Loading...
2012-01-12 Work Session Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Work Session Thursday, January 12, 2012, 7:30 p.m., Borough Conference Room Work Sessions are informal meetings of the Assembly where Assembly members review the upcoming regular meeting agenda packet and seek or receive information from staff. Although additional items not listed on the work session agenda are discussed when introduced by the Mayor. Assembly, or staff, no formal action is taken at work sessions and items that require formal Assembly action are placed on regular Assembly meeting agenda. Citizen's comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of the official record. Citizen's comments intended for the "official record" should be made at a regular Assembly meeting. CITIZENS' COMMENTS (Limited to Three Minutes per Speaker) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Kodiak Mobility Management Plan Presentation — Mr. Jon Spring 2. North Pacific Fishery Management Council Update — Mr. Trevor Brown 3. Planning and Zoning Commission /Parks and Recreation Update PACKET REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. FY2012 -15 Amending the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances Title 17 Zoning Section 17.10.030 Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate the Kodiak Road System Trails Master Plan (P &Z Case 12 -015). Ordinance No. FY2012 -01 B Amending Ordinance No. FY2012 -01 to Appropriate Funds in Support of the Alaska Coastal Management Program Initiative. State of Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Board Liquor License Application for Transfer of Controlling Interest. Licensee /Applicant: CNG Inc. (Patricia Altmeter, President and George Gatter, Vice President). Ordinance No. FY2012 -10 Amending the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances Title 15 Buildings and Construction Chapter 15.10 Building Codes by Adding Section 15.10.180 Hoop Houses and Title 17 Zoning by Amending Sections 17.25.090, 17.50.020, 17.60.020, 17.65.020, 17.65.030, 17.70.020, 17.75.020, 17.80.020, 17.85.020, 17.160.010 to Include Hoop Houses (P &Z Case 12 -025). UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None. NEW BUSINESS CONTRACTS — None. RESOLUTIONS *Resolution No. FY2012 -18 Establishing Fund Balance and Prioritization Policies as Required by the Government Accounting Standards (GASB) Statement Number 54. Resolution No. FY2012 -20 Affirming the Planning and Zoning Commission's Recommendation Not to Authorize the Disposal of Borough Land for Logging Purposes (PZC Case 12 -023.) ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION Ordinance No. FY2012 -17 Amending the Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances Title 2 Administration and Personnel, Chapter 2.120 Parks and Recreation Committee, Section 2.120.010 Committee Created — Duties. OTHER ITEMS *Confirmation of the Mayoral Appointments to the Joint Building Code Review Committee. MANAGER COMMENTS CLERK'S COMMENTS MAYOR'S COMMENTS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS COMMENTS Nova Javier Subject: FW: Kodiak Mobility Management Plan From: Jon Spring fmailto:feebeePeci.netl Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:45 AM To: Bud Cassidy Subject: Kodiak Mobility Management Plan Bud, How have you been? I have a quick question. The Kodiak Human Services Coalition has recently approved the draft Kodiak Mobility Management Plan which contains recommended changes to the KATS public transportation program. At this stage in our work, we are trying to present this Plan to the public and interested groups in order to obtain feedback from a wider segment of the public. The planning team would like to schedule a presentation to the Kodiak Borough. Could you tell me who to contact in order to get on their January agenda. I would appreciate any help you could provide in setting up this meeting. Jon Spring Kodiak Mobility Management Planning Team Member NPFMC Meeting December 2011 The Following was taken from the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council December 2011 News & Notes. *I have highlighted pertinent information, but included the entire articles for your review. BSAI Crab At its December 2011 meeting, the Council considered three crab rationalization program agenda items. Under each of the items, the Council had requested that stakeholders work to develop solutions to concerns expressed by the Council at previous meetings. The first item included several overlapping concerns related to active participation requirements, high lease rates, limited entry opportunities, and crew compensation. These issues were identified by the Council as areas of possible concern in the deliberations following presentation of the five -year review of the program in December of 2011. After hearing from stake holders and the public, the Council elected to advance alternatives for analysis that would require persons acquiring quota share (QS) to meet minimum requirements for active participation in the rationalized crab fisheries. Under the proposed alternatives, active participation requirements could be satisfied by the QS holder either maintaining a minimum ownership interest in a vessel or a minimum participation as a crewmember. In addition, the Council requested staff to prepare a discussion paper examining the potential for cooperatives to develop provisions that would establish minimum crew compensation standards, maximum lease rates, maximum lease charges or deductions against crew compensation, and measures to promote quota share ownership by crew and active participants in the fisheries. The Council also considered stakeholder comments concerning the performance of the binding arbitration system, which is used to settle price harvester /processor disputes for individual fishing quota (IFQ) landings that must be delivered to holders of individual processing quota (IPQ). Based on the concerns raised by stakeholders, the Council requested the chair to appoint a workgroup to consider development of a process for the price formula for the golden king crab fishery. Letters of nomination will be accepted at the Council office until January 10. Under the arbitration system that price formula is used to inform negotiations and the application of the arbitration standard to specific price disputes. The Council's action is in response to the disproportionate amount of testimony from stakeholders concerning the equity and fairness of the formula in the golden king crab fishery. The Council also asked staff to prepare a discussion paper concerning three other aspects of the arbitration system: 1) the lengthy season approach to arbitration and its effects, 2) the potential for publishing arbitration findings, and 3) the potential for allowing either side to initiate arbitration proceedings. The Council also reviewed its pending action to modify community provisions, including rights of first refusal on processor quota shares (PQS). The Council had requested that stakeholders consider issues that arise under the proposed actions, including revisions to the timeline for exercise of rights, the removal of terms under which the right lapses, applying the right to only to processor shares (rather than processor shares and other assets in the transaction), and prohibiting the use of IPQ outside of the community benefiting from the right of first refusal without the consent of that community. In response to testimony, the Council made minor technical revisions to one alternative concerning the lapse of rights and added an action that would require PQS holders to provide certain notices to right holders and NMFS to ensure that right holders and the agency are informed concerning the status of rights and whether those rights have been triggered. Staff contact on all crab issues is Mark Fina. Groundfish Specifications The Council approved the Gulf of Alaska Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report and recommended final catch specifications for the 2012 and 2013 groundfish fisheries. As part of the Plan Team presentations and Council deliberations, the updated ecosystem and economics SAFE report sections were