Kodiak Island Borough coastal management program progress report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH

@J COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Progress Report June 1981

10, 11
'00*

_9_ WN

- - ------------------------------- . .......

A0 4-

4-J

rl
U
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
1600

4791 Business Park Blvd., Suite I
Anchorage, Alaska 99503

KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH

July 2, 1981 Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 - Box 1246
KODIAK, ALASKA 99615
Honorable Borough Mayor and Assembly:

The accompanying documents represent the Kodiak Island Borough Phase I
Coastal Management Program Progress Report. The program has complied
with all the contractual obligations contained in the Contract for Ser-
vices of March 1980 (as amended) between the Division of Community
Planning, Department of Community and Regional Affairs and the Kodiak
Island Borough. The documents form the basis for the Kodiak Island
Borough Coastal Management Plan.

The Phase I Progress Report consists of a text volume, a map volume,
and two technical appendices. (Technical Appendix 1, Village Public
Participation Program and Technical Appendix 2, OCS Technical Reviews
and Comments, are available upon request.) In addition, "community
profiles" for the six major villages in the Kodiak Island Borough have
been completed through the program. The profiles for Akhiok, Karluk,
Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, And Port Lions will be available in
August. The Phase II program, emphasizing implementation, finalizing
draft portions of the Phase I program, and continuing public education
and involvement, will complete the "Public Hearing Draft" of the
Kodiak Island Borough's Coastal Management Plan. The Public Hearing
Draft is scheduled for distribution in early November.

The Phase I Progress Report is the result of a number of people's work
and cooperation. The Kodiak Island Borough,had two major sub-contrac-
tors for the program. Wayne Marshall was the project manager for the
Kodiak Area Native Association Village Public Participation subcontract.
Dr. Richard Firth was the project manager for Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Who prepared the document and its contents, with the.exce'ption of the
"Issues, Goals and Objectives" and "Public Involvement" sections. A
great many others were involved to some degreein the preparation of
this Phase I Progress Report, and they deserve thanks for the.time they
4Z,14 donated to the program.

The main purpose of the Phase I Progr ess Report is to provide substan-
tive documentation for review and comment prior to the final preparation
of the Kodiak Island Borough Public Hearing Draft Coastal Management
Plan. We are requesting that all comments from indiViduals and groups
be received by August 21, 1981. The comment period for Kodiak Island
Borough residents and organizations is open until October 2, 1981. The
additional comment period for Borough residents and organizations is an
effort to allow people to review and comment on the Phase I Progress
'Report, after the major salmon fishing season is over.

This Phase I Progress Report constitutes the majority of the Kodiak
Island Borough Coastal Management Plan. It should be reviewed seriously
% by all concerned.

Sincerely,

Linda L. Freed
L

CZM Coordinator

KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PUBLIC OFFICIALS

MAYOR
R. Danforth Ogg

ASSEMBLY
Phillip Anderson
Scott Arndt
David Herrnsteen
Dennis Murray
James Peotter
David Wakefield
Lorne White

ACTING MANAGER
Arnold T. Hansen

Alaska Coastal Management Program

The preparation of this report was financed in part by funds from
the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Commerce, administered by the Division of
Community Planning, Department of Community and Regional
Affairs.

CZM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

Rober t Amesbury/Darwin Rennewanz
Leslie Anderson/Gary Haines
William Anderson
Tom Azumbrado
Forrest Blau
Tim Blott
Mike Brechan
Tim Hill
Wayne Marshall
Dave Nease/Laurel Peterson
Hank Pennington
James Peott6r
Thomas Peterson
Gordon Ryan/Bill Bivin
Mary Jo Simmons
Richard Sims
Jeffrey Stephan
Gene Sundberg
Noreen Thompson/Bob Thomas
Nell Waage

KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION OEDP

Duke Delgado - Ouzinkie
David Eluska - Akhiok
Ron Lind - Karluk
Patricia Lukin - Port Lions
Arthur Panamaroff Larsen Bay
Dorothy Pestrikoff Old Harbor

Active until February 1981.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.2 ISSUES 1-2

1.2.1 FISHERIES 1-2

1.2.2 LAND OWNERSHIP STATUS 1-2

1-2.
Uncertain Land Ownership Status
Land Use Restriction 1-2

1.2.3 ENERGY RESOURCES AND FACILITIES 1-3

Oil and Gas Development Activities 1-3
Hydroelectric Resource Development 1-3
1.2.4 TIMBER HARVESTING 1-4

1.2.5 RECREATION/TOURISM 1-4

1.2.6 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES 1-5

Facilities 1-5
Service 1-5

1.2.7 SUBSISTENCE 1-5

1.2.8 GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 1-6

1.3 GOALS 1-6

1.4 OBJECTIVES 1-8

1.4.1 PUBLIC SAFETY 1-8

Subsistence 1-9
Resource Enhancement Protection 1-9
Land and Water Uses 1-10
1.4.2 ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY/DIVERSIFICATION 1-11

Fisheries 1-11
Timber/Agriculture 1-12
Manufacturing 1-12
Mining 1-13
Energy Development 1-13
Recreation/Tourism 1-14
Transporation 1-14
General Development 1-15

1.4.3 REGIONAL INTERESTS 1-16

1.4.4 PERMITS AND GOVERNMENT CONTROL 1-16

2.0 DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

3.0 RESOURCE INVENTORY

3.1 NATURAL RESOUR CE INVENTORY 3-1

3.1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3-'l

3.1.2 OFFSHORE AREAS 3-3

Definition 3-3
General Description 3-3
Fisheries Resources 3-4
3.1.3 ESTUARIES 3-20

Definition 3-20
General Description 3-22
Fisheries Resource 3-22
Marine Mammals 3-26
Birds 3-27

3.1.4 BARRIER ISLANDS AND LAGOONS 3-31

Definition 3-31
General Description 3-31
Marine and Upland Mammals 3-33
Finfish and Shellfish 3-33
Birds 3-33

3.1.5 WETLANDS AND TIDEFLATS 3-34

Definition 3-34
General Description 3-34
Birds 3-35
Marine Mammals 3-35
Upland Mammals 3-37

3.1.6 ROCKY ISLANDS AND SEACLIFFS 3-37

Definition 3-37
Marine Mammals 3-37
Birds 3-38
3.1.7 EXPOSED HIGH-ENERGY COASTS 3-39

Definition 3-39
General Description, 3-40
Biological Resources 3-40
Mammals 3-41
Birds 3-43

3.1.8 RIVERS, STREAMS, AND LAKES 3-43
Definition 3-43
General Description 3-44
Fisheries Resources 3-44
Mammals and Birds 3-53
3.1.9 IMPORTANT UPLAND HABITAT 3-55

Definition 3-55
General Information 3-55
Upland Mammals 3-56
Birds 3-61
3.1.10 LITERATURE CITED 3-63
3.2 PHYSICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY 3-66
3.2.1 METE09OLOGY 3-66
3.2.2 AIR QUALITY 3-68
3.2.3 WATER RESOURCES INVENTORY 3-68
Surface-Water Resources 3-68
Ground-Water Resources 3-73

3.2.4 LITERATURE CITED 3-76
3.3 GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS 3-78

3.3.1 OF GEOLOGIC ORIGIN 3-78

Introduction 3-78
Geologic Setting 3-80
Geologic Hazards 3-87
Site-Specific Geologic Hazards Analysis 3-97

3.3.2 OF OCEANIC ORIGIN 3-100

Oceanographic Setting of the Kodiak Region 3-100
Oceanic Hazards 3-102

3.3.3 OF HYDROLOGIC ORIGIN 3-117

Riverine Flooding 3-117
Stream Bank Erosion 3-120
Icings 3-121

3.3.4 GEOLOGIC AND OCEANOGRAPHIC HAZARDS LITERATURE 3-123
CITED AND REFERENCES
3.4 HUMAN RESOUR CES INVENTORY 3-130
3.4.1 CULTURAL/HISTORIC SITES 3-130

AHRS Site Kod.207 3-130
AHRS Site Kod 137 3-131
AHRS Site.Kod 124 3-131

AHRS Site KOD 195 3-132
AHRS Site Kod 132 3-132
AHRS Site Kod Oll 3-133
Marine Archaeology 3-134

3.4.2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 3-134

3.43 LAND OWNERSHIP AND LAND USE 3-138

Kodiak Island Borough Land Ownership Patterns 3-138
Public Interest Lands 3-147
Land Use and Management 3-148

3.4.4 RECREATION RESOURCES 3-150

Primary Recreation Attractions 3-151
Recreation Use Characteristics 3-155
Recreation Facilities and Management Responsibilities. 3-157
Use Conflicts 3-162

3.4.5 TRANSPORTATION 3-163

City of Kodiak and Vicinity 3-164
Afognak Island 3-16.9
Ahiok 3-169
Larsen Bay 3-170
Old Harbor 3-170
Ouzinkie 3-171
Port Lions 3-171

3.4.6 ENERGY FACILITIES AND RESOURCES 3-172

Existing Facilities 3-173
Petroleum 3-177

3.4.7 COASTAL ACCESS 3-180

3.4.8 HOUSING 3-182

City of Kodiak and Vicinity 3-182
Akhiok 3-183
Karluk 3-183
Larsen Bay 3-183
Old Harbor 3-183
Ouzinkie 3-184
Port Lions 3-184
3.4.9 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 3-184

City of Kodiak and Vicinity 3-184
Akhiok 3-186
Karluk 3-187
Larsen Bay 1-187
Old Harbor 3-188
Ouzinkie 3-189
Port Lions 3-191

vii

3.4.10 ECONOMY 3-192
Fish Procession 3-192
Fishing 3-197
Shellfish 3-198
Forest Products 3-212
Agriculture 3-216
Metallic Minerals 3-217
Nonmetallic Minerals 3-219
3.4.11 EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME 3-219
Village Employment and Income 3-223
3.4.12 SUBSISTENCE 3-229
City of Kodiak and Vicinity 3-230
Akhiok 3-230
Karluk 3-231
Larsen Bay 3-232
Ouzinkie. 3-233
Port Lions 3-234

3.4.13 EDUCATION 3-235
Borough 3-235
City of Kodiak 3-236
Akhiok 3-236
Karluk 3-238
Old Harbor 3-238
Ouzinkie 3-239
Port Lions 3-239
3.4.14 RUMAN RESOURCES LITERATURE CITED 3-240

4.0 RESOURCE ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1

4.2 NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS 4-3

4.2.1 FISHERIES RESOURCES 4-3
Shellfish 4-4
Finfish 4-15
4.2.2 WATERFOWL 4-26

4.2.3 MARINE MAMMALS 4-26

4.2.4 UPLAND GAME 4-27

4.2.5 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4-33

4.3 WATER RESOURCES ANALYSIS 4-38

4.3.1 SURFACE-WATER RESOURCES 4-38

City of Kodiak and Vicinity 4-39
Akhiok 4-39
Karluk 4-39

viii

Larsen Bay 4-40
Old Harbor 4-40
Ouzinkie 4-40
Port Lions 4-41

4.3.2 GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 4-41

City of Kodiak and Vicinity 4-42
Akhiok 4-42
Karluk 4-42
Larsen Bay 4-42
Old Harbor 4-42
Ouzinkie 4-43
Port Lions 4-43

4.4 GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS ANALYSIS 4-43

4.4.1 GEOLOGICHAZARDS 4-43

Seismic Constraints 4-43
Mass Wasting Constraints 4-44

4.4.2 OCEANIC HAZARDS 4-45

Seismic Constraints 4-45
Coastal Erosion Constraints 4-45
Storm Constraints 4-46
Summary of Geophysical Hazards 4-46

[email protected] RIVERINE FLOODING 4-46
City of Kodiak and Vicinity 4-48
Akhiok 4-48
Karluk 4-@48
Larsen Bay 4-48
Old Harbor 4-49
Ouzinkie 4-49
Port Lions 4-49

4.4.4 STREAM BANK EROSION 4-49

4.4.5 ICINGS 4-49

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS 4-50

4.5.1 POPULATION 4-50

LAND OWNERSHIP, USE, AND MANAGEMENT 4-53
Land Ownership 4-53
Land Use 4-53

4.5.3 RECREATION 4-55

Activities .4-55
Management 4-55
Facilities and Responsibilities 4-55

Akhiok 4-56
Kodiak 4-56
Karluk 4-57
Larsen Bay 4-57
Old Harbor 4-57
Ouzinkie 4-58
Port Lions 4-58

4.5.4 TRANSPORTATION 4-59

Akhiok 4-60
Karluk 4-61
Kodiak 4-61
Larsen Bay 4-62
Old Harbor 4-62
Ouzinkie 4-62
Port Lions 4-63
4.5.5 ENERGY FACILITIES 4.-63
4.5.6 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 4-65
4.5.7 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 4-65

4.5.8 SUBSISTENCE 4-70

4.6 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA CLASSIFICATIONS 4-71
4.6.1 DEVELOPMENT AREAS 4-72
4.6.2 DEVELOPMENT WITH RESTRICTIONS 4-72
4.6.3 CONSERVATION AREAS 4-73

5.0 SUBJECT USE, POLICIES,.P.ROPER.
AND IMPROPER USES

5.1 SUBJECT USES 5-1
5.1.1 USES OF STATE CONCERN 5-2
5.2 PROPER AND IMPROPER USES 5-3
5.3 DRAFT POLICIES 5-4
5.3.1 GENERAL POLICIES 5-5
Land and Water Activities 5-5
Consistency and Coordination 5-5
Implementation 5-6
5.3.2 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES 5=6
Coastal Development 5-6
Commercial Development 5-8

Residential Development 5-8
Energy Facilities 5-9
Recreationjourism, and Natural Setting 5-10
Transportation and Utility Routes 5-11
Geophysical Hazards 5-12
Coastal Access 5-14
Fisheries and Seafood Processing 5-14
Mining and Mineral Processing 5-15
Timber and.Timber Processing 5-15
Archaeological/Historical Resources 5-15
Air and Water.Quality 5-16
Resource Enhancement and Protection 5-17
Subsistence 5-18

5.4 _DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATION POLICIES 5-19

5.4.1 CONSERVATION AREAS 5-19

5.4.2 DEVELOPMENT WITH RESTRICTIONS 5-19

.5.4.3 DEVELOPMENT AREAS 5-20

6.0 AREAS MERITING SPECIAL ATTENTION

6.1 AMSA LITERATURE CITED 6-6

7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-1

7.2 SELECT COMMITTEES 7-2

7.3 PUBLIC MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS 7-5

7.4 SURVEYS 7-6

7.5 MEDIA CONTACTS 7-14

SUM MARY 7-15

APPENDIX A PROJECT TEAM

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

Generalized life history tables for commercially 3-7
important crabs and shrimp in Kodiak area.

