The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-11-09 Work SessionASSEMBLY WORK SESSION November 9, 2006 - 7:30 p.m. Borough Conference Room AGENDA CITIZENS' COMMENTS (limited to three minutes per speaker) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Coastal Management Plan 2. Metals Discussion 3. Rescheduling of the Strategic Planning Meeting 4. Resolution No. FY2007 -12 Providing Further Comments to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council on Gulf of Alaska Rationalization to a Special Meeting on November 9, 2006. 5. Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005 Draft Letter SPECIAL MEETING MANAGER'S COMMENTS CLERK'S COMMENTS — V). q, MAYOR'S COMMENTS ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS ON LEAVE Branson October 25-Jan 17 (Sabbatical) Oswalt November 20 -Dec 5 Gifford November 10 -18 (AML) November 18 -25 Javier November 11 -15 (AML) V et'f'0 I De ( November 1 CALENDAR November 2006 9 7:309.m. Assembly Work Session followed by a Special Meeting — CR 7:30 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting — AC 10 Borough Offices Closed in Observance of Veteran's Day 13 Borough Clerk's Office Closed — Attending AAMC Conference in Juneau 7:30 p.m. Fire Protection Area No. 1 Board Meeting — BFH Borough Clerk's Office Closed — Attending AAMC Conference in Juneau 15 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting — AC Borough Clerk's Office Closed — Attending AAMC Conference in Juneau 16 Cancelled Assembly Regular Meeting 5:30 p.m. Bayview Road Service Area Board Meeting — Mill Bay Coffee 20 7:00 p.m. School District Board Regular Meeting — AC 23 Holiday Borough Offices Closed in Observance of Thanksgiving 24 Holiday Borough Offices Closed in Observance of Thanksgiving Cancelled City Council Work Session 30 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session — CR Cancelled City Council Regular Meeting December 2006 4 5:30 p.m. Gravel Task Force Meeting — CR 7:00 p.m. School District Board Work Session - SD /CR 7 7:30 p.m. Assembly Regular Meeting — AC 1:30 p.m. Emergency Services Organization /Local Emergency Planning Committee Meeting -- AC 11 7:00 p.m. School District Board Regular Meeting — AC 7:30 p.m. City Council Work Session - CR 13 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session — CR 14 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session - CR 7:30 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting — AC 20 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting — AC 21 7:30 p.m. Assembly Regular Meeting — AC Cancelled City Council Work Session 28 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session - CR Cancelled City Council Regular Meeting AC - Assembly Chambers CR - Conference Room SD /CR - School District Conference Room AC /CR - Assembly Chambers Conference Room C /CR - City Conference Room D /CR - Hospital Doctors= Conference Room H /PL - Hospital Physicians Library BFH - Bayside Fire Hall HC - Hospital Cafeteria WBFH - Womens Bay Fire Hall H /BR - Hospital Board Room MHGR - Mental Health Group Room H /DL - Hospital Doctors= Lounge KHS - Kodiak High School Final Recommendation to the Commissioner for the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Plan Prepared by Glenn Gray and Associates November 2, 2006 Summary The DNR Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP) issued the Final Recommendation to the Commissioner (Recommendation) for the borough's coastal management plan on October 26. OPMP recommends approval of only one designated area (history and prehistory) and one policy associated with that designated area if it is rewritten. Recommendation to the Commissioner The Recommendation includes 4 parts: Cover letter, Final Recommendation on the Final Plan Amendment (summary of the recommendation), designated area table, and enforceable policy table. The last two documents were not included in Randy Bates' November 1 email but may be viewed on the web: http:// alaskacoast .state.ak.us /District/Final Tables /KodiaklslandBoro.htm OPMP recommends approval of the designated area for history and prehistory and one enforceable policy, Policy I -1, regarding consultation and surveys for historic /prehistoric resources. While OPMP could have approved additional designated areas and enforceable policies if the borough made changes, it chose not to do so (other than for Policy I -1). The designated area table and the enforceable policy table include language proposed to the borough on October 11, although that language was not previously provided in writing. OPMP repeatedly states that the borough refused to make the changes, but it does not acknowledge the borough's concern that any changes would need to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Assembly. For most enforceable policies, OPMP relies on one or more of three arguments for denial: State or federal law adequately addresses the matter, the designated area has not been approved, or the borough refused to make recommended changes. The Recommendation does not respond to specific points made by the borough regarding why state or federal law does not adequately address the matters addressed by individual policies. Next Steps The commissioner must issue his final decision by November 16, but he may issue it sooner. The borough may request mediation or revise the plan to comply with the Commissioner's Decision. Mediation: If the borough chooses to pursue mediation, it must be requested within 10 days after the Commissioner's Decision. According to an October 31 letter, OPMP expects 8 or more districts to request mediation. There may be an opportunity to join one or more other coastal districts in the mediation effort since the preparation work will be similar for each district. Plan Revision: If the borough chooses to revise the plan to comply with the Commissioner's Decision, OPMP requests that the plan be revised within 15 days of the Commissioner's Decision. The regulations, however, do not include a timeline for revising the plan other than borough approval of the plan 90 days after the Commissioner's Decision or 90 days after the decision following mediation. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Assembly approved the plan, it would be reasonable to bring the revised plan to these bodies prior to submittal to OPMP. Nova Javier From: Bud Cassidy Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:58 PM To: Nova Javier Cc: Rick Gifford; Duane Dvorak Subject: KIB Coastal Management Plan Attachments: Coastal Managment Program..pdf 4 Nova - Can you please pass this on to the Assembly. Duane has come to me with a concern of his. That is that the KIB's Coastal Management Plan as submitted to DNR has been gutted and in affect is a useless document. If you look at the attached recommendation to the Commissioner you will see that there is only one approved policy. And that policy has to with historic and archaeology sites. But the policies (which we have always have had in the past) are not recommended for approval (see attachment). Not only this, but it appears that we may have only a limited time to address this. ONCE THE PLAN IS APPROVED BY THE DNR COMMISSIONER IT CARRIES THE WEIGHT OF LAW. This is troublesome not only to the Kodiak Coastal District, but to other coastal districts in the state. Many are going to arbitration because the adopted policies protect items like subsistence, commercial fishing and other coastal activites. Our plan without the policies we have included in it (after going through our public process) will severely limit our role as a coastal district. It is recommended that this item be added to the Assembly's November 9th work session. Thanks :oastel Managment Program..pdf... 1 FINAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSIONER Per 11 AAC 114.345(g)(2), OPMP recommends that the DNR Commissioner approve sections of the plan in whole, approve other sections of the plan if the district makes required changes, and not approve sections of the plan that are outside the scope of the amendments allowed under this section of regulations. OPMP recommends approval for district enforceable policy: 1 -1 OPMP does not recommend approval for district enforceable policies: B -1, B -2, B -3, B -4, B -5, C -1, C -2, C -3, C -4, C -5, C -6, D -1, D -2, D -3, D -5, D -6, D -7, D -9, E -1, E -2, E -3, F -1, F -3, G -1, G- 2, G -3, H -1, H -2, H -3, 1 -1, J -1, J -2, J -3, J -4, K -1, K -2, K -3, K -4, K -5, K -6, L -1, L -2, L -3. Note: OPMP provided recommendations that would have made the following policies approvable: B -1, B -3, C -1, D -5, H -1, New H-2, 1 -2, K -1. Because the district did not agree to the recommended changes by OPMP, the policies are not recommended for approval. OPMP recommends approval for the following designated area: History or Pre - History. OPMP does not recommend for approval for designated areas: Natural Hazards, Recreational Use, Subsistence Use, and Important Habitat. Note: OPMP provided recommendations that would have made the following designated areas approvable: Natural Hazards, Recreational Use, and Subsistence Use. Because the district did not agree to the recommended changes by OPMP, the designated areas are not recommended for approval. In addition, OPMP finds that the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Plan includes all of the sections as required in 11 AAC 114.345 and as listed below. 11 AAC 114.200 11 AAC 114.210 11 MC 114.220 11 MC 114.230 11 AAC 114.240 11 AAC 114.250 11 AAC 114.260 11 AAC 114.270 11 MC 114.280 11 AAC 114.290 Issues, Goals and Objectives Organization Coastal Zone Boundaries Resource Inventory Resource Analysis Subject Uses, Activities, and Designations Proper and Improper Uses and Activities District Enforceable Policies Implementation Public Participation -3- Location in Plan Volume III, 1.0 Volume III, 4.0 Volume III, 2.0 Volume 11, 1.0 Volume 11, 4.0 Volume III, 3.0 Volume III, 3.0 Volume III, 3.0 Volume III, 5.0 Volume III, 7.0 OPMP recommends approval of these sections as meeting the requirements of 11 AAC 114.200 - 114.290. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJ: November 7, 2006 Rick Gifford ofough Manager AS ,r 46, Metals KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Engineering & Facilities Department MEMORAND NOV - 9 2006 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE max.LO 113[9v:sink IL0AVIN A'IfIIti3SSF' Bud Cassi ire r, Engineering and Facilities Department :at Gahm.) 301340 S.MM IO HS9OUO0 UNV'ISI 3IVl00v KODI tK ISLAND BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE COPI TO: INTRODUCTION ASEMRLV MAYOR °.?ANAGER THER Assembly Member Abell has requested that a discussion of metals be added to the work s ssion agenda and, in response to that request, you asked for a written discussion of the issues and proposed solutions. Essentially, managing metals can be divided into two components: 1) the collection of metals and; 2) the processing of metals at the landfill. Collection of Metals The KIB fee schedule sets the rate for metals accepted at the landfill at $275 /ton. Metals are also commonly put into public dumpsters and therefore it is likely that KIB will continue to manage metals under any circumstances. It is expected that the "A to Z" study will provide clear choices as how best to handle KIB's collection of metals. From the time the contract ended with Northern Exploration (roughly Spring 2002) to date, there have been approximately 3,930 tons of metals accepted at the landfill, inclusive of vehicles. In 2003 KIB began to actively process metals after staff was increased and equipment was purchased. To date 3,416 tons have been shipped off island. Existing Metals Pile While there is a large pile of metals at the landfill, and it may be unsightly, it does not pose a public or environmental health risk. The metals are an inert waste and there are no hazardous materials associated with the pile (drums of waste oil, gas etc). A number of options to manage the metals pile have been researched and include- 1) trucking and barging; 2) leasing a metal baler and; 3) borrowing a metal baler from another jurisdiction. All were considered too costly to bring to the Assembly for approval. Three primary solutions become evident: I) purchase /lease a metal baler; 2) contract the work out or; 3) increase staff, time and/or hours to process metals. CONCLUSION There is value in the ferrous and non ferrous metals in the metals pile. Prices for both types of metals are up and there is profit in the pile. The profit could be viewed as relieving the landfill budget of other costs which in turn would not be passed on to the public. From the time that KIB began managing metals there has been a net revenue gain of $149,000. This gain takes into account costs for equipment depreciation, shipping, hazardous waste disposal, staff time and revenue from Schnitzer and metals paid for at the landfill. When KIB contracted the metal out it cost, on an average annual basis, $187,000. Additionally, there were other costs associated with the contract such as KIB covering hazardous waste disposal costs and there was no revenue sharing from the sale of the metals to Schnitzer. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH RESOLUTION NO. FY2007 -12 Introduced by: Borough Manager Requested by: KB Assembly Drafted by: City Manager /Mayor Selby Introduced: 11/02/2006 Failed: 11/02/2006 Reconsidered: 11/02/2006 Postponed: 11/09/2006 Adopted: A RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY PROVIDING FUTHER COMMENTS TO THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ON GULF OF ALASKA RATIONALIZATION WHEREAS, the harvesting and processing sectors of the Kodiak fishing community are substantially engaged in and substantially dependent upon Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries; and WHEREAS, Kodiak's economic and social health is intimately dependent upon the community's sustained participation in all aspects of the Gulf groundfish fisheries; and WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough has made substantial investments in support of and in reliance upon the Gulf groundfish fishery, such as water system improvement and expansion and port and harbor improvements and expansion; and WHEREAS, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has developed a suite of fishery allocation alternatives for the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries, and is working toward adoption of a preferred alternative for implementation; and WHEREAS, allocating exclusive harvesting and /or processing privileges promotes consolidation in the fishing fleet and the processor sector, which can improve efficiency, but which can also result in skippers, crew members and processing workers bearing costs of consolidation without fully sharing in the related benefits; and WHEREAS, while fishery rationalization may create opportunities and incentives to produce more and higher value products, it also changes the distribution of fishery revenues among participants with resulting disruptive effects on the communities in which they live; and WHEREAS, by awarding harvesting and /or processing privileges, fishery allocations make possible orderly harvesting and processing, but it also facilitates the migration of landings to communities with infrastructure advantages (such as road system access) and creates barriers to entry for later generations of fishery participants; and WHEREAS, as a result, it is essential that the potential adverse affects of Gulf groundfish rationalization be identified and analyzed and that adjustments be made to mitigate the potential adverse effects of Gulf groundfish rationalization on Kodiak prior to any program implementation; WHEREAS, it is the Kodiak Island Borough's intent that a full, and frank exchange of information and opinions concerning Gulf groundfish rationalization take place among the constituencies of the Borough that would be most directly affected by such program, if adopted; and to the extent possible, to encourage the development of consensus among these constituencies concerning the preferred elements and options of such program; and Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Resolution No. FY2007 -12 Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough joined together to appoint a Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Rationalization Task Force to provide a forum for the full, and frank exchange of information and opinions concerning Gulf groundfish rationalization and an opportunity for the development of consensus on preferred elements and options of a Gulf groundfish rationalization program, should it move forward; and WHEREAS, while the Task Force is continuing to work, they have recently provided the Borough Assembly with a number of recommendations that the Borough Assembly is actively endorsing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THAT the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) suspend action on Gulf of Alaska groundfish rationalization until, at least, such time as the NPFMC has conducted its 18 month review of the Bering Sea crab rationalization program and the public has had an opportunity to evaluate and comment on the impacts of crab rationalization and to evaluate the NPFMC's adjustments (if any) to the crab rationalization program; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH requests that the NPFMC take the following Gulf groundfish management actions as soon as possible, notwithstanding the NPFMC's suspension of any further action on Gulf groundfish rationalization: 1. Initiate an allocation of Gulf Pacific cod among gear groups. 2. Initiate a phase -out of the offshore sector in the Gulf of Alaska. 3. Initiate a discussion paper on identifying and removing latent licenses from the Gulf groundfish sectors that are subject to the License Limitation Program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH requests that the NPFMC is hereby requested to take the following actions in connection with its development of a Gulf of Alaska groundfish rationalization program: 1. Complete the Council's review of the Bering Sea crab rationalization program to enable the public to evaluate and comment on the impacts of crab rationalization and to enable the Council to make appropriate adjustments to the Gulf rationalization program in response. 2. Thoroughly analyze each alternative being considered by the Council before eliminating any of the alternatives, to provide the public with the opportunity to compare the effects of the various alternatives on harvesters (including skippers and crew members), processors (including workers), fishing support services, and Gulf fishing communities. 3. Include limits on harvesting consolidation through vessel use caps that apply without exemption, and that are calculated to sustain skipper and crew employment opportunities and compensation. 4. Develop and bring forward for consideration an additional alternative which includes no processor shares, linkages or privileges of any kind. For alternatives already being considered, include measures to maintain a diverse, competitive processing market, by providing a substantial pool of groundfish privileges for each sector that can be harvested without penalty and are not subject to processor linkage or processor closed class delivery requirements. This should include phasing out of the off shore processing sector. Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Resolution No. FY2007 -12 Page 2 of 3 8. Include a community fisheries quota program that provides an opportunity for small Gulf coastal communities to enhance their residents' participation in the Gulf groundfish fishery, under the conditions that the allocation to such program does not disrupt other Gulf of Alaska fishery dependent communities by displacing their fishermen, is required to be harvested by residents of the eligible communities, and requires that harvests made under such program be delivered on shore within the region of their allocation. 9. Include a community purchase program that provides Gulf coastal communities with the opportunity to maintain participation by their residents in the Gulf groundfish fishery by acquiring harvesting privileges for use by their residents, under the conditions that the Kodiak Island communities are eligible communities, and such program includes reasonable limits on the amount of harvesting privileges that any single eligible community may hold. ATTEST: 5. If processing privileges are included, limit consolidation of such privileges through processor and facility use caps. 6. Designate Federal harvesting privileges by region to reflect landing patterns similar to those occurring prior to program adoption, and require that fish harvested under such privileges be landed in their designated region. 7. Include a reasonable groundfish allocation which may be harvested and processed without holding any Federal or State dedicated access privilege, subject to restrictions that the State of Alaska may deem necessary to maintain the entry level character of such allocation. ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THIS DAY OF 2006 Nova Javier, CMC, Borough Clerk KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Jerome M. Selby, Borough Mayor Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Resolution No. FY2007 -12 Page 3of3 Nova Javier From: Freed, Linda [Ifreed @city.kodiak.ak.us] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:16 AM To: Volpe, Barbara Cc: Rick Gifford; Nova Javier Subject: Amendment for Fish Resolution Barb, Below is the suggested amendment for the fish resolution (06 -35) MOVE to amend Resolution No. 06 -35 by revising the language of item #1 in the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED section to read: #1 Initiate a discussion paper exploring the goals and objectives of an allocation of Gulf Pacific cod among gear groups Linda L. Freed City Manager, City of Kodiak 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 (907) 486 -8640 (voice) (907) 486 -8600 (fax) lfreed @city.kodiak.ak.us 1 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION November 9, 2006 [To Be Finalized on Kodiak Island Borough Letterhead] Alaska Legislative Delegation Addresses Re: Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005 Dear Senators Stevens and Murkowski and Representative Young. The Kodiak Island Borough respectfully submits the following comments concerning reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the "Act"). As you know, Kodiak Island is one of the most diverse fishing communities in Alaska and the United States, and the communities on Kodiak Island are heavily dependent upon the fisheries for their economic base. Kodiak Island has a long heritage of active involvement in every aspect of the fishing industry, from harvesting, processing and marketing, to management and research. In Alaska, Kodiak is one of the few communities with a resident workforce that is employed in every one of these activities. Kodiak's fishermen are engaged in a wide array of fisheries including four species of Salmon, at least a dozen species of bottom fish, Herring and Crab. Some of the Kodiak fleet also fish Bering Sea Pollock and crab. Kodiak's processors produce a wide array of products for both domestic and foreign markets. Almost all types of gear are used in Kodiak's waters. Our primary concern is that the Borough strongly opposes fishery rationalization programs being created through Federal legislation. Relationships among vessel owners, skippers and crewmembers, processors, and fishing support businesses are extraordinarily complicated. Fishery rationalization has the potential to change these relationships in ways that are extremely difficult to identify, analyze, and address For this reason, it is essential that fishery rationalization programs be subjected to extensive analysis and multiple opportunities for broad, participatory public comment, as is typical under North Pacific Fishery Management Council procedures. With all due respect, the Congressional legislative process does not provide these very important safeguards. Our preference would be for Congress to establish clear guidelines for the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) with adequate public input and provide all of the management options possible for the Council to develop good public policy for management of the fisheries that assure a healthy resource and maximum sustained yield. Allocations among competing gear groups need to be fair and equitable. With these guidelines, all allocation issues should then be sent to the Council. The difficult task of striking a balance on all issues should be a priority goal for the Council. Presently the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council ( "Council ") is considering a rationalization plan for the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish industry, changing the present fishery management system. Community members are struggling with whether a change is needed and if so, what the new system should look like. Concern is high because many residents are unhappy with the impact of Bering Sea crab rationalization; the rapid consolidation of the fleet which resulted in loss and quality of jobs and decreases in revenue to some fishery dependent Kodiak businesses. Our residents are concerned about any change to fishery management in the Gulf of Alaska that excludes any participants in those fisheries. Our fishery support businesses are also concerned about changes that result in harmful economic impacts to those businesses. The Borough has weathered