presented. New components of the economic section included graphical presentations of fishery products by species, gear, and sector. The ecosystem section included results from the newly formed Aleutian Islands ecosystem team to highlight key indicators from that region. NMFS conducted a summer bottom -trawl survey in the Gulf of Alaska this year, so full assessments were presented for all 22 stocks and stock complexes under the GOA FMP. Proposed and final specifications were established for a period of up to two years. This required specifying OFLs, ABCs and TACs for 2012 and 2013. The sum of the ABCs increased by 3% (15,927 t) compared with last year. This was primarily driven by increases in pollock 20,229 t (21 %) and sablefish 1,670 t (15 %). Based on projections, ABC levels for groundfish (pollock, Pacific cod, and sablefish) are up by 22,699 t (12 %) whereas flatfish declined by 8,685 t (- 3 %). Rockfish ABCs increased 3% (1,197 t) and the largest percentage increase was seen for octopus at 53% (501 t). Combined, the skates ABC increased by 2% (149 t). The Prince William Sound pollock GHL was increased from 1,650 t to 2,770 t and this amount was deducted from the central and western pollock ABC prior to apportionments. SEE ATTACHED CHART FOR GULF BREAKDOWN GOA Pacific Cod Jig The Council received a report on management of the GOA Pacific cod jig fishery and moved to discuss developments in management of the fishery at the next Joint Protocol Committee meeting in March 2012. Staff presented a report summarizing recent actions taken by the Council, the Board of Fisheries, and NMFS to ensure that operators using jig gear would have the most access to Federal TAC and State GHL Pacific cod allocations in the GOA. Recent Board actions and the jig season dates established under NMFS' final rule on the GOA sector split will allow harvest of GOA Pacific cod concurrently in both State and Federal waters. Jig vessels will be able to harvest in the State waters parallel fishery concurrent with the Federal fishery. Jig operators will also be able to concurrently harvest in the State GHL fishery and in Federal waters, if there is sufficient GHL and TAC available. The Council postponed taking further action on management of the jig fishery until after the Joint Protocol Committee has met and reported back to the Council on the legal authority and management issues that could arise under implementation of a reverse parallel fishery, which could provide harvest opportunities in Federal waters for jig vessels when GHL is available but the Federal TAC has been taken. Under a reverse parallel fishery, jig operators could have year -round access to Federal waters. Catches in Federal waters would accrue to the State jig GHL, which is currently 25% of the GOA Pacific cod. The Committee will also look at the possibility of limiting the use of any other gear type on board a vessel while jig fishing in the Federal jig fishery and the reverse parallel fishery. Staff contact is Sarah Melton. Charter Halibut Management It was a big week for charter halibut management issues before the Council. The Council received agency staff reports on proposed commercial catch limits and charter guidelines harvest levels (GHL), implementation issues related to the Council's October 2008 preferred alternative for a Halibut Commercial and Charter Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) for Area 2C and Area 3A, and committee recommendations for potential changes to CSP management measures during times of low abundance. 2012 For Area 2C the Council recommended one fish < 45 inches or 68 inches ( "U45/068 ") based on an increased GHL from 788,000 lb in 2011 to 931,000 lb in 2012. This "reverse slot limit" would allow the retention of halibut approximately <_ 32 lb and ? 123 lb (dressed weight). For Area 3A the Council recommended status quo (2 fish of any size) based on a decreased GHL from 3.651 Mlb in 2011 to 3.103 Mlb in 2012. The IPHC will consider the Council recommendations at its January 2012 meeting in Anchorage. Catch Sharing Plan The Council unanimously stated that it continues to support implementation of the CSP as the best approach to resolving longstanding allocation and management issues between the commercial and charter halibut sectors, as currently identified in the CSP Problem Statement. The Council also recognized that there are efficiencies in the current analysis that must be addressed before implementation can take place. Additionally, since 2008, changes in halibut management and the condition of the halibut stock have occurred, which will impact the effective implementation of the CSP as envisioned by the Council. The Council provided needed clarifications to six main issues that were raised in public comment to the proposed rule. The Council requested additional analysis and revisions to the Halibut CSP that more specifically address a variety of public comments as outlined in the NMFS CSP report. More detail can be found in the motion posted on the Council website. The Council intends to review the supplemental analysis in April 2012 in order to determine what, if any, additional changes are necessary in order for the CSP to meet Council objectives. The Council also requested a report from NMFS by that meeting as to whether the additions and revisions to the CSP result in the need for a new proposed rule, so that the Council may establish a timeline for implementing the CSP. Given the myriad of components involved in commercial and charter halibut management, the Council recognized that there are management options available that were not included as part of the Halibut CSP preferred alternative. It is not the wish of the Council to delay implementation of the Halibut CSP any further than necessary. As such, the Council requested a discussion paper analyzing the following for potential use in future halibut management: • The use of ADF &G logbooks for official harvest reporting • Annual limits allowing for the retention of at least one fish of any size • Restricting captain and crew retention of fish • Trip limits, reverse slot limits, and two fish of a maximum size • The use of a common pool purchase of QS by the charter sector • Long -term management measures under Tier 1 of the CSP as identified in the Charter Halibut Implementation Committee Report A draft analysis of the first four bullets (above) prepared by ADF &G will be reviewed during the next meeting of the Charter Management Implementation Committee. A discussion paper will incorporate that analysis and committee recommendations, along with a discussion of the remaining two bullets (above) and information from the supplemental analysis (described above), as is available at the time of completion of the paper, for Council review in April 2012. At that meeting the Council could determine whether to fold any of these new elements into a modified CSP or let others follow as a trailing amendment. The Council also will request legal guidance on whether the charter sector may create a single entity (e.g., regional fishing association) that would hold the sector's allocation in trust for the benefit of all guided anglers. And the Council appointed Gary Ault, Inlet Charters Across Alaska Adventures in Homer, as a new member to the Charter Management Implementation Committee and Andy Mezirow, Crackerjack Sportfishing Charters in Seward, for a special one -year appointment to the Advisory Panel. Contact Jane DiCosimo for more information on halibut management. GOA Chinook Salmon Bycatch in all Fisheries This action was postponed due to limited time. The discussion paper was moved to the January Council Meeting. DRAFT NPFMC Recommendations for Final OFLs, ABCs, and TACs (mt) for 2012 and 2013 for Gulf of Alaska Groundfish (December 9, 2011). .f � "d , igiiff . 