3.2 Timetable of Pacific salmon life histories. 3-18

3.3 Marine sightings of northern (Steller),sea lions 3-21
by season.

3.4 Winter densities of Kodiak coastal birds. 3-32

3.5 Relative biotic cover at intertidal sampling sites. 3-42

3.6 Glossary of geologic terms. .3-79
3.7 Plate tectonic map. 3-81
3.8 Major earthquakes and seismic gaps in southern Alaska. 3-83
3.9 General geologic map of Kodiak Island Group. 3-85
3.10 Legend for general geologic map of Kodiak Island 3-86
Group.
3.11 Preliminary geologic map - Kodiak. 3-89
3.12 Preliminary geologic map - Old Harbor. 3-90
3.13 Preliminary geologic map - Akhiok. 3,91
3.14 Preliminary geologic map - Karluk. 3-92
3.15 Preliminary geologic map - Larsen Bay. 3-93
3.16 Preliminary geologic map - Port Lions. 3-94
3.17 Preliminary geologic map - Ouzinkie. 3-95

3.18 Surface water circulation in the Gulf of Alaska. 3-101

3.19 Kodiak Coastal erosion from sea wave action. 3-108

3.20 City of Kodiak. Coastal erosion from sea wave action.3-109
3.21 City of Kodiak - Womens Bay. Coastal erosion from 3-110
sea wave action.

3.22 Old Harbor. Coastal erosion from sea wave action. 3-111.

3.23 Akhtok. Coastal erosion from sea wave action. 3-112

3.24 Karluk. Coastal erosion from sea wave action. 3-113

3.25 Larsen Bay. Coastal erosion from sea wave action. 3-114

3.26 Ouzinkie. Coastal erosion from sea wave action. 3-115

3.27 Port Lions. Coastal erosion from sea wave action. 3-116

xii

List of Figures

4.1 King crab reproduction areas I through VI, king crab 4-11
schools most heavily exploited by the fishery in the
Kodiak Management District, and areas of high
commercial catches of king crab by U.S. fishermen,
1969-75.

4.2 1979 Sac roe harvest. 4-.7

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

3.1 Marine fish classified by habitat. 3-5
3.2 Life history characteristics of principal groundfish 3-11
species in the Gulf of Alaska.
3.3 Abundance and habitat of commercially important 3-12
groundfish in norther Shelikof Strait.
3.4 Life history data for five species of Pacific salmon. 3-17
3.5 Marine mammals of the Western Gulf of Alaska. 3-19

3.6 Percent biomass composition of epibenthic organisms 3-23
trawled in Izhut and Kiliuda bays, 1978.
3.7 Number, weight, and density of majo r epifaunal 3-24
invertebrate phyla of Alitak and Ugak bays: June,
July, and August 1976 and March 1977.
3.8 Whale sightings around the Kodiak Islands, 1975-1980. 3-28
3.9 Seasonal avian utilization of Kodiak Archipelago 3-29
bays and estuarine waters.
3.10 Sediment characteristics, density of Siliqua patula 3-36
(razor clam), and taxonomic diversity richness
(counts) in the Kodiak area.

3.11 Selected Kodiak area peak salmon escapement counts 3-46
for 1979.

3.12 1979 Red salmon escapements to major and minor systems.3-51
3.13 Present and potential ADF&G rehabilitation and 3-52
enhancement projects within Kodiak Island Borough.
.3.14 Beaver colony distribution. 3-54
3.15 Climate information forKodiak Island Borough. 3-67
3.16 Man-made reservoirs and storage tank capacities 3-70
for the City of Kodiak water supply system.
3.17 Selected well data in the vicinity of the City 3-75
of Kodiak.

xiv

List of Tables (Continued)
Table Titl e Page
3.18 Tsunamis observed within the Kodiak Archipelago. 3-106
3.19 Damage sustained during 1964 earthquake and 3-107
resulting tusnami.
3.20 Maximum known floods at U.S. Geological Survey gaging 3-118
stations in Kodiak Island Borough.

3.21 Population of Kodiak Island Borough and village 3-135
populations.
3.22 General pouplation characteristics: Kodiak Census 3-137
Division and the City of Kodiak, 1970.
3.23 Sport fish harvest by species, Kodak Region, 1977, 3-153
1978, and 1979.
3.24 Kodiak region angler use characteristics. 3-156
3.25 Kodak Island Borough air facilities. 3-165
3.26 Value of the 1979 Kodiak area salmon fishery-.to 3-194
processors.
3.27 1979 Kodak area herring processors summary. 3-195
3.28 Historic commercial king crab catch and effort for 3-199
the Kodiak registration area, 1960-61 through 1980-
81.fishing seasons.
3.29 Commerical catch and effort for Tanner crab, Kodiak 3-201
Management District, 1967-1980.
3.30 Dungeness crab commercial catch and effort by fishing 3-202
year for the Kodiak Management District, 1962-1980.
3.31 Historic commercial shrimp catch and effort for the 3-203
Kodiak District of Westward Statistical Area,
1960 through 1980-1981 fishing season.
3.32 Commercial catch, effect, and value for octopus in 3-205
Kodiak Management Area, 1977-1980.
3.33 Historiccommercial catch, effort and value of 3-206
weatervane scallops, Kodak Management District, 1967-
1980, excluding 1977 and 1978.
3.34 Historic commercial razor clam catch, effort and 3-207
value for Kodiak Management District, 1960-1980.

3.35 Value to fishermen of salmon catch, Kodiak area, 3-208
1978 and 1979.

3.36 Kodiak area salmon catch by species in pounds of fish. 3-209
3.37 Kodaik area herring harvest, 1952-1979. 3-211

List of Tables

3.38 Forested and nonforested land area. 3-213

3.39 1979 Kodiak division employment 3-220
3.40 Kodiak Division nonagricultural employment and 3-222
payroll industry series, second quarter, 1980.
3.41 Types of village employment. 3-.225
4.1 Dungeness crab commercial harvest (in pounds) by 4-5
fishing section, Kodiak Management District (Kodiak
Archipelago only), 1974-1980.
4.2 ADF&G Tanner crab sections and subsections adjacent 4-7
to the Kodiak Archipelago.
4.3 Tanner crab catch in pounds and metric tons by 4-8
fishing sections for the Kodiak Management District,
1972-73 throug 1979-80 fishing seasons.
4.4 Commercial red king crab harvest by biological stock 4-10
(number and pounds), 1960-61 through 1980-81, Kodiak
Management Area, Alaska.
4.5 Comparison of Kodiak District trawl shrimp harvest by 4-13
fishing section for the 1973-74 through 1980-81
fishin g seasons.
4.6 HistorIic commercial catch of weathervane scallops, 4-14
Kodiak Management District, 1967-80.
4.7 Kodiak arearoe herring harvest, 1964-1980. 4-16
4.8 Catch of groundfish in 1979 in the Kodiak Management 4-19
Area, by species and month.
4.9 Kodiak area salmon catch by species, 1948-80. 4-22
4.10 Kodiak area subsistence fisher, 1962-79. 4-24
4.11 Kodiak area sport fish harvest and effort by fisheries 4-25
and species, 1979.
4.12 Fall 1980 drawing permits for bear 4-28
4.13 Distribution of brown bear harvest in Unit 8, 1979. 4-29
4.14 Fall 1980 drawing permits for Kodiak mountain goats. 4-30
4*11 1911,-10 elk harvest. 4-32
4.16 Summary of basic development constraints associated with 4-47
geophysical hazards in the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal
Management District.
4.17 Development with Restrictions areas. 4-74

4.18 Conservation areas. 4-76

6.1 Nominated Areas Meriting Concern.
6-7

xvi

1.0 ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES

1.0

ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The citizens of the Kodiak Isl and Borough (KIB) are both resource
users and resource managers, and in these roles make many decisions about
what types of land and water development are desirable, where the develop-
ments will take place, and what, in general terms, they will look like.

The Kodiak-Island Borough Coastal Management Program set forth
in the following pages establishes an agenda and provides the tools
to direct development and to manage the resources of the coastal zone.
The program emphasizes management tools that are explicit, yet flexible
enough to provide guidance in a changing Physical, economic, and regula-

tory environment.

1.2 ISSUES

The primary.purpose of coastal management is to provide a frame-
work for making decisions on uses of coastal resources, and on activities
taking place.within.the coastal zone. In order to develop a coastal
management program that best serves Kodiak Island Borough residents,
issues concerning resource use and the needs of local residents should
be addressed. Eight major issues have been identified: fisheries; land
ownership status; energy resources and facilities; timber.harvesting;
recreation/tourism; transportation facilities and services; subsistence;
and governmental coordination.

1.2.1 FISHERIES

The fisheries resources of the Kodiak Island Archipelago are
the economic mainstay of most Borough residents, and comprise a large
portion of the subsistence resources they harvest. Because the viabil-
ity of fisheries resources is dependent on offshore and onshore habi-
tats, development of other Borough resources has the.potential for ad-
verse impacts on fisheries if appropriate safeguards are not taken.

[email protected] LAND OWNERSHIP STATUS

Uncertain Land Ownership Status

The status of land ownership by federal, state, Borough, and
private entities is unclear at this time, and may not be settled for
several years. However, the, management of resources and activities in the
Borough often transcends property lines, and requires a comprehensive
management framework that can include different participants who have
different needs and responsibilities. Uncertain land ownership only
increases the need for such management.

Land Use Restriction

Much of the.Kodiak Island Borough lies within the Kodiak National
Wildlife Refuge. Use of lands and resources within the refuge, whether
owned by Native corporations or other private entities, is subject to
restrictions outlined by refuge management guidelines. In the past, these
restrictions have hindered development of the Terror Lake hydroelectric
project, and may limit futu.re use of privately owned lands.

1-2

1.2.3 ENERGY RESOURCES AND FACILITIES

Oil and Gas Development Activities
q

Outer continental shelf (OCS) exploration and development activi-
ties have been a concern of Kodiak Island Borough residents since 1975.
The impact of normal operations and oil spills on the fishing industry,
and of onshore support facilities on lifestyle and community facilities,
are of particular concern. The Borough formed the OCS Advisory Committee.
in 1976 to act in an advisory capacity to the.Borough Assembly in mat@ers
related to OCS oil and gas development. With the passage in 1980 of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Section 1008 opens
certain federal upland. areas to the evaluation of oil and gas resources
they may contain. These areas include the Kodiak National Wildlife Re-
fuge, which could be opened for oil and gas exploration.

Hydroelectric Re so urce Development

The relative isolation of the Kodiak Island Borough and its commu-
nities has,contributed toa dependence on fuel oil for power generation:
which is an extremely costly source of energy. A major hydroelectric
generation project has been proposed for Terror Lake, and Alaska Di strict
Corps of Engineers feasibility studies,have identified potential hydro-
electric generation sites at each of the Borough's communities. Hydro-
electric power will provide a comparatively inexpensive and reliable
long-term source of power for Borough residents. However, because many
of these sites are located within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.,
they are subject to Refuge management guidelines. These guidelines are
oriented primarily toward protection of fish and wildlife habitat, and
not toward other uses of the Refuge. Development of hydroelectric genera-
tion facilities currently faces lengthy licensing approval processes.

1-3

1.2.4 TIMBER HARVESTING

Timber has been harvested on Afognak Island over the last ten
years, initiated under U.S. Forest Service supervision and currently
managed by KONCOR. The timber resources on Afognak Island were the pri-
mary reasons for land selection there by Afognak (now Port Lions) and
Ouzinkie Native Corporations, with the intent of continuing timber har-
vesting. Since taking over the management of the timber operations,
KONCOR has been recognized as running one of the best timber harvesting
operations in Alaska, generally surpassing the requirements of the State
Forestry Management Guidelines.

There is concern among some Kodiak Island residents that
timber harvesting activities on Afognak Island are damaging anadromous
fish streams, and other fish and wildlife habitat, and are not compatible
with the areas recreationand aesthetic values. These concerns were
the focus of recent land ownership negotiations between the State of
Alaska and Kodiak Island Borough.

1.2.5 RECREATION/TOURISM

Kodiak Island is a major state recreation and tourism attrac-
tion,.offering excellent hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and
growing boating opportunities. Resident and nonresident use of these
resources supports a local industry consisting of hotel operators, air
taxi services, and guiding services. Increasing recreation activities
have caused conflicts with other resource use, particularly in the vicin-
ity of several Borough villages. At this time, conflicts include trespass
on private lands, general disruption of community lifestyle, competition
for subsistence fish and wildlife resources, and littering. The affected
villages are currently evaluating solutions to the problem.

1-4

1.2.6 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Facilities

Because of the Island's mountainous topography, the availability
of suitable space for locating transportation facilities is low and the
cost of building such facilities is high. In the case of many existing
facilities such as boat harbors and the Kodiak port, the capacity is
inadequate to. meet demands. At other facilities, such as village air-
strips, operations can be severely -constrained by weather conditions.
Maintenance of existing facilities and developing material borrow sites
for constructing new facilities are also significant problems. All of
these factors contribute to higb construction and maintenance costs for
transportation facilities, and general Borough-wide demands for new
facilities, increased capacities, and better maintenance..

