which the proposed facility would be situated, is a narrow, dead-end road which generally parallels the waterfront on the Near Island Chanel, but that there was recently constructed a new processing facility (East Poirit Seafoods) and an addition to the Rural Electric Association Co-op -plant, both of which are on the road prior to Plaintiff's proposed plant and on beyond Plaintiff's proposed plant is Columbia Ward Fisheries, another processor, Whitney-Fidalgo, another. processor which has had recent additions and a boat storage yard; that these and all other processors in'the comminity use thirty-five to forty foot vans for shipment of their roducts which vans Wh22 tra-:eling down the streets or backcd into loading docks, tend to create traffic congestion. 1=laintiff's Exhibit 10.?, through P) =SIC-NS OF 1. The Federal Go-iernment, by virtue of its constitutional .power to regulate interstate and foreig commerce, has paramount control, for such purpose and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States, the regulatory authority of the States being subject to such federal control United States v. Chicago MSP & PR Co., 312 U.S. 592, 85 L.EC1. 1064, 61 S.• Ct., 772. The United States has power to control the erection of structures in navigable waters United States v. Aopalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U.S. 377; 85 L. Ed. 243, 61 S. Ct. 291, this federal authority has been exercised by the Congress in enacting 30 Stat. 1151, Title 33, United States Code,- Sec. 403, Chapter 9 and where Congress has legislated upon a subject which is within its constitutional control 'and over which it has the right to assume exclusive jurisdiction and has manifested -6- its int :ion to deal therewith in full auLhority ot Lhe ( State( neee:%arily excluded and ar tate legislation on the • • subject 's void. Farmers Crain Co. v. Langer, 253 U.S. 50, 66 L.Ed..458, 425 Ct. 244. Therefore, the refusal of the City of Kodiak to grant a building permit on the grounds that the structure would create a hazard to or impede the navigability of Near Island Channel is not well taken, as neither the city government% the State government nor the State Court System has jurisdiction over this issue. 2. Irmediete responsibility for the issuance of building permits is fixed by Section 302(a) of the Uniform Building Code, 1976 Ed. adopted by Ordinance No. 535 on November 30, 1973, 1,:hich reads in part: the abolication,.olans and specifications filed by an applicant for a permit shall be checked by the building official. Such plans may be reviewed by other decartments of the city to check compliance with the laws and ordinances under their juris- diction. :f the buildin3 official is satisfied that vor% apolication for a cermit and the clans filed therewith honfhrm.te tha- rec-Liraments of tjlis CC ItLnCZt laws and or'in7-nhas and that the fire' apac:fied in Sehticn 37,3Ha) has he.:n paid, he sail is ..a. The acts called eon hy Plaintiif when they asked for a permit under the city building co:le, is not d'scre-icnar%', ministerial! The building official hl:s ns disbrezion to ref..:se a permit save to ascertain if the proposed struot-.:re Cols with the building code. Once that is done and the reuired fee tendered by the applicant, the building official must issue the building permit. Ci+-v o' ==ccma, 335 ?.2d 372. Since the building official of the City of *::odiak ascertained that Plaintiff's proposed structure was in compliance with the city's building code, he would be compelled to issue the building permit. 3. A property owner has a vested right to use his property under the terms of the zoning ordinance applicable thereto: State e:< rel Hardy v. Superior Court for King County, 155 Wash. 244, 284 Pac. 93. A building or use porrnitrnust issue as a matter of right upon compliance with the ordinance. The discretion permissible in zoning matters is that which is -7- standv\ and requirements pertinen ,eto, all of which munt be by ,,,Aeral ordinance applicable to aal persons alike. The acts of administering a zoning ordinance do not go back to the questions of policy and discretion which, were settled at the ti e of the adoption of the ordinance. Administrative authorities are properly concerned with questions of compliance with the ordinance, not its wisdom. To subject individuals to questions of policy in administrative matters would be unconstitutional. Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska provides: "that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities and protection under the law". and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United as interpreted by zhe Supreme Court of the United States States in the landmark decision of l'ick Wo vs. Hopkins, 116 U.S. 356, 30 L. 220, '6 S. Ct. 1064 decided in 1685 as follows: "the 14th A:iendment to the Constituticn is not confined to the Protection of citizens." says: "nor shall any State:d:?pri,-e. any person cf life, liberty or crrty without due z-or.ss of nor denv tr an.! within its 'urisdiction the ecr,a1 These o:i3ons are persons within the differences of race, rritorial j:;17 lotion without rece:d to any of color, of nation.14".., and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal' laws. When we consider the nature nd thory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and' action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of the law. However, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people by whom and for whom all government- exists and acts. The law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there .munt always be lodged somewhere, -8-- and i/'',ate person or body, the autho. / of final decision; and, in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purcly political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of suffrage. But, the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of jus,. anci equal laws so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Eill of Rights, the government of the Commonwealth "may be a government of laws And not of men." For the very idea that one man may be comb:311E2d tc his life, or means of or anv material:right essential to the en-lovment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable to env freedom nrevails, as beinc; the essence of slavery f", and further, "thou.7h the law sei be fair on its face im.s7,rt in annearanta, vet if it is led and adinister=d withan e7i1 and an unecual ;1d, as tn unjust discrimination betweersons in simil., ci -.3szances, to their rights, the denial of zcival iS still within the prohibition of the Constitution". 'The present case, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, is within this class. It aen=,-s that ?laintiff has ccm- plied with every recisite, deemed by. -he law or by the officers charged with its administration necessary under the Uniform Building Code, the City of -Aodiak and Kodiak Island Borough codes of ordinances, no reason whatever except the will of the city council is assigned why they should not be permitted to proceed with the proposed construction, and while this consent is being withheld from them, others are permitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. No reasonfor it i sho-;n,- and the conclusions cannot be resisted that no reason for it e%ists excepstility to the parent corboran or entity of Plaintiff, and which in the eye of the law is not justified. The discrimin- ation is therefore illegal and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protoction.of the laws and a violation of Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State, of Alaska and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 4. Defendant's contention that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust its amdinistrative remedies is without merit. Plaintiff is asking the court to order and direct the building official to issue a building rmit. , this buildingofficial indicated his will- ingness to issue s-ach a oermit but has been prevented from doing so y the ity council, obviously an appeal to that body would be futile if such were a proPer remedy as .there is nothing to be appealed to that body but their cwn actions. It is a general principle of law that e exercise of ion as to the iasuonse of building permits cannot be rbitrary, -"-usive or discriminatory. City Council & Co. of ll'enver v. Protecti7e icn, 76 Colorado 86, 230 P. 5?; 666; Mobridge v. Brown, 29 =.D. 270, 14 :=rne, 156 4.7), 143 anr.) *t-hat ar or'inance providing for deferrint- the issuance by a council oF a builfin? permit until the proposed building conforms to the standard cf other build- ings in the block or unti1 it does net create a fire or other hazard to the immediate coz=nity has been e-'judce to uo no adoqua standard, to vest the council with abitrary ower and to be void. Bowman v. Board of Councilmen of Citv of Elizabethtown, 303 KY 1, 196 S.W. 2d.:720 and ordinances conferring power on authorities to grant or refuse a building permit within their discretion and on the basis of their opinion as to what the safety, health, comfort, con- venience, order or good government of the municipality requires, have been pronounced an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Weicker Transfer & Storage Co. v. Denver 75 Colorado 475, 226 P.857. Herein lies the problem in this case, the city council has directed the building official not to issue the building permit Lo Plaintiff because of their opinion and belioE o1 :hut the natety, health, uomfor, conveni.ence, order and good government of 1 he munioi ity requires, although the Cc_1-e of Engineers has twice stated that the proposed structure does not pose a hazard or threat to navigation, the city council wishes Lo substitute its collective judgment for that of the Corps of Engineers,-even though it has no authority in the matter and although the Kodiak Island Borough zoning ordinance has since its inception, been interpreted to not require off-street loading or off-street parking in areas zoned for water- front industires, due to the scarcity of such property and due to the fact that such an interpretation would have the effect of using more waterfront property for parking than for industry and no such industry has been required to Provide such parking to date, nevertheleso, the city has now urged the Kodiak Island Borough Planning. and Zoning Commission to !'review" this determination to see if it is correct and has instructed its building official not to issue a building permit until the matter is resolved by the borough planning and zoning commission. 