2012rtr 1 ` 0131 X m1J : '$ .. � , '"}S}* : of ) ,, rS .. r 3, 4 1 2 F+ Y , A. Speci 5Wiz .A4: 4.,S, ;xAr e�� "k_ ; k 2E , A ,N „ , OFL ABc t ; Pollock W(610) 30,270 30,270 32,816 32,816 C(620) 45,808 45,808 49,662 49,662 C(630) 26,348 26,348 28,565 28,565 WYAK (640) 3,244 3,244 3,517 3,517 Subtotal 14 3, 716 105,670 105,670 155,402 114,560 114,560 SEO 14,366 10,774 10,774 14,366 10,774 10,774 Total 158,082 116,444 116,444 169,768 125,334 125,334 Pacific cod W 28,032 21,024 29,120 21,840 C 56,940 42,705 59,150 44,363 E 2,628 1,971 2,730 2,047 Total 104,000 87,600 65,700 108,000 91,000 68,250 Sablefish W 1,780 1,780 1,757 1,757 C 5,760 5,760 5,686 5,686 WYK 2,247 2,247 2,219 2,219 SEO 3,173 3,173 3,132 3,132 E subtoal 5,420 5,420 5,350 5,350 Total 15, 330 12,960 12,960 15,129 12,794 12,794 Shallow water flatfish W 21,994 13,250 20,171 13,250 C 22,910 18,000 21,012 18,000 WYAK 4,307 4,307 3,950 3,950 SEO 1,472 1,472 1,350 1,350 Total 61,681 50,683 37,029 56,781 46,483 36,550 Deep water Flatfish W 176 176 176 176 C 2,308 2,308 2,308 2,308 WYAK 1,581 1,581 1,581 1,581 SEO 1,061 1,061 1,061 1,061 Total 6,834 5,126 5,126 6,834 5,126 5,126 Rex sole W 1,307 1,307 1,283 1,283 C 6,412 6,412 6,291 6,291 WYAK 836 836 821 821 SEO 1,057 1,057 1,037 1,037 Total 12,561 9,612 9,612 12,326 9,432 9,432 Arrowtooth flounder W 27,495 14,500 27,386 14,500 C 143,162 75,000 142,591 75,000 WYAK 21,159 6,900 21,074 6,900 SEO 21,066 6,900 20,982 6,900 Total 250,100 212,882 103,300 249,066 212,033 103,300 Flathead sole W 15,300 8,650 15,518 8,650 C 25,838 15,400 26,205 15,400 WYAK 4,558 4,558 4,623 4,623 SEO 1,711 1,711 1,735 1,735 Total 59,380 47,407 30,319 60,219 48,081 30,408 2012 2013 Species Area OFL ABC TAC OFL ABC TAC Pacific ocean perch W 2,423 2,102 2,102 2,364 2,050 2,050 C 12,980 11,263 11,263 12,662 10,985 10,985 WYAK 1,692 1,692 1,650 1,650 SEO 1,861 1,861 1,815 1,815 E (subtotal) 4,095 3,553 3,553 3,995 3,465 3,465 Total 19,498 16,918 16,918 19,021 16,500 16,500 Northern rockfish W 2,156 2,156 2,017 2,017 C 3,351 3,351 3,136 3,136 E 0 0 0 0 Total 6,574 5,507 5,507 6,152 5,153 5,153 Shortraker W 104 104 104 104 C 452 452 452 452 E 525 525 525 525 Total 1,441 1,081 1,081 1,441 1,081 1,081 Other slope rockfish W 44 44 44 44 C 606 606 606 606 WYAK 230 230 230 230 SEO 3,165 200 3,165 200 Total 5,305 4,045 1,080 5,305 4,045 1,080 Pelagic shelf rockfish W 409 409 381 381 (Dusky) C 3,849 3,849 3,581 3,581 WYAK 542 542 504 504 SEC 318 318 296 296 Total 6,257 5,118 5,118 5,822 4,762 4,762 Rougheye W 80 80 82 82 C 850 850 861 861 E 293 293 297 297 Total 1,472 1,223 1,223 1,492 1,240 1,240 Demersal shelf rockfish SEO 467 293 293 467 293 293 Thornyheadrockfish W 150 150 150 150 C 766 766 766 766 E 749 749 749 749 Total 2,220 1,665 1,665 2,220 1,665 1,665 Atka mackerel GW 6,200 4,700 2,000 6,200 4,700 2,000 Big skate W 469 469 469 469 C 1,793 1,793 1,793 1,793 E 1,505 1,505 1,505 1,505 Total 5,023 3,767 3,767 5,023 3,767 3,767 Longnose skate W 70 70 70 70 C 1,879 1,879 1,879 1,879 E 676 676 576 676 Total 3,500 2,625 2,625 3,500 2,625 2,625 Other skates GW 2,706 2,030 2,030 2,706 2,030 2,030 Squids GW 1,530 1,148 1,148 1,530 1,148 1,148 Sharks GW 8,037 6,028 6,028 8,037 6,028 6,028 Octopuses GW 1,941 1,455 1,455 1,941 1,455 1,455 Sculpins GW 7,641 5,731 5,731 7,641 5,731 5,731 Total GOA 747,780 606,048 438,159 756,621 612,506 447,752 ? '? #, 'F 2Z,,,_ 3�;;;aus`i7r3x* ,• d.:tiaDRQ FT?NPFMC?THR -M TINGI OUTLAOKi . updatedi,12),191,1,fps"gw%4s a, - r,us;;wy„tt:LLtf,t =y,.N. z.;! January 30 - February 7, 2012 March 26 - April 3, 2012 June 4 - 12, 2012 Seattle, WA Anchorage, AK Kodiak, AK SOPP: Review and Approve AFA Pollock Cooperative and IPA Reports SSL CIE: Review Terms of Reference Amendment 80 Cooperative Reports EFH Consultation Process: Update CGOA Rockfish Cooperative Reports BSIERP Report IPHC Report Halibut CSP: Update Halibut CSP: Review and action as necessary Halibut workshop report: Review GOA Halibut PSC: Initial Review GOA Halibut PSC: Final Action (T) GOA Halibut PSC: Final Action (T) GOA Pacific cod A- season opening dates: Discussion paper P.Cod Jig Management: Review Progress Halibut/Sablefish IFQ Leasing prohibition: Discussion paper Limit Other Gear On Jig Vessels: Discussion Paper GOA Pollock D- season: Discussion paper Halibut/sablefish IFO changes: Discussion paper (I) COE in Area 4B: Final Action Northern Bering Sea Research: Discussion paper BSAI Crab ROFR: Initial Review BSAI Flatfish specification flexibility: Discussion Paper BS Habitat Conservation Area Boundary: Review BSAI Crab active participation requirements: Initial Review BSAI Crab Cooperative Provisions for Crew: Discussion paper GOA Chinook Bycatch All Trawl Fisheries: Discussion Paper BSAI Chum Salmon Bycatch: Initial Review BSAI Crab Binding Arbitration - GKC: Workgroup report Binding Arbitration Issues (lengthy season, publishing decisions, GOA Flatfish Trawl Sweep Modifications: Initial Review GOA Flatfish Trawl Sweep Modifications: Final Action IP0 Initiation): Discussion Paper AFA Vessel Replacement GOA Sideboards: Discussion Paper FLL Vessel Replacement: Initial Review/ Final Action Revise BS FLL GOA cod sideboards: Discussion paper (7) BSAI Crab ROFR Workgroup: Report; action as necessary (7) Scallop SAFE: Approve harvest specifications BSAI Greenland turbot allocation: Discussion paper ( ) BSAI Crab EDR Revisions: Final Action Pribilof BKC Rebuilding Plan: Update; action as necessary Pribilof BKC Rebuilding Plan: Final Action Crab Plan Team Report: Set Catch Specifications for stocks BSAI Tanner Crab rebuilding plan: Preliminary Review BSAI Tanner Crab rebuilding plan: Initial Review BSAI Crab Model Workshop Report: SSC only HAPC - Skate sites: Initial Review HAPC - Skate sites: Final Action ITEMS BELOW,FORFUTURE'.MEETINGSR +B S7ta4 titmTll44 BBRKC spawning area/fishery effects: Updated Disc paper (7) VMS Use and Requirements: Discussion paper Crab PSC numbers to weight: Discussion paper Crab bycatch limits In BSAI groundfish fisheries: Disc paper Groundfish PSEIS: Discuss schedule Al P.cod Processing Sideboards: Initial Review BSAI halibut PSC limit: Discussion paper 2012 -2015 Deep Sea Coral Research: Report Grenadiers: Discussion paper GOA comprehensive halibut bycatch amendments: Disc paper MPA Nominations: Discuss and consider nominations Al - Aleutian Islands GKC - Golden King Crab Future Meeting Dates and Locations AFA - Arnerican Fisheries Act GHL - Guideline Harvest Level BIOp - Biological Opinion HAPC - Habitat Areas of Particular Concern January 30- February 7, 2012 - Renaissance Hotel, Seattle BSAI - Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands IFO - Individual Fishing Quota March 28- Ap113, 2012 - Hilton Hotel, Anchorage BKC - Blue King Crab IBQ - Individual Bycatch Quota June 4 - 12, 2012 Best Western, Kodiak BOF - Board of Fisheries MPA - Marine Protected Area October 1 -9, 2012 - Hilton Hotel, Anchorage CQE - Community Quota Entity PSEIS - Programmatic Suplimental impact Statement December 3-11, 2012 - Anchorage CDO - Community Development Quota PSC - Prohibited Species Catch February 4 -12, 2013, Portland EDR - Economic Data Reporting RKC - Red King Crab April 1 -9, 2013, Anchorage EFP - Exempted Fishing Permit ROFR - Right of First Refusal June 3 -11, 2013, Juneau EIS - Environmental Impact Statement SSC - Scientific and Statistical Committee September 30-Oct 8, 2013 Anchorage EFH - Essential Fish Habitat SAFE - Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation December 9 -17, 2013, Anchorage FLL - Freezer longliners SSL - Steller Sea Lion (T) Tentatively scheduled GOA - Gull of Alaska TAC - Total Allowable Catch r KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH WORK SESSION Work Session of: i.it4ucc&,4/ lam(, Vice —" / Please PRINT your name Please PRINT your name .� e G /� ijr69 a/ - 717 )41 P✓t f-O vl s h I �� \�V t f 4- A ( `,`s � ‘1-tri \\\ • LA/ j AL-Ad S <- 14py%/2 \ v \rn <Mi\ r\C \\ v 1,--Thoc � �i� } s tz ?`T f Ct s \` MAirod RiicK Lo 1,N iY *."v �� •.}8' `.£ '-" ,. a T 'y aiii' i t'L7" h YSi r 1 :1, „ . 