Service

All Borough communities are dependent on air and marine transport-
ation for commodity and passenger movement. While scheduled transporta-
tion services to the City of Kodiak are adequate to meet current needs,
outlying communities generally depend on char-ter service, resulting in
extremely high transportation costs. Many of these communities would like
to see regular air and ferry service provided to reduce transportation
costs and increase the ability to get into the City of Kodiak. However,
state ferry service to the community of Port Lions has increased non-
resident access for hunting and fishing purposes, and other communities
are concerned that increased access could bring similar problems.

SUBSISTENCE

All Kodiak Island Borough residents use fish and wildlife re-
sources for subsistence to a certain degree. In general, the villages
have been more dependent on subsistence resources due to few local employ-
ment opportunities, high transportation costs, and social traditions.

1-5

In the.Kodiak metropolitan area, subsistence use is limited by Alaska
Department of Fish and Game regulations, increased competition between
subsistence users, and competition with recreation and commercial users.
Village subsistence faces increasi-ng competition from recreation use
of resources. In all cases, the possibility of resource allocation among
subsistence, recreation, and commercial users is a growing concern.

1.2.8 GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

On federal and state government levels, various agencies make
dayLto-day decisions on the use of resources in the Kodiak Island.Borough
that are under their various management responsibilities. Those decisions
tan have great impact on Borough residents, yet Borough participation
in decision making is often minimal or nonexistent. Prior to the Alaska
Coastal Management Program, mechanisms for participation were advisory
only.

Through Title 29 of the Alaska Statutes, the Kodiak Island Borough
has planning powers for the area contained within Borough boundaries,
including seven major communities. Past Borough planning efforts have
incorporated varying degrees of individual community participation, often
resulting in the feeling that Borough government was not responsive to
local needs. Limited planning budgets and a wide range in individual
community needs have contributed to this problem.

1.3 GOALS

The goals for the KIB District Plan reflect a wide spectrum of
issues pertaining to coastal management and the well-being of the resi-
dents of the Kodiak Island Borough. Above all, as indicated below, the
goals recognize that the most important resources in the KIB are fish-

eries resources.

1-6

1. To provide for the cultural/social strength, public safety,
and economic welfare,of Borough residents when siting future

land use activities;

2. To recognize that residents of the Borough utilize local fish,
game, and plant resources to meet dietary and traditional/
cultural needs;

3. To protect coastal habitats and air and water quality in con-
junction with development activities;

4. To preserve-the scenic beauty and the cultural, ethnic, and
hi.storical values of the Kodiak Island Borough;

5. To strive for compatible use of coastal lands and waters among
diverse development activities;

6. To encourage economic productivity and diversity in the
Borough, while minimizing any conflict with fisheries resources
and th6 fishing industry;

7. To encourage the provision of land for desired deve,lopment

activities; and

8. To simp lify and expedite permit procedures and governmental
agency review.in the implementation of the,KIB Coastal Manage-

ment Plan.

Underlying.these goals is the recognition that the Kodiak Island
Borough strives to enjoy economic prosperity and development, and that
the foundation of this prosperity is fisheries resources and the fishing
industry. While coastal.m.anagement cannot, by itself, ensure economic
well-bei ng,.it can help to make economic events orderly and sensible

1-7

within the constraints of limited land, potential geological hazards,
and sensitive habitats. These goals reflect concerns expressed by resi-
dents of the Kodiak Island Borough, and form the basis for objectives
to be achieved through the program.

1.4 OBJECTIVES

1.4.1 PUBLIC SAFETY

It is an accepted fact that the Kodiak Archipelago, like other
areas of Alaska, is subject to future earthquakes, marine landslides,
flood-ing,.avalanches, erosion, and wind damage.

To provide for public safety and to minimize uncertainty when
developing coastal areas, the KIB Coastal Management Program will pursue
the.follow,ing objectives:

1. Evaluate seismic, avalance, erosion, flood, and wind hazards
and specify development criteria to minimize these hazards;

2. Site industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational
development in areas that minimize risk to life and property;

3. Require sound engineering practices to ensure the safe design
and construction of public and private facilities;

4. Determine the best use of hazard-prone lands;

5. Identify further studies needed to determine the magnitude of
potential geological hazards, mitigation measures, and utiliz-

ation of hazardous lands;

6. Identify methods for providing proper water supplies and sewage
and solid,waste disposal for residents of the Borough;

1-8

7. Strive to ensure that the highest quality communication and
navigational aids are available for marine safety and protec-
tion (through coordination with agencies and groups involved in
marine safety and protection); and

8. Promote the development of all-weather harbors and docking
facilities to minimize damage to the facilities and vessels,

Subsistence

The Kodiak Island Borough has recognized that subsistence use
is a use of the resources of the Kodiak Archipelago. Subsistence should
be considered a primary use of resources in the Borough, especially in
village areas. This can be accomplished through the following means:

1. Encourage the maintenance of resource habitats; and

2. Encourage the management of resource harvests.

Resource Enhancement Protection

The Kodiak Island Borough will seek to ensure compatibility of
future developments on a site-by-site basis and, at the same time, to
enhance rather than destory the scenic beauty and valuable habitat charac-
teristics of the Kodiak Archipelago.

1. Continue to promote the sustain.ed-yield harvest of renewable
resources in the Kodiak Island Borough;

2. Identify and protect coastal and upland.habitats tha t are
important for the development of renewable resources in the
Kodiak Island Borough;

1-9

3. Protect resource values and air and water quality in the Kodiak
Island Borough, through siting designs and construction techni-
ques for development activities; and

4. Support the sustained-yield harvest of marine mammals chat
deplete fisheries resources.

Land and Water Uses

Land and water uses are irrevocably connected to public safety,
resource protection, and economic development. However, gi ven steep
terrain and hazard areas, land suitable for development is limited and
thus deserves special attention in the coastal manageIment plan.

The coastal management plan will identify land for conservation,
development with restrictions, and development without restrictions,
and will strive for compatible multiple use of coastal lands and water.
The Kodiak Island Borough recognizes that it cannot at this time identify
the most appropr.iate use for all land and water within its jurisdiction.
'The Borough strives primarily to identify those areas,that should be
preserved and those areas that have development potential. The pursuit
of the following objectives will help to implement this goal:

1. Determine future land and water use needs for development

activities;

2. Reserve waterfront land for uses needing direct access to water;

3. Encourage innovative.development to maximize the use of avail-
able land;

4.,Maximize compatible multiple uses of land and water resources
through siting and design criteria; and

1-10

5..Work closely with the State of Alaska and the political sub-
divisions in the KIB to coordinate the land disposal program
and other state land management programs.

1.4.2 ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY/DIVERSIFICATION

Historically, the Kodiak Island Borough, because of its strategic
location, has been.one of the major fishing ports on the west coast
of the Uni ted States. In addition, it has the potential for becoming
a major transshipment point in the near future.

The Kodiak Island Borough is economically dependent on the fishing
industry. Due to the nature of the fishing industry, dependence on sea-
sonalemployment has been an economic concern. Thus, Kodiak Island
Borough would like to developstable, year-round sources, of income and
employment to complement and supplement the fishing industry. Exist-
ing and potential development activities in the Borough hold promise

for future economic diversification.

Fisheries

1. Encourage the maintenance of current biologically productive
marine areas, and promote the enhancement of former biologi-
cally productive marine areas;

2. Examine the feasibility of locally controlled fish hatchery
sties for commercial fish species;

3. Support the development and expansion of commercial and small
boat harbors in the political subdivisions of the Kodiak-Island
Borough;

4. Promote programs to mitigate the conflicts between fisheries
and other natural resource developments;

5. Encourage the development of viable sites throughout the Kodiak
Archipelago as onshore support bases for the bottomfish

industry;

6. Reserve areas for gear storage for the fishing industry; and

7. Promote the development of the University of Alaska's Fish-
eries Technology Center in the City of Kodiak.

Timber/Akriculture

1. Support the maintenance of fisheries habitat as a high priority
in both timber and agricultural development;

2. Encourage the development of sustained-yield timber harvest-
ing in identified commercially viable timber areas of the
Kodiak Island Borough;

3. Identify transfer points for the movement of timber products
from harvest areas to storage areas and shipping points that
minimize the impact on other resources;

4. Explore the use of timber harvesting by-products forlocal

utilization; and

5. Encourage the development of grazing on commercially viable
grazing land in the Kodiak Island Borough.

Manufacturing

.1. Promote the development of marine related manufacturing
facilities throughout the Kodiak Island Borough, in order
to maintain and support the fishing industry; and

1-12

2. Encourage the development of non-marine-related manufacturing
e.g., timber processing - in the Kodiak Island Borough.

Mining

1. Identify and encourage the development of commercially valuable
mineral deposits in the Kodiak Island Borough, when fisheries
and other resources can be protected.

Energy Development

1. Accommodate energy facility siting and onshore oil and gas
exploration in a manner that will prevent adverse socioeconomic
impacts in theKodiak Island Borough and adverse environmental
impac-ts on coastalresources that Kodiak Island Borough resi-
dents rely on for their livelihood.

2.. Identify potential sites for petroleum-related facilities
without preempting other developmental activities;

3. Support the development of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Proj-
ect, and the proposed transmission line to Port Lions;

4. Encourage development of microhydro projects, wind genera-
tion, and cogeneration as alternatives to traditional fossil

fuels;

5. Explore the development of tidal power as an alternative to
traditional fossil fuels, if there is minimal conflict with

fisheries resources; and

6. Pursue the development of a Borough energy plan, as part of the
Borough's overall planning effort.

1-13

Recreation/Tourism

1. Site industrial facilities and industrial parks to minimize
damage to natural settings;

2. Improve public access to developed waterfront areas;

3. Identify potential sites for marine park facilities, that
are located away from highly used subsistence areas;

4. Encourage recreational boating safety through improved navi-
ation and communication aids, and search'and rescue capability
through coordination with agencies involved in marine safety
and protection.

5. Encourage expanded ferry service to the City of Kodiak;

6. Support the development of facilities in local communities
around the Kodiak Island Borough;

7. Initiate a Borough parks and recreation program that iden-
tifies, in conjunction with local communities, areas of coastal
recreation and tourist interest and provides access to these

locations; and

8. Recognize and manage Shuyak Island for wilderness recreation
and remote residential land use.

Transportation

1. Maximize the use of waterfront land set aside for development
activities dependent on water-based transportation;

1-14

2. Upgrade transportation between the City of Kodiak, Kodiak
Island villages, and the rest of Alaska;

3. Support regular air and freight/barge service between the
City of,Kodiak and the villages in the Kodiak Island Borough;

4. Identify future land requirements for dock in g facilities,
ports, landing strips, and airport expansion, and reserve
appropriate land;,

5. Maintain coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard and Alaska

District Corps of Engineers to ensure navigational safety
in and around the Kodiak Archipelago;

6. Promote the extension of the Anton Larson Road to ice-free

water;

7. Discourage.the development of roads between the villages and
the City of Valdez;

8. Promote the expansion of a deep water port in the City of

Kodiak; and

9. Extend the Monashka Bay Road only to the end of the bay.

General Development

1. Determine the nature and siting requirements of general indus-
trial expansion that will accompany growth in the transport-
ation, fisheries, tourism/recreation, timber, manufacturing,'
mining,- and,petroleum industries;

1-15

2. Identify and reserve land for future industrial and commercial

expans ion;

3. Encourage the multiple use of federal and state-owned lands;

and

4. Promote improved communication facilities among the political
subdivisions of the Kodiak Island Borough.

1.4.3 REGIONAL INTERESTS-

Hi storically, as well as today, the Kodiak Island Borough is

linked economically with other areas of Alaska.

The Kodiak Island Borough is keenly interested in how state re-
source use, land management decisions, and developmental projects will
affect its own economy and growth. Land conveyances, increased vessel
traffic, implementation of fisheries management plans, and establishment
of state parks are, in fact, Borough issues and therefore the Coastal
Management Program has incorporated wider regional interests into its

program objectives:

1-Coordinate future land use decisions with other concerned

public and private agencies outside the Borough,-

2. Promote the interests of Kodiak Island Borough residents in
fisheries resources outside the jurisdiction of the Borough.

1.4.4 PERMITS AND GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Increasingly, all levels of government are participating in deci-
sions to.alter the natural and man-made environment. Th rough the consist-
ency provision of the Coastal Management Act, the Kodiak Island.Borough

1-16

intends to simplify and expedite permit procedures and to make certain

that state and federal actions are consistent with the District Plan.

The matter of consistency is important to the Kodiak Island
Borough, as a large portion of the land in the Borough is federally
owned. Once approved the actions of state and federal agencies required
are to be consistent with the KIB Coastal Management Plan, and thus
it is important that the District Plan adopt policies and an implement-
ation scheme that streamlines decision making and consistency review.
In the course of program development, the Kodiak Island Borough will:

1. Ensure that state and federal activities are consistent with

the local District Plan;

2. Consider mechanisms to coordinate local permitting and consis-
tency review; and

3. Use existing ordinances and regulations to the maximum extent
for implementation of the KIB Coastal Management Plan.

1-17

2.0 DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

2.o

DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

The boundaries of the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management
District are the boundaries of the Kodiak Island Borough. (See Map 1,
Coa-stal Management District Boundaries.)^ These boundaries have been

chosen based on:

@o District Coastal Management Program Guideline's

6AAC 85.040 states that "final boundaries of the coastal area

subject to the district program may diverge from the initial

boundaries if the final boundaries include all transitional and

intertidal areas, saltmarshes, saltwater wetlands, islands, and

beaches."

o Topography

The relatively steep topograp hy of the Kodiak Archipelago makes
it possible for activities taking place at any elevation to

interact with or influence coastal resources.

o Implementation

By making the district coastal management boundaries the same as
Kodiak Island Borough boundaries, the coastal management program

All resource maps are contained in thelcompanion volume to this Pro-
gress Report.