5. Normally a esonlieversy of this naturewould solved in a brcceadin;- cf ::andarus and althauh ch writs are within the jurisdiction Jnd gen.r,-1 T.rwers cf the Suoerior Court (A.S. 22.10.020, A.S. 22.10.0E.,0), -,;rits of 2.landamus as such have been abolished by Rule 91(b), Alas"•:a Rules of Civil ?:cr. However, this same rule zrovides that a-:a"ab'e . by Mandamus, may be cbazined by aporczri.-t aczon or by abzrozriate motion under the practice prescribed in the RUles of Civil Pro- cedure. The Plaintiff in this case has sou=ht _his relief by way. of injunction and since this relief is an eztraordinary alternative to the usa1court action, it is available only on comp liance with certain conditions precedent. Among these, Plaintiff must establish the clear right to .a ministerial act by Defendant, the Court finds that Plaintiff has mplied with that burden of proof and has estab- lished a clear right to a ministerial act by Defendant. In review- - ing the Proceedings in light of the relief requested, that is, on the balance of hardships, as set forth in A.J. Industries, Inc. v Alaska Public Services Comm. 470 P.2d 537, the court finds that three factors required in order to justiEy the issuance of a prelim- inary injunction are prenent. , ') The Plaintiff is faced-wi'_/Irreparable harm if the building permit is not granted in'that it has expended, some five to six hundred thousand dollars to date and contracted and is liable'to.some extent for $2.6 million dollars worth of materials on order, being fabricated and being shipped, it stands to lose profits from the delay in construction, and increased costs due to winter construction, none of which can be recuperated by way of danages, as A.S. 09.65.070(d) (2) provides that 'ho action for damages may be brought against amunicicality or any of its agents, officers or employees if the claim is based unon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretiOnary function or duty by a municipality or its agents, officers or emclovees, whether or not the discretion involved is abused." (b) The opposing party, i.e., City o. :Kodiak, can be ad cuatelv trotected by'recriring ?laintiff.to tcst a in a srffic'ent --cunt to insru:e the cost the to cc moly.w==h or rz-movai strrctur violation of anv 6:.111din,1 or zonino '' an order granting the relief is reversed and (c) Plaintiff has, raised serious and src.stantial cuestirs which go to tine merits of the case. THZRZFOPE, IT TS 0.11DERE,D that the Defendants, their 0"i—sr agentS and mployees and those persons in active concert or partici-. pation with them are enjoined, pending determination of this action, from 1. Interfering in any way with Plaintiff's construction of a dock and seafood processing facility on land described as Tide- lands Tract N-23 and Lot 12, Block 2, Kodiak Townsite, 3ue to the absence of the required building permit; 2. This preliminary injunction will remain in full force and effect until a hearing on the merits ha u been held; 3. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of One Hundred. Thousand Dollars ($100,000.0,0) With, the Clerk of. the Court under- takin ) pay, if Defendant receives _lment herein, the costs of remodeling any structure erected on the'premises to comply with, or the removal of any structure insofar as it may be in violation of any building or zoning ordinance if defendants receive judgment herein. DONE at Kodiak, Alaska, this day of August, 1979. cc: Hedland Herton r. ROY H ISEN, SUP11,RIOR COUR. JU:';;.;E August 22, 1979 • Mayor Betty Wallin Kodiak "Island Borough P.O. Box 1246 • Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Dear Mayor Wallin: • The City of Kodiak needs a '.clarifies.the Planning and requirements in industrial to International Seafoods. . • +t;x•K ! s1 UjC1 borougti KJr�IAK, AIAW..A RECF!VEO AUG 2 3 1979 Pk letter from the Kodiak Island Borough that Zoning Commission's motion concerning parking zones., Specifically, how that motion relates As you are aware, the City requested clarification from Planning and Zoning. Phil Anderson in a letter dated July 19, 1979, indicated to our Building Inspector, Morris Lee, that issuance of a building permit had . been delayed until a public hearing could be held on_August 15. On that date, P & Z did interpret the parking code to apply to industrial zoning. We now need a letter that simply states that Planning and Zoning's ruling did apply to International Seafoods. We plan to submit that letter to Judge Madsen upon reconsideration of his Injunctive Order, along with other relative developments. We would appreciate an early and timely public and International Seafoods. Most sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK /L Gary Stevens May GS /CWH /yb Enclosure response in- the interest of.the POST OFFICE BOX 1397, KODIAK . ALASKA 99615 PHONE(907)486-3294 K D BOROUG 'orris Lee Building Offiici'al City of Kodiak Box 1397 Kodiak. Alaska 99615 N \/ Telephoucs 486-5736 a 5737 — Lox 1246 MD L K, ALASKA 99615 July 19, 1979 During the regular r etiny of t. ,Kodiak Island 3orouch Planning an) Z ping Commission held on July 13, 1979, the Comission discussed the parking rcquirerents . for the Industrial zoning use districts. The Commission. by motion directed' it isuithholding permission cn the building permit issued to International Sea Foods pending a. Public -earing review of the Parking Ordinances scheduled during their regular meeting on August 15, 1"x73.- This action by the Commission supercedes the Borough Admi'nistration's previous approval of International Sea Foods building, permit application, Ti: u any issued permits are null and void based on the CoMmission's action. PI :ease take the necessary action to recind t:he•permit for those items of approval under the Borough's jurisdiction. If you have any questions regarding this action by the Commission plc:;se Contact Mr. 'illiean at the 3orough Department of Planning and Community ' Development, 700 upper ItillBay Road or call 486 -5736. Your cooperation e,nd assistance in this matter is appreciated. cc: International Sca Foods Mr. John Sta f fog•, ;1r0 Clair° Harmony Stuart D,2nslow • Milyor Gary Stevens i•tayor. Betty Wallin Kodiak City Council Borough Ass: ,artily Borough Attornc,;' - Mr. Harry f'I11l io6zn Sincerely,. • r. PhiliR Andersen. Vice Chairman Kodiak Island'Bor•ough Planning and Zon.1 ng C s non. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 August 10, 1979 Ms. Judith Schwarz U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue M/S 443 Seattle, Washington 98101 RE: Permit Application #AK-002-666-2 Dear Ms. Schwarz, This is to acknowledge receipt of your published annoucement and comment request regarding the Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application submitted by International Seafoods of Alaska. In looking at the announcement we can not determine exactly what is meant by a "Pollutant Discharge Elimination System". What types of Pollutants are to be discharged? How are they to be discharged? The effect they could potentially have on the environment and whether other processors have similar permits or would apply fOr similar considerat- ion. The Kodiak Island Borough .is interested in receiving a copy of the Environ- mental assessment being prepared for this new source. We would also appreciate a copy of the E.P.A. assessment review criteria. Once we have an opportunity to review the assessment criteria we can better analyze the situtation with respect as to whether or not the Borough feels an environmental impact statement would be required. We appreciated receipt of the notice and look forward to reviewing answers to our questions with the requested permit application review process. Sincerely,_ HM/jmj cc. Borough Manager City Manager Borough Attorney Harry Mill Plann n ec or KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH .Telephones 486 -5736 - 486 -5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 10, 1979 TO: Borough Manager FROM: Harry Milligan SUBJ: .Comment Review Request RE: International Seafoods of Alaska E.P.A. permit. Attached for your review is an E.P.A. pollutant discharge permit application notice. I have requested a copy of the E.P.A. permit review process and application evaluation criteria, along with answers to questions concerning