3� `rt }j .: G L au 4, a+ x 4 ax f Kodiak Island Borough School District Board of Education 722 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 (907) 481-6200 January 12, 2012 Dear Mayor Selby and Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Members: On behalf of the Board of Education, you are cordially invited to take a tour of ou schools conducted by a School Board member, Superintendent Stewart McDonald, and Assistant Superintendent Marilyn Davidson. This tour will provide an opportunity to see the work taking place in the Kodiak Island Borough School District to enhance connection to upcoming budget discussions. Experiencing the work firsthand will be more informative and meaningful than merely reading about it in a report or viewing a slideshow. In an effort to provide scheduling options, two separate tours have been organized: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Please choose the date and time which is convenient for you and confirm with me at your earliest convenience (481 -6202 or,bhakerQ I @ lcibsd:orr t ) The tour will be approximately ...a two hours in length. • - Sincerely, \ ; 41'4 Bonnie Baker Administrative Assistant 0 0o o a_� DSO o g oToogh Sth® � ogruott A (1 7 - - V i v M? a "'.., !:" , -mss- ..s� }+' iq �.14 " e t _ + oI j / kV G ` *1. ? tt r r ice... , ,,..r. c h� +l '� k C ^ s � ^ 4* «'s 'v e j U Strategic Plan Xovem o ° n 20 �) 70i@a OI Strate Phi) Fga guide Ibra3 Z002/ 20133 school Feg , \ 4 _.,_ ., I - e { :, a l ' Y� 4 .—. 2- - � f 4 * .s -p` t r v+ N � .x. v . tv, ycr Re presentatives from Kodiak Island community organizations collaborating on the 2012/2013 Strategic Plan. Kodiak Island Borough School District identified through the 2011 Strategic Planning process. The Kodiak Island Borough School District's Strategic Plan identifies the Mission and Vision KIBSD would like to extend thanks to those of the community and it becomes an integral community members who stepped up and part of the annual budget process for the represented their organizations: Lucy 2012/2013 school year or otherwise known as DeSantiago, Tania Silva- Johnson, Candace FY13. Branson, Jared Griffin, Nicola Belisle, Brian Himelbloom, Quentin Fong, Borghy Holm; Frank This fall KIBSD took a different direction with Peterson, Kip Thomet, Susan Payne, Eldon Strategic Plan. Voices were gathered from as Simonson, Mary Guilas - Hawver, Melissa Wages, many community organizations as possible and Gesa Gustafson, Robyn Cassidy, Kristine King representatives from those organizations were and Marita Kaplan. We would also like to extend asked to sit around a table and focus on a our thanks to Kodiak College Director Barbara direction to lead education into the future of Bolson for agreeing to facilitate this years learners. KIBSD is hopeful that this will assist us Strategic Plan meetings. in obtaining a clear direction of what is important in education from as many people as The District continually monitors and evaluates possible from our island communities. the progress towards improving in each of these prioritized areas. We ask that you, the Community meetings were also held at various community, continue to share your input and locations, surveys posted on the website as well insight through the Strategic Plan Survey, blog, as hardcopies distributed. The 2010 Needs or facebook interface with the school district. Assessment and Strategic Plan brochures, along with the 2011 Needs Assessment Brochure were Stop by our district office and talk with us about distributed during community meetings. your ideas and visions for the students of our Superintendent McDonald posted a blog on the island communities. KIBSD website to invite further discussions. In the 2011 Strategic Plan brochure you will find the top five priority areas that have been 2 Community Representatives Survey Summary Poll Results from October 13, 2011 A: 3es: opportunities for advanced /extended learning in math (78 %) A: 3es: training for teachers of mathematics (50 %) A: 3fs: k-8 teachers trained in "Strength in Number' method } 1/0 , r- A: 3r's: District-wide norms established (28 %) A 3r' s: Professional Development in Standards -Based Instruction (57 %) .? ;�, *�! A: 3i's: KIBSD will meet AYP in all subgroups (35 %) Av 74 tik ( + `! B: Science: Analysis of time spent in elementary science 0 (57 /o) B: Science: Inventory equipment and supplies (50 %) R � B Science: Science community leadership will meet quarterly r (501/0) C: Career: Partner with KWRAC (6 C: Career: Opportunities college and vocational education preparation (92 %) C : Career: Career plans for students (71%) C: Career: 6 -12 advisory period activities to prep students for work force programs or college (71%) D: Behavior: All schools develop a POS plan (57 %) D: Behavior: Positive activities in a all schools • ( 0: Behavior: Student government involvement with administration (64%) E: Community: Gather input through blogs and surveys ( E: Community: Increase participation in parent teacher groups E: Community will interact with KIBSD social networking (57'/0) 3 Community Survey Results Your Top Priorities: Vocational. Technical._ t � z' and Career Education Mathemati cs - Course C9erirgs "i`44aVro- <;4-45 Employability Skills — Other Priority. Is there _ENE something not on the Mathematics Intervention— Music C1lenngs— Facility Needs— Science Instruction r Reading Intervention Activities — All Other Responses — 0 20 40 60 5 0 100 Other Priority Responses: ✓ Drivers training ✓ More resources for art!! ✓ What about art? ✓ Athletic fields college prep planning ✓ Any activity that creates a family sense for the child...a safety network ✓ Reading, writing and math instruction needs to strive for excellence. ✓ Health classes in every grade as per adopted curriculum! Writing: most important skill in all fields. Art /Technology: also applicable and important in every field. Should be required in KMS. Required Civics should be a focus in KMS, not KHS. For KHS college bound kids, there are not enough hours in the day /years to fulfill requirements and take some fun, interest expanding classes. ✓ Basic needs assistance. Family support ✓ Accelerate Reader Program ✓ Smaller classes ✓ Arts Education K -12 ✓ Leadership and follow - through at KMS ✓ Fiscal responsibility in tough economic ✓ Special education ✓ Students success in general, this is number 1 ✓ Attendance, truancy ✓ Retention of Alaska Native Teachers ✓ Art classes 4 / a i ( 11 f _ c I r d i '? •— y .tr.._- . ` � .: 1, , ,1 . 7 . 4Q 17' t I a! � e •:. Ai l - , _iv br 4 , ..,,,_ fr :4" , #.- a ; f * +i 4R ` LL µ \ Ir`r:ar , r ' A: Reading, Writing, and Math Instruction ✓ Train all teachers in the five key areas to be able to teach reading instruction. ✓ Establish and train the frameworks for writing in all grades /all subjects. ✓ Develop a new cohort of Strength in Number trainees math specific. ✓ Enable and promote self -paced learning at all grade levels. ✓ Raise math expectations at all grade levels by increasing enrollment and success in higher math classes (ie. Calculus) ✓ Look at subject areas across a continuum at all levels/ schools/ locations. Align K -12 reading, writing and math skills in all subjects. ✓ Provide opportunities district -wide to students for remedial and after school support from teachers and other. ✓ Teach student to be student /study their own learning and respond for improvement. / 5 , ei of � ! ' a Q Career Ready 9000 through h ft Y $f' ° ' t 1Y , -STEAM (�� D4echnology0 \ fi . EngineeriG DArt�s/ , �t��lnD s . ' max ` 1 e i • � a 2. f ; 1 • 1 Li . 2$ r e i. .,. * t o T . 4 � . "lh. � : B • e-s2 A :if " on VA n B: Science Instruction and ` �' Community Partnerships �; _ n, ✓ Align instruction ✓ Encourage partnerships for all grade ✓ Continue to promote and develop the levels with science community and visual arts, music throughout all grade industry. levels. ✓ Implement parent /student ✓ Understand that the student's first job partnerships for projects, is that of "student." Prepare them for assessments. that job. ✓ Implement Asset Frameworks for ✓ Develop an advising program at each student success in the field of academic level. science. ✓ Train secondary advisors to be a meaningful Assets Framework to students' lives as a constant resource. t , r ^- .„ , wF ✓ Enforce employability skills as an 7. 01 , t 4. f a,4 everyday behavior expectation. * . - V � 4 - � J r � ✓ Include local workforce needs on t > _ , 7' ti secondary CTE offerings. irt , 1 } la'. r rr V# ' s ,, ✓ Fully utilize Career Ready 101 74 software as a teaching toot. e ` a 4 d. w " ',� . sly - � ,� ✓ Continue to examine career strands K � , 0 ' , 4 4 12 opportunities a y qq E K 'I ` ✓ Explore overlap between industry and 41, ". 