the changes caused by halibut and black cod rationalization and is assessing the impacts caused by crab rationalization. While both systems are radically different from each other, both systems caused disruption to our community. We cannot support any system of regulatory change that benefits any one sector of the community over the other. We need our fishing industry to remain balanced; our fishing vessels must maintain the ability to attract and employ skilled captains and crew; and our processors must be able to continue to provide a solid employment base for year round members of our Borough. So it is important that any fishery management change include a balanced approach to protect all sectors of the seafood industry operation in Kodiak. Because the Borough relies on a healthy and vibrant fishing industry, we are concerned about any proposed changes to the MSA that would allow for the exclusion of any historical participant in any of the federal fisheries we are dependent upon. While the relationships between harvesters and processors are complex and unique in different fisheries, the Borough supports management regulatory changes that allow both sectors to improve and thrive. The Borough is aware of claims that regulatory changes which provide for associations between processors and harvesters, such as the cooperative system for Pollock harvesting in the Bering Sea, are problematic because they provide improper control over the harvest. We have even been told that such relationships violate anti -trust laws. We are concerned about those claims because we don't want to see any material change in the balance of negotiation between harvester and processor but we recognize that there are mechanisms available to preserve that balance of power. We are confident that the anti -trust laws will be enforced by state and federal authorities when and wherever necessary. We support changes to MSA that will protect the ability for all participants in each fishery to continue to improve their harvesting and processing operations. The Borough is also concerned about Congressional fish amendments that make allocation decisions or reverse past Council fish policy decisions. The balance of what should be done by the Councils and what should be done by Congress needs to be heavily weighed, by the delegation. Alaskan constituents should not be heading to Washington D.C. at every turn for "special favorites or deals ". We understand that some issues can only be accomplished by Congressional legislation so building the appropriate balance is the key. Thank you for considering the Kodiak Island Borough's comments. Respectfully, Jerome M. Selby Mayor: Cc. Mr. Dave Whaley, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Ms. Bonnie Brute, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Todd Bertoson, Senate Resources Committee Mr. Steve Wackowski, Senate Commerce Committee Ms. Margaret Spring, Senate Commerce Committee Mr. Bill Woolf, Senator Murkowski's Office Mr. Arne Fuglvog, Senator Murkowski's Office Governor Frank Murkowski, Governor, State of Alaska Commissioner McKie Campbell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alan Austerman, Special Fisheries Advisor, State of Alaska Senator Gary Stevens, State of Alaska Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, State of Alaska Alaska Legislative Delegation Addresses DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION November 9, 2006 [To Be Finalized on Kodiak Island Borough Letterhead] Re: Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005 Dear Senators Stevens and Murkowski and Representative Young: The Kodiak Island Borough respectfully submits the following comments concerning reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the "Act "). Kodiak Island is one of the most diverse fishing communities in Alaska and the United States, and the communities on Kodiak Island are heavily dependent upon the fisheries for their economic base. Kodiak Island has a long heritage of active involvement in every aspect of the fishing industry, from harvesting, processing and marketing, to management and research. In Alaska, Kodiak is one of the few communities with a resident workforce that is employed in every one of these activities. Kodiak's fishermen are engaged in a wide array of fisheries including four species of Salmon, at least a dozen species of bottom fish with Halibut, Cod, Pollock, and Rock Fish being large contributors, Herring and Crab including Bering Sea Pollock and crab. Kodiak's processors produce a wide array of products for both domestic and foreign markets. Almost all types of gear are used in Kodiak's waters. By way of introduction, there are two principles that underlie the following comments. First, the Borough strongly opposes fishery rationalization programs being created through Federal legislation. Relationships among vessel owners, skippers and crewmembers, processors and fishing support businesses are extraordinarily complicated. Fishery rationalization has the potential to change these relationships in ways that are extremely difficult to identify, analyze and address. For this reason, it is essential that fishery rationalization programs be subjected to extensive analysis and multiple opportunities for broad, participatory public comment, as is typical under North Pacific Fishery Management Council procedures. With all due respect, the Congressional legislative process does not provide these very important safeguards. Specifically, we request that the extension of the Rockfish Pilot Program be sent to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council for a decision about extension or other changes in the program. The council needs to be authorized to manage this fishery along with the rest of the North Pacific Fisheries with full public input at the council hearings. As a second fundamental principle, the Borough is opposed to giving Regional Fishery Management Councils the authority to directly or indirectly allocate processing privileges for a fishery among one or more processors, or to establish delivery restrictions or linkages that directly or indirectly require individual harvesters or harvester associations to deliver a portion of their catch to one or more particular processors. It is widely recognized that agreements among competitors to allocate a resource acquisition market are the equivalent of price fixing and are therefore illegal. While governmental action may make a market allocation legal, it does not change its effect. Allocating a fish processing market eliminates price competition among processors for the allocated share of the resource, and in the absence of an effective price correction mechanism, will artificially depress ex- vessel prices. Further, as noted by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, processing market allocations are likely to discourage efficient investments, limit new product development, and undercut competition in selling processed products. At the same time, the Kodiak Island Borough, more than many other Alaskan fishing communities, recognizes the important place a healthy processing sector holds in a fishing community, as Kodiak's processing work force is largely composed of year round residents who are an important part of the Island's culture and economy. The Borough believes Councils should have the limited authority to submit and the Secretary should have the limited authority to approve regional landing restrictions to promote processor and community stability in the transition through rationalization, and to compensate for differences in utility costs and transportation access among communities. Properly applied, regional landing restrictions can provide protection for processors and communities while maintaining competitive processing markets within each region. As stated above, the Borough opposes fishery rationalization programs being created through legislation and opposes Councils having the authority (much less a mandate) to adopt processing market allocations. Thank you for considering the Kodiak Island Borough's comments. Respectfully, Jerome M. Selby Mayor c. Mr. Dave Whaley, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Ms. Bonnie Bruce, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Todd Bertoson, Senate Resources Committee Mr. Steve Wackowski, Senate Commerce Committee Ms. Margaret Spring, Senate Commerce Committee Mr. Bill Woolf, Senator Murkowski's Office Mr. Arne Fuglvog, Senator Murkowski's Office Govemor Frank Murkowski, Governor, State of Alaska Commissioner McKie Campbell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alan Austerman, Special Fisheries Advisor, State of Alaska Senator Gary Stevens, State of Alaska Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, State of Alaska To: Mayor & Council From: Debra Marlar, CMC City Clerk Memorandum 4„) AMENDS MSA LETTER (Page 86 in packet) Date: November 9, 2006 Subject: Suggested Amendment(s) to MSA Letter to AK Delegation At Tuesday's work session, two Councilmembers voiced opposition to portions of the October 29, 2006, draft letter to the Alaska Congressional Delegation regarding the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005. Based on discussion at that work session, and comments made the next day in the Clerk's Office, the following amendment is suggested. The amendment motion needs to be made AFTER the main motion to endorse the letter (page 86 of the packet) is made. MOVE to amend the October 29, 2006, draft letter to the Congressional Delegation regarding the Magnuson- Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2005 by striking the following items in their entirety: • Item 1, pertaining to opposing extending the duration of the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program • Item 2, opposing giving Regional Fishery Management Councils the authority to link limited access privileges to requirements to deliver to particular processors and /or communities • Item 4, opposing legislation mandating a Pacific Whiting rationalization program and directing the Clerk to correct grammar and typographical errors. 2005 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION October 29, 2006 [To Be Finalized on City of Kodiak Letterhead] Alaska Legislative Delegation Addresses Re: Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of Dear Senators Stevens and Murkowski and Representative Young: The City of Kodiak, Alaska (the "City ") respectfully submits the following comments concerning reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the "Act "). Kodiak is one of the leading fishing communities in Alaska and the United States. Kodiak has a long heritage of active involvement in every aspect of the fishing industry, from harvesting, processing and marketing to management and research. In Alaska, Kodiak is one of the few communities with a resident workforce that is employed in every one of these activities. Kodiak's fishermen are engaged in a wide array of fisheries, from the local jig cod fishery through Bering Sea pollock and crab, and Kodiak's processors produce a wide array of products for both domestic and foreign markets. Kodiak cherishes this diversity. It is an essential part of our community's culture, as well as being fundamental to our community's economic health. By way of introduction, there are two principles that underlie the following comments. First, the City strongly opposes fishery rationalization programs being created through Federal legislation. Relationships among vessel owners, skippers and crewmembers, processors and fishing support businesses are extraordinarily complicated. Fishery rationalization has the potential to change these relationships in ways that are extremely difficult to identify, analyze and address. For this reason, it is essential that fishery rationalization programs be subjected to extensive analysis and multiple opportunities for broad, participatory public comment, as is typical under North Pacific Fishery Management Council procedures. With all due respect, the Congressional legislative process does not provide these very important safeguards. As a second fundamental principle, the City is opposed to giving Regional Fishery Management Councils the authority to directly or indirectly allocate processing privileges for a fishery among one or more processors, or to establish delivery restrictions or linkages that directly or indirectly require individual harvesters or harvester associations to deliver a portion of their catch to one or more particular processors. It is widely recognized that agreements among competitors to allocate a resource acquisition market are the equivalent of price fixing and are therefore illegal per se. See, "Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors ", Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, April 2000, page 3. While governmental action may make a market allocation legal, it does not change its effect. Allocating a fish processing market eliminates price competition among processors for the allocated share of the resource, and in the absence of an effective price correction mechanism, will artificially depress ex- vessel prices. Further, as noted by the Antitrust Division, processing market allocations are likely to discourage efficient investments, limit new product development, and undercut competition in selling processed products. See, Letter from R. Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General, to James R. Walpole, NOAA General Counsel, August 27, 2003. With all due respect, the City believes that the Regional Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries do not have the capability or the resources necessary to identify, analyze and address the complex antitrust and market economics issues raised by fish processing market allocations. On the other hand, Kodiak, more than many other Alaskan fishing communities, recognizes the important place a healthy processing sector holds in a fishing community, as Kodiak's processing work force is largely composed of year round residents who are an important part of the City's culture and economy. The City believes Councils should have the limited authority to submit and the Secretary should have the limited authority to approve regional landing restrictions to promote processor and community stability in the transition through rationalization, and to compensate for differences in utility costs and transportation access among communities. Properly applied, regional landing restrictions can provide protection for processors and communities while maintaining competitive processing markets within each region. With these principles in mind, the City submits the following specific comments. 1. The City of Kodiak opposes extending the duration of the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program (the "Pilot Program "). The City understands that the En Bloc Amendments to H.R. 5018 offered by Representative Pombo (the "En Bloc Amendments ") contain a provision that would amend Section 802 of Public Law 108 -199 (118 Stat. 110) by striking "2 years" and inserting "5 years ". En Bloc Amendments, July 20, 2006, page 9, lines 6 -8. The City understands the effect of this provision would be to extend the duration of the Pilot Program from the earlier of 2 years or the date on which a Gulf of Alaska groundfish comprehensive rationalization plan is implemented, to the earlier of 5 years or the date on which a comprehensive Gulf groundfish rationalization program is implemented. For the reasons set forth below, the City of Kodiak opposes this extension of the Pilot Program sunset date The Pilot Program violates both of the City principles described above, as it is a fishery rationalization program that was created through Federal legislation, and because it allocates the bulk of the processing market for Gulf of Alaska rockfish and associated secondary species. The City opposed the Pilot Program when it was initially being considered for both of these reasons, and opposes any extension of the Pilot Program for the same reasons. The potential extension of the Pilot Program's duration raises an additional concern. Since the Pilot Program's adoption, Bering Sea crab rationalization and the North Pacific Council's consideration of comprehensive Gulf groundfish rationalization have triggered a vigorous debate within Kodiak's fishing community regarding whether the benefits of any specific fishery rationalization program outweigh its potential negative effects. The City has asked the North Pacific Council to delay action on comprehensive Gulf groundfish rationalization until after the crab rationalization program 18 month review, and depending on the results of that review, the City may request that the Council suspend development of a comprehensive Gulf groundfish rationalization program, and instead pursue less drastic Gulf groundfish management measures, while the Kodiak fishing community works through the issues raised by crab rationalization and the current Gulf groundfish rationalization alternatives. Precisely because there may be a stand -down on the Gulf groundfish comprehensive rationalization program, it is very important that the Pilot Program be allowed to expire at the end of 2 years, to prevent it from pre - empting less onerous management measures that could be adopted as alternatives to rationalization, such as a Pacific cod split among sectors and gear groups. Further, while a 2 year Pilot Program would have anti - competitive effects, the duration of those effects would be short enough to allow harvesters and processors that do not fully benefit under the Pilot Program a reasonable opportunity to recover. Extending the Pilot Program to 5 years could result in long -term competitive disadvantages to those harvesters and processors. The Pilot Program should remain what it was adopted to be, i.e., a 2 year experiment. 2. The City opposes giving Regional Fishery Management Councils the authority to link limited access privileges ( "LAPs ") to requirements to deliver to a particular processor or processors, or to a particular community or communities. The City has been informed that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (the "Department ") and the Chair of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council have distributed a draft amendment to the Act that would provide Regional Fishery Management Councils with the authority to require that some or all of the fish harvested under LAPs be delivered to one or more specific processors and/or to one or more specific communities. The City strongly opposes extending any authority to the Regional Fishery Management Councils to adopt or to the Secretary of Commerce to implement any system that allocates processing privileges for a fishery among one or more processors, or establishes LAP delivery restrictions or linkages that directly or indirectly require individual harvesters or harvester associations to deliver a portion of their catch to one or more processors. Further, because some Gulf coastal communities may have only one processor, the City opposes any LAP delivery restrictions that require harvesters to deliver a portion of their catch to a specific community. The City strongly urges Congress to maintain the current moratorium on individual processor quotas and processor shares. Requiring that a certain amount of the fish harvested under an LAP be delivered to one or more particular processors is a processing market allocation, and thus is the functional equivalent of a processor share. The Department has argued that linkages are not processor shares, because they can be broken upon payment of a penalty. However, if the penalty exacted for breaking a delivery linkage has any deterrent effect, the linkage is a processor market allocation. If the penalty is small, the processor market allocation is correspondingly weak. If the penalty is large, the processor market allocation is correspondingly strong. But in every case, linkage with a penalty is a processing market allocation. It may be possible to offset the anticompetitive effects of linkages by limiting the amount of LAP harvest that is required to be delivered to a certain processor, by having linkage expire after a certain time, or by adopting price protection mechanisms, such as binding arbitration. However, the Department's draft linkage amendment provided to the City by Commissioner Campbell (dated 9/13/06) simply requires that linkages must be "fair and equitable ". This standard is so vague that it is virtually meaningless. It would leave the decision regarding the magnitude of a penalty exacted for breaking linkage in the discretion of the Council and the Secretary, and thus provide the Council with the authority to adopt linkages that function as processor shares. As stated above, the City does not believe that the Councils or NOAA Fisheries have the resources or expertise necessary to identify, analyze and adequately address the antitrust and market economics issues associated with linkages. Further, any attempt to develop appropriate standards for processor market allocations would be inappropriate until the effects of the processor share component of the Bering Sea crab rationalization program are fully analyzed. The proposal to authorize Regional Management Councils to allocate processor shares was soundly rejected by stakeholder comments from every region of the U.S. during development of Senate Bill 2012, and the State's proposal should be rejected on the same basis. 3. If Congress extends eligibility to acquire halibut and sablefish Individual Fishing Quotas ( "IFQs ") to one or more Alaska municipalities the City of Kodiak requests that it be made eligible to purchase halibut and sablefish IFQs for Reporting Areas 3A and 3B. The City understands that the En Bloc Amendments contain a provision that would make any municipality or borough located in Southeast Alaska eligible to acquire halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota for Reporting Area 2C. En Bloc Amendments, July 20, 2006, page 3, lines 6 -10. While the City has strong reservations regarding whether it is appropriate for governmental entities to hold fishing privileges, the City also believes that if some governmental entities are allowed to do so, the privilege should be extended on a non- discriminatory basis. Currently, the Bering Sea Community Development Quota ( "CDQ ") Program allows Western Alaskan communities to hold fishing privileges through their CDQ groups, and the Gulf of Alaska Community Quota Entity ( "CQE ") program allows small communities in the Gulf to purchase IFQs. If Congress chooses to extend this eligibility to other Alaskan communities, the City of Kodiak respectfully requests that it be made eligible to hold Area 3A and 3B halibut and sablefish IFQs. There is increasing recognition among Gulf coastal communities that IFQ prices have risen to a level that constitutes a substantial barrier to entry for the second and following generations of halibut and sablefish fishermen. IFQ prices have certainly been driven by the evolution of halibut and sablefish markets. However, IFQ prices may also have been driven up by leveraged acquisitions using original, no -cost IFQ allocations as collateral, and by joint venture arrangements, which effectively allow first generation IFQ holders to lease their quotas to vessel operators. Providing municipalities with eligibility to acquire IFQs would make it possible for them to counter these effects, by offering IFQs for use by community residents that do not have access to the capital necessary to purchase them under these market conditions. If no other community had IFQ purchase eligibility, Kodiak might well choose not to advocate for it either. However, the Bering Sea CDQ communities have benefited extensively from IFQs purchased by their CDQ groups, and a large number of small Gulf communities are eligible to purchase IFQs under the CQE program. The City is concerned that its interests may be prejudiced if the City does not have the same ability. 