others engaged in similar activities. cc. Kodiak City Manager LAW-OFFICES OF RICHARD W. GARNETT III THOMAS F. KLINKNER SUITE 540, 900 WEST FIFTH AVENUE • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 TEL. (907) 276-2221 To: Kodiak Island Borough Planning Commission From: Thomas F. Klinkner Date: August 6, 1979 Re: Offstreet Parking in the Industrial Zone You have inquired whether the borough zoning ordinance, Title 17 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code, requires the provision of offstreet parking in the industrial (I) zone. I conclude that the ordinance does require offstreet parking in the I zone. The zoning ordinance is divided into chapters, several of which prescribe regulations applying to land use zones, and several of which prescribe regulations applying to all zones or to several zones. Chapter 17.57, pertaining to offstreet parking, is one of the latter chapters. By its terms its application is not limited to any zone or group of zones. Although offstreet parking, while listed as a permitted use in several individual zones, is not so listed in the I zone, this does not exempt the I zone from the offstreet parking requirement. Chapters 17.12 through 17.28 of the zoning ordinance prescribe requirements that apply to particular land use zones. Chapters 17.30 through 17.60 prescribe requirements that apply to all zones, or to certain groups of zones by express limitation, e.g., 17.45.020, governing obstructions to visibility on corner lots in the R districts. Nothing in chapter 17.57, the chapter on offstreet parking, limits its application to any particular zone or group of zones. Instead, the parking requirements for a lot are determined by the use of the main building on the lot: There shall be provided at.the time of the construction of any main building or at the time of the alteration, . enlargement or any change in use of any main building, permanentlx maintained free offstreet parking facilities. for the use of occupants, employees or patrons of such building, and it shall be the :.-joint responsibility of the owner and /or occupant of any main building or structure to provide, and thereafter maintain the following minimum off - street parking facilities... 17.57.010B(12) specifies the offstreet parking requirements for industrial or manufacturing establishments in which there are five or more employees'or officers. Unlike sections such as . 17.45.020, the terms.of 17.57.018B(12) do not limit its application to any particular zone or group of zones. LAW OFFICES OF • RICHARD W. GARNETT III Each zoning ordinance chapter pertaining to a specific zone district prescribes the uses permitted in the zone to which it pertains. All of these chapters except those governing the I, IR and W zones, specify offstreet parking as a permitted use. The I zone allows as permitted uses, "all uses not otherwise prohibited by law, except any residential or commercial use." Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.24.010. This would permit, at the least, offstreet parking required for industrial uses, even though required offstreet parking is not specifically mentioned. The permission is broad enough that a specific reference to offstreet parking is unnecessary. Moreover, even the provisions specifically permitting offstreet parking in other zones do not add anything to the offstreet parking requirements in chapter 17.57. They merely make the regulation of the individual zone districts consistent with chapter 17.57 by permitting offstreet parking where chapter 17.57 requires it. The I zone regulations accomplish the same end by permitting, "all uses not otherwise prohibited by law, except any residential or commercial use.". Finally, the offstreet parking requirement for industrial establishments in 17.57.01013(12) would be superfluous if it did' not apply to the I and IR zones. These are the only zones in which "main buildings" for industrial or manufacturing purposes are permitted. The zoning ordinance defines-a principal or main building as: . A building in which.is conducted the principal or main • use of the lot on which the building is situated. Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.06,160. The use of the main building, '-a. principal use, contrasts with an accessory use, adefined as: A use customarily incidential and subordinate to the principal use of land, building or structure and located on the same lot or parcel of land. •Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.06.570. In the B zone, one may conductan industrial use, but only .as an accessory use: No stores or businesses shall involve any kind of ,,,manufacture, compounding, processing or treatment of • products except that which is clearly incidential and • . essential to_the authorized use... Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.21.020B. i s LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD W. GARNETT'III The offstreet parking requirements do not apply to such a use since they only apply to a main building, one in which a principal use is conducted. Even apart from the other considerations discussed above, the offstreet parking requirements for industrial -and manufacturing buildings should be interpreted so that they have meaning -and this requires that they apply within the I zone. In reviewing the offstreet parking requirements within the I zone, the Commission should remember that the requirements apply to all I - zoned property in the Borough. If the Commission determines that the interests of the community would be better served by modifying or eliminating these offstreet parking requirements, or limiting the area to which they apply, the Commission should propose amendments to Title 17 that would accomplish the desired result. TFK • U.S. ENVIR MENTAL PROTECTION UKYTO AM4Oft M/S 443 AvG 1979 REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 AC, ICY "Cilltk island 11°Tough KINNAK. ALA RECEN n NW PM 718(91Ariti2f/121814i510 AUG 9 1979 To: All Interested Governmental Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit application (Application Number AK-002666-2) from International Seafoods of Alaska, Incorporated for the wastewater discharges from a proposed seafood processing facility in Kodiak, Alaska. This facility has been determined to be a New Source. Such New Sources must be evaluated pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and implementing Federal regulations. As part of EPA's evaluation, we are preparing an Environmental Assessment on the proposed new seafood processing facility. An Environmental Assessment is a concise document which can serve to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Either an EIS or a FONSI must be prepared prior to EPA's issuance of a permit. The Environmental Assessment will include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives, and of the impacts (both beneficial and detrimental) on the human environment of the proposed action and alternatives. EPA interprets "Human Environment" to comprehensively jnclude the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. We are interested in both direct and indirect potential effects. Social and economic effects will also be considered in this Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that the existence of economic or social effects, by themselves, are not sufficient to require preparation of an environ- mental impact statement. To help EPA determine the significant issues that should be addressed in our Environmental Assessment, EPA is interested in written comments on the potential impacts of this proposed facility. These written comments should be sent to: A3FRMw.. sitTRIM! • T.; ::t•It:11:2•14r. le_Lt • ••■:.....4 • • ,;..14N,11 i‘P.4;1•541,04. 2 -:-Judith Schwarz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, M/S 443 Seattle, Washington 98101 These comments should be received by EPA. no later than August 27, 1979. There will be an opportunity for further public comment on the potential environmental impacts of this facility when EPA completes and publishes this Environmental Assessment and our decision on the significance of the proposal's environmentaI. impacts..: Please contact Judith Schwarz at the above address if you would like to receive a copy of the Environ- mental Assessment and decision when it is available, or if you would like additional information on the proposed_seafood processing facility and EPA's permit application process. Sinerely,; Donald P. Dubois legional Administrator KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 MEMORANDUA DATE: July 19, 1979 TO: Honorable Mayor and Borough Assembly FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJ: Request for legal action regarding building permit issued to International Sea Foods. During the regular meeting of the Koidak Island Borough.Planning and Zoning Commission held,on July 18, 1979, the Commission recievdcia request from the City. of Kodiak-Administration questioning the Borough Administration's interpretation of the off-street parking requirements within the Borough Zoning Ordinance ,. applicable to Industrially zoined lands. The Commission has scheduled a Public Hearing on this matter to be held on Wednesday, August 15, 1979. During this same meeting the Commission, by motion, directed that,the recently approved building permit for International Sea Foods be withdrawn until the Planning and Zoining Commission has had an opportunity to review the interpretation of the off-street parking requirements. Based on this action, .the.Commission:is:withdrawing-approval of International Sea Foods building permit application, the-Complission. respectfully r.eouests the liglaugillyibl direct the Bors..h Attorne to take whatever legal act' necessary to insure that no further construction take place on International -§76-7-75-dTPITossin Plant until the Plannin and Zon'n Cornmission meeting on ugust 1 We respectfully request that this matter be taken up during your special meeting to be held on Saturday, July 21, 1979. Representatives of the Planning and Zoning Commission will be present during your meeting at that time to set forth the reasons supporting our action. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Telephones 486-5736- 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 July 19, 1979 Morris Lee Building Official City of Kodiak Box 1397 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 During the regular meeting of the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission held on July 18, 1979, the Commission discussed the parking requirements for the Industrial zoning use districts. The Commission by motion directed it is withholding permission on the building permit issued to International Sea Foods pending a Public Hearing review of the Parking Ordinances scheduled during their regular meeting on August 15, 1979. This action by, the Commission supercedes the Borough Administration's previous approval of International Sea Foods building permit application. Thus any issued permits are null and void based on the Commission's action. Please take the necessary action to recind the permit for those items of approval under the Borough's jurisdiction. If you have any questions regarding this action by the Commission please contact Mr. Milligan at the Borough Department of Planning and Community Development, 700 upper MillBay Road or call 486-5736. Your cooperation and assistance in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, Phi1ipAnderson • Vice Chairman Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission cc: International Sea Foods Mr. John :Stafford Mr. Clair Harmony Mr. Stuart Denslow Mayor Gary Stevens Mayor Betty Wallin Kodiak City Council Borough Assembly Borough Attorney Mr. Harry Milligan July 18, 1979 letter from Mr. Harmony to Mr. Busch Requesting that the Planning and Zoning Commission look into the require- ments for off-street parking uses in the industrial districts. Mr. Pugh wants to bring up a point various City Council people have talked to Mr. Pugh on this matter. There have been some questions on how many parking spaces are required in the industrial district. And I would like to request that we get an opinion from our attorney and a definition of the codes as to how many off-street parking spaces are required in our industrial district. I would also like to get an intrepretation from our staff or..at least an explaination from our staff showing how they have been intrepreting it and why. And I would also after reading Mr. Harmony's letter the first time tonight I also would like to find some substation as to whether or not Eastpoint was required to have parking in the development of their property because I never recalled it coming before us. And for an extremely large plant I would say that it has minimal parking. Mr. Anderson speaking, Eastpoint they have quite a bit of parking or at least they did have. They have a contract use the City lot for parking. But they have turned the lot into storage. they do not have much parking. Mr. Pugh requested to have a public hearing at next months meeting to get an interpretation by the Commission of how many parking requirements are needed in the industrial zone? Parking in the street could make it a one way road if another building goes in without enough parking spaces for that building. 17.57.010 says that they have to have parking Virginia read the ordinance. (attached) Mr. Pugh Move to set a Public hearing an interpretation of Section 17.57.010 K.I.B. Code of Ordinances as to whether or not the Section is applicatable to uses within the industrial zoning districts Mr. Perez Second Next Regular Meeting -- Carried Virginia speaking-- do we have the right to go ahead and build without the interpretation. Should there be notices sent to people now holding permits in the industrial that an interpretation is being done and building now would at their own risk. Mr. Pugh wants the lawyer to look into it before any building permits are revoked. Mr. Pugh suggests that no building permit be issued to Kodiak King Crab until after the interpretation. Discussion on parking requirements.between Mr. Pugh and Bryce Gordon. Mr. Pugh moves that the Commission direct the Planning department to send a letter to Mr. Harmony, and the City Council pointing out the fact that all the Borough did was to interpret the zoning for the proposed projeg.ts within the City and it is up to the City to check the Borough Codes for parking requirements in the approval of their building permits as per the Borough Codes. July 18, 1979 Mr. Dan Bush Chairman, Planning & Zoning P.O. Box 1246 Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Mr. Bush: It is the City Administration's understanding that the Borough Administration has interpreted the industrial zoning district regulations to require off-street loading but that no off-street parking requirements are required in association with uses in industrial districts. Specifically, we are requesting clarification on this matter from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Also, could you substatiate whether East Point was required to have parking in the development of their property. .Your. early response and attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Most sincerely, CITY OF KODIAK Clair H. Harmony . City Manager CWH:k cc: Betty Wallin, Borough Mayor Borough Assembly POST OF-EI[E BOA 1397, KODIAK . ALASKA 99615 PHONE (907) 486-3224 Chapter 17 FENCES AND 1••:Alai.L 17,54.01° 17.54.010 Heic;ht--Extension onto pilblic property. 17.54.010 Height—Extension onto pchlic rroprty. Fences and walls not exceeding six feet ig I.el-tht may occupy any porticr of nide or fiat: ylt-1 in aiy lit.trict, pro- vided that where such fehcm cr wall pro3Lat heycnd t/v front yard line or nctlaacl- tow,:rf: tlo frmnt prcirty lino, the follewisrl further ief,tiimiiwt, fs.101: A. Such fence or wall shall not ex:ii_cd Icor feet in height, and shall be constructed 5C that not m,rp Fifty percent of the vertical surfacp thereof above a height of two feet is solid wall; B. Planted hedges projoctin't heym,id ihe frclt yarf' line shall not exceed the maxirpm hmights prrmitted for fences or walls; (.. No fence, wall or hmdge -0-ail 1,, prectpd el 2.1 5)5d On the public 1)Lit...y 1,eypn•1 4hm (toot prormrty line of any lot or pamel of 1 excopt masenly or cainerete tutaining walls, and th,tn only to a heirlh' rot !o exceed six inches above th. gtaAe t*e earth s':ch wall is ecs- structed to retain. A permit shal, first he 5-eureo (rem the huilding official approving Lhp nor,:!ssity for anti of such retaining wall. (Prior sehch. 2 !.;10l!). Ch.uLor : OFF-STREET PARlf:ING—h0f.hING :s,-.Fs Sections: 17.57.010 Numb,..u- of spaces. 17.57.020 Public ;:Irking 17.57.030 • Unspecified uses. 17.57.040 Mixed uses. 17.57.050 Public or semipublic area—When paving required. 17.57.060 Public or semipublic area-TEntrance and exit openingu. For provisions relating to streets and uicluwaIks, Title 12 of this code. 120 lectionta: (Continuod) 17.57.070 Driveway, opening or curb cut plarvi. 17.57.080 Parking on the nar,c lot with the main use required--Zxception. 17.57.090 Parking area—Reduction. 17.57.100 Parking and loading area plans. 17.57.110 1.oading areas. 17.57.010 Number of spacen. There shall he provided at the 117,' of Lhc c,,:nstzuctton of any rain building or at Lhe timo of the alte:of:op, enlitqement or any change ls use of any main huil,ling, permanently maintai:.e6 free off-strmet for mf emegpilsfs. trplt.my(us (r :%::;11-1Lnj, jOln' 115verz:1 iee,:;..onsibiliLy of the owner Lisd;o: cos pant of any m.-in lttailding or struotero to pro.'ido ant: thereafter maintain tine following minimum free off-street parking I:dell:tics: A. Dwelling. Inc each dwelling, family riwelling or multiplemfom:ly dwelling, ono 521'! '51.21 parking space for oaeh dwel3In, qhif: R. m".mi- Than lt-ellitujs. 1. hanl:, office in.:lid:nu, rofessiom: funeral parlec mr ellnac, om, • two hundre0 'lfty fegt 2. 1 41 111.,,1 , fr.t; r : epch all•fy or 1-fno, '3• 5515' 1115 1 ;• rql•-• 11 1252.1 • zit 5. clinics protespippal olficpa_ parking place for each two hundr,•cl fifty '75211 511 feet ots floor area, but not le::s 2.15.351 Civ;, 6. dance hall, skating rtnk, c*AllbiLlf,11 hall, labor union 11.111, or lodge 11,1 1 1 . one punlic arci for each two hundLed ,;-1u,sre feet_ ot tloor 7. 'food market, grocery stoce or shopping cont-c, ono public parking spice for oach uho hundled V') square fuck. of floor arfa, 8. garage, public, four parking spaces for each service stall or facility, provided, that all vehicles in the custody of the operator or the business for service, repair, storage, sale or other purposes shall be stored on the premises or on a separate vehicle parking lot and shall not be parked on a public right-of-way, 9. general Auditorium, high ochool ou 05213 ''11'' auditorium, stadium, theaLer, meeting ho 1,) or easing and drinking 0t52 1. ic ;;ori.