4a tr ,Ii. , i 1 scientific community and career development. 6 ID: Positive Behavior Support Through Activities ✓ Continue to include family training and f ' connections to enhance student behavior outcomes. I_ no,0 ✓ Increase student skill sets in all grade levels _` ' 1f E to address anger management, conflict o, #. resolution, substance abuse and bullying/ ;` t as' ' harassment. 9 ''` • Align and promote instructional programs � � t� t r. utilizing counselors /clinicians. ' � � . , „ ✓ Establish District expectations in behavior. i , y - ✓ Continue foundation work in behavior a — a- : education at the primary level. E. Community Involvement ✓ Educate community in the Assets Framework for student success. ✓ Increase staff and student involvement in civic/ service organizations. r, ✓ Increase community involvement and ownersh in schools. I . ✓ Publicize Communications Plan to increase 7� , communication to the public (for example: f . -4,141 articles and overview of curriculum changes). r� ', f» 'ta 1 . sta r ✓ Utilize other cultural organizations to identify X ' (0 . "s . w language issues and cultural barriers. , v , 7 / cg Edu&at�ion Goals > Increase student achievement Board Goals 201 0201,E > Promote fiscal responsibility through N " �� � � improved efficiency ` irk?- :?-%- . > Complete new high school facility > Strengthen partnerships and , involvement with Kodiak Workforce Regional Advisory Council (KWRAC) and the greater Kodiak community > Prepare students for transition to life after high school > Enhance student learning in STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts :r, and math) through professional development for teachers ,I 4 i z.. d Ii > Develop formal staff recognition process , b > Promote competency -based education ' ig. L d.I 14; -a t t ti , 7 4 ri '.. ri 7 J t A > Promote the Assets Framework to ! . iv support student success through family 1 - S T , k, " 't and community involvement : >r �,� �99V {I 8 K - o Kodiak Island Borough School District Vision o Kodiak Island Borough School District 435 safe, disciplined, and productive environment where students eiwd adults .Tip meaningful engaged lti learning. agy U 1 culturally diverse population 43 viewed Eg3 strength Can a spirit d equity cooperation, Fal respect permeates Off school communities. Our ' alkIE design Fal instructional practices enhance ay ability 'OD connect academic learning to apply learning 6hl ate workplace. M©w schools an equipped MOS necessary technology human resources, eold materials fo' academic success. % Mission = Kodiak Island Borough School District, LGl close cooperation CHP diverse island communities, GM@ tip provide OM educational program CO S2 highest standard . empowers dt students @D achieve personal god academic Gagaigige while developing Qat (a potential Egi responsible, productive citizens. Beliefs = if - Orealeilid foremost consideration cQ ICI educational process 4303 student. 1113 educational environment Mi022 Ca? caring, healthy safe, ffailo disruptive, °Ed non - biased. MG school tbEgl integral pflittdat? community Eld tlb community 4ifp integral school. all students Erie capable CO (earning einjaaga have (a3 opportunity l$D learn. Families CM children's primary teachers EDO G DQ involved OD education. M3- educational process Gang value EMI pi2Oaggft human diversity aid mb multicultural communities OlgtgAgas, communities BPI LQ active OiO educational funding aid spending. a schools Lb developed through Mil standards ETi d GO expectations. Students BIM meet district standards lb graduate. Students need opportunities pD experience success MI @D build GIaC -lita Success Cif students $Si measured (11E) zeitiaw di ways. facebook 'um oant to faoebook.com/Wbad Kodiak. 1E99610 'L ujeact, twitter.00m/Idbad http://www.lubsd.org/ • • A-1 Timber Co sultants, Inc t PO Box 825 Kodiak, AK 99615 {Tice: (907)180.8733 1 N: (907) 186.8 c- lliaii toinciiimItimberinet January 11, 2012 Members of the Assembly • Kodiak Island Borough I JAN 1 2 I i f . 1 . 2012 ( 710 Mill Bay Road a Kodiak, AK 99615 1� ....- .._._....___.__._.._ ROUGH CLERKS. OFFICE Dear Assembly, The following letter was originally addressed to the Planning and Zoning Commission and as such where it reads Commissioners please insert Assembly. This letter was our response to the staff report issued for this case that we were not allowed to submit because of an interpretation of the by -laws of the Commission. These by -laws (section attached) as written do not make sense and in fact in this case denied A -1 as the applicant due•process in being heard by the Commission. As written the by -laws state "The Commission shall not consider any new information submitted less than fifteen (15) days prior to a regular meeting date ". In addition the by -laws state under article XI that "The Community Development Department will have the staff reports•for public hearing petitions available for review by the applicant and Commission members 12 days prior to public hearing ". The question that is apparent here is how does the applicant respond to the staff report if in fact they receive the staff report after the fifteen day period? How does the language of the by -laws further due process for the applicant? Should not due process be the corner stone of all proceedings undertaken by the Borough both Assembly and Planning & Zoning? In essence why even apply if you are not going to be heard. • The Planning and Zoning Commissioners as appointed by the Assembly have a role that is quasi judicial in nature, to sit in judgment of each case and interpret the code. In this role their decisions have great weight and should be based on facts that pertain to the code that is being applied for and their finding of facts should also reflect that code and how it applies to their findings. Unfortunately the language contained in KIB 18.20.030 does not give the Commission much guidance on how they are to review these cases just that they must review them and recommend to the Assembly. This makes for a very open ended process, which in this case due process. The following are the findings of fact for this case; I. The proposed road will be located between a residential subdivision and the Chiniak School. 2. The negative impacts of this use will interrupt what is a quiet neighborhood and public school area with noise, dust as well as potentially cause a safety concern for up to three years. 3. There are alternative routes at alternative locations away from the school and residential subdivision that will allow A -I' Timber Consultants. Inc. to access timberlands. • These finding as stated are more indicative of the finding you would have in a zoning issue but this case is a request for the temporary use of Borough property not a zoning request. In fact the staff report clearly states that this is not a zoning issue. How do we judiciously apply KI8 18.20 when a) all the language contained therein holds a connotation of permanence and b) does not guide the Commission on what they are to address. The word disposal is defined as "the process of throwing away or getting rid of something". We have stated that our intent is for temporary permission to ingress and egress nothing more. Our reason is to avoid putting salmon habitat, no matter how slight, at risk. This is just good resource management. To more directly address the findings. Any access along the Chiniak Highway will be between one subdivision and another in varying degrees. All the subdivisions along the Chiniak Highway are subject to the same noise and dust due to the fact of their existence along this road way. The stated alternative will place salmon habitat at risk regardless of the degree of risk. Contrary to public testimony the very minute you engage the zone next to a stream you have potential risk. You can manage those risks by maintaining that zone of protection. Even the bridge a Pasagshak by its shear existence within the rivers plane will have risks associated with it (fuel spills etc.). This appears to be the only alternative that the Borough will allow. Otherwise the finding of facts for this case could have been stated as; 1. This applicant is engaged in an activity that is a permitted principal use in the Conservation Zoning District. 