2-1

can be more easily implemented as an addition to existing
Borough land use controls, such as the comprehensive plan and
zoning ordinance.

o Consistency

One of the primary benefits of coastal management'is that,
once approved and adopted, state and federal activities must be
consistent with the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management
Program. In the past, the Borough has had little influence in

activities or resource use on the Kodiak National Wildlife

Refuge and other federal and state lands. Inclusion of the
entire Borough within the coastal management district will
provide the borough with some, influence over existing federal
and state resource use and in.future activities, such as those
associated with oil and gas exploration and development.

.2-2

3.0 RESOURCE INVENTORY

3.0

RESOURCE INVENTORY

3.1 NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY

All eight habitats identified in the Alaska Coastal Management
Program are represented within the coastal management boundary of Kodiak
Island Borough. These habitats are: offshore areas; estuaries; barrier
islands and lagoons; wetlands and tideflats; rocky islands and seacliffs;
exposed high-energy coasts; rivers, streams, and lakes; and important
upland habitat [Alaska Coastal Management Act, 6 AAC 80.130 (a)].

Following a general description of the Kodiak Archipelago, each
habitat type will be examined within the context of the natural resources.
of Kodiak Island Borough. Included will be a definition of the habitat
derived from the Alaska Coastal Program Management and any variations in
the definition to adapt it to the situations present in the Borough; a
general description of the habitat; and the natural resources found
within each habitat-,type.

3.1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Kodiak Arc hipela go is approximately 100 miles wide and 200
miles long. It includes about 5,000 square miles of land, no point of
whichis more than 15 miles from the sea [Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (ADNRa) 1980; Alaska Environmental Information and Data Center
(AEIDC) 1979]. Kodiak Island consists primarily of mountainous terrain,
with,the ridge of the mountains running northeast-southwest. Although

3-1

several peaks are greater than 4,000 feet, most range between 3,000 and
4,000 feet. About 40 small cirque glaciers (none greater than 2 miles)
are evident along the main divide (AEIDC 1979). Numerous hanging valleys
feed into the main canyons radiating from the central divide. The uplands
are drained by relatively short, swift, clear mountain streams.

From Shuyak Island to Kodiak Island uplands are dominated by
stands of Sitka spruce. These stands extend south to a general northwest-
southeast dividing line running from Kupreanof Peninsula to Cape Chiniak
(AEIDC 1979). The Barren Islands to the north of Shuyak Island are pri-
marily rocky scapes. Southwest Kodiak Island and Tugidak Island are
relatively flat, and support extensive areas of wet and moist tundra.

Along a rugged 2500-mile coastline, exposed bedrock and shallow
soils prevail (Sears and Zimmerman 1977). Northwest Kodiak shows effects
of glaciation, with long, narrow fjords and U-shaped valleys. These lie
perpendicular to the mountains and the geologic fault lines. Typically
rivers,enter at the heads of the fjords and are backed by extensive flat
lands. The east and southeast coasts of the Archipelago are characterized
by shorter, wider estuarine embayments. Southwest Kodiak Island and the
Trinity Islands tend toward long, continuous shores with a few crenulate
bays. Most of the sandy beaches occur on the west coast of Kodiak Island
and the Trinity Islands (Hayes and Ruby 1979).

Fish and wildlife resources are of extreme importance to the
economy of the Borough. Offshore areas are highly productive. They con-
tain an abundance of intertidal and benthic and pelagic subtidal plant
and animal life which supports extensive populations of shellfish, fin-

fishj and marine mammals. An extensive array of shorebirds and waterfowl
utilize the resources of the islands, either as permanent residents or
for nesting, wintering, or s topping-off sites along their migratory
paths. Upland habitats support populations of Kodiak brown bear, elk,
deer, mountain goats, and numerous smaller mammalians.

3-2

3.1.2 OFFSHORE AREAS

Definition

Offshore areas include submerged lands and waters beyond mean
lower low water (MLLW) to the offshore limits of Kodiak Island Borough.
Because of the extensive estuarine system of the islands, offshore areas
are. those outside an imaginary line extending across the headlands of the

estuaries.

General Description

Circulation in the Gulf of Alaska is counterclockwise [North.
Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) 1979]. More locally, sea-
water circulation can vary considerably, both on a seasonal and a daily
basis. For example, weak and inconsistent circulation patterns on shelf
areas northeast and south of Kodiak Island promote eddies and frequent
flow reversals. In these areas, where water can recirculate for one to
two months, there is a high probability of localized high productivity
and larval settlement. Alternatively, in some parts of Shelikof Strait
there can be a threefold increase in rate of flow during October and
November, which can,promote the dispersal of larvae. See Map 10, Coastal
Energy, Current Patterns and Coastal Hazards (BLM 1980, 1981).

'Inshore and surface circulation patterns are dominated by tidal
currents (BLM 1980, 1981; AEIDC 1979). Tides are semidiurnal, with a
marked diurnal inequality. The rangeof tides varies; typically they
increase from southwest Kodiak.1sland to northeast Afognak Island. Tides
are also greater on the west side of the Archipelago. For example, the
diurnal range [difference between mean higher high water (MHHW) and MLLWI
is 7.5 feet in Sit kinak Lagoon, 14.6 feet in Uganik Passage, 8.5 feet in
Kodiak'Harbor, and 13.7 feet.in Red Fox Bay in northeast Afognak Islan d
(AEIDC 1974; Hayes and Ruby 1979).

3-3

Living resources are abundant in Kodiak's offshore area. Dominant
fauna include shellfish, finfish, marine mammals, and marine birds. A
conspicuousbiological feature of the coast is extensive kelp beds locat-
ed in both estuarine and offshore habitats. Kelp beds can exhibit rapid
growth and regression depending upon local weather conditions. Areas with
extensive kelp beds identified during 1976 included areas around Ugak
Island, Kiliuda Bay, the northern tip of Sitkalidak Island east to Cape
Barnabas, Sitkinak Strait, Alitak Bay, and Gurney Bay. North of Tonki
Bay, the eastern coast of Sitkalidak Island, and Deadman Bay had moderate
kelp coverage [Science Applications, Inc. (SAI) 1980]. Kelp.and other
macroalgal beds provide habitat for sea otters, spawning herring, and
juvenile fish. They are important feeding areas for waterfowl and marine
birds, and provide valuable primary production exported as algal drift,
which is assimilated elsewhere in the marine ecosystem.

The living marine resources of the Kodiak area are of extraordi-
nary economic importance to the populace of the Borough, the state,
and the nation, and have been the subject of intensive investigation. In
recent years, numerous studies have been conducted under the auspices of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOW IOuter Contin-
ental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP). Much o*f the follow-
ing informationis drawn from the most recent Ko.diak Interim Syn .thesis
Report produced under OCSEAP (SAI 1980).

Fisheries Resources

The marine fisheries resources of the Kodiak area include not only
those species that support major fisheries, but also species or species
groups that could potentially support a fishery, and species that are of
ecological importance in the food chain that supports species of impor-
tance to commercial, subsistence, and recreational fisheries stocks.
Consequently, a large number of shellfish and finfish species are of
present or future importance to the Borough (Table 3.1). Not all of these

3-4

Table 3.1. Marine fish classified by habitat.

Epipelagic

Pacific herring Capelin
Salmon (maturing) Pacific sandfish
Mainly: Pink Pacific sand lance (juvenile)
Sockeye Chum Atka mackerel*

Littoral/Pelagic

Pacific herring (seasonal) Dolly Varden
Salmon (juvenile) Capeline (juvenile, seasonal)
Mainly: Pink Pacific sand lance (adult)
Chum Larvae: many species
Sockeye

Littoral-Sublittoral/Demersal

.Snake prickleback Crescent gunnel
Pacific sa.ndfish (juvenile) Snailfish
Greenlings (adult and juvenile) Juveniles:
Kelp greenling Flounders
Rock greenling Rockfish
Musked greenling Sculpins
Whitespotted greenling Codfishes

Coastal/Demersal

Pacific sand lance (juvenile) Red Irish lord
Pacific cod (juvenile) Other sculpin
Pacific halibut (juvenile) Poaches
Yellowfin sole Rock greenling
Rock sole* Kelp greenling
Dover sole Whitespotted greenling
Great sculpin Masked greenling
Yellow Irish lord

Offshore/Demersal

Walleye pollock* Sablefish*
Pacific cod* Pacific halibut--
Pacific sand lance (adult) Arrowtooth flounder*
Eelpouts Rex sole.
Searchers (ronquils) Flathead sole*
Shortspine thornyhead Ocean Perch*

Source: SAI 1980; MPFMC, 1979.

*,Species recognized by NPFMP as primary groundfish species in Gulf of
Alaska.
3-5

species will be considered here, but lack of a discussion of a given
species should not be construed to indicate unimportance. Emphasis is
placed on species of immediate and present importance to a fishery.

Shellfish. Kodiak waters contain major fishing grounds for king
crab, Tanner crab, Dungeness crab, and pink shrimp; small amounts of
scallop are also harvested in offshore areas.

Preferred habitat for most species of shellfish varies at differ-
ent times in their life stages. Inshore movement generally occurs immedi-
ately preceding and during spawning. Offshore movements follow spawning
for adults and larval development for juveniles (Figure 3.1). King,
Tanner, and Dungeness crab, pink shrimp, and Pacific scallop are import-

ant offshore shellfish resources. As is evident from inshore movements

during spawning and rearing, these resources also utilize other habitats.
The primary discussion of these species, however, is contained in this

section on offshore areas.

Throughout the following discussion, a dis@inction is frequently
drawn between vital habitat and important habitat. No consistent defin-
itions were used to differentiate these areas (Bill Donaldson, ADF&G,
personal communication, 1981). The distinctions are retained in this
section as a general statement of degree of habitat utilization, and not
as an absolute ranking.

King crab are abundant to depths of 275 to 300 meters. Juveni le
crab, however, occur in shallower water. Adults moving into the shallow
water to breed are restricted in their movements to only those bays and
inlets within specific geographic limits reflecting their native stock
(Map 5, Crab Reproduction Areas). Within these broad areas, however, it
is speculated that king crab can adjust their location to take advantage
of currently abundant food supplies (SAI 1980). Vital habitats for king
crab reproduction areinshore and nearshore areas. Those vital areas
identified by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) include all

3-6

Figure 3.1. Generalized life history tables for commercially important
crabs and shrimp in Kodiak area.

KIIC CUB

Breeding

Larval Development

Movement Inshore

Movemenc,Offshare

TAM@M CUB

Breeding

Larval De'relopmenc

Movement Inshore

Movement Offshore

DMWEMS CRAB

Breeding/Retching

Larval Develo t

Movement Ins

Movement Offshore

PINK SHRIMP

spawning

Hatching/Larval Release

Larval Development

Movement Inshore

r M A 14 J A S 0 N D

month

Source: Sc ience Applications, Inc. 1980.

3-7

the coastal waters of Shuyak Island, Afognak Island, Raspberry Island,
north and east sides of Kodiak Island, Sitkalidak Island, and the Trinity
Islands (ADF&G 1978). The shallow area surrounding Chirikof Island north
to the Trinity Islands is particularly vital to king crab for both spawn-
ing and rearing (ADF&G 1978). The west coast of Kodiak Island south to
Gurney Bay, Marmot Island, waters between the Barren Islands, and Shuyak
Island, and offshore of the west coast of Afognak Island are c.onsidered
important, rather than vital, for-king crab reproduction (ADF&G 1978).
Only the area on Kodiak Island between Gurney Bay and Low Cape (north of
Sukhoi Lagoon) is not classified as a reproduction area for king crab.

Tanner crab habitat and movement are not well documented (ADF&G
1978, Bill Donaldson, personal communication). Tanner crab are considered
the most widely distributed invertebrate of commercial importance in the
Gulf of Alaska; their range extends from the shallow littoral zone to
depths of 475 meters. Greatest concentrations are found in water deeper
than 100 meters, and they show a preference for mud substrate (ADF&G
1978). During spawning, their distribution shifts to shallower water.
Areastentatively identified by ADF&G as important for rearing and mating
include: the southwest coast of Kodiak Island from Karluk Anchorage to
Cape Alitok, Kupreanof Strait west of Whale Island, and the north shore
of Tugidak Island (ADF&G 1978). Tanne.r crab are present in limited num-
bers along the west shores north of Raspberry Island (Owen and Blackburn
1981).

Dungeness crab distribution extends from Baja California to An
chitka Island (SAI 1980). Dungeness inhabit all offshore areas less
than 900 meters deep and show a distinct preference for sandy or sand-mud
substrate. Vital areas for reproduction identified by ADF&G in the Bor-
ough include: the coast of Afognak Island south of Shuyak Island, Rasp-
berry Island, offshore of the east coast of Kodiak Island, Hidden Basin
and Saltery Cove within Ugak Bay, off the southeast coast of Tugidak
Island, the west coast of Kodiak Island from Cape Alitak to Karluk Anchor-
age, offshore areas of Uyak and Uganik bays, and Zachar Bay within Uyak

3-8

-Bay (ADF&G 1978). Other areas identified as importa nt include: Chiniak
Bay, most of Ugak Bay, Kiliuda Bay, Sitkinak Island, south of Sitkalidak
Island around the base of Kod iak Island, and the area north of Karluk

Anchora ge to Vie.koda Bay with the exception of vital habitat noted above
(ADF&G 1978). Offshore areas west of Afognak Island have virtually no
Dungeness crab (Owen and Blackburn 1981).

Numerous species of pandalid shrimp contribute to the fishery in
Kodiak waters, but pink shrimp comprise more than 95 percent of the
commercial catch (SAI 1980). Pink shrimp occur primarily in de pths of 75
to 180 meters and generally within about 40 miles of the coast, over
green muddy bottoms in submarine ravines. Pink shrimp primarily occur in
0
water between the 3.50 and 4.2 C isotherms and avoid water warmer than
80C. Vital areas for shrimp reproduction and rearing occur in the estua.r-
ine areas (ADF&G 1978). The.general distribution of shrimp abundance is
shown in Map 6.