=.1g 2*11 ::.:w for act_i fisf se;.tk_ baLed on makimum speiting capacity, 123 - • 10. h07APitz)1, t'our ha(tvi en '7:ex:if-I:tr.-. 11:.,:t4044e1., one pLiv:It, f1c.r 311wellin9 u6.1.t Anft c.n#1 rtok?11- '.. guest. rooralko,,4- .12:1r4oiROmatrtiti.-sri-d mennrin#2, in v'hich thi-re 'ere more than #r-21c-cp .7nd ef:ficers, one public p;;0„-king spooe „for c:tch 'our )sondrp0 rquern feet of ("roll's f1404.0r :ore.% or for --ivery thre#7. #':',n1oyee:t0 which- ever result* Tn ttv, cf Daring la. laundert-tte. en- rc"- 'we Iracines, witeI or bbardinghuiae, one prIvate -Tace for each unit or gc,-rt roo7, 15. reteal store or _tn.:rtes-, ono ..u:-is pa:Linrj space for eace ;;;,vehundred except that a r .,tore ':cu-y buildincj has less than one tr.:oils:In-! sdi.are feet of floor area not provide such parking r:-1C -1-7,c- for • trailer 11. we c:.1.1.=,f' nt-tre.7,, L.:Lolage- UniJd- . , for zsmch L.112.-L.e c. oloytn, sc: 1 ny sic. (Ord. 67-5-0 552, 3, .';7; 2 lc ry jot. - cf a peo;:c arc,a sLall be velcped as follows, .;u1-.)ecril ,o th- glr,ns r-r;---missioh; A. ;_lce ar,s ti11 LC poveJ or cphetul..:e -;egoately 31 satisfactorily surfac,..: id hH h,v- -Tprc,prito per ,3n,r•ls Uhire sick: bf o lot ln tne district, it shell be separated f.cum such lot by a fence or hedge not loss tlfan four feet or :7-orc than sLx foot in height. Such f.:;nce or hedje shall be maintaine,i in good ditlon and s;lall not ext.:-:ad :1O“L ---Isirc,1 in sue:: dlstrict; C. Any lights provided to .Lit'.•.dnate secn porkin9 sh.11 be so orcon,,,-..rt .141y (;.';),Lii COLL: Ch. 5 .116en. 2 Sit,BU. 17.57.010 ViliT(.;uiti.o..! L- e,-:se of a use not speciTiOA:Ur'mentiorAldin rslquire- ments ftlr ofttirtqatt. rde the_aam,a a' t1313 u":'.all$WA01(4:4bei preceding sections ;.,hich in the opi"i0,; offirial 13311311. I3 (f,r,Zeci 1-o3)t 33ir'It1=1.2" tFO(A-c,.., Ch. s 2 4 37.S7.r ; .4.-:.i....-4 .57.n■a i s-,11.„1.11 1-.4'i thc sem of the requirem-nt', fr'r the various uses 1.e.t 1:i---17:n,... :wi 1“.(-tt-c-t, :#ar;.ing facilities 17.7.7,tr. :-•,---fl_.-#. 1,1 _11,-, c.7tr.c nf rixcr'. Ilne.s, " : # :' cctn#: fw-paraty. C,ff-ntrect p:,rin? fa-of:fit:it:1; for one usn shall not be cenridered •In -,•t-viding re(t;uircd o fecilitics rer .i:':y other- use. frrit.,r code Ch. 5 xiihch. 2 515P3). 17.;7,n5r; i'utic et :cmipui'lLe. area—Wien paving regvirca. er aulorb;lo Fprkinq tn, •r103)1 1? cr t3111 cf 0; :vice or in ccnnecticn with eny cther uss, or othcrw:sr suitalys 5mti7- fc.IC'Lc11:-; r.! SL:NCh. 2 SlYZe;). 17.57.U55 Public or tomipublic area--Entrance and exit openings. Any ler717E.r pre13-isc33 used ,for public or semipublic parking, 13torie, sale!: or service, garaT- er ahy typ( et drive-in business or service or similar use rogularly and customarily • rcquire eccerl. te such 71ny public street or alley shall so 31e13it,13::0 t■,ot •nteance and exit 6rives, 01 ,,Jeh v(_g]eir,; will prevIde t 1313 ::er; t 13131 7.3 . in,reLs ors 3eJt21'n vehicular tran traft'c .n the strc.Its 'oc3 use trance cx;t cpcn:r.gr.; ,nd drivew13y5 G3r11 not, w;.:t.:#.:#.1 thicty-Lo ft-t In width, end in no case rely such drive-in service be pur:,:itted to U5C the entire street frontage upon which such uso abuts for ttrance ur exit f,lcilities. (Prior code Ch. 5 subch. 2 51505). • 1 17.57.070 Driveway, opehin(j or curb cut plans. De- tailed plans for drivuways, openings or curb cuts shall be submitted to the plasr.ing col,mission for approval with rngard to the location.and rolation of the same to the ubiictro or hlghw.,y. All such lands or premises dr.:voted tp aDd o:tisting co th, effective datn of prior code Chapter 5 subchapter 2, shall 1303 ly (4ith 13-1333 roquizcm.ents yez:ru. (Prior code Ch 5 subch. 2 S1556). 17.57.0130 Parkina on the same lot with the main USQ raquired--Wiception. All parking spaces provra-pursuant to thiTrchaptcr shall be on the S3'1-E1 lot with the main use they =CITYC or on an adjeininu lot, except that the planninq ( commission may permit. parking spaces to be on any lot '- within six hundrea foot of the use if it Outert16,no6; it Is grpeeticAl to pwovide parkihq t; (Prior CI:. 5 *131:533. 2 51507). P,31ki )1,1 art,:inc; frp,,I re Ing <0C tGr af coplying wIth th c. provisions of thf- ti'le. after be relinquishc.0 or reduccrt in any mnn-,r rcquire:tlentn herein c::1ablinh.-0. (nri,r r',Hr r11. 2 sl5m1). 11.57.100 Parking and Icadin:1 ?Nrea plans ror tJ1. parking and loading Art,,, accorany Lhe building plenFz vo),,-:n the A. .71,T.:1 Of Inc :JIot B. Layout and rAf p.)rizi,Y1 rc,:-!ec; C. Znz.7:47.nce and (,):i;1 e t-"r diroction of iraffio; D. Widt1 of all curb cuts, i-n'..renoos, er driveways serving cdeh parking or 1-...,eding area. (Prior ccic Ch. 5 subch. 2 5/5119). 17.57.110 Loadirq area. on ':hn lot or picnoiseo with every building, 3 ructure or plr', or-c-d en(J occupied for com-corcial, nr usti, or other uses simLliArly involvinv t7; of or di!-tLi- bution of material r or ::-,rchandinc: 2rovided zn:d perr-,n,.;nt;y fc,r %, ,n6. - in ucb mannnr ?!-; not to o:,.;truct of frorlic tr*ovc:r,rnt upon public :Alects or alleyo. not 1)o 2es) than flft.,..n fer wider ieet long with fourteen c‘or u,sd :;11J11 11:,ve acccos to an al]ey or street. (VrioT,L: cock,. Ch. 5 1.,o7-;h. 2 515C). Chapter 17. )5IC(ZS'I Section: 17,60.010 PouiolL requkrc.u. 17.60.u2u 7 or k 17.60.030 7 or 11 district--Ani,ouncum.Int 6i9n or bull4tin bo4rd. 17.60.040 0 or R -Jo,vetr.17,7=-...IL or ho1;ti1i10 project sign. , 671;' cEatutory 1.7)!,1 Ch. 19.75i 17.60.041 -17, n 70 5 ; I d;,1k,rAct--Ein r-n buildin=7 lot. 17.60,,110 Prnitr,Tquircd. A pE.:rrit shall he obtained from thr,.! bu3ldin7 oltIci,11, ;.,rior Lc T:hr in,7tAtli3ltion of any typn c,3or, o/ ; • Lot t -=''.:711'.:h• 2 17.t':(J.529 53 r)f Cistrict--;7:icn I: or IT-71st: tin signf; are permLtLeo: A. 0:nn on a dwellinc unit not OnC ro.lui.kre foo0 giving th e:. rtr-0 orzthe occupnt and a hor occupation; 13. i..7%,) 31,1)n mr,t 3 :75), nr3)-0 feet in ar-ea for the purpof;c oi 310g the salc or lea =;,). of a building or prenli.sus; C. Unc: sit:3n ;:o0 twn 3.'.-( • 0 in area to icl'ntjfy hotelE1, 10,1gon, public and sripuUlic institutionn nnd pot 00 iC7•nti:y r. si7.2 in 1-1-;=; L- )unted flat ;,(Join.:3t Lhc: 1nliltline or ,-;--)ry fo-ot fror, lo 151:-. 'flcior Cn. 5 suboh. 7 17.60.010 7 or R 61.:5Lrict--Announeer,-nt f-:i(:n or 1)ulletin Tn 0 OC R dir.trict, one annonn,:erent L'iVn or Lull, t .'ord nor- ,,xyrf)din,-: Loon L):.''.. fuet for A church or publi.c or ch5ri tnb)c 1L 11. Lulion iu pc:r- mittd. Such aign shall hc. located ot leoct five fL,et ilack f:rom, the front lot lino on the nar,e lot au the principal (In, 5 rIul1h. 1 f;165). oc a diz,trIc4--Trac0 dc:vylonnt or !Inn r t ) . 1 ri n Ti or 35 dir1trIct, ;.z.t • t,,:wirrd rio u.. ,:,at tract o;:velot or hous.:.og project of sit two acres in el/ub 1,1 oncliiiLleu. Suo,n sign must be located or least thirty lc-of ony ,:)trut line arld on the property Being :lev*loped, ankt 11,111 not be maintained for more than one yar. (Prlo,„- CO:K= Ch, 5 subch. 2 516C). i7.60.07,0 53 od 3 district:70ionon In tho 15 Ufl7tritn., uno .t.itan not ox,&eeding (fltRT !not c!:'ro,atted on,i 3n ol,c1. 1 di:;trict nnt 3000 lo r0ooriv on 1 loo; (rr4. 7.t 1,‘; Mr. Milligan c0rrects Mr. Pugh on his motion. Title 29 of the Alaska State Statutes thus as part of the Borough act certain powers with Boroughs of the second class and certain powers Citys that are both 3rd class and home rule. First class home rule charter cities can exercise any power that they elect to excerise under there charter or those eXpecially prohibited by law. First class home rule cities charter governments are expecially borrowed as our second class city governments from excerising Planning and Zoning powers in their corporate jurisdictions while they are with in the Borough. Mr. Pugh withdraws his motion . Mr. Pugh would like to know if we can withdraw our signature since the permit has not been issued. Motion Made by Mr. John Pugh In as much as the City has not signed the Building permit That the Borough contact the City and or the International Sea Foods and inform them that until such time that the Planning Commission makes an interpretation of.the zoning ordinance at the next regular meeting that we are witholding permission on the building permit in regards to the parking ordinaces. Perez second Roll Call A Y C Y E Y P Carried Mr. Erwin Questioning Mr, Milligan Will we be present when the lawyer interprets the code. Mr. Milligan will make it possible for Commission to be there Pugh suggests Lawyer be present at meeting. Legal Council Mr. Milligan states we will issue a letter tommorow based on your order that any permits that are approved are null and void until you have rendered an interpretation of the parking ordinance. Letter will go to Mr. Lee, Mr. Harmony, and Mr. Stafford, and a copy to Mr. West at the sea food co. Mrs. Lechner request that the City'Attorney be notified (Hal Horton) BUILDING DEPARTMENT — CITY / BOROUGH OF KODIAK APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE Applicant to fill in between heavy lines. OF OCCUPANCY BUILDING )RESS CLASS OF WORK NEW DEMOLISH LOCALITY ALTERATION REPAIR NEAREST CROSS ST. ADDITION MOVE BUILDING PERMIT NO DATE ISSUED USE OF BUILDING cc w w z O NAME SIZE OF BUILDING HEIGHT MAIL ADDRESS NO. OF ROOMS CITY TEL NO. NO. OF FLOORS NO. OF BUILDINGS VALUATION S