2. The . road requested is for transportation in support of that principal use. 3. We find that instead of risking salmon habitat which is vital to the Kodiak economy it is appropriate to use public land for the mitigation of this risk. 4. Furthermore in the name of public safety this is the safest location for this type of access to the public highway which is also vital to commerce in Kodiak. Living in a.rural area means that you may be exposed to activities that are common to these areas as reflected in the principal uses allowed. As such you can assume they will occur. We believe that you will find that the evidence supplied in this letter will prove these finding are more supportable by the code than the current findings. Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission A - Timber Consultants with this letter would like to address for the benefit of the Commission our perspective of the recent staff report regarding our case. The case before you requests permission for a temporary road access across property owned by the Borough and nothing more. Our request is for 318 feet of access on which we can place a 14 foot wide road constructed by gravel overlaid on natural sub - grade. The road will be constructed to Alaska Forest Resources and Practices standards using pit run rock material obtained from a local source (pit not located on site). This road way will be included in our Detailed Plan of Operations filed with the Division of Forestry. By doing this it will be subject to all standards contained in Alaska Forest Resources and Practices regulations and will be inspected by Division of Forestry regularly. Upon completion of the use period, the access and road bed will be stabilized as directed by the Borough or as a minimum to the standards found in the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations which requires the removal of all crossing structure and the road surface either water barred or out sloped to control surface water runoff. We will notify the Borough when all work is completed for final inspection and release. This type of road closure is a requirement of Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations if the road will no longer be maintained. We have enclosed photographs of similar work done on Afognak Island for an example. We have no disagreement with the code and actually believe the code does give the Commission guidance on how to proceed through KIBC 18.50.010 .A.1 which can grant temporary permission for a road through a negotiated permit. This section appears to better address the temporary nature of our request. This being said, the length, width of ROW and other reasonable terms are all achievable through negotiation. The leisnoi Board of Directors fully supports our efforts for a safe, clean and efficient operation. They have recently approved and signed our next Detailed Plan of Operation filed with the Division of Forestry. Staff did an excellent job of outlining the details surrounding our request. However we believe that their report over states the impacts expected from this road since the majority of this traffic already exists daily at this very same location. Logging is a permitted principal use in this zoning district, so it is difficult for us to ascertain how 318 feet of road at this location is going to change what is truly at issue. But let us try to explain what went into our decision to select this location over others. The Alaska Resources and Practices Act govern both public and private timber harvesting operations in Alaska. On private lands the Act and subsequent regulation focus heavily on protecting resources owned by and therefore important to the State found on these private lands. One of these resources is anadromous fish and the waters they inhabit. One of the points of impact to these waters is the physical crossing of them with roads. This is frequently unavoidable but every effort is made not to cross them. As the Resource Manager for A -1 Timber it is my job to plan our operations accordingly. If one looks at the greater picture of our area of operation you will find that there are five major cataloged anadromous drainages that traverse the area flowing northward into Chiniak Bay and each are already traversed by FAS Route 391 (Chiniak Highway). Rule of thumb in operations, to minimize your risk of impacts to any streamyou first try not to cross it at all, but if this is-unavoidable you try to only cross it once and your roads impact becomes less the lower you cross in the drainage. This is because the roads direct impacts tend to be focused more downstream from the point of crossing. Staff is correct that we haveian existing access point as well as an existing, albeit old, bridge crossing located approximately one mile away from the proposed access point. This bridge crosses East Twin Creek, a cataloged anadromous water that is important for fish production by ADF&G. This bridge is a long span log stringer bridge that is in need of repair or removal. To use this existing infrastructure will require first the removal of the old bridge and this will have its impact, although short. Next a new bridge will have to be placed in its stead. This will require committing quality saw logs to a use that at best based on heavy hauling will have a life expectancy of less than ten years. The reconstructing of this bridge will have its own impacts and disturbances. Then for the next three to five years, numerous loaded log trucks will cross this bridge adding their own impacts. The risk of the bridge failing, creating more disturbance, is small ibut none the less possible. This is the main reason we picked our proposed location. It will allow us to work between these known drainages and minimize the need to cross them. Whether or not we are granted this access, this bridge may be removed or reconstructed based on the outcome of the Commissions /Assembly's decision. Based on these known impacts to a.known anadromous stream, it is difficult to see from our perspective how the impact of building 318 feet of road which has none of these concerns outweighs. The two closest domiciles I would wager are occupied less than 20% of the year. The next three lots past the last private lot, which snot occupied, are owned by Leisnoi. So two occasionally occupied domiciles make for a significant impact? This is what staff would lead us to believe. The schools location is over a half mile to the east and if anything is in a safer position because loaded truck traffic will no longer be traversing in front of its location from this location. The school is well insulated from noise due to the significant distance between its location and the proposed access. Another reason for the selection of this location is the exceptional sight distances when entering the highway. There is over 600 feet lookingeast and 700 feet or more looking west (see attached photos). This has been independently confirmed. Ones perspective of line of sight is mostly based on elevation and the general motorist's elevation is at best five feet above the road where a truck driver's elevation is twice this. This increased elevation give then a much better view and that is very important to us. We have also looked at another option on the other end of Pony Lake, between East Twin Creek and USS 3473 but this location does not address clear sight distance very well but it also has its own mitigating circumstances. A number of the public comments were in opposition of this case because they believed that the granting of this access permit would open up the Borough's property for timber development. A GIS analysis of the portion of Borough property that could be accessed with this road show that there is only lOgross acres of property existing west of Silver Creek. Of those 10 acres only 8 acres of recoverable timber remains after non - forested areas and riparian buffer are deducted. This is insignificant by our standards. As noted from the report by Bob Scholze, we have no specific interest in purchasing the timber at this location at this time if this is