4. The City is opposed to legislation mandating a Pacific Whiting rationalization program. The City understands that legislation has been introduced in the Senate (as S.B. 1549), which would mandate a rationalization program for the Pacific whiting fishery that includes a processor share component. The City also understands that the En Bloc Amendments include a provision that requires the Pacific Fishery Management Council to establishes an LAP program for the shore -based sector of the Pacific whiting fishery under which fishermen and fish processors are required to "work cooperatively" to harvest and process Pacific whiting. As stated above, the City opposes fishery rationalization programs being created through legislation and opposes Councils having the authority (much less a mandate) to adopt processing market allocations, and therefore the City opposes the referenced Pacific whiting fishery legislation accordingly. Thank you for considering the City's comments. Respectfully, Carolyn L. Floyd Mayor c. Mr. Dave Whaley, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Ms. Bonnie Bruce, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Todd Bertoson, Senate Resources Committee Mr. Steve Wackowski, Senate Commerce Committee Ms. Margaret Spring, Senate Commerce Committee Mr. Bill Woolf, Senator Murkowski's Office Mr. Arne Fuglvog, Senator Murkowski's Office Governor Frank Murkowski, Governor, State of Alaska Commissioner McKie Campbell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alan Austerman, Special Fisheries Advisor, State of Alaska Senator Gary Stevens, State of Alaska Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, State of Alaska DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION November 9, 2006 r [To Be Finalized on Kodiak Island Borough Letterhead] Alaska Legislative Delegation Addresses Re: Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005 Dear Senators Stevens and Murkowski and Representative Young: The Kodiak Island Borough respectfully submits the following comments concerning reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the "Act "). As you know, Kodiak Island is one of the most diverse fishing communities in Alaska and the United States, and the communities on Kodiak Island are heavily dependent upon the fisheries for their economic base. Kodiak Island has a long heritage of active involvement in every aspect of the fishing industry, from harvesting, processing and marketing, to management and research. In Alaska, Kodiak is one of the few communities with a resident workforce that is employed in every one of these activities. Kodiak's fishermen are engage in a wide array of fisheries including four species of Salmon, at le st a doze s of bottom fish me of the Kodiak fleet also fishefBering Sea Pollock and crab. Kodiak's processors produce a wine array of products for both domestic and foreign markets. Almost all types of gear are used in Kodiak's waters. Our primary concern is that the Borough strongly opposes fishery rationalization programs being created through Federal legislation. Relationships among vessel owners, skippers and crewmembers, processors • and fishing support businesses are extraordinarily complicated. Fishery rationalization has the potential to change these relationships in ways that are extremely difficult to identify, analyze and address. For this reason, it is essential that fishery rationalization programs be subjected to extensive analysis and multiple opportunities for broad, participatory public comment, as is typical under North Pacific Fishery Management Council procedures. With all due respect, the Congressional legislative process does not provide these very important safeguards. Our preference would be for Congress to establish clear guidelines for the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) with adequate public input and provide all of the management options possible for the Council to develop good public policy for management of the fisheries that assure a healthy resource and maximum sustained yield. Allocations among competing gear group to be fair and equitable. With these guidelines, all allocation issuAshould then be sent to the Council. The difficult task of striking a balance on all issues should be a priority goal for the Council. Presently the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council ( "Council ") is considering a rationalization plan for the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish industry, changing the present fishery management system. Community members are struggling with whether a change is needed and if s°. hat the new system should look like. Concern is high because many residents are unhappy with the impact? of Bering Sea crab rationalization) the rapid consolidation of the fleet which resulted in loss and quality of jobs and decrease /n revenue to some fishery dependent Kodiak businesses. Our residents are concerned about any change to fishery management in the Gulf of Alaska that excludes any participants in those fisheries. Our fishery support businesses are also concerned about changes that result in harmful economic impacts to those businesses. The Borough has weathered the changes caused by halibut and black cod rationalization and is assessing the impacts caused by crab rationalization. While both systems are radically different from each other, both systems caused disruption to our community. We cannot support any system of regulatory change that benefits any one sector of the community over the other. We need our fishing industry to remain balanced: our fishing vessels must maintain the ability to attract and employ skilled captains and crew; and our processors must be able to continue to provide a solid employment base for year round members of our Borough. So it is important that any fishery management change include a balanced approach to protect all sectors of the seafood industry operation in Kodiak. Because the Borough relies on a healthy and vibrant fishing industrjwe are concerned about any proposed changes to the MSA that would allow for the exclusion of any historical participant in any of the federal fisheries we are dependent upon. While the relationships between harvesters and processors are complex and unique in different fisheries, the Borough supports management regulatory changes that allow both sectors to improve and thrive. The Borough is aware of claims that regulatory changes which provide for associations between processors and harvesters, such as the cooperative system for Pollock harvesting in the Bering Sea, are problematic because they provide improper control over the harvest. We have even been told that such relationships violate anti -trust laws. We are concerned about those claims because we don't want to see any material change in the balance of negotiation between harvester and processor but we recognize that there are mechanisms available to preserve that balance of power. We are confident that the anti -trust laws will be enforced by state and federal authorities when and wherever necessary. We support changes to MSA that will protect the ability for all participants in each fishery to continue to improve their harvesting and processing operations. Jerome M. Selby Mayor The Borough is also concerned about Congressional fish amendments that make allocation decisions or reverse past Council fish policy decisions. The balance of what should be done by the Councils and what should be done by Congress needs to be heavily weighed by the delegation. Alaskan constituents should not be heading to Washington D.C. at every turn for "special favorites or deals ". We understand that some issues can only be accomplished by Congressional legislation so building the appropriate balance is the key. Thank you for considering the Kodiak Island Borough's comments. Respectfully, Cc. Mr. Dave Whaley, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Ms. Bonnie Bruce, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Todd Bertoson, Senate Resources Committee Mr. Steve Wackowski, Senate Commerce Committee Ms. Margaret Spring, Senate Commerce Committee Mr. Bill Woolf, Senator Murkowski's Office Mr. Arne Fuglvog, Senator Murkowski's Office Governor Frank Murkowski, Governor, State of Alaska Commissioner McKie Campbell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alan Austerman, Special Fisheries Advisor, State of Alaska Senator Gary Stevens, State of Alaska Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, State of Alaska 1110B/2006 14:43 907- 486 -9391 BOROJG- CLERK PAGE 01 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION November 9, 2006 [To Be Finalized on Kodiak Island Borough Letterhead] Alaska Legislative Delegation Addresses Re: Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005 Dear Senators Stevens and Murkowski and Representative Young: The Kodiak Island Borough respectfully submits the following comments concerning reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the "Act "). As you know, Kodiak Island is one of the most diverse fishing communities in Alaska and the United States, and the communities on Kodiak Island are heavily dependent upon the fisheries for their economic base. Kodiak Island has a long heritage of active involvement in every aspect of the fishing industry, from harvesting, processing and marketing, to management and research. In Alaska, Kodiak is one of the few communities with a resident workforce that is employed in every one of these activities. Kodiak's fishermen are engaged in a wide array of fisheries including four species of Salmon, at least a dozen species of bottom fish with Halibut, Cod, Pollock, and Rock Fish being large contributors, Herring and Crab. Some of the Kodiak fleet also fishes Bering Sea Pollock and crab. Kodiak's processors produce a wide array of products for both domestic and foreign markets. Almost all types of gear are used in Kodiak's waters. Our primary concern is that the Borough strongly opposes fishery rationalization programs being created through Federal legislation. Relationships among vessel owners, skippers and crewmembers, processors and fishing support businesses are extraordinarily complicated. Fishery rationalization has the potential to change these relationships in ways that are extremely difficult to identify, analyze and address. For this reason, it is essential that fishery rationalization programs be subjected to extensive analysis and multiple opportunities for broad, participatory public comment, as is typical under North Pacific Fishery Management Council procedures. With all due respect, the Congressional legislative process does not provide these very important safeguards. Our preference would be for Congress to establish clear guidelines for the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) with adequate public input and provide all of the management options possible for the Council to develop good public policy for management of the fisheries that assure a healthy resource and maximum sustained yield. Allocations among competing gear group need to be fair and equitable. With these guidelines, all allocation issue should then be sent to the Council. The difficult task of striking a balance on all issues should be a priority goal for the Council. Presently the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (`Council ") is considering a rationalization plan for the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish industry, changing the present fishery management system. Community members are struggling with whether a change is needed and if so what the new system should look like. Concern is high because many residents are unhappy with the impacts of Bering Sea crab rationalization; the rapid consolidation of the fleet which resulted in toss and quality of jobs and decreases in revenue to some fishery dependent Kodiak businesses. Our residents are concerned about any change to fishery management in the Gulf of Alaska that excludes any participants in those fisheries. Our fishery support businesses are also concerned about changes that result in harmful economic impacts to those businesses. The Borough has weathered the changes caused by halibut and black cod rationalization and is assessing the impacts caused by crab rationalization. While both systems are radically different from each other, both systems caused disruption to our community. We cannot support any system of regulatory change that benefits any one sector of the community over the other. We need our fishing industry to remain balanced: our fishing vessels must maintain the ability to attract and employ skilled captains and crew; and our processors must be able to continue to provide a solid employment base for year round members of our Borough. So it is important that any fishery management change include a balanced approach to protect all sectors of the seafood Because the Borough relies on a healthy and vibrant fishing industry we are concerned about any proposed changes to the MSA that would allow for the exclusion of any historical Participant in any of the federal fisheries we are dependent upon. While the relationships between and Processors are co ]ex and mP unique in different fisheriessthe Borough supports management regulatory changes that allow both sectors to improve and thrive. The Borough is aware of claims as that the g alive changes which provide for associations between processors and harvesters, such asovide i pollock harvesting in the Bering Sea, are problematic because they pro lawo are over the harvest. We have even been told that such relationships vioate concerned about those claims because we don't want to see any material change in the balance of negotiation between harvester and processor but we recognize that there are mechanisms available to preserve that balance of power. We are confident that the anti -Mist laws will be unforced by state and federal authorities when and wherever necessary. W support changes to MSA that will protect the ability for all participants in each fishery to continue to improve their harvesting and processing operations. The Borough is also concerned about Congressional fish amendments that snake allocation decisions or reverse past Council fish policy decisions The balance of what should be done by the Councils and what should be done by Congress needs to be heavily Alaskan constituents