BLDG. FEE S PLAN CHK. FEE TOTAL Ct -w w _ z NAME NO. OF BUILDINGS NOW ON LOT BUILDING PLUMBING ELECTRIC NO OF FAMILIES FOUNDATION ROUGH ROUGH ADDRESS SITE OF LOT FRAME SEPTIC TANK FINISH CITY USE OF BLDG. NOW ON LOT PLASTER SEWER FIXTURES SPECIFICATIONS FLUES GAS MOTORS STATE LICENSE NO. FOUNDATION FINAL FINISH FINAL 0 F- U ce z 0 U NAME MATERIAL EXTERIOR. PIERS WIDTH OF TOP ADDRESS WIDTH OF BOTTOM CITY DEPTH IN GROUND R.W. PLATE (SILL) STATE LICENSE NO SIZE SPA SPAN DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION GIRDERS JOIST 1st. FL. JOIST 2nd. FL. LOT NO. BLK. JOIST CEILING EXTERIOR STUDS DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 1. Type of Construction I, II, III, IV, V, VI 2. Occupancy Group A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J Div. 1, 2, 3, 4, 3. Fire Zone 1 2 3 4 INTERIOR STUDS ROOF RAFTERS BEARING WALLS COVERING WALLS 1 ROOF INTERIOR WALLS REROOFING FLUES FIREPLACE FL. FURNACE KITCHEN WATER HEATER URNACE GAS OIL I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the above is correct and agree to comply with all City Ordinances and State Laws regulating building construction. Applicant In accordande with Section 305(b) UBC 1979, it is mandatory that the owner request each of the above inspections prior to proceeding with any additional work. (486 -5731) • 3N11 1183dOad A PLOT PLAN SETBACK 3N11 AIZ13dOLid STREET PLANNING & ZONING INFO. ZONING DISTRICT TYPE OF OCCUPANCY NUMBER OF STORIES - .. TOTAL H I • AREA OF LOT = -- f `� % i [ FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM PR P. LINE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE REAR YARD Approved: CHIEF BUILDING OFFICAL Approved: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR By: By: BUILDING DEPARTMENT — CITY OF KODIAK Applicant to fill in between heavy lines. BUMMING ADDRESS J LOCALITY Z 24ELo';) ! c, .F . NEAREST CROSS 5T. NAME l-. MAIL ADDRESS ----3-.2 ' W C-��'' --- 0. IT TEL NO. 4/51 N A E y �t'r ter/ ` /� �1 6/1 7 :12 ! L /l� .t. t 57. l W A DRESS r CITY �- X U l9 <W STATE LICENSE NO. CLASS OF WORK I ALTERA ION I REPAIR ADDITION I MOVE USE OF BUILDING3le '7/5/4! •' SIZE OF BOIL,1 (� HEIGHT NO. OF ROO NO. OF FLOORS 2 NO. OF BUILDINGS NOW ON LOT a OF FAMILIES.? SIZE OF LOT (6© USE OF BLDG. NOW ON LOT Q SPECIFICATIONS FOUNDATION MATERIAL /JJ�. EXTERIOR PIERS c l /2. I s NAME C 0 GItvf z 0 U STATE LICENSE NO. HESS WIDTH OF TOP WIDTH OF BOTTOM DEPTH IN GROUND R.W. PLATE (SILL) Z SUBDIVISION -JP /2 O- a LOT NO. $LK. J N / X: 1. District 2. Type of Construction 0 II, III, IV, V, VI 3. Occupancy Group A, B, C, D, E, `—' G, H, I,J Div. 10 3,4, 4. Use Zone: rT"] 5. Fire Zone 0 'ij 3 4 -NEW- DEMOLISH _ SIZE I SPA. SPAN GIRDERS JOIST 1ST FL. I/© JOIST 2ND FL. EXTERIOR STUDS INTERIOR STUDS ROOF RAFTERS BEARING WALLS JOIST CEILING COVERING EXTERIOR WALLS 11 /lt ROOF /44 . INTERIOR WALLA./,Y ef.4 REROOFING FLUES FIREPLACE KITCHEN :.FURNACE V FL. FURNACE WATER HEATER GAS OIL I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the Tt and agree to comply Ordi,nanges and State g tbui11 t g ponstructio above is corre with all Cit Laws regula Applicant APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BUILDING PERMIT NO. 4 62-0 VALUATION 936 3ga no BUILDING DATE ISSUED BLDG. FEE $ PLAN CHK. FEE TOTAL a,7bb 17,o FOUNDATION FRAME PLASTER FLUES FINAL PLUMBING ROUGH SEPTIC TANK SEWER GAS FINISH ELECTRIC ROUGH FINISH FIXTURES MOTORS FINAL c dtr s►I-- 1o‘,. t-> 64/ _.. V;14 ,-y A14( vcLouaA. - ekly.` /, 3^4,2.00 �Oc,1G. /, / , / a 4 , 0 0 4, o0 (7 , O 044' --<---e-de B);: �---s� Approved:'CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL • 81f: 11 ZI 0 m r z m PLOT PLAN 3NI1 )J dO2id I ST'EET MAP NUMBER NO. ASSIGNED BY FIELD CHECK BY DATF PLANNING & ZONING INFO TYPE OF OCCUPANCY /". TOTAL FLOOR AREA /4- NUMBER OF STORIES AREA OF LOTS / 6/1) FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM PROP. TOTAL HT. LINE T 6) 4 / SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE REAR YARD NEW CONSTRUCTION ALTER CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY FROM TO JR.,. 4. 4., .4 st. "V` .1. V` 'V' •••••• •••• •••■ ••■•• •••••• ..... • •••• •••e• •••••• •■• N.• , "I` *Y. "s% ••••• .11.• ,••••• ••••• oe• • .0..3- • .E :-X AI • ., ,USER-.ANN ,r, -444-•-•-4.4.• ••• STATUS A LEGAL - SOR _ - W-N-E A -000-S OF A 1-A-SK-A 22 ADOR 1 P•O•BOX 2997 23 K001-AK RRO RLT Y-LLT 04)4. R-Y •-• IMPROVEMENTS 000639259 TOTAL VALUE 000777959 DEPARTMENT OF THE'ARMY PERMIT Kodiak Harbor,48 Mr. Huey DeVi1le Alaska Welding Enterprises Post Office Box 2575 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 PERMIT TRANSARRED TO International Seafoods, Inc. ON:. : 1978 Referring to written request dated 15 March 1972 upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, and under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of Congress approved March 3, 1899, (33 U.S.C. 403), entitled."An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works purposes," you are hereby authorized to construct a bulkhead and fill on rivers and harbors, and for other by the Secretary of the. Army ET r«.7. in Kodiak Harbor in accordance with the plans and drawings attached hereto and marked "PROPOSED BULKHEAD & FILL within Tideland Tract N-28, Kodiak, Island Borough, Alaska. Applicant: Alaska Welding Enterprises, Box 2575, Kodiak, Alaska. Date: j/15/72." subject to the following conditions: • • • .(a) That this instrument does not convey any property rights either in real estate or material, or any exclusive privileges; and that it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion.of private rights, or any infringement of Federal,_State or local laws or regulations, nor does it obviate the necessity of obtaining State or local assent required by law for the structure or work authorized. (b) That the structure or work authorized herein shall be in accordance with the plans and drawings attached hereto and construction shall be subject to the supervision, and approval of the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, in charge of the District in which the work is to be performed. (c) That -the District Engineer may at any time make such inspections as he may deem necessary to assure that the construction or work is performed in accordance with the conditions of this permit and all expenses thereof shall be borne by the permittee. (d) That the permittee shall comply promptly with any lawful regulations, conditions, or instructions affecting the structure or work authorized herein if and when issued by the Water Programs Office of the Environmental Protection Agency and /or the State water pollution control agency having jurisdiction to abate or prevent water pollution, including thermal or radiation pollution. Such regulations, conditions, or instructions in effect or hereafter prescribed by the Water Programs- Office of the Environmental Protection Agency and /or the State water pollution control agency are hereby made a condition of this permit. (e) That the permittee will maintain the work authorized herein in good condition in accordance with the approved plans. • (f? . That this permit :may, 1.,..„.1ofo to the completion • the s c,ructure or work authorized herein, by suspended by authority of the Secretary of the Army if it is determined that suspension is in the public interest.* (g) That this permit may at any time be modified by authority of the Secretary of the Army if it is determined that, under existing circumstances, modification is in the public interest.* The permittee, upon.receipt of a. notice of modification, shall comply therewith as directed by the-Secretary of the Ariny or his authorized representative. (h) That this•permit may be revoked by authority of the Secretary of the Army if the permittee fails to comply with any of its provisions or if the Secretary determines that, under the existing circumstances, such action is required in the public interest.* • (i) That any modification, suspension or revocation of this permit shall not be the basis for a claim for damages against the United States. (j) That the United States shall in no way be liable for any damage to any structure or work authorized herein which may be caused by or result from future operations under- taken by the Government in the Public interest. (k) Tr i -ii o attempt 'shall be made by the pexnittee to forbid` the full- eii " free use y` the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the structure or work authorized by • this permit. (1) That if the display of lights and signals on any structure or work authorized herein is not otherwise provided for by law, such lights and signals as may be prescribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be installed and maintained by and at the expense of the permittee. (m) That the permittee shall notify the District Engineer at what time the construction or work will be commenced, as far in advance of the time of commencement as the District Engineer may specify, and of its completion. .(n) That if the structure or work herein authorized is not completed on or before the 31st day of December, 1975, this permit, if not previously revoked or specifically ex- tended, shall cease and be null and void. tin Y i... «•«.