Finfish

The continental shelf and slope waters of the Kodiak Archipelago
are highly productive and support large populations of salmon, herring,
smelt, halibut, pollock, and other groundfish (SAI 1980). Predominant
species are listed in Table 3.1 according to their primary habitats,

defined as follows:

o Epipelagic offshore water column, surface to 100 meter depth.

o Offshore/demersal - more than 30 miles from shore and often

deeper than 60 meters.

0 Coastal/demersal - less than 3b miles from shore including
embayments, and deeper than 25 meters..

o Littoral-sublittoral/demersal tidally influenced nearshore

area shallower than 25 meters.

3-9

o Littoral-sublittoral/pelagic - nearshore water column in less
than 25 meters of water (SAI 1980, NPFMC 1979).

Primary habitat varies with life history stages for most sp ecies. For
example, summer depths are usuall-y more shallow than winter depths. Egg
and larval stages.are planktonic and are borne along with the currents.
Anadromous,fish and herring utilize other habitat types in addition to
the offshore areas. The following discussion provides an overview of
offshore habitat utilization by important groundfishes, anadromous fish-
es, and herring.

Pacific herring frequently forage in the water column of offshore
areas. Juvenile herring move from nearshore habitat into offshore waters
,by late fall, where they grow to maturity in about two and a half years.
At maturity, herring migrate during fall into nearshore and estuarine
areas, where they overwinter. Spawning occurs the following spring from
mid-May through June.(ADF&G 1978). After spawning, the adults return

to offshore waters.

The important groundfishes in the offshore area include pollock,
cod, sablefish, ocean perch, halibut, turbot, flathead sole, rock sole,
and.Atka mackerel (NPFMC 1979). The life history characteristics of
these species are summarized in Table 3.2. In general, results of the
most recent National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) groundfish surveys
(1973 and 1975) indicate that the major concentrations are southeast and
southwest of Kodiak Island (SAI 1980). Flatfish stocks appear to be more
abundant to the southwest, while roundfish stocks are apparently more
uniformly distributed over these two areas.

Pacific halibut are relatively abundant around the Kodiak Archi-
pelago, where they commonly occur in depths of 10 to 250 fathoms. During
summer, halibut are most abundant at 10 to 100 fathoms. In winter, the
center of abundance is in deeper water (50 to 225 fathoms) (Table 3.3).

3-10

owl low, Mal

Table 3.2. Life history characteristics of principal groundfish species in the Gulf of Alaska.

SPECIES

Life history Ocean Flathead Atka.
characteristics Pollock Cod Sablefish Perch Halibut Turbot Sole Rock Sole Mackerel

Bottom depths of common Coastal and
occurrence (fathoms) 30-200 10-150 50-450 50-250 10-250 3o-3oo 30-200 10-100 open sea

Depths of high 100-200 50-150 ? (winter) 150-250 50-225 200 + 100-200 20-100 offshore
availability by (win, tes) (winter 3 (wintes) (wintir) (winterA (winter4 (winteS) (wintes)
season (fathoms) 100 71-110 90-110 85-95 110 71-110 85-125 45-55 95-115
50-150 100 150-450 80-150 10-100 50-200 50-150 20-50 inshore
(summer) (summer) (summer) (summer) (summer) (summer) (summer) (summer) (summer)

Spawning period March to Jan. to Dec. to March to Nov. to Dec. to March to March to June to
June March April June March Feb. June June Sept.

Maximum age 17 years 12 years? 20 years? 30 years 42 years 22 years 21 years 16 years ?

Average age at
maturity (female) 3 years 3 years .7 years 8 years 12 years 8 years 6 years 4-5 years 3-4 years

Average size at
maturity (female) 30 cm 55 cm 71 cm 28 cm 125 cm 51 cm 29 cm 32 cm 33-35 cm

Instantaneous natural
mortality rate 0.43 o.6 0.22 0.19 0.17 ? ? 0.26

Growth completion 2
rate (female@ 0.27 0.67 0.14 0.11 0.27 ? 0.11 0.15 ?

Fecundity at average
size at maturity 100,000 800,000 400,00 10,000 600,000 ? 50,000 200,000 9,000

Sources: NPFMC 1979; Owen and Blackburn 1981.
IValues and time periods given in this table are approximations.
2Sexes combined.
3
Depth at which catch was most abundant during 1980 trawls in the northern Shelikof,Strait-

Table 3.3. Abundance and habitat of commercially important groundfish in
northern.Shelikof Strait.

Percent Rank Area of Largest
Depth of

of Total in Greatest Concentration
Fish Catch Study Concentration (fathoms)

Pacific Halibut 6 5 Shuyak Island 110

Arrowtooth Flounder 11 4 West of Afognak 71-110
(Turbot) Island

Walleye Pollock 17 2 Throughout Shelikof <100
Strait

Pacific Cod 13. 3 Throughout Shelikof 71-110
Strait

Sablefish 3 7 Raspberry Island .91-110

Ocean Perch <1 42 Not identified 85-95

Flathead Sole 23 1 Along Shuyak and 85-125
Afognak Islands

Rock Sole <1 29 Middle of Shelikof 45-55
Strait

tration
Atka Mackerel <1 47 No major concen- 95-115

Source: Owen,and Blackburn 1981.

3-12

Spawning occurs from November to March, and major spawning grounds in-
clude the Portlock Bank and Chirikof Island areas (BLM 1981). Important
nursery grounds within the coastal zone include Alitak Bay, the shallow
shelf regions of the Trinity Islands, and Cape Chiniok (SAI 1980). Hali-
but stocks have been negatively affected by the growing groundfish fish-

ery.

Arrowtooth flounder (turbot) are one of the most common flatfish

in the Gulf of Alaska, but. are less common around Kodiak and Afognak
Island. Little is known about the life history of turbot in Kodiak waters
(SAI 1980). Consequently, its general life history features are extrapol-

ated from information on stock elsewhere in the Gulf of Alaska. Its

general bathymetric range is from 30 to 300 fathoms. During summer
turbot are most abundant from 50 to 200 fathoms, while in winter they
occur most commonly in deeper waters. Spawning occurs from December
to February. Juveniles probably inhabit shallower water than adults.
(SAI 1980).

Flathead sole are possibly the most abundant flatfish in the
Kodiak area, where they have beentaken in large numbers in,71 to 110
fathoms of water (Owen and Blackburn 1981). Areas that were character-

ized by high abundance were west of Afognak Island, south of Sitkalidak
Island, off southwest Kodiak Island, and in other smaller areas off
the south and east coasts of Kodiak Island (Ronholt et al. 1978, Owen
and Blackburn 1981). Flathead sole generally occur in shallower water
(50-150 fathoms) in summer than during winter (100-200 fathoms). Spawning

occurs from Match to June.

Rock sole are locally abundant in the Kodiak area. Rock sole are
relatively shallow-water species generally occurring in 10 to 100 fa-
thoms. In summer, higher concentrations occur in 20 to 50 fathoms. Concen-
trations occur in the offshore waters of Chiniak Bay and off Cape Chiniak
(Ronholt et al. 1978). There are no known major areas of concentrations
west of Kodiak Island (Ronholt et al. 1978, Owen.and Blackburn 1981).

3-13

Walleye pollock may be the most ecologically and commercially
important roundfish in the Gulf of Alaska (SAI 1980). Pollock primarily
occur on the continent.al shelf and in the trough regions around Kodiak
Island (SAI 1980). Its general depth range is from 30 to 200 fathoms.
In summer pollock are most common from 50 to 150 fathoms, moving into
deeper water (100-200 fathoms) in winter. Spawning occurs from March
to June; but spawning in the Kodiak region probably occurs during April
and May (SAI 1980). High concentrations of planktonic eggs and larvae
suggest that a major pollock spawning area is in the Kiluida Trough
and along the shelf break in the Chirikof-Shelikof Trough. Juvenile
pollock occur in shallower water than adults, and have been routinely
taken in bays and fiords of the Kodiak Archipelago (SAI 1980).

Pacific cod are the second most abundant roundfish in Kodiak

waters and in the Gulf of Alaksa as a whole (SAI 1980). Relative inci-

dental catch rates of cod in crab pots provide information on concentra-
tions in the coastal aras (Watson and Blackburn 1980). Large incidental
catches occurred off the southeast coast of Kodiak in 1972 through 1978.
Chiniak Gully consistently produced moderate catches. Inner Marmot Bay
generally produced low catches; catches in.outer Marmot Bay were varia-
ble. Cod concentrations also occurred between Aiiktak Bay and the Trinity
Islands, and off the west coasts of Kodiak and Afognak Islands, espe-
cially between Uyak Bay and Raspberry Strait. On the southeast coast

most concentrations occurred in 70 to 80 fatho ms, while on the west

coast cod concentrations increased to 120 fathoms. Juvenile fish predom-
inated inshore, while larger fish occurred in deeper water. Other aspects
of life history information on cod in the Kodiak area are limited. Spawn-
ing in the Gulf of Alaska generally occurs in January to March.

Sablefish (black cod) are a commercially important roundfish
that commonly occur along the continental slope from the Queen Charlott
Islands to the Shumagin Islands (SAI 1980). Sablefish are generally
abundant below depths of 110 fathoms. Predominantly juvenile fish have,

this is consistent
been taken in 91 to 110 fathoms in Shelikof Straits;

3-14

with the normal distribution of young fish in shallower water. Spawning
generally occurs from December to April. Eggs are buoyant and a high
percentage drift in surface waters over the Kodiak shelf where the larvae
hatch and grow (SAI 1980).

Pacific ocean perch is the primary rockfish of commercial im-
portance in the Kodiak area. It occurs along the edge of the continental
shelf from the Aleutian Chain through the Gulf of Alaska to southern
California; it also occur's along the shelf break in the Bering Sea. In
the Kodiak area, Pacific ocean perch generally occur along the continen-
tal slope at depths in excess of 100 meters. The major foraging and
spawning areas off Kodiak are the Portlock and Kodiak grounds (SAI 1980).
From May to September males and females forage on pelagic crustaceans in
about 100 to 150 meters of. water. Mating is thought to occur in Septem-
ber, after which the females migrate into the northeastern Gulf of
Alaska and disperse. Males.do not migrate, and form small schools in
about 250 to 450 meters of water from November to March. This species is
viviparous, and young are born in spring, after which the females return
to the foraging grounds, where sexually mixed schools reform.

The Atka mackerel is an epipelagic species that is widely distribu-
ted in the northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. In the Kodiak area
mackerel occur primarily along the continental shelf break. Adults mi-
grate shoreward.to spawn in nearshore areas.where swift currents occur
(i.e., as in straits between islands). Specific spawning sites in the
Kodiak area have not been ident1fied (SAI 1980). Spawning areas are
typically characterized by rocky substrates in depths of 107 meters
0 0
and water temperatures of 5 to 8 C. Spawning may occur from June to
September.

Anadromous Fish. Anadromous fish spawn in fresh water. Fry spend
a variable period of time in fresh water and then migrate to the seaj
where they grow.to maturity. After one or more years at sea, mature
fish migrate to their natal stream to spawn. Seven species of anadromous

3-15

fishe s occur in the Kodiak area: Dolly Varden trout, steelhead trout,
and pink, sockeye, chum, silver, and king salmon. These species spend
a portion of their adult lives in the offshore area, where they feed
and grow rapidly. Key aspects of the life history of these species are
summarized in Table 3.4 and Figure 3.2. Further discussion of the life
history of thse species is presented in sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.8 deal-
ing with resource use of t he estuarine and river, stream, and lake

habitats.

Marine Mammals

The coast and shelf of the Kodiak Archipelago support the largest
concentration of marine mammals in the Gulf of Alaska [Retherford Associ-
ates and International Engineering Company (RRA/IEC) 1978]. Eight marine
mammals are considered permanent residents in the Kodiak area (Table
3.5): sea lions, harbor seals, sea otters, Dall porpoises, harbor por-
poises, Beluga whales, Minke whales and killer whales. In addition to the
permanent whale populations, seasonal entrants include the following
endangered species: gray whale, fin whale, sei whale, and humpback whale.

Sightings of theseand other whale species are facilitated in
the Kodiak region by the presence of two secondary whale migratory routes
within the Borough's boundaries. One is between Raspberry Island and
Kodiak Island, and a second between Ugak Bay and Ugak Island (BLM 1980).
Whales are present around most of the Archipelago. The only exception
appears to be'the southwest. portion of Kodiak Island, south of Uyak
Bay (ADF&G 1973, Map 4).

Sightings of Dall porpoise and northern fur seals occur throughout
the offshore area. They are most frequently observed well outside the
coastal-boundaries of the Borough. Although the harbor seal is considered
a perm anent resident, its distribution throughout the Kodiak offshore
region is not completely known (SAI 1980).

3-16

Table 3.4. Life history data for five species of Pacific salmon.

Species

Characteristics Pink Sockeye Chum '!Silver' IKing

.Freshwater habitat Short streams Short streams Short and Short streams Large rivers
and lakes long streams and lakes

Length of time young one day or 1. to 4 years Less than I to 2 years 3 to 12 months
stay in fresh water less 1 month

Length of ocean life 1-1/3 years to 4 years to-4 years 1 to 2 years I to 5 years

Year of life At 2 3 to 7 2 to 5 2 to 4 2 to 8
maturity (years)

Average length at 50.8 63.5 63.5 61 91.4
maturity (cm)

Average weight at 1.8 4.1 4.5 10
maturity (kg)

Range of weight at 0.9 to 4.1 0.7 to 4.5 1.7 to 20.4 1.7 to 13.6 1.1 to 56.8
maturity (kg)

Principal spawning Jul-Sep Jun-Sep Sep-Oct Sep-Dec Aug-Sep
months

Fecundity (number of 2,000 4,000 3,000 3,500 51000
eggs)

Source: AEIDC 1979.