should not be heading Y D.C. weighed e e the "special favorites or deals" We understand that so issues can only my be acco o every sum for Congressional legislation so building the a mplished by Thank you for considering appropriate balance is the key. y ng the Kodiak Island Borough's comments. Respectfully, Jerome M. Selby Mayor Cc. Mr, Dave Whaley, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Ms. Bonnie Bruce, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Todd Bertoson, Senate Resources Committee Mr. Steve Wackowski, Senate Commerce Committee Ms. Margaret Spring, Senate Conunerce Committee Mr. Bill Woolf, Senator Murkowski's Office Mr. Arne Fuglvog, Senator Murkowsla's Office Governor Frank Murkowski, Governor, State of Alaska Commissioner McKie Campbell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alan Austerman, Special Fisheries Advisor, State of Alaska Senator Gary Stevens, State of Alaska Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, State of Alaska DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION November 9, 2006 [To Be Finalized on Kodiak Island Borough Letterhead] Alaska Legislative Delegation Addresses Re: Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005 Dear Senators Stevens and Murkowski and Representative Young: The Kodiak Island Borough respectfully submits the following comments concerning reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the "Act "). (�� ►'" t Kodiak Island is one of the most diverse fishing communities in Alaska and the United States, and the communities on Kodiak Island are heavily dependent upon the fisheries for their economic base. Kodiak Island has a long heritage of active involvement in every aspect of the fishing industry, from harvesting, processing and marketing, to management and research. In Alaska, Kodiak is one of the few communities with a resident workforce that is employed in every one of these activities. Kodiak's fishermen are engaged in a wide array of fisheries including four species of Salmon, at least a dozen species of bottom fish with Halibut, Cod, Pollock, and Rock Fish being large contributors Herring and Crab i -- ' - - " products for both domesti ering Sea Pollock and crab. Kodiak's processors produce a wide array of and foreign markets. Almost all types of gear are used in Kodiak's waters. Quq n"nm -v —v- v c Q Oo tiotgOI O i • .. . . les . . the Borough strongly opposes fishery rationalization programs being created through Fed ral legislation. Relationships among vessel owners, skippers and crewmembers, processors and fishing support businesses are extraordinarily complicated. Fishery rationalization has the potential to change these relationships in ways that are extremely difficult to identify, analyze and address. For this reason, it is essential that fishery rationalization programs be subjected to extensive analysis and multiple opportunities for broad, participatory public comment, as is typical under North Pacific Fishery Management Council procedures. With all due respect, the Congressional legislative process does not provide these very important safeguards. pecifically, we request t the extension of the Rockfish t Program be sen. Pacific Fi ery Management Counc for a decision about extension or o r changes in th\ The council ds to be authorized to age this fishery along with the rest of the Nort Fisheries with full public input at the council hearings. As a second fun ental principle, the Borough is opposed to giving Regional Fishery Management Councils the aut rity to directly or indirect allocate processing privi es for a fishery amok one or more processors, or to establish delivery estrictions or linkages t t directly or indirectly require individual harvest or harvester associatio to deliver a portion oft it catch to one or more particular processors. o the North program. Pacific It is widely recognized that agreements among competitors to allocate a resource acquisition market are the equivalent of price fixing and are therefore illegal While governmental action may c, . develop Borough h e a healthy pr composed oroug h • • • V' t allocation legal, does not chan competition ong processors for correction mechanism, will tru Division of the Department of J dent investments, limit new prod duc odiak Is l ity ial more t many other processing ctor holds in a fishi ng of ye, round residents who are an i relieves Councils should h th fluted authority to approve r egiona the transition through rati cess among commu essors and c li orta make a market eliminates price absence o effecti ve prig as noted by the likely to discourage selling processed p At the same time, the communit-., recognizes the importa as Kodi.; s processing work force i part of e Island's culture and author' y to submit and the restrictions to promote pr to compensate for diff applied, regional 1 maintaining co A tated above, the Borough pposes fishery rationalization programs be legisla'.n and opposes Councils •.ving the authority (much Tess a mandate) to mar. -t allocations. Thank you for considering the Kodiak Island Borough's comments. Respectfully, Jerome M. Selby Mayor arg nomy. T - retary should have ssor and community st nces in utility costs an mg restrictions can p titive processing market its effect. Alloca t allocated sh . ansportatio de protection for ithin each region. Qc. )vlr. Dave Whaley, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Ms. Bonnie Bruce, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Todd Bertoson, Senate Resources Committee Mr. Steve Wackowski, Senate Commerce Committee Ms. Margaret Spring, Senate Commerce Committee Mr. Bill Woolf, Senator Murkowski's Office Mr. Arne Fuglvog, Senator Murkowski's Office Governor Frank Murkowski, Governor, State of Alaska Commissioner McKie Campbell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alan Austerman, Special Fisheries Advisor, State of Alaska Senator Gary Stevens, State of Alaska Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, State of Alaska in • ish processing mar of the resource, an' the • epress ex- vessel pri - . Further, rocessing mark allocations are me and u e -rcut competition in askan fishing mmunity, ave the ed anding ona ' ation, and es. Properly munities while created through ado. •rocessing OcPV p V I2e foq eti t 0414 to ce,,,,co .sAyi /044,1140 ,1 ` p �yowrcc� � cv ^mot nevuA - , a rm/ ) 6c)-2 af260-ci /4=frA I` J ce,e6a—, Oak- n OC— , X 0 1 1 CaA/LNA •yam,„, V . aO ` ra tee.. � 5 —vviate 2 t M d — €/tA Fer fr;\ 0- tzlesr frZet A n t, -nom ithe cc-wall- 1\A- CenA ,P -ems , TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION 1 THE PROPERTY 2 A SYNOPSIS 3 THE USE HISTORY 5 TRANSFERRING TITTLE DILEMMA 10 SALIENT POINTS 14 INTENT OF ELKS 15 DOCUMENTS 16 AGENCY FILE NUMBERS 19 CONTACTED PERSONS /AGENCIES 20 DESCRIPTION OF SITE U. S. SURVEY 3465 TRACT A LOTS 1A & 2A SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 27 SOUTH, RANGE 19 WEST, SEWARD MERIDIAN THE PROPERTY Lot 1A U.S. Survey 3465 is typical property acquired by the United States Government in 1867 with the purchase of Alaska from Russia. The parcel known only as part of Kodiak Island. Until the federal government first identified it, henceforth it was to be referred to as Section 21 T27S R19W Seward Meridian.' The first metes & bounds survey was conducted by in 19 and the property further identified as U.S. Survey 3465 Tract A. During the war effort the War Department placed numerous acres of Alaska under a land freeze. Accordingly this parcel could not undergo any transfer without being first removed from the land freeze. The federal government granted patent to the parcel on May 25, 1965 [patent 50 -66 -0495 & 50-65-06361 to the State of Alaska. At that time the tract contained no easements, etc. except for those normally contained on all lands' transferred to the State. In 1966 Kodiak Island Borough was granted patent number 435 from the State of Alaska. Kodiak Island Borough is the current owner of the property. ' Each Township being an area of 36 square miles and each section 1 mile square ' At the time of paten all federal lands granted to the State of Alaska by the Federal Government contained various exceptions and reservations. 2 A SYNOPSIS Thirty seven years have passed since the Elks first began securement of the property for youth activities. Through these years significant obstacles have been encountered and overcome with the passage of time. In the beginning the property was under the control of the War Department. In 1954 the Western Council, Boy Scouts of America applied for the site under the Recreational and Public Use Act and received a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP). When Alaska became a state in 1959 the parcel was exempt from being granted to the State by virtue of the Special Land Use Permit. The Western Council of Boy Scouts apply for acquisition through BLM. The application was denied by the regional director. Intervention by the Secretary of the Interior reverses the decision of the agency. The property to be made available for Scouting and similar. activities. The Elks apply for acquisition of the property after the decision of the Secretary of the Interior. Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak have similar intentions of obtaining the parcel. Through a series of events the Elks in "Good Faith" relinquish the Special Land Use Permit to BLM in the belief they will obtain the land. After patent is granted to the State of Alaska with subsequent patent to the Kodiak Island Borough the Land was not made available for sale to the Elks. The Elks pursued the issue and leased the property for 5 years beginning 1969. In 1973 the first lease expired and by 1975 Kodiak Island Borough leases the land to the Elks for an additional 5 years. At the conclusion of the lease the property is deemed valuable and plans are undertaken to subdivide and sell off the property by the Borough. Three years of negotiation by the Elks result in the leasing of 4 acres of the former 16 acre lease for 25 additional years. 3 Currently the Elks Lodge has intention of building a permanent facility on the lot for youth groups. The intended facility will augment the needs of Boy Scout Troop 625, a Cub Scout Pack, Tiger Scouts, Girl Scouts, Brownies and Pixies all of Kodiak. The facility will be made available to similar youth groups. Although it has been years since the advent of the use of the land, numerous problems outside of the ownership have entered into the situation. The original meeting place, a surplus quonset hut of Word War 2, was never acceptable as a facility. The lack of potable water and septic precluded long term use on the property. Ten years passed between the first permitted use and the issuance of patent to the Borough. Since the installation of sewer and water utilities in the area it now is feasible to develop the land area and construct facilities. The current duration of the lease, expiring in 2008, makes it prohibitive for the Elks to build a facility and make improvements on the land. A capital outlay of this magnitude requires assurance of the land being available forever. A commercial lender would never consider financing a project on such insecure possession. As administrators of the Elks charitable funds we must also act in this most discreet manner. To continue with the project the Elks must acquire a position of vested interest in the property. The history connected with the property and the associated problems of obtaining leases in a timely manner indicate a need to secure title. Either ownership in fee simple or fee simple defeasible is mandatory. It has been found that relying on promises and acting in "Good Faith" with agencies has proven the Elks gullible. 