«ey (o) That, the legal requirements of all Federal agencies be met. '(p) That this permit does not authorize or approve the construction of particular structures, the authorization' or approval of which may require action by the Congress or other agencies of the Federal Government. - (q) That all the provisions of this permit shall be binding on any assignee or successor in interest of the permittee. (r) That if the recording of this.permit is possible under applicable State or local law, the permittee shall take such action as may be necessary to record this permit with the Registrar of Deeds-or other appropriate official charged with the responsibility for main- taining records of title to and interests in real property. (s)'That the permittee agree to make every reasonable effort to prosecute the construction or work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any adverse impact of the construction or work on fish, wildlife and natural environmental values. (t) That the permittee agrees that it will prosecute the construction of work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any degradation of water quality. (u) That no building or other structure may be erected on the fill authorized by this permit unless such building or other structure is appropriately identified and described in the plans and drawings attached hereto; that buildings or other structures authorized by this permit once erected, may not be significantly modified in their outward appearance or torn down and other buildings or structures erected in their place unless a modification of this permit is authorized by the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative; and that neither the fill 'itself nor buildings or structures erected in accordance with the plans and drawings attached hereto may be dedicated to any different use than that contemplated at the time of issuance of this permit unless a modification of this permit is authorized by the Secretary .of the Army or his authorized representative: BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: A. C. MA WS Colonel, -Co -.s of Engineers District Engineer ,- Alaska District Permittee hereby accepts the terms and conditions of this permit. zax_Lz Permit e Title Date *A judgment as to whether or not suspension, modification or revocation is in the public interest involves a consideration of the impact that any such action or the absence of any _ such action may have on factors affecting the public interest. Such factors include, but - are not limited to navigation, fish and wildlife, water quality, economics, conservation, aesthetics, recreation, water supply, flood damage prevention, ecosystems and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. ... _ :,.. if I (0 pia la of, a.* lizPc Eleb Of)ja: /Z7Z A N _Scale : /00, 5-0 0 /00 5fleS /NI," wales- - 8o/te4 /0`-G . l/eo•hole A/ore .g/cr".7i/orls .gre- /;.7 ?Peel' .7,74/ p,,LJ71 4e Vo‘//wsliti To a Ssed S. tit ' .r ol enc e le' C-C /1"s7lec/17741 bothd "1/ gf4.4.,-f://:911O.:7'7/AZ i1/ 411e VICINITY MAP Ig-/-0/n it C. t: Cloalil A10 6545 .5e7unel/fris -I;g71/70,77,5- al ML,Z.14/. 300 0 00 $' IZOO .5.C.! C''00,74.01e4k ,c_c L 7/714/de — 65' cej'' ` 0/1 eze.. Z0.7-Ace74 /$ TIDAL DATA 57° 4726" /V /52 Z.?" J5"4! j';•e/, 9 '/C■=7/e/-477 Zfi7eS 1.0s11,1 41.114414/. 6"...571.445/4c1 44.././74.1/7 C0/200P6771 11.7171.5 0711 KOC49,4 , A 1=7S,6,7 elem 0.0M4ZW. pre:e..7richqa7;fre 54-c7ioN A-A 0/-7z0,7140/ ',tell' fitt JO 20 /0 0 VG/4de' /": 20 . Z 0 ' a' /0 Z0 it9 c747//a /4 PROPDS,C0' 541ZICHEAb ( FILL ‘,../792/y7 rd/al 7;-4e/ "red/ ak. 4/ard #1,o.ptecap7 A /.7.sfra 14../e/66/7 Box Z575 : O..cAelwry. / ses Altarta, .3/472 becil -Auplication No. Name of Applicant 7i=J:_-2-780260 International Seafoods Effective Date APR 1 0 1979 Expiration Date If applicable) File No. Kodiak Farbor DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Referring to written request dated for a permit to: ( ) Perform work in or affecting navigt5,16-441451-Wthler9ed States, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, pursuant tVection 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403); L., Discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States upon the issuance of a permit from the Secretary of the Army iing through the Chief of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 816, P.L. 92-500); ( ) Transport dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters upon the issuance of a permit from the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1052; P.L. 92-532); International Seafoods of .Alaska Box 2995 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 is hereby authorized by the Secretary of the Army: to retain and preserve an existing fill and dock and to construct additional facilities consisting of a dock extension, in accordance with the approved revised plan attached and described below. In accordance with the plans and drawings attached hereto which are incorporated in and made a part of this permit (on drawings; give " file number or other definite identification marks.) "RETAIN AND PRESERVE FILL AND DOCK AND CONSTRUCT DOCK EXTENSION; IN: KODIAK hARBOR; AT: KODIAK, ALASKA: APPLICATION BY: INTERNATIONAL SEAFOODS; DATE: 31 AUGUST 1978 (REV); 2 SIUITSt' wing conditions: I. General Conditions: a. That all activities identified and authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit; and that any activities not specifically identified and authorized herein shall constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit which may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this permit, in whole or in part, as set forth more specifically in General Conditions j or k hereto, and in the institution of such legal proceedings as the United States Government may consider appropriate, whether or not this permit has been previously modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part. FORM ENG JUL 77 1721 EDITION OF 1 APR 74 IS OBSOLETE. (ER 1145-2-303) b. That all activities authorized herein ,11c11, if they involve, during their construction or operation, any discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States or ocean waters, be at all times consistent with applicable water quality standards, effluent limitations and standards of performance, prohibitions, pretreatment standards and management practices established pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (P:L. 92-500; 86 Stat. 816), the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532, 86 Stat. 1052). or pursuant to applicable State and local law. c. That•when the activity authorized herein - involves a discharge during its construction or operation, of any pollutant (including dredged or fill material), into waters of the United States, the authorized activity shall, if applicable water quality standards are revised or modified during the term of this permit, be modified, if necessary., to conform with such revised or modified water quality standards within 6 months of the effective date of any revision or modification of water quality standards, or as directed by an implemental on plan contained in such revised or modified standards,, or within such longer period of time as the District Engineer, in consultation with the Regional Administrator of 'the Environmental Protection Agency, may determine to be reasonable under the circumstances. d. That the discharge will not destroy a threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species Act, or endanger the critical. habitat of such species. e. That the permittee agrees to make every reasonable effort to prosecute the construction or operation of the work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any adverse impact on fish, wildlife, and natural environmental values. f. That the permittee agrees that he will prosecute the construction or work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any degradation of water quality. g. That the permittee shall permit the District Engineer or his authorized representative(s) or designee(s) to make periodic inspections at any time deemed necessary in order to assure that the activity being performed under authority of this permit is in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed herein.. h. That the permittee shalt maintain the structure or work authorized herein in good condition and in accordance with the plans and drawings attached hereto. I. That this permit does not convey any property rights, either in real estate or material, or ary exclusive privileges; and that it does not iluthorize any injury to property or invasion of rights c,r any infringement of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations nor does it obviate the requirement to obtain State or local assent required by law for the activity authorized herein. j. That this permit may be summarily suspended, in whole or in part, upon a finding by the District Engineer that immediate suspension of the activity authorized herein would be in the general public interest. Such suspension shall be effective upon receipt by the permittee of a written notice thereof which shall indicate (1) the extent of the suspension, (2) the reasons for this action, and (3) any corrective or preventative measures to be taken by the permittee which are deemed necessary by the District Engineer to abate imminent hazards to the general public interest. The permittee shall take immediate action to comply with the provisions of this notice. Within ten days following receipt, of this notice of suspension, the permittee may request a hearing in order to present information relevant to a decision as to whether his permit should be - einstated, modified or revoked. If a hearing is requested, it shall be conducted pursuant to procedures prescribed by the Chief of Engineers. After completion of the hearing, or within a reasonable time after issuance of the suspension notice to the permittee if no hearing is requested, the permit will either be reinstated, modified or revoked. k. That this permit may be either modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part if the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative determines that there has been a violation of any of the terms or conditions of this permit or that such action would otherwise be in the public interest. Any such modification, suspension, or revocation shall become effective 30 days after receipt by the permittee of written notice of such action which shall specify the facts or conduct warranting same unless (1) within the 30-day period the permittee is able to satisfactorily demonstrate that (a) the alleged violation of the terms and the conditions of this permit did not, in fact, occur or (b) the alleged violation was accidental, and the permittee has been operating in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and_is able to provicje,atisfactory assur,,ces that future. operations shall bA in full compliar-e with the termand ' "conditions of this permit; or (2)wvithin the aforesaid 30 -cay period, trie permittee requests that a public hearing be held to presehtoral and written evidence concerning the proposed modification, suspension or revocation. The conduct of this hearing and the procedures for making a final decision either to modify, suspend or revoke this permit in whole or in part shall be pursuant to procedures prescribed by the Chief of Engineers. I. That in issuing this permit, the Government has relied on the information and data which the permittee has provided in connection with his permit-application. If, subsequent to the issuance of this permit, such information and data prove to be false, incomplete or • inaccurate, this permit may be modified, suspended or revoked, in whole or in part, and/or the Government may, in addition, institute appropriate legal proceedings. m. That any modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit shall not be the basis for any claim for damages against the United States. • n., That the permittee shall notify the District Engineer at what time the activity authorized herein will be commenced, as far in advance of the time of commencement as the District Engineer may specify, and of any suspension of work, if for a period of more than one week, resumption of work and its completion. 2 activity authorizedf= not started on or before- Cone year *mm.mo date missu,n: tT_ nt unless otherwise specified) and .p, before .no day of_ ~ '1S `=�,,rnevrvn'mm*euamo/|sun"cpp,,wsnp,mi�cn��u,xe,,���pineu)*upepnit.i/ nmp"�iouy revoked or spe i/icaxvext,nueu shall automatically expire. . p. That this permit does not authorize or approve the construction of particular structures, the authorization or approval of which may require authorization by the Congress or other agencies of the Federal Government.. q. That if and when the permittee desires to abandon the activity authorized herein, unless such abandonment Is part af a transfer procedure by which the permittee is transferring his interests herein to a third party pursuant to General Condition t hereof, he must restore the area to a condition satisfactory to the Ditrict Engineer. r. That if the rec nui"ymmu-pmnmitupoomeumderap*/icamoommu,wuulavv,menennutee,xvxmxesua,actionaomovxo necessary to record this permit with the Register of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with the responsibility for maintaining records of title to and interests in real property. s. That there shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the existence or use of the activity authorized herein. t. That this, permit may not be transferred 10 a third party without prior written notice to the District Engineer, either by the transferee's written agreement-to comvv"wmml terms and conditions of this permit or by the transferee subscribing to this permit in the space provided prbvided below and thereby agreeing to comply with all terms ancf conditions of this permit. In addition, if the permittee transfer the interests authorized herein by conveyance of realty, the deed shall reference this permit and the terms and conditiorss specified herein and this permit shall be recorded along with the deed with the Register of Deeds or other appropriate official. x.snooialoonuuion* (Here list conditions relating specifically to the proposed structure or work authorized by this permit): That only one vessel at a time shall be allowed to use the dock. ,~~ , The following Special Conditions will be al mo=xen' appropriate: STRUCTUES IN OR AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: a. That this permit does not authorize the interference with any existing or proposed Federal project and that the permittee shall not be entitled to compensation for damage or injury to the structures or work authorized herein which may be caused by or result from existing or future operations undertaken by the United States in the public interest. u. That. no attempt shall ue made uv the per .mmeetv prevent the full and free use by the public of aPI navigable waters at or adjacent to the activity authorized by this permit. c. That if the display of lights and signals on any structure or Work authorized herein is not otherwise provided for by law, such lights and signals as may be prescribed by the United States Coast Guard shalt be installed and maintained by and at the expense of the u, That the permittee, upon receipt of a- no`iceuf revocation of this permit or upon its expiration before completion of the authorized structure or work, shall, without expense to the United States and in such time and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore the mate,vvav to its former conditions. If the permittee fails to comply with the direction of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, the Secretary or his designe may restore the waterway to Is former condition, by contract or otherwise, and recover the cost thereof from the permittee. e. Structures for Small Boats: That permittee hereby recognizes the possibility that the structure permitted herein may be subject to damage by wave wash from passing vessets. The issuance of this permit does not relieve the permittee from taking all proper steps to insure the integrity of the structure permitted herein and the safety of boats moored thereto from damage by wave wash and the permittee shall not hold the United States liable for any such damage. MAINTENANCE DREDGING: x. That when the work authorized' herein includes periodic maintenance dredging, it may be performed under this permit for years from the date of issuance of this permit (ten years unless othervvise indicated); b. That the permittee will advise the District Engineer iv writing mflevm two weeks before he intends to undertake any maintenance dredging, DISCHARGES OF DREDGED QR FILL MATERIAL INTO WATEFIS OF THE UNITED STATES: a. That the discharge will be carried out in conformity with the goals and objectives of the EPA Guidefines established pursuant to Section 1V«(u) n/ the rwpox and published 104oCpnuxo; b. That the discharge will consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants in other than trac quantities; c. That the fill crealed by the discharge will be properly mainlained to prevent nt erosion and other nOn-point sources of p�IIuion; and d. 1hat the discharge will not occur in a component of tho National WiId and Scenic River System or in a component of a State wild and scenic river system. DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WATERS: i a. That the dumping will be carried out in conformity with the gom|,, objectives, and requirements of the EPA criteria established pursuant to Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, published in 40 CFR 220-228. b. That the permittee shall place a copy of this permit in a conspicuous place in the vessel to be used for the rransportation and/or dumping of the dredged material as authorized herein. - This permit shall become effective on the date of !strict Engineer's ^. ' s nd conditions of this permit. BY AUTHOR1TY OF THE SEC 0p THE A ,MY: CO CORPS OF ENGINFERS DISTRICT ENGINEER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Transferee hereby agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. rRAmSFsnE.A=i DATE 4px 79 DATE 4 .-~-~~~_�'- DATE • P•i5 Z3Z SS —7 2.0 W- 3.21' 110.0.- 145W POCK • PLA 5-CAL= = 40.001 KODIAK HARBOR 48 __RETAIN AND PRESERVE FILL AND DOCK AND CONSTRUCT DOCK EXTENSION AT KODIAK, ALASKA N KODIAK HARBOR APPLICATION BY INTL. SEAFOOD of ALASKA INC. SHEET 1 OF -31-78 " - • ...... • • ' • • I • ' 11 .; • 11 I 5XIST: . -EYI5r. al EV, 15.0 gLeV.16.0 • rU) - 3-• PI 10 Ar 2 -/ X 0 119 x --4 0 0 P1 Tr. >,° ° Z z Z.4 > > > -4 0 Xx0Z o 7- Z > t- • W Cn Z —4 33 (n r 6r-cn r m rv> 1 -n ,Ix 0 > 0 o Pq 3Aa3S38d' ONV -n r z 817 809HVH >ivia FRopose.a 12 'STORY CCU tuiE*RdiAL, 151.0,1:-1 • gEB4F. doNG i 125e le 1416 e EX 14r, Pad K's, • pae.tt )f_ oLey.12,0' 141EV/ CO14Cruie OULIMEA17 URA RoAD.: 6TgaL PLL- Ii 65‘eT101•1 'Airs* • $cdLE 4a.00' 1,41.0.4w a, axi$T.pocg _ ATEEL piLgs K • I 4W. S.5 LLW 0 Xi EITu4 FILL LIU 1-....65CT IOW "5u- I' le 7-5VAL-Z*- 1.; 4°,0 •