to draw out the process. In other words this is not a driver in our selection, and to the contrary it appears to be a detractor. If this is an issue then we would treat any cut timber the'sarrie as the timber removed along the power line ROW which is to leave it where it is for disposal as the Borough sees fit. Staff mentions other excerpts from Comprehensive Plans to support their position but from our perspective these policies are unenforceable. If they were they would have already been enforced. All this does is take the focus off what the code says and how the Commission should apply this code. It is unfortunate that through these other plans and documents the Borough has made promises to the public but we do not believe that all parties have agreed to these promises and as such should not bear greatly on the Commissions decision. These plans also do not appear to be completed processes because there has been very little done in the way of negotiating an acceptable outcome. If the Borough Staff, Commission or Assembly wishes to discuss any of these topics in depth we would be glad to offer • our perspective and knowledge for their benefit. But that is for another time and not for the issue at hand. The staff analysis in the "should" section again attempts to suck this request back into -the issue that we should not focus on by listing only the negative effects of our activity but not any of the positive effects, specifically economic effects that directly and indirectly effect the entire Kodiak Community. If one choosesto use this as a justification then for the benefit of the Commission the topic should be fully explored from all points both positive as well as negative. Based on what was heard at the work session of December 19 we have done some additional research regarding the ownership of the other parcel involved. What that research has disclosed is the parcel that is directly in front of the Borough property and known as MS- 391 -217 -1 was originally Interim Conveyed (IC 1137) to Leisnoi Inc,in 1985 subject to a reservation regarding ROW A- 061537. That reservation contained in IC 1137 states that a ROW is maintained for material extraction at this site and the rights were granted under the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1958. My understanding, albeit as a novice, is that the fee title to this parcel still lies with the IC holder. The IC also maintains the right of the Department of Transportation to extract material forconstruction and maintenance of the highway (FAS Route 391) unencumbered from this site. This is similar to all the properties found along the highway that fall within the 100 foot of centerline ROW. If DOT needs the property they can take the property without eminent domain proceedings. If this is.the case then the entity that we need to request access from becomes the IC holder not the State. This question has been put to Ms. Danika Simpson at DOT as well as BLM for clarification. If in fact the ownership lies with the IC holder, then the States position would be that our request becomes just another request for access to the highway subject to their reserved rights. These access requests are normally granted. This only raises questions regarding the galvanized opposition from the most adjacent property owners to our proposal when in fact the DOT can create a rock pit at this same location at any time without public input. By default this may also make this a micro -zoned industrial site suited for industrial use. At this point lacking any safety or health violations regarding bur proposal it is difficult to see the justice in trading our welfare for another's welfare. Therefore it is our opinion that the Commission's correct action should besimple, recommend and move to the assembly, approval of this request contingent on reasonable negotiation by staff with the applicant for a temporary road access permit, with final approval to be confirmed by the Assembly. Sincerely, David Nesheim, Resource Manager A -1 Timber Consultants Inc Enclosures; IC 1137, Site Photos, Road Reclamation Photos, Conflict Analysis, & Anadromous Stream Map. SURVEYED TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH,RANGE IS WEST OF THE SEWARD MERIDIAN, ALASKA >TATUS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN .AND AND. MINERAL TITLES MTP NOES TO SEGREGATED TRACTS , AtcluennEM101 !OP GN(CPS ffffCTlWO DISPOSAL OS lrtf P( r n P) WRAfM fan CI ASIL w2ttWCsrce e o ryry MK. uvrmrs 9(TfR m / fr of YrxELLANO S OON✓furs Ft 9J1W we Aa4M [w w 446.44 .8 4O NA4 we a ryl.a. LalMa,r yr aim., XO sac w/ gePM ,h'v», u/eery LPL/C e�i • / 4 49 4 Y 28 27 - -- -- - _ ` as - -- IS; i A K ISLAND // H ` I W e I ,r A � 1 e p a � • 17.36,7.20' Ww M . r y I CURED, EC I w.r ScaLE. AMA.. en T 29 R Fi .o �e..q rM .a. .... w..... , . 1 BOOK 77 PAGE /q5 AA- 8448 -A - ,,� AA- 8448 -B ImTRktt4 CoIVEYA8Cr MHRABAO Lalanoi, Ina. in entitled to a conveyance pursuant to Boos. 14(a) and 22(3) of, Um Maalox native Claiaa Battlement- Act of Dacas.bar 18, 1071, 43 5.0.0. 1601, 1613(8). 1621(3), of the ourfaao estate in the following- d000ribed loads* 0.8. Survey Ms. 1674, Alaska, eituata on woody Inland. approximately two and one-half albs oouhanat of tadiak. ` - that portion outatdo the two-silo boundary of the (trot-salons city of rodlak. oontainiag approximately 90 aeres. 0.0. eurvoy So. 1675. Alaska, situate on the ecoterly abate of toady Inland• approximately .three and one- fourth miles free Kodiak, that portion outside the two 0118 boundary of I r.;. the first -claw city of 00014A. ;...: Contains a Containing ppzoaitaatoly 70 sores. ( _ pentad 1402i41aa. Alook4t 3v $$. 0 18 el ( Q u i v e r e d ) • Sae. 21. 1, that patina within &iglat -off - way A•061337. Containing approximately 10 wren. T. 6 .t 10 W. 6urvo . Sso 6, tb o at portion within gat- of-Kay A- 001337. Containing approaiamtely 3.30 soma. f jF T. 38 3. 1. 10 U. 111naurvoyedt ... [_. . See. I (fractianaljI ((( 0204 !:(fractional). that portion ontotdo the two-nito - 1' booadasy of the first -ciaae city of reefs*, oraindimg ' U.G. fanny to. 626, G.B. Survey MO,. 1.673 and _ . 0.0. Oarvoy So- 94007.. - - Interim conveyance SO. .... ( a s 262 21 l 'ti Km:�..«. • ? ate vats .v r r t D "7,r. cis �• �" • 4 1 ,R9+t r • 4 444, -.. 1 - . L. rte' • ":2K _ZZPAGE_ ,.1 t SsC, first -class city outside the of Kodiak, excluding U Se Suurvey Mo. 626 and U.S. Survey No. 1675, Sec. 10 (fractional), that portion outside the two -Silo boundary of the . first -class city of Kodiak, excluding O.S. Survey NO. 626 and U.S. Survey Mo. 1674, 60o. 11 (fractional). excluding U.S. Survey Mo. 56991 Seca. 12. 13 and 14 (fractional). ; Ilk Containing approximately 905 acres. f ; . T. 29 5. o 19 iat . �. goo. 94. � of ex 1, excluding udjng Z9a ivo allotment AP - 7470, J 3 Soo. 36, lot 1, excluding Native allotment Deis -7470. ; Containing approximately 704 acres. 1 i tin a oxioately 1,784.38 asses. 4.. Aggregating 8 ppr' ' =eluded from the a b o ve- denosibed lands herein conveyed are lands covered by tidal waters up to the line of neon high. Lido. The actual limits of tidal influence for thrum water bodies. if any, sill be determined at time of 'survey. Rloo'excluded free the above - described land° are the _ oubnmrgod lands up to the ordinary high water. Walk, beneath all nosnneigabbe rivers 3 chains wide (190 feet) and wider and R9 eoapaeigabla lakes SO acres and larger re neandorabl of o z. ... according CO the 1973 Bureau la i sj surveying instruction°, as auditied by federal regulation 43 CVO 1 t c , 2690.51. , Do0 MO TO. that there is, therefore, greeted by the UMItw . -. STATES 08 kUKOICA. unto the above -Domed. corporation the outface i estate in the Lando above diaaribedI TO M N i itiOL, and f privileges. said estate with all the rights, appartenanssa,.of whatsrsver nature. therlUntO belonging, unto 1 i the said corporations its n000esore mad asoigne, forevers e1 . 104211 6 9 T10C D 888BR?l TO TUC W31U MAf C from the lands f to granted, , 1, she eubeurtao. estate therein, and all rights. [ privileges. isounitioa. and appurtenaaoms. of.., - g i 1 I w z 1137 latrrimm ODaaeye° SO• MOM i f a .._. ""„• r , r X W y. 1 . 