4 THE USE HISTORY The desperate need for a facility for scouting activities is apparent in the early years of the Troop. Paul "Smokey" Stover reflected in 1975 -76 circa the extent of the efforts undertaken to secure this location as a permanent location for youth activities. "In 1949, our Hon. Bob Bartlett, Territorial Representative and I walked this area and discussed the possibility of residential growth moving in this direction and the need to retain an area such as this in it's natural state as much as possible. He, would assist us in Washington D.C. to remove the Island Lake, Dark Lake areas from the War Department land freeze. He, accomplished this, also advised the Bureau of Land Management of our desire to survey and set aside approxmatly [sic.] sixteen acres here for outdoor youth activities, under our management. "' While this unique account of the means by which the property first became available for use by the Scouts is picturesque it is extremely misleading. The series of events that took place are truly more factual than political intervention of the former Territorial Representative. The Recreational and Public Service Act made it possible for a site to be acquired by various individuals and groups. The Western Council of Boy Scouts, Anchorage Office made application for a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) in 1954.' The SLUP was granted on May 1, 1956 by BLM. In May of 1962 the application was rejected by the regional administrator of BLM and the permit was terminated. Western Council appealed the decision of the regional administrator and on May 14, 1964 the Secretary of the Interior vacated the decision and ordered the lands to be made available for both public recreational and Scouting uses. In May 1964 the Kodiak Elks Lodge applied to the Bureau of Land Management for a long term lease (SLUP) of U.S. Survey 3465.' Through some communications with the State Division of Lands it was determined "... that we should relinquish our lease from the BLM and the State would select this tract and in turn the Borough would select it from the State and give us a long term ' Paul (Smokey) Stover in a letter to Exalted Ruler Gene Sundburg. ' Application Anchorage 032348 BLM ' Application Anchorage 027966 BLM 5 lease. "° Exalted Ruler Edward G. Ogborn further wrote "This, although a somewhat devious route, seems to be the quickest and best way to put our youth program on a permanent basis. We herewith offer our relinquishment in good faith with the above proposal. " June 1964 the Kodiak Elks receive a'letter from Alfred P. Steger, Chief, Lands Section, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. In his letter Mr. Steger details the events in which the Western Councils application had been first denied and then vacated by the Secretary of the Interior. The lands to be divided for use between the Boy Scouts and the general public. He further indicates of the State on February 1, 1963 removing their selection of the area providing the use is confined to the needs of the Boy Scouts. An examination of the property will be made and the Scouts advised of the portion classified for them.° Kodiak Island Borough applied for patent of the land during this same time period. While the City of Kodiak held a valid claim on the property from the State of Alaska with ADL 2598. District Manager, Bureau of Land Management Anchorage District Office, Mr. James W. Scott was to visit Kodiak and inspect the parcel. During his visit an apparent solution was proposed whereby the Elks, as sponsor of Troop 625, would obtain control of the property. On November 25, 1964 the City Council resolved the problem by deciding "... that the Elks Club have jurisdiction over the acreage. "' During December 1964 an apparent remedy appeared to be sale of the property to the Elks by the Borough once clear title was received from the State. The federal government still retained the property. The Borough Assembly on December 3, 1964 in a joint meeting with the City Council provided the following solution: o Edward G. Ogborn, Exalted Ruler in a letter to Bureau of Land Management May 27, 1964 ' ibid. o Alfred P. Steger, Chief, Lands Section, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management in a letter to the Kodiak Elks Lodge. June 26, 1964 o Minutes of the Common Council of Kodiak November 25, 1964 6 "The Elks Club has asked to purchase the land for use as a public recreational site in the Island Lake area. After a discussion of this request Councilman Brechan moved to instruct. the secretary to write to the B.L.M. informing them that the Borough is in agreement that the land under consideration should be appraised and sold to the Elks Club for a public recreational area in conjunction with the youth activity program. Assemblyman Alexander seconded, a voice vote taken which passed unanimously. "" December 23, 1964 James W. Scott Manadge Anchorage District and Land Office informed Mr. Roscoe Bell, Director, State Division of Lands that "The Western Council withdrew their application to permit selection by the State." ' January 5, 1965 Chairman Charles A. Powell of the Kodiak Island Borough wrote to the Division of Lands and informed them of the action of the Assembly on December 3, 1964. January 6, 1965 City Manager Ralph S. Jones wrote the Division of Lands in support of the sale to the Elks and gives the City's endorsement of transfer to the Elks. In late January the Lands Disposal office informs the parties that the parcel is to be classified as public recreational upon the receipt of tittle. The concern to complete this transfer was apparent on the part of the Borough and in May Borough Chairman Charles Powell wrote the Division of Lands in regards to his previous letter. Director Bell's reply in June informs Mr. Powell that the State has now received title and there would be a delay to issuance of patent to the Borough. '" Minutes of Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Meeting December 3, 1964 11 James W. Scott, Manager, Anchorage District and Land Office in a letter to Mr. Bell December 23, 1864. 13 Roscoe E. Bell, Director Lands Disposal in a letter to the City of Kodiak January 21, 1965 7 Although the direction was clearly indicated in these communications a sale was not completed by the Borough. Indications are the purchase price of the parcel was to be $ 830. By March 1966 the Elks had not acquired the parcel and request a 25 year lease from the Borough. December 1966 the Borough's attorney had determined that the Borough received patent from the State and the Elks could pursue the lease. A series of memos in 1967 indicate the apparent plan to auction the property. And for some reason the auction was never held. On April 10, 1968 the Elks signed their first lease with the Kodiak Island Borough for Tract A lots 1 & 2 U.S. Survey 3465. This was 4 years after initial negotiations with the BLM began and 2 years after applying to the Kodiak Island Borough. This lease was for five years and provided uses in Section 2: "... Boy Scouts, girl scout, and organizations of similar nature for their camping and outdoor requirements and provide public picnic and playground areas there on. "' Almost immediately after the lease is signed the buildings on the site are condemned by the building inspector. The Scouts are not able to hold meetings there any longer. The site is only usable for camping and picnics. In 1974 the Elks Lodge was notified that the lease expired in 1973 and there were indications that the Borough did not wish to enter into a new lease. Brother Paul "Smokey" Stover wrote to Exalted Ruler. Gene Sundburg of his concerns and willingness to testify before the Assembly on this matter. In his letter "Smokey" reflects on how the property first became available for Scouting. " H. W. Valen, Exalted Ruler in a letter to Kodiak Island Borough March 19, 1966 " Lease between the Kodiak Island Borough and the Kodiak Elks Lodge BPOE 1772 dated 10 April, 1968 8 On April 10, 1975 The Elks signed a new 5 years lease with the Kodiak Island Borough. The lease fee had been lowered from the previous $ 83.00 per year to $ 10.00 per year. The parcel remained the same but uses were altered to conform with the service recreational zoning of the Borough Code of Ordinances." In 1980 the Elks Lodge again began negotiations for continuance of the lease. Substantial alterations to the parcel had been proposed, a preliminary subdivision planned, sale was eminent. The Elks again negotiate with the Borough and were able to prevent the subdivision and sale.In 1983 the Kodiak Elks Lodge entered into a 25 year lease with the Kodiak Island Borough." Two major changes from previous leases are made: the land area is reduced to 4 Acres on part of Lot 1A, the use section changed to allow public access to the lot and improvements. The 4 acre section is not defined in the lease agreement as the Borough is to provide a survey of the parcel. As yet the property has not been surveyed to determine the actual boundaries of the lease. The exhibit "B" of the lease document indicates a 4 acres lot with only one definable point. In 1985 the Kodiak Island Borough as part of a major utility installation program placed sewer and water lines adjacent to the property. Currently these utilities are stubbed into the lot and accessible. 1' Lease between the Kodiak Island Borough and the Kodiak Elks Lodge BPOE 1772 dated 10 April, 1975 16 Lease between the Kodiak Island Borough and the Kodiak Elks Lodge BPOE 1772 dated 9 TRANSFERRING TITTLE DILEMMA The sequence of events that transpired from 1954 to 1966 disclose the transfer from the Federal Government to the Kodiak Island Borough. These events can only be examined in retrospect to the documentation available at this time. There lies in this search of letters, applications, relinquishments, and minutes a depiction of the process by which tittle to the site was transferred from the Bureau of Land Management to its current possessor. The property was acquired by purchase of Alaska by the United States from Russia. One of the first actions recorded took an undescribed 16 acres and identified it specifically as Lots 1A & 2A of U.S. Survey 3465, Sections 21 & 28, Township 27 South, Range 19 West, Seward Meridian. The Recreation and Public Service Act made the site available for various uses. The Western Council, Boy Scouts of America applied for a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) in 1954. This began the series of vested interest in the parcel. The Alaska State Hood Act, Public Law 85 -508, July 7, 1958 contained provisions in Section 6(b) of the Act through which the State of Alaska would be able to obtain a grant of lands which were not otherwise claimed, leased, etc. The regional director of BLM in August, 1963 rejects the application of the Western Council. Appeals procedure follow and in May 1964 the Secretary of the Interior vacates the decision of the regional director. The lands to be made available for public use and Scouting. During the interim of the appeals procedure, the State of Alaska created Alaska Statutes Sec. 07.10.150 and Sec. 07.10.160 in 1963. Municipalities would be allowed to select lands from the State. The City of Kodiak makes application for the property" as does Kodiak Island Borough under these provisions. 1' Application Anch. 032348 Case Type 2740 BLM 16 Article 2, Transitional Assistance of the Temporary and Special Acts, 1963. 1' ADL 25982 2° ADL 28187 10 The State selects Tract A of U.S. Survey 3465 as part of its land entitlement. A previously granted SLUP to Western Council, BSA creates the basic problem: they have a vested interest in the site and transfer to any other party is precluded. The State in February of 1963 issued a letter to BLM of non - objection to the land being transferred to the Scouts thereby withdrawing the land from their selection. While the Elks have applied for the site under a SLUP issued in 1962." It appears that in 1963 five separate applications are in existence on the parcel; these are by Western Council, Kodiak Elks, The State of Alaska, City of Kodiak, and Kodiak Island Borough. Paramount to the issue is the Secretary of the Interior's review of the denial to Western Council being appealed to his office. The decision of the Secretary of the Interior to uphold the application of the Western Council affects the disposal of the site. Complying with his remanding the case to the Anchorage office, BLM must decide the appropriate use of the land as well as the appropriate entity to possess the property. Western Council and Kodiak Elks are convinced by the BLM agents to relinquish their interest in the property on the premise that the Elks will be given the property once clear tittle is allowed to pass from BLM to the State and in turn to Kodiak Island Borough. After the relinquishments are given by the Elks and Western Council the patent to the State is approved. An extremely complex issue for BLM is foreseen as closed. The patent contains no reservations or limitations to the use of the site for recreational or Scouting uses. The issue now becomes the dilemma of transferring the property from the State to whom they chose as an appropriate party. The City and Borough had agreed to allow the Elks ownership of the site. The State now owns a parcel they previously disclaimed. Concerned with the classification as public use the State relies on the opinions of various staff to decide disposition. Several of the staff, concerned with the public use aspect, determine that public use could be best guaranteed with the transfer to a municipality. Accordingly the agency allows the property to be patented to the Kodiak Island Borough in 1966. No reservations concerning either public use or Scout use are contained in the patent. 