Figure 3.2. Timetable of Pacific salmon life histories.

MONTHS

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D

Upstream migration
Spawning
Z Intragravel development
Juvenile rearing migrate immediately to salt water
Juvenile outmigration

W Upstream migration
>- Spawning
W
@e Intragravel development
a
0 Juvenile rearing
C0
Juvenile outmigration

Upstream migration
Spawning
Intragravel development
Juvenile rearing up to I month in fresh water
Juvenile outmigration

Upstream migration
0 Spawning

.. .... ... . .
Intragravel development
0
Juvenile rearing
f

Juvenile outmigration

Upstream migration t
0 Spawning
0 Intragravel development
z
...............
Juvenile rearing
C)
Juvenile outmigration

Source: AEIDC 1979.

3-18

Table 3.5. Marine Mammals of the Western Gulf of Alaska.

Occurrence Feeding
Species Presence Coastal Offshore Pop. Est. Behavior

Sea Otter PR x 5,000 Benthos
Dem. fish

Steller Sea Lion PR x x 8,500 Fish
Crustaceans
Squid

Northerh Fur Seal SE x 20,000 Fish
Squid

Harbor Seal PR x 15,000 Fish
25,000 Crustaceans
Squid

Gray Whale* SE x x 1,100 B

Fin Whale* SE x 1,000 Ma

Sei Whale* SE x x 300 Ma/Mi

Minke Whale PR x x 200 Ma/I

Blue Whale SE x 120 Ma

Black Right Whale SE x 20 Mi

Humpback Whale* SE x x 20 Ma

Sperm Whale SE x 6oo T

Beluga Whale PR x x 350 Bi/Ti

Killer Whale PR x x 100 S/I/T

Bering Sea Beaked
Whale SE x R Bi/Ti

Goosebeaked Whale SE x R Bi/Ti

Giant Bottlenose
Whale SE x R Bi/Ti

Pilot Whale SE x x R Ti

Dall Porpoise PR x x 2,000 Bi/Ti

Harbor Porpoise PR x 1,000 Bi

North Pacific White-
sided Dolphin SE x R Bi

Northern Right-
Whale Dolphin SE x R I

Source: SAI 1980.

PR- 'Permanent resident Ti - Teuthoichthyophages
SE- Seasonal entrant T - Teuthophages
R - Rare S - Sarcophages
I - Ichthyophages Mi - Microplanktophages
Bi- Benthoichthyophages Ka - Macroplanktophages
B - Benthophages

Endangered Species.

3-19

Twenty-two sites, rather evenly distributed around the Archi-
pelago, are identified as areas of sea lion concentration (ADF&G 1973).
These extend from the Barren Islands to Chirikof Island. Among them are
the most important sea lion rookeries in the Gulf of Alaska-Sugarloaf
.Island, Marmot Island, and Chirikof Island. After breeding, sea lions
usually move away from these rookeries (Figure 3.3).

@Harbor seals are the predominant.nearshore seal. These seals

feed within the 55-meter contour, and are present off all coasts of
the Archipelago. Despite the fact that harbor seals are not believed
to congregate in.dense colonies, more than 125 sites that contain high-
density seal populations have been identified around the islands (ADF&G
1973). Outstanding among these sites is Tugidak Island. There, approxi-
mately 13,000 seals congregate during the pupping season - the largest
concentration of harbor seals in the world (SAI 1980).

Sea otters live exclusively in marine waters, particularly those
inshoreareas along rocky coasts that have a rich benthic community.
Primary concentrations, which extend from the Barren Islands to the
northeast corner of Afognak Island, are all found along rocky or high-
energy coastlines (ADF&G 1973). The population is evidently expanding its
range toward the south; recent literature indicates well-established
populations of sea otters around the west coast of Afognak Isl and, -the
Trinity Islands, and Chirikof Island (BLM 1980). Sea otters are also
beginning to recolonize sites around Kodiak.Island, expanding into Mar-
mot, Chiniak, and Kizhuyak bays and the outer portions of Viekoda, Uga-
nik, Spiridon, and Uyak bays (BLM 1981).

3.1.3 ESTUARIES

Definition

Estuaries are semi-enclosed bodies of water that have a free

connection to the sea and in which sea water and fresh water mix. Fresh

water is supplied by runoff from rivers and streams.

3-20

iFigure 3.3. Marine sightings of northern (Steller) sea lion by season.
- ----- ----- - -------

W MW $47, Iw 1w sw Me mr 15r 15V 15(r "r Iw

59 57
I-A
0

5r 5r sr 5r

NORTHERN SEA UON
5e NORTHEF04 SEA LION AWO-A- 5v
J.-y-Mah I

Isr 15W mr 15W w 153- tw 5r 'so- 149- "r

15V 5& Isr 153- 15r 15r 15W Uw U8. *r 156- 155- 15C 15Y 15r 1w 14V

W -59

40,P
6 sr
57 sr

HORT@CAN SEA LION
NORTHEF44 SEA UON 59, WOW - D@ -59
>, jw-sw@
4%i,
-11i@- rI-
1, 11 LN@@

153- 152- 15r t5w w
15W 154- 1.- 152- Ifir tur 15M 156-

Source: Mercer et al. In SAI 1980.

Estuarine systems in the Kodiak Archipelago may involve large
bodies of water,.such as major bays, inlets, and fiords, or may be more
limited systems at the mouths of rivers, extending upstream to the limit

of saltwater intrusion.

General Description

In Kodiak, most nearshore marine waters are designated as estua-
rine because of their extensive dilution by fresh water (AEIDC 1979).

Estuarine areas were considered to extend from headland to headland

of bays, inlets, and fiords. Well-developed delta systems, apparently
dominated by tidal action, lie at the head of most Kodiak fiords.

Kodiak estuarine areas are highly productive. Complexity of the
.submarine topography and sediments and good algal growth, including
extensive kelp beds, provide basic nutrients and diverse habitat to
support herbivore and carnivore populations. Some of these populations
are not of commercial value, but are essential for maintaining the diver-
sity and productivity of the estuary. In addition, many marine finfish
and sliellfish utilize the estuarine areas during larval and juvenile
stages of development. For example, during extensive sampling of Izhut,
Kalsin-Chiniak, Kiliuda, and Kaiugnak bays, planktonic fish eggs and
larvae were present during all cruises in both surface and subsurface
samples (Rogers et al. 1979).,

Fisheries Resource

Shellfish. Shellfish rely upon the estuarine environment. In a
series of samples taken in Alitak, Ugak, Kiliuda, and Izhut bays, the
major portion of arthropods taken in the first three estuaries were king
crab, Tanner crab, and pink shri mp (Tables 3.6 and 3.7). In Izhut Bay,
Tanner crab were taken in quantity throughout the year; pink shrimp were
.predominant in August and May (table 3.6).

3-22

Table I.I. Percent biomass composition ol epibenthic organisms trawled in
Izhut and Kiliuda bays, 1978.

Phylum Apr May Jun Jul Aug Nov

Izhut Bay

Porifera 21.9 0 0 @o.3 0 t

Cnidaria 7.5 2.3 0.3 2.8 t 2.2

Mollusca 2.9 0.1 4.6 2.1 o.2

Arthropoda 5.8 44.0 83.4 58.7 64.7 56.9

Echinodermata 61.7 50.8 15.6 33.3 33.0 40.3

Other A.0 0 0.6 o.3 o.2 0.4

Kiliuda Bay

Porifera 0.1 0 t 0 t

Cnidaria 0 0 13.9 t 0.9

Mollusca 6.9. 0 3.6 2.4 2.8

Arthropoda .90..4 100.0 81.9 97.0 96.1

Echinodermata 2.4 0 t 0 0

Other 0.2 0 o.6 o.6 0.2

Source: Feder et al. 1979. In SAI 1980.

3-23'

Table 3.7. Number, weight, and density of major epifaunal invertebrate phyla
of Alitak and Ugak bays: June, July, and August 1976 and March
1977.

Number of Percent of Biomass density
Weight (kg) 2
organisms total weight* (g/m

Alitak Ugak Alitak Ugak Alitak Ugak Alitak Ugak

Porifera @649 1037 44 89 0.38 1.25 0.02 0.04

Cnidaria 71 275 12 45 0.10 0.63 0.01 0.02

Mollusca 276 57 0 17 6 0.14 0.09 0.01

Arthropoda 294,718 162,337 115,87 6,820 99.10 95.85 5.94 3.3 9

Echinodermata 77 577 23 137 0.19 1.93 0.01 0.07

.TOTAL 295,791 164,796 11,683 7,097 99.91 99.75 5.99 3.52

Source: Feder and Jewett 1979b. In SAI 1980.

Total*s do not equal 100 ercent due to rounding.
Average biomass O.Olglm

3-24

Preferred habitat for king crab spawning is kelp-covered reefs
or rocky areas (AEIDC 1975). Extensive areas throughout Kodiak waters
'have been identified by ADF&G as vital for king crab rearing (ADF&G
1978, Map 5). These areas include all estuaries on Sitkinak, Shuyak,
and Afognak islands, and the east coast of Kodiak Island around Aliulik
Peninsula and into Alitak Bay. Estuarine areas of Tugidak Island and
the west coast of Kodiak Island were designated as important for king
crab rearing.

Tanner crab life cycles and habitatin the Kodiak area are poorly
documented (Bill Donaldson, personal communication)..As a result, data
concerning areas vital for their reproduction are incomplete. Olga Bay
has been identified as an estuarine area,of vital importance to Tanner
crab (ADF&G 1978, Map 5). Other studies include Marmot Bay, Chiniak Bay,
Ugak Bay, Kiliuda Bay, Kaiugnak Bay, and Alitak Bay as major estuarine
areas used by Tanner crab for rearing and mating (SAI 1980).

Dungeness crab utilize all the estuarine areas of the Archipelago.
Other important estuarine invertebrates include clams and shrimp. Major
razor clam areas have been identified,in Chiniak Bay, Ugak Bay, Tugidak
tide flats, the area be tween Tugidak and Sitkinak islands, Ocean Bay,
Rolling Bay,. Alitak Lagoon, Bumble Bay, Halibut Bay, Karluk Anchorage,
and Sevenmile Beach. Of these areas only the five-mile stretch at Hali-
but Bay is rated as having a good abundance of razor clams (ADF&G 1978).

In August and September adult shrimp migrate into the estuaries.
All estuarine areas around Kodiak Island and Afognak Island are classi-
fied vital to shrimp reproduction and rearing (ADF&G 1978, Map 6).

Finfish. Herring rely heavily on Kodiak's estuarine systems. Most
major herring concentrations occur in estuarine areas since these hab-
it.ats are used for spawning, larval and juvenile development, and over-
wintering. Although herring do not necessarily return to natal estuaries

3-25

to spawn, several areas traditionally support major herring populations.
On the east side of the islands, important estuaries include Sitkalidak
Strait, Shearwater Bay, Chiniak Bay, Kizhuyak Bay, and Izhut Bay. On the
west coast of the islands, important habitat is more extensive; it in-
cludes all estuari.ne areas north of Uyak Bay to Shuyak Strait, the Stur-
geon River area, and the north shore of Sitkinak Island (ADF&G 1978, Map
6).

Anadromous Fish. Dolly Varden, steelhead trout, and salmon rely
heavily on estuarine habitat as a staging area prior to running upstream
to spawn; in some species for spaw ning; and as a nursery area for ju-
veniles following downstream migrations. Important, life history features
of salmon are summarized in Table 3.4 and Figure 3.2. Pink salmon make
extensive use of estuarine areas during larval and juvenile development.
Larvae migrate to saltwater estuaries immediately upon hatching, where
they school and probably remain all summer (AEIDC 1979). In addition,
pinks often spawn intertidally in estuarine areas. Chum salmon also spawn
intertidally, but to a lesser extent (ADF&G 1978). Since salmon are known
to utilize st reams within every estuary and Dolly Varden are believed to
utilize all stareams that maintain flow during winter, all estuarine
areas in the Kodi akArchipelago provide important habitat for anadromous

fish.

Marine Mammals

Marine mammals comprise another important user group within Kodiak
Archipelago estuaries. Harbor seals utilize.all estuarine areas around
the Archipelago for hauling out. Particularly large seal concentrations
are found in estuaries along the eastern and southern shores of Kodiak
Island, especially in Womens, Kalsin, Ugak, Kiliuda, and Deadman bays. On
Afognak Island harborseals congregate in Malina, Foul, Perenosa, and
Seal bays (BLM 1980, 1981).

Sea lions also haul out in estuarine areas, particularly during
winter months when they tend to move into more protected waters (ADF&G

3-26

1973). Estuaries used by sea lions include Vera Bay on Long Island,
Deadman Bay, and Sulua Bay (ADF&G 1913, Map 4).

Although sea otter typically avoid the upper reaches of estuarine
areas, medium to high densities of sea otter have been noted in all
estuarine areas around Afognak Island and in Viekoda Bay on Kodiak
Island. Low densities of sea otter frequent Kizhuyak Bay, Chiniak Bay
(including Womens and.Middle bays), Uyak Bay, Spiridon Bay, and Uganik
Bay (BLM 1981).

Recent data indicate sightings of both endangered and nonendan-
gered species of whales in estuarine areas around the Kodiak Archipelago
(Table 3.8). Estuaries with several whale sightings include Uyak Bay,
Uganik Bay, Uganik Passage, Chiniak Bay, Ugak Bay, Kiliuda Bay, and Sitka-.
lidak Strait (BLM 1981).

River otters are reported to use many Kodiak estuaries heavily,
although thelocations of prime otter estuarine habitat within the Archi-
pelago have not been identified (Bill Donaldson, personal communication).