1 ! Pe t } D t 1 0::4 . z 'T :vr' ' t - ` I ' Y . - ' 1 1* ,< } . f f 0 yy d ,, f BOOK. 77 PAGE '97 whatsoever nature, accruing unto said estate pursuant Vi) to the Alaska Sativa Claiae 8ott:leaant Act of December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613 and 2, Pursuant to Soc. 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of December 16, 1971, 43 O.S.C. 1601. 1616(b), the following public easements, referenced by t easement identification number (KID) on the casonent nap attached to this document, a copy of white will bo found in came filo AA- 8440 -38, are reserved to the „ -3'( United States. All w a aesnts are subject to applicable - Federal, State, or Municipal corporation regulation. The following La a listing of uses allowed "for eat r typo of easonent. Any tuna which are not °pacifically ' -, listed are prohibited. V % , } 60 Foot Road » The uses allowed on a sixty , (60) foot wide road °apemen! are, travel by foot, etogaledo, - animal°, anowaobiloa, two- , `- - and three-wheel vehicles, stall and largo t - all - terrain vobieioo. track vohicloc, f four ■wheel drive vehicles, autocobilos, and ',` J trucks. M 1 c :: 5,. 3 O Acr Bite - The twee allowed for a oat " _ (1) acre sito "casement era, vobiola parking . (e.g., . aircraf t. boats. ATVs, sncuaobilee,- cars, trucks), temporary camping, loading of 'q, . - unloading. Temporary camping, loading Or unloading shall be limited to 74 hours. f {.. a. (axe 36c DO, 1.) 6 "A one (1) acre ail° oasomcnt in i i. Dec. 36, T. '39 ., 2. 15 0.. Boward itaridian, •...3.. upland trot the Sean nigh tide lino, near the I .«r. outlet, on the left has of Twin Creek. The scan -.? allowed are those listed above for a one (1) acre y g nito eeoon at. , S *' •, b. (SZ17 36d Dl, 1.) An taaecant sixty (60) toot in ' ■`„ width for an °zioting road from the Kodiak Island :. Sightay (FAO notate Mo. 391) to site eaoaoent XE31 36e 99, I,. The teas - allowed are those listed e above tar a airty (60) foot wide road "pea" . � Enteral conveyance no. 61 - .. 3 • WF f ja t¢ "+ ^� +4144, • R .fi 4,- • �T .. 9 J0. 'Ct. y �� * m ; g' '. _ .' c • ._ ..._ . y t C r. t 1t .. - T , ..i+ fr I - v ,y .� ,* i9 a " . , J.. ' 1'Y A �'F ►r r °d' yt a te . M _ . J _ ' BOOK 77 PAGE /#8 THE ORAM Or THE ABOVE - DESCRIBED LANDS IS SUBJECT 1 • 1. Iocate.e of a patent after approval and filing by the ? Bureau of Land Management of the official plat, or supplemental plat, of survey confiraing the boundary description and acreage of the lands hereinabove grantedi 2. Valid existing rights therein, if any, including but not limited to those created by any Lease (including a least loaned under Soo. 6(g) of the Alaska Statehood Act or July 7, 1950. 40 U.S.C. Ch. 2, Soc. 6(g)), ooatract, permit, right -of -nay, or casanent, and the right of the looses, contracte., paraitten. or grantee F to the complete enjoyment of all right°, privileges, and benefice thereby granted to hie. further. pursuant to Sae. 17(b)(2) of the Alaska native Claims taottlenont Act of December 10, 1971 (ARCSA), 43 U.B.C. 1601, 1616(b)(2), any valid existing right recognised by ABC% shall continua to have whatever right of access as is now provided for under existing law, • .,PY` Any right -of -way interest in PAS Route $o. 391, transferred to the Stat. of Alaska by quitclaim dose -. dated Juno 30, 1959, anecutedd by the Secretary of ' - Consortia under the authority of the Alaska Omnibus Set, i.. _ -- . Public Lap 86-70, 73 Stat. 101, as tot Soc. 31, T. 29 8., E. 19 V. and Seco. 35 and 36, 7. 29 0., • R. 19 U., Seward Meridian, 4. A right -of -way. b- 061264, granted May 22, 1964, under" the proviaiooa of the Act of August 21, 1950, 23 U.S.C. ,. .. 917. to the State of Alaska. Department of flightier*. located in Sao. 31, T. 29 8., R. 18 U. and Seco. 35 and - 36, 7. 29 0.. -A: 19 H.. Seward Meridian; • $. The !allotting right.-of -way for material sits. granted ; - � .- under the federal Aid Highway Act of August 27..1950.. y ' ..as.s^nh !t 23 U.S.C. 317, a. A- 0431$41 located in Section 36, 9'. 29 0.. .. - R. 19 N... Canard uaridion.'Alaakot • . - ; . iD Cdevyaaaa Os, 1. 1. 3 acre $1' ea. ; $ I Ye » 4 • • ' `a r te ' is it BCDK.2Z_PAGE I2 . , b. A- 061537 located in See. 31. T. 29 S., R. 18 M and Sec. 6, T. 30 5., P. 18 k., Seward Meridian, Alaska; 6. The following third -party intereato created and r r identified by the State of Alaska; an provided by '; Sec. 14(9) of the Alaska Bativo Claims Settlement Act 4 of Docenber 1 8) 8. 1971. 43 U.S.C. 1601. 1613(, a. A grating Lease. ADL 34400. ioauod to Those° L. Gallagher. in Secs. 1. 11, 12, 13 and 14, . I T. 28 8., A. 19 p.. Seward meridian. Alaakst :_..> b. A grating lease. ADL 34686, locoed to Women'. 'kf :4.1 American Baptist none mission Society, within 0.8. Survey So. 1674 and Soc. 10, T. 20 0.. A. 19 M., Seward meridian. Alaska, '11 .. a. A grating lease, ADL 36306, ieousd to dear .. `., _ _ Stratton, in Sec. 33. T. 29 6., a. le R., Seward a Meridian Alaska, d. An entry permit, ADL 221571, Seated. to Kodiak -. Electric Association, Inc., in Boos. 35 and 38. T. 29 0., R. 19 V., Seward Meridian. Alaska, and 7. SOquiroaonto of Sec. 14(c) of the Alaska native Claims Settlement Act of Dscesbor 19, 1971, 43 U.B.C. 1601. 1613(c), as amended, that the grantee hereunder convoy ,, .. those portions, if any, of the Linde horointbove. ;; greeted,: as are prescribed in said section. f ,C : Le =TB= umitafop, the U*daroigeod authoriaod officer of ... the Duroeu Of Land taaagsaeat has, in the aeon of the United States, aot his hand and oaneed the seal of the Bureau to he •, hereunto affixed on this 31st ;.: Amaherags 6iaaka. QsY of 3kx ombez, 1983. is i •z..: _ team STATED OP AMZRICA 11 . + i. ,. ► �/. lei 1 to • rao Or pp 6 � .4 - Vitoria Conveyance ¢o. 13 it..8 > Gm nate , 5 1S5 I WWI f fC dvitSy ... J _ ' ' j o t rv. F Y _ - ' Access point of entry location for this application. Sight.distdnce looking generally east word. Pick up is parked at Beach Access. Sight distance looking generally west ward. Terrain conditions of road approach. Note lack of ditch line. Type of timber found at access location Example rock over lav rood construction. Installed cross drain of Twin Creeks access. Example of varying depth of fill using rock over lav rood construction (Twin Creeksl. Culvert removed from road creating a large berm that prevents vehicle access e"ptx +.. ' � v '� +k k90.ylP 4. a :tall: -4R%- 12 F 4 H$$i, - b M t} si.as r .� " '° k Y P lie' h s : - kx r AP R 9 m i" 3. 4 ba Y V3 *+x e z x 5 r. !t � � l it. l % ..`. f '� .. ,z x `' E -e A �y� p C� ! iI _' T � i � 1 s i Examp of Recla Ro by Scarifica This type of activity discourages veh icle use w encouraging revegetation and Contrdlssur water run by encouroginq the water to p ercolat e. This will quickly rev egetate The rock can oho be removed and used at other locations. Conflict Analysis Number of Notices Mailed 30.00 _ Number of Property Owners in Chiniak 79.00 excludes government ownership and duplicate Owners Percent Notified 38% Total 19.00 Percent of Response 63% Number in Opposition 14.00 74% Number Not Opposed 4.00 21% Number out'of State 8.00 42% Number in State 9.00 47% Number in Kodiak 6.00. 32% Number in Chiniak 5.00 26% Number from Lot 12 11.00 58% all from Lot 12 USS 3473 Distance from Name Property Project in Feet Community Position 1 Susan Baker L5_3474 4,300.00 Chiniak 1 2 Bonnie Weisser L12_3473 200.00 San Marcos, CA 1 3 Edwards /Adams L5&6_3473 2,000.00 Chiniak 1 4 Lorie Weisser L123473 200.00. Camano Island, WA 1 5 Marsha Weisser 112_3473 200.00 Grain Valley, MO 1 in twice 6 Donna Weisser 1123473 200.00 Anchorage, AK 1 7 Bob Happ .36450 Chiniak 22,300.00 Chiniak 1 8 Julie Galloway 112_3473 200.00 Kansas City, MO 1 9 Jason Weisser 112_3473 200.00 Homer, AK 1 10 Aaron Weisser L123473 200.00 Homer, AK 1 11 Rhoda Weisser L12_3473 200.00 Columbia,SC 1 12 Carolyn Mullenix L12 3473 200.00 Randle, WA 1 13 ScottBonney L2_3473 2,700.00 Chiniak 1 14 Randy Weisser 112_3473 200.00 Randle, WA 1 15 John Miller 113473 2,900.00 Maysville, WA 2 in twice 16 John Mullenix L12_3473 200.00 Unknown 2 17 Perry Page 112 3474 6,300.00 Chiniak 2 18 Mike Sweeney 110_3473 500.00 Kodiak 2 19 Theresa Bonney 123473 2,700.00 Chiniak 1