21 Application Anch. 027966 Case Type 2740 BLM 12 Kodiak Island Borough receives patent from the State of Alaska and for unknown reasons does not transfer the property to the Elks for use of the Scouts. The Elks request a lease on the site and are delayed in the application procedure while an auction is planned. Again for unknown reasons the auction does not take place. The application for lease is approved in April 1968. Kodiak Island Borough as current owner of the property has no obligation to continue the use of the property for scouting or public recreational. Although the property is zoned service recreational and uses must conform to that classification it is a simple matter of rezoning the site to alter the uses allowable. 13 SALIENT POINTS The most dominant issue. lies in the decisions to transfer the property from one agency to another. The applications for one parcel by five separate entities created a complex problem for the Anchorage Director of the Bureau of Land Management. His actions in 1962 of denying the application of the Western Council of the Boy Scouts of America makes his position on the land quite evident. He believed the land was best suited for other uses or users. The Secretary of the Interior reversed the Directors actions and directed an equitable use of the land between Scouting and public use. Was transfer to the State of Alaska the most reasonable solution? It did solve the district administrators problems to have the applications of the Western Council and the Kodiak Elks withdrawn. Without contention on the parcel the State had a clear avenue to acquire the site. Was the plan to transfer to the State then Borough then Elks an easy approach to solving the predicament of the director or a fair and equitable solution to the problem? Were there other dispositions of the land through SLUP's that could have ended the quandary ? Should the patent reflect use limitations in one form or another ? The State acquired the parcel and illustrated its concerns for future public uses. Could they have taken steps to insure the uses by placing restrictions in the patent? With all the controversy and interested parties was the application by Kodiak Island Borough appropriate? Was the intent of the State Legislature with regard to former claimants and users so vague as to not preclude the application of the Western Council's and Elks SLUP ? Kodiak Island Borough acquired a parcel they previously expected to be granted to the Elks. Further their actions indicate intentions of transfer to the Elks after receiving patent. Why did the transfer never take place? Why was the planned auction of the parcel canceled? An auction to any private party could not have guaranteed an intent to maintain a parcel on the basis of zoning. No current requirement dictates the future use of the site. Zoning changes at the discretion of the Borough. As a freehold estate the property will continue to be subject to the owners choice of uses and sale. The property has been declared surplus to the need of the Borough in 1968. Given the limited land resources of the Borough in this area it is highly probable that the property will be subdivided and sold to private owners. 14 INTENT OF ELKS The prime reason for presenting this historical perspective of the events that happened between the years 1941 and today is resolving of several issues. Why it may never be exactly determined how it happened, through a series of events, bureaucracy removed the most valued assets granted to Troop 625. A parcel of land was made available' for their use through a Special Land Use Permit (SLOP). Indications are that the most probable results should have been the transfer of the parcel from the Federal Government to the users at the termination of the 25 year period. The intentions of Congress to make lands available for these activities was paramount in the Recreational and Public Service Act. Examining the series of events as established by the information available leads to several key questions. Why did the Bureau of Land Management patent the parcel to the State of Alaska in light of the directions of the Secretary of the Interior in 1964? Why did the State of Alaska change it's intention from February 1963 from allowing the parcel to be transferred to the Elks and allow subsequent transfer to itself? Why were the actions of the Kodiak Island Borough not followed and the parcel given to the Boy Scouts upon receipt of patent by the Borough? Why was the public auction of the property planned by the Kodiak Island Borough in 1967 never completed? Each of these questions provide open ended issues that can not receive exacting examination. The issue can be resolved, providing for an equitable use of the site. Possible solutions providing equity to Troop 625 are: 1. Vacation of patent 50 -66 -0495 by the Secretary of the Interior with subsequent patent to the Troop. 2. Vacation of patent 435 by the State of Alaska with subsequent patent to the Troop. 3. Transfer of U.S. Survey 3465 to the Troop by Kodiak Island Borough in either fee simple or fee simple defeasible. 4. Transfer of one half U.S. Survey 3465 to the Troop in fee simple or fee simple defeasible with the remaining one half becoming dedicated public recreational lands, by the Kodiak Island Borough. 15 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE INTENDED SALE IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER THROUGH MAY 1768' MAY 27,1964 Letter from Edward G. Ogborn, Exalted Ruler to Bureau of Land Management regarding the apparent agreement to have the Borough transfer the tittle to the Elks and the relinquishment of the Special Use Permit in "Good Faith ". JUNE 18, 1964 Letter from John E. Friberg, Acting Selection Officer to Bureau of Land Management informing them of the relinquishment of the Elks to enable the State to acquire the land. JUNE 26, 1964 Letter from Alfred P. Steger, Chief, Lands Section, Bureau of Land Management to Kodiak Elks Lodge explaining the decision of the Secretary of The Interior and further detailing the State of Alaska's letter of February 1, 1963 to BLM stating no objection to the acquisition of the property by the Boy Scouts. JULY 19, 1964 Letter from Pete Ramaglia, Chairman, Board of Trustees, BPOE 1772 to Mr. Alfred P Steger, Chief, Lands Section BLM forwarding the completed relinquishment form requested by BLM. NOVEMBER 9, 1964 Letter from Bob Smith, Scout Executive to Mr. James W. Scott, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management regarding the division of the land per the suggestion of the Secretary of the Interior. NOVEMBER 25, 1964 Minutes of meeting of the Common Council of the City of Kodiak at which the land is turned over to the Elks. DECEMBER 3, 1964 Minutes of a meeting of the Borough Assembly and the City Council at which the agreement is made to allow the BLM to transfer the property to the Elks. DECEMBER 4, 1964 Minutes of the Kodiak Elks Lodge 1772 at which the Lodge approves the purchase. DECEMBER 9, 1964 Letter from Paul "Smokey" Stover to Mr. Bob Smith, Scout Executive, Western Council informing him of the results of the meeting with Mr. Scott and Mr. Steger of BLM favoring the application pending sanction by the Kodiak Island Borough and City of Kodiak. DECEMBER 23, 1964 Letter from James W. Scott, Manager, Anchorage District and Land Office reflecting the withdrawal of the Western Council, Boy Scouts application. 16 JANUARY 5, 1965 Letter from Charles A. Powell, Chairman, Kodiak Island Borough to Roscoe E. Bell, Director, Division of Lands detailing the actions of the Assembly on December 23, 1964 JANUARY 6, 1965 Letter from Ralph S. Jones, City Manager to Mr. Roscoe Bell, Director, Division of Lands, Department of Natural Resources favoring the position of the Elks obtaining the site from BLM and the Division of Lands. JANUARY 11, 1965 Memorandum from Kenneth H. Hallback, Classifications Officer to L. T. Main, Lands Disposal Officer regarding classification of the property as public recreational and suggesting the lands be managed by the Elks. JANUARY 13, 1965 Memorandum from Dale P. Tubbs, Area Forester to A. Earl Plourde, State Forester regarding the classification by BLM as recreational land and suggesting Borough selection. JANUARY 14, 1965 Memorandum from Theodore G. Smith, Parks & Recreational Officer to A. Earl Plourde, State Forester recommending classification as public recreation for the site. JANUARY 15, 1965 Memorandum from A. Earl Plourde, State Forester to L. T. Main, Land Disposal Officer regarding site. JANUARY 21, 1965 Letter from Roscoe E. Bell, Director, Anchorage District and Land Office to City Manager Ralph Jones informing the City of the classification of the lots as public recreational by B.L.M. and the intention of the State to classify the land in a similar fashion. MAY 18, 1965 Letter from Borough Chairman Charles Powell to Roscoe E. Bell asking the status of his letter of January 5, 1965. MAY 25, 1965 Patent 50 -65 -0636 from The United States of America to the State of Alaska. JUNE 8, 1965 Memorandum from Kenneth Hallback, Classifications to L. T. Main, Disposal regarding patent receipt by the State. JUNE 15, 1965 Letter from Roscoe E. Bell, Director , Anchorage District and Land Office to Charles Powell, Kodiak Island Borough informing him of the patent received by the State and the availability of the lands for Borough selection and a subsequent transfer to the E11cs at their pleasure. e - c A - -. MARCH 19, 1965 Letter from H. W. Valen, Exalted Ruler to the Kodiak Island Borough requesting a 25 year lease on the parcel. 17 JUNE 22, 1965 Application of the Kodiak Island Borough for the tract. SEPTEMBER 22, 1965 Letter from Roscoe E. Bell, Director to Kodiak Island Borough approving the application for the land. NOVEMBER 10, 1965 Memorandum from Kenneth H. Hallback, Classifications Officer to John E. Friberg, Selections Officer regarding the approval of the Borough Selection on September 22, 1965 and recommending processing of the selection. NOVEMBER 25,1966 Letter from Roscoe E. Bell to Kodiak Island Borough transmitting the patent from the State. NOVEMBER 25, 1966 Paten No. 435 by the State of Alaska to Kodiak Island Borough. NOVEMBER 28, 1966 Letter from L. T. Main, Lands Disposal Officer to City of Kodiak notifying them of termination of case and patent to Kodiak Island Borough. DECEMBER 16, 1966 Letter from Roy H. Madsen, Attorney at Law to Board of Trustees BPOE 1772 regarding the application to the Borough for lease of the site. DECEMBER 26, 1966 Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission, Kodiak Island Borough declaring the rezoning to recreational and public use JANUARY 5, 1967 Minutes of a meeting of the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly rezoning Tract A and passing an ordinance concerning service and public use. OCTOBER 9, 1967 Letter from Sally Hendrix, Secretary to Mr. David Ruskin, Attorney at Law indicating the advertisement of the property for public auction. OCTOBER 11, 1967 Letter from R.A. Valkama, Borough Assessor to Mr. David Ruskin, Attorney at Law determining the appraised value of the property at a total of $ 830.00 JANUARY 18, 1968 Minutes of a meeting of the Kodiak Island Borough at which the site is declared surplus to Borough needs. APRIL 10, 1968 Lease between the Kodiak Island Borough and the Kodiak Elks Lodge 1772. MAY 21, 1968 Letter from the building inspector to Lawrence Anderson declaring the condemnation of the structures on Island Lake. 18 Anch. 056380, S -979 used by Department of Natural Resources (could not be located as such) Anch. 027966, SLUP 20.1 Case type 2920 used by the Bureau of Land Management (apparent Elks file) Anch. 032348 Case type 2740 used by the Bureau of Land Management (apparent Western Council file) ADL 25982 used by the Alaska Division of Lands (apparent City use number) ADL 28187 used by the Alaska Division of Lands (Kodiak Island Borough file) Patent 50 -65 -0636 patent to State of Alaska by Federal Government Patent 50 -66 -0495 patent to ¢tate of Alaska by Federal Government (supplement to patent 50 -65 -0636) Patent 435 patent to Kodiak Island Borough by State of Alaska (November 25, 1966) GS 979 AGENCY FILE NUMBERS IN HOUSE FILE NUMBER FOR DNR (used to locate KIB file) 19 CONTACTED PERSONS /AGENCIES UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, ANCHORAGE DISTRICT OFFICE Land status /history Reference person Dennis Benson 271 -5960 Permit section Reference person David Mobraten 267 -1326 STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, LAND SECTION LAND STATUS Reference person Arlan D. Yong TITLE ADMINISTRATION Reference person Roxanne KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Community Development Bud Casidy 486 -5736 General Branch Civil Archives Division National Archives & Records Service (GSA) Washington, D.C. 20409 The Office of Senator Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 20 561 -2020 762 -2281 762 -2322