Birds

Estuaries within the Kodiak Archipelago, with their abundant
food supplies and protected waters, provide high-value bird habitat.
Densities are most abundant and species composition most diverse during
the winter, when breeding birds from northern nesting grounds gather
in protected estuaries and lagoons. During this season waterfowl (particu-
larly mallards, emperor geese, goldeneyes, and eiders) and marine birds
(particularly cormorants, gulls, murres, murrelets, and crested auklets)
are most common (Table 3.9). Bald eagles are also common during winter.
During winter months, these birds are widely distributed throughout
the Archipelago in the nearshore zone. Major concentrations recorded
during a 1976 winter survey (Arneson 1977) occurred along the northern

3-27

Table 3.8. Whale sightings around the Kodiak Islands 1975-1980.

.Species
1-
Location Gray Whale Humpback* Fin@ Sei* M.inke Killer

Perenosa Bay x 2
Tonki Bay x 2

Izhut Bay x
Chini:ak Bay 3 x

Ugak Bay x

Kiliuda Bay x

Sitkalidak Strait. x x

Uyak Bay x x x x x

Uganik Bay x x x x

Viekoda Bay x

Foul Bay x

Source: BLM 1981.

Endangered species
1The migratory ro ute of the gray whale is depicted as utilizing all estuaries
on the east side of Kodiak Borough.
2Major sp ring whale concentrations are depicted in these bays.
3Major spring whale concentrations are depicted in Chiniak Bay, including
Womens, Middle, and Kalsin bays.

31-28

Table 3.9. Seasonal avian utilization of Kodiak Archipelago bays and estuarine
waters.

Bay and Estuarine Waters
Family Species Spring Summer Fall Winter

Gaviidae Common Loon 1 ? ? 1
Yellow-billed Loon - -
Arctic Loon 1 ? 1
Red-throated Loon 1 1
Podicipedidae Red-necked Grebe 1 1
Horned Crebe - ? 2
Diomedeidae Black-footed Albatross -
Laysan Albatross - -
Procellariidae Northern Fulmar 2 2 2
Pink-footed Shearwater - - -
Flesh-footed Shearwater -
New Zealand Shearwater - - -
Sooty Shearwater 2 3 3
Short-tailed Shearwater 2 3 3
Manx Shearwater - 1 -
Hydrobatidae Scaled Petrel - -
Fork-tailed Storm Petrel 2 2
Leach's Storm Petrel - - - -
Phalacrocoracidae Double-crested Cormorant 2 1 1 2
Pelagic Cormorant 2 2 2 3
Red-faced Cormorant 2 2 2 3
Anatidae Whistling Swan 1 1
Canada Goose ? 1
White-fronted Goose 1 1 -
Black Brant 2 -
Emperor Goose 2 2
Mallard 3 3
Gadwall 2 2
Pintail 3 1 1 2
Green-winged Teal 1 1 1 2
Blue-winged Teal 1
Anatidae American Wigeon 2 ? ? 2
European Wigeon 1
Northern Shoveler 1
Redhead -
Canvasback 1 ? I
Ring-necked Duck 1 1
Tufted Duck - ?
Greater Scaup 2 ? ? 2
Lesser Scaup 1 - 1
Common Goldeneye 3 ? 2 2
Barrow's Goldeneye 1 ? ? 1
Bufflehead 1 2 2
Oldsquaw 3 - - 4
Anatidae Harlequin Duck 2 2 2 2
Steller's Eider 2 - 2 3
Common Eider 2 2 2 3
King Eider 2 - - 3

3-29

Table 3.9. (Concluded)

Bay and Estuarine Waters
Family Species Spring Summer Fall Winter

Spectacled Eider - - - 1
White-winged Scoter 3 1 2 3
Surf Scoter 2 1 1 2
Common Scoter 3 1 1 3
Smew 1 - - ?
Common Merganser 1 ? 1
Red-breasted Merganser 1 1 1 1
Phalaropodidae Red Phalarope 1 - -
Northern Phalarope 1 1 1
Stercorariidae Pomarine Jaeger 2 2 2
Parasitic Jaeger 2 2 2
Long-tailed Jaeger 1 1
Skua - I
Laridae Glaucous Gull 1 1 1 1
Glaucous-winged Gull 3 3 3 3
Slaty-backed Gull - - 1
Herring Gull 1 1 1 1
Thayer's Gull - - - ?
Ring-billed Gull - - -
Franklin's Gull - -
Bonaparte's Gull - 1 -
Mew Gull 3 3 3
Sabine's Gull - 1 ? -
Black-legged Kittiwake 4 4 4 2
Red-legged Kittiwake - - - -
Arctic Tern. 3 3 3
Aleutian Tern 2 2 - -
Alcidae Common Murre 3 3 3 4
Thick-billed Murre I 1 1 1
Pigeon Guillemot 3 3 3 3
Marbled Murrelet 3 3 3 3
Kittlitz's Murrelet 1 1 1 -
Ancient Murrelet 1 1 1 1
Cassin's Auklet, 3 2 2 ?
Parakeet Auklet - I -
Crested Auklet - - 3 4
Least Auklet - - -
Rhinoceros Auklet - 2 2 ?
Horned Puffin 3 3 3 1
Tufted Puffin 4 4 4 1

Source: SAI 1980.
1 Probably less than 100; 2 hundreds; 3 thousands; 4 tens of thousands.

3-30

and eastern coasts of Afognak and Kodiak islands (Figure 3.4). Chiniak
and Kizhauyak bays the supported the most birds, with densities ranging
from 51 to 70 birds per square kilometer.

Estuarine habitats are also heavily utilized during summer, primar-
ily providing feeding habitat for waterfowl and marine birds nesting in
adjacent areas. Shearwater, black-legged kittiwakes, and common murres
dominate the summer community, Although cormorants, fork-tailed.storm
petrels, northern fulmars, Arctic terns, gulls, and puffins are also

common.,

During spring migrations, estuaries provide primary Avian staging,
feeding and resting habitat. Although distribution and utilization
patterns during this period change daily, waterfowl typically dominate
the scene. Loons, grebes, marine birds, and shorebirds.are also common..

3.1.4 BARRIER ISLANDS AND LAGOONS

Definition

Barrier island and lagoon systems typically consist of elongated,
low-profile nearshore islands that run parallel to the shore and protect
a saltwater lagoon between the islands and the mainland. The protected
lagoon has either free or intermittent exchange of water with the sea.

Gfneral Description

Within the Kodiak Archipelago, true barrier islands usually do
not occur,. In this area, lagoons are usually associated with and pro-
tected by coastal spits or shoals. Due to this morphology, Kodiak lagoons
tend to be specialized estuarine systems with restricted exchanges of
sea water. Two possible exceptions to this characteristic of Kodiak
lagoons are Dry Spruce Bay and Anton Larsen Bay (ADNRa 1980). Since these
areas are biologically more comparable to those covered under the estuar-

ine habitat, however, they are included in that habitat.

3-31

Figure 3.4. Winter densities of Kodiak coastal birds.

1550 1540 1530 1520
590 1 1 590

580

C B

D
57 -57 0

DENSITY Mrds/W)
E
E3 20-30
[ID 31-50
51-70
Count areas

0 0
155 1540 153 1520

Source: SAI 1980.

3-32

Lagoons art most prevalent In the south and southwestern portions
of the Archipelago. Unlike other estuarine systems of the islands, Ia-
goons included in this habitat are shallow and tend to have sandy or
flat shorelines. Even those lagoons scattered around the remaining shores
of kodiak Island usually conform with these characteristics.

Marine and Upland Mammals

Given the general physical characteristics of Kodiak lagoons, more
than one-fourth.of the sandy breaches used for harbor seal pupping are
within lagoons.Those lagoons with names include Sitkinak, Sukhoi, Grant,
and McDonald.

Although the entire Kodiak Archipelago is considered prime habitat
for river otter, tidal lagoons with salmon runs are considered the best
sites. 'No surveys have been made, however, to correlate these areas
with number. of otter (RRA/IEC 1978).

Finfish and Shellfish.

Lagoons meet seine of the criteria for finfish and shellfish spawn-
ing and rearing. Am6n those most frequehtly used are McDonald Lagoon,.
Sitkinak Lagoon, Browns.Lagoon,and Karluk Lagoon (AD&G 1978, Map 2). All
but McDonald Lagoon are used for salmon spawning. McDonald Lagoon is
vital for shrimp and Dungeness crab rearing. Spawning seasons and sub-
strete preferences are comparable to those discussed under estuarine;
wetland. and. tidal flat; and river, stream, and lake habitats.

Birds

Waterfowl and eagles are the dominant types of birds using lagoon
habitats.. Species composition, abundance, and seasonal distribution
are Comparable to those for estuarine habitats.,

3-33

3.1.5 WETLANDS AND TIDEFLATS

Definition

Wetlands are permanently moist, shallowly submerged lands (such
as marshes, wet tundra, swamps, or bogs) that support characteristic
vegetative communities. Tideflats include those habitats that are alter-
nately covered and uncovered by marine tidal changes. These two habitats
frequently occur in combination at the heads of bays and fjords, and at

the mouths of rivers. Freshwater wetlands also occur in inland lowlands.
The coastal tideflat locations surr ounding the Kodiak Archipelago have
been mapped and classified to include shorelines that have either rela-
tively flat intertidal areas.of sand,. gravel, or bedrock, or moderate
slopes of sandy substrate (Sears & Zimmerman 1977).

General Description

The presence of coastal tideflats surrounding the Kodiak Archi-
pelago is relatively low; however, the actual amount of habitat varies by
region. Kodiak and Afognak islands have very limited tideflat wetland
complexes. Hayes and Ruby (1979) indicate that 3.7 percent of the shore-
line substrate on these islands is sand or mud. The coastal clas.sifica-
tion map (Map 3) indicates a greater percentage, since tideflats have
been defined in this study also to include level gravel or bedrock . I
beaches, in addition to the more commonly applied sandy or muddy bottom
beaches. Extensive tideflat-wetland complexes usually occur only at the
heads of bays or around lagoons on these islands. In addition to these
saltwater habitats, large inland wetlands occur in the Karluk River and
Ayakulik River drainages in southwestern Kodiak.

In sharp contrast to the availability of these habitat types
on Kodiak and Afognakislands, shorelines around the Trinity Islands
contain extensive tideflats, and most of the Tugidak Island mainland
.is wetland habitat. Hayes and Ruby identified 66.5 percent of these

.3-34

shorelines as sandy substrate. All of the Tugidak Island shoreline and
large portions of the adjacent Sitkinak Island coast fall into this

category.

Tideflat-wetland complexes provide a valuable habitat for birds
and mammals, particularly when used in combination with adjacent waters.
In addition, the tideflat areas, especially those that are composed of
sandy beaches, provide habitat for abundant clam and polychaete popula-
tions..Taxonomic variety and numbers of benthic individuals vary accord-
ing to site@specific sediment characteristics (Table 3.10).

'Birds

The coastal tideflat-wetland complexes are used primarily by birds
as summer nesting, feeding, and migratory staging habitat. During winter
months, however, this habitat, particularly lower tideflats, is used in
conjunction with adjacent bays, lagoons and estuaries to serve as habitat
for diving ducks and geese.

Most summer nesting occurs in coastal wetlands above high tide
lines and in inland freshwater wetlands. Whistling swans, mallards,
pintails, and shorebirds are dominant summer nesting residents.

The entire Archipelago provides high-quality bird habitat through
its numerous complexes.of wetlands; tideflats; and adjacent lagoons,
estuaries, and bays. Hence, birds are widely distributed. However, some
areas annually receive high seasonal use. Heavy winter use areas are in
Chiniak, Uyak, Uganik, Alitak, Kizhuyak, Middle and Kalsin b ays; inten-
sive summer nesting occurs in the Karluk and Ayakulik River drainages and
on Tugidak Island.

Marine Mammals

Coastal tideflats, are also favored by harbor seals as pupping
habitats. Concentrations of harbor seals during the pupping season occur

3-35

Table 3.10. Sediment characteristics, density of Siliqua patula (razor clam), and
taxonomic diversity richness (counts) in the Kodiak area.

Tide Level Mean No.
Stations Grain S. patula Number of Taxa
Site Surveyed Size Sample Bivalves Polychaetes

Halibut Bay 10 0.21 268 7 8

Bumble Bay 6 0.60 4 1 3

Tugidak 5 0.23 23 1 5

Source: Kaiser and Konigsbert 1977. In SAI 1980.

3-36'

on tidal beaches on Tugidak, Sitkinak, Geese, and Aiaktalik islands.

Other tideflats used by seals include those located within Alitak Bay,
Ugak Bay, Sukhoi Lagoon, Grant Lagoon, Terror Bay, Paramanof Bay,
McDonald Lagoon, Ocean Bay, Rolling Bay, north of Driver Bay, the
Ayak.ulik area, and West Amakuli Island (ADF&G 1973, SAI 1980, Map 4).

Upland Mammals

Upland mammals use these shores, pr .imar ily for forage. Red fox
and Ar ctic fox depend upon beach fleas, clams, crabs, marine birds,
fish, and beach carrion for food. (SAI 1980); Sitka black-tailed deer
depend upon beach grass, sedge, and kelp during the winter season when
other food sources are not available (SAI 1980).

3.1.6 ROCKY ISLANDS AND SEACLIFFS

Definition

This classification includes rocky islands, offshore reefs, and
all vertical seacliffs.with no intertidal area. Rocky.islands generally
have rock or cliff-lined shorelines. Occasionally rocky islands hav e
tundra-vegetated interiors or areas along their coasts that are fairly
level. This habitat category applies to most of the offshore islands.-
Along the coast of the major islands, however, this habitat type is .
limited to those shores with vertical cliffs. Occasionally a steep slope

area is included if the substrate is bedrock and the contours indicate

very limited intertidal area.

Marine Mammals

Offshore rocky islands and seacliffsare particularly important
to marine mammals and marine birds. Almost one-third of the known harbor
seal haulout sites within the Archipelago are on rocky islands and reefs
(ADF&G 1973; BLM 1980). Many of these sites are along the east coast of
Kodiak Island in the vicinity of Chiniak and Ugak bays. The remaining
sites are distributed around the Archipelago.

3-37

Sea lions also have a strong affinity for rocky island and sea-
cliff habitats. Major sea lion pupping rookeries occur in this habitat
type on Chirikof, Sugarloaf, and Marmot islands (BLM 1980). These tradi-
tional sea lion pupping areas provide almost all of the annual recruit-
ment for the Kodiak Archipelago and a majority of the recruits for the
Gulf of Alaska. Areas used by sea lions and harbor.seals as haulout
grounds include Twoheaded Island, Gurney Bay, Barren Islands, Latax,
Rocks, and Nagai Rocks. Sea lions also use Sea Lion Rocks off the coast
of Tonki Cape (Figure 3.3)(Map 4). Sea lion s are most abundant in the
coastal areaduring the spring season.

Birds

Marine birds are a dominant feature of the Kodiak coastal zone.

They are abundant during all seasons, and-are widely distributed through-
out the Archipelago. At least 23 species are known to occur regularly
(MacIntosh 1980); approximately 253 major nesting rookeries exist and
support approximately 1.2 million nesting marine b irds (Sowls, et al.
1978). Rocky island and seacliff ledges provide the preferred nesting
habitat for most species. Exceptions include tufted puffins and fork-
tailed storm petrels, which prefer to dig nesting burrows and hence are
associated with soil bluffs. Common murres, tufted puffins, fork-tailed
storm petrels, and black-legged kittiwakes are most abundant. Other
birds common in this habitat include double-crested co rmorants, pelagic
,cormorants, glaucous-winged gulls, Arctic terns, pigeon guillemots,
and horned puffins.

The Barren Islands support the largest concentration of marine
birds within the Kodiak Archipelago. Most of, the remaining major rooker-
ies are located on the northern and eastern coasts of Kodiak and Afognak
islands (Map 8). Some of the more important areas on these coasts include
Flat Island, West Boulder Bay, The Triplets, Ermine Point Island, Eider
and Nelson islands, Island Bay Islands, and.Anton Larsen Bay.

3-38

Seacliffs also provide nesting habitat for raptors, particularly
peregrine falcons. The peregrine falcon that occurs in the Kodiak Archi-
pelago is the nonendangered Peale's subspecies (Falco peregrinus
pealei). The population status and distribution of this bird is not
known, however, it is believed to be widely distributed along,the coastal
zone throughout the Archipelago. Some birds may also nest.on inland

Cliffs.

3.1.7 EXPOSED HIGH-ENERGY COASTS

Definition

Exposed high-energy coasts are directly exposed to ocean-generated,
,waves and storm surges. Intertidal areas are subject to dynamic shoreline
processes, such as erosion and deposition. Beach sediments range from
coarse sand,and gravel to bo ulders and rocks.

Exposed high-energy coasts became an all-encompassing shoreline
category in the Kodiak Archipelago for several reasons. First other

habitat definitions could not be modified to include additional shoreline

types without losing their viability. For example, although most shore-
lines are within estuaries, the estuarine habitat is restricted to the

coastal zone below MLLW. Alternatively, definitions for wetlands and
tideflats, and for rocky islands and seacliffs refer to highly special-
ized coastal forms. Although these definitions are extended to shores
only marginally applicable, much of the shoreline still remains without
designation.

Second, exposed high-energy coasts could be applied to remaining
shores on the basis of substrate characteristics. Energy levels are
difficult to assess in the Kodiak Archipelago. Local variations in wind,
combined with the highly convoluted shorelines, significantly affect
local circulation and, therefore, energy levels (Hayes and Ruby 1979). As
a result, it is not always possible to determine accurately the energy
levels associated with site-specific bedrock, boulder, or gravel beaches.

3-39

(Note: Hayes and Ruby's classifications consistently apply to energy
levels only with respect to protected headlands. Descriptions associated
with other categories at specific sites indicate that their remaining
categories can apply to a range of energy levels.)

General Description

Exposed bedrock shores comprise approximately 50 percent of Kodiak
and Afognak islands. Almost 90 percent of the Barren Islands are exposed
-bedrock (Sears and Zimmerman 1977). Exposed bedrock shores usually have
moderate to steep gradients. Approximately 86 percent of the Archipelago
is erosional (Hayes and Ruby 1979). Erosion is considered a relatively
slow process in the islands, however, because of the resistant nature
of bedrock (AEIDC 1975).

Biological Resources

Exposed high-energy coasts provide habitat for a variety of marine
littoral-zone flora and fauna, which in turn are used by important fish
and wildlife resources. In addition, high-energy coasts provide feeding
and nesting habitat for a few bird species and a food source and resting

habitat for marine mammals.

'Rocky intertidal areas of exposed high-energy coasts of the Kodiak
Archipelago have been classified into three biotic zones:

Zone 1: Supralittoral fringe (splash zone)--Extends from mean
higher high water (MHHW) to the highest reach of spray.

Zone 2: Littoral Zone--extends from MHHW to the low water of

spring tides. This zone is further divided into four
subzones, reflecting temporal differences in tidal cover-
,age and different predominant species.

Zone 3: Infralittoral fringe--Extends from low waters of spring

tides to true subtidal.

3-40

The relative biotic cover in each of these zones is depicted
in Figure 3.5.. Significant features of the splash zone are that this
zone support only a thin veneer of bluegreen algae and a small number
of snails and amphipods. The uppermost area of the littoral zone, covered
only at MHHW, is primarily characterized by bare rock. In the midlit-
toral zone, algal and invertebrate cover is almost complete and is domi.-
nated by rockweek, a brown algae; barnacles and mussels also are preva-
lent. Below the midlittoral level is a dense band of red algae, and
chitons appear. Eelgrass, found in the lower reaches of rocky intertidal
and nearshore areas, provides critical habitat for king and Dungeness
crab (BLM 1981). The.most complete biological break evidently occurs
in the fourth subzone, below mean lower low water (MLLW).,Above MLLW

small foliose red and brown algae dominate. Below MLLW large-bladed
brown.kelp dominate. In the infralittoral fringe, brown kelp continues
to dominate, though with different species prevalent (Figure 3.5).

Site characteristics modify the above generalized zones. Modifying
factors include wave exposure, beach profile, and substrate. Critical
factors influencing spe cific sites appear to be:

@o Bedrock and large boulder substrates promote the development
of a taxonomicaly rich community with large amounts of biomass..

'th small boulders on the site yields low
o High wave exposure wi
variety and abundance.

Mammals

Another factor modifying shoreline communities is the presence
of sea otters..Sea otter activities are concentrated along-shores charac-
terized by high-energy coasts (Maps 3 and 4).Within this area, sites
frequented by sea otter are typified by a community structure exhibiting
extensive marine algae beds; fewer barnacles, mussels, sea stars, and
snails; and high-density populations of amphipods, iso pods, mysids, and
predacious fish.

3-41

157' 156* 15W 11W 153* 1521 151* 150* 149' 148P 147' SPECIES KEY
"M lk@&'@g'tk-' 1 11
- Alaria sp brown kelp
K - -11 -'@ , -
A HS Hedophyllum sesslis (brown kel
VIP,
60*
AS - Acmaea scutum (limpet) KT Katharina tunicata (chiton).
BB - Balanus balanoides (barnacles) L Laminaria sp (brown kelp)
BC - Balanus cartosus LS Littorina sitkana (snail)
lo o
BG Balanus glanduta ME Mytitus edulla (mussel)
BSP Balanus sp. N Nereocystis luetkeana
GO Coralline algae (floating kelp)
KM.5O CP Collisella pelts (limpet) NL Nucella lamellosa (sn
ail)
OF.ME CU Cucumaria sp. (sea cucumber) OF Odonthatta floccosa (red algae
5W
A ac E Endocladia muricata (red algae) PO Pleaster ochraceus (starfish)
-A ao 59,
Do A.HP
2MME
- U-51A,
El Enteromorpha intestinalis POR Porphyra sp (leafy red algae)
EV - Evasterias (sea star)
cc PR Prasiola meridionalla
F Fucus distichus (rockweed) (green algae)
0 A".
:G Cigartina sp PY Phyllospadix (flowering surf a
ME
RH Rhodymenia palmaia (red algae)
@HC Halosaccion glandiforms
OF
1P, AM Rhodymenia larix
RX
HP (red algae) (red algae)
z'-
HP Halichondria panicea (sponge) USP Ulva sp (green algae)
ac J "3 t'

I Le 58*
. . . . . . . . . .
A

OF"ac
AN
AMP
IF
42
ME
OF
ZONES RELATIVE BIOTIC COVER
4"
5r
57

Zero to sparse
F kx;' - OF Supralittoral fringe
so
sc
He co Subzone A- cover
OF EH Intermediate
A Subzone B cover
t Littoral zone
cu FOR Subzone C Dense cover
IT,, L8 OL8 11L9
56- Rx'" LISP Usp
asp F.Pop
A - sc E.M 5 Subtone D-i
A
OF : OC A A
0c - OF IV
A.M k"S
A - LA ft".uF a"." Infralittoral fringe
I L py I L."I t'"
1 156' 155* 154* 153* 152* 151 150* 149* 148-

Figure 3.5. Relative biotic cover at intertidal sampling sites.

Source: Zimmerman et al. J978, In SAI ]980.

Both harbor seals and sea lions heavily utilize high-energy coasts
for hauling out. Harbor seals, though located throughout the Archipelago,
concentrate their activities on the south and eastern shores. Sea lion
sites are less abundant but are also distributed.throughout the islands.
Major sea lion rookeries are located on, or adjacent to, high-energy
coasts on Sugarloaf, Marmot, and Chirikof Islands. Both seals and sea
lions a re most abundant in coastal waters and on haulout areas during

spring and summer months.

Of the upland mammals, Sitka black-tailed deer are the most active
users of high-energy shores. Deer utilize and rely upon intertidal areas
along these shores for forage during severe winter months. Deer occupy
most of Afognak and Kodiak islands, although they are most abundant.
in the northern portion of Kodiak Island.

Birds

Bird use of high-energy coasts is generally limited to the few
species, particularly shorebirds, that use these habitats for nesting
and feeding. Black oystercatchers, black turnstones, surfbirds, and rock
sandpipers are most frequently encountered. In addition to-shorebird use,
other birds., including gulls, terns, bald eagles, ravens, crows, and many
songbirds, frequently visit these areas in search of food.

3.1.8 RIVERS, STREAMS, AND LAKES

Definition

Rivers, streams, and lakes provide critical aquatic habitat for
resident and anadromous populations. In addition, they support summer
and winter activities of local bird and mammal (particularly bear,
beaver, and land otter) populations. Rivers and streams are the conduit
for the freshwater component of estuarine systems, and serve as a valu-
able link between upland and marine.environments.

3-43

General Description

The largest lakes and longest rivers within the Borough are lo-
cated in southwest Kodiak Island. Major southwest lakes include Karluk,
Frazer, Red, Akalura, and South Olga lakes. Other important lake systems
on Kodiak Island, such as Spiridon, Little River, Uganik, Terror, Buskin,
and Lake Rose Tead, are significantly smaller. Very small pothole and
high mountain lakes are also prevalent. Pothole lakes are generally
found along the Upper Ayakulik River, between Olga Bay and the ocean, at
the mid-reach of the Karluk River, on the Lower Aluilik Peninsula, and
throughout Tugidak Island. Pothole lakes are also prevalent in the north
and northeast sections of Afognak Island and on Shuyak Island. Major
lakes on Afognak Island include: Selief Lake, Afognak Lake, Big and
Little Kitoe lakes, Pauls, Laura, and Gretchen lakes,.Portage Lake,
Little Waterfall Lake, Hidden Lake, and Upper and Lower Melina lakes.

With the exception of the Ayakulik and Karluk rivers in southwest
Kodiak Island, rivers in the Archipelago tend to be short and steep,
often originating in small mountain lakes or small glaciers (AEIDC 1975).
Almost all rivers support populations of anadromous fish, whose spawned-
out carcasses supply essential phosphorus and nitrogen for phytoplankton
production (AEIDC 1979). Bear and raptors, particularly the bald eagle,
can be found along many of the streams, usually feeding on spawning
salmon.

Fisheries Resources

One of the significant features of the freshwater systems in the
Kodiak Archipelago is their abundant anadromous fish populations. General-
life history features of these fishes are summarized in Table 3.4 and
Figure 3.2. Dolly Varden char, as both anadromous and resident popula-
tions, are the most widely distributed freshwater or anadromous fish in
the Kodiak region (ADF&G 1978). Anadromous Dolly Varden are fall spawn-
ers, ret streams from midsummer through late fall. Spawning
urning to
occurs between September and the end of December.,After spawning, anadro-
mous Dolly Varden seek lake-river systems in which to overwinter.

3-44

Although Dolly Varden always return to their natal stream to spawn, they
have no equivalent homing instinct for the system in which they over-
winter. Kodiak Island lakes known to be important Dolly Varden over-
wintering sites include: Buskin, Barabara, Saltery, Uganik, Little River,
Frazer, Red, Karluk, and Akalura.lakes, Upper Station.(Olga Bay@ and Lake
Ro,se Tead. On Afognak Island the lakes include Afognak, Upper and Lower
Melina, and Portage (ADF&C 1978). Dolly Varden fry,hatch in the spring
and remain in the streams for three to four years before migrating to
sea. They remain at sea only six to eight weeks before returning to
freshwater lakes for overwintering (ADF&G 1978).

Major native steelhead runs occur on the Karluk River, Ayakulik
(Red Lake) drainage, Afognak River, Frazer Lake system, and Uganik River.
Other systems where steelhead are present include South Olga Lakes,
Portage Lake, Pauls Lake, Melina River, Saltery Creek, and Buskin River.
Steelhead enter fresh water from late August through November, over-
winter, and spawn the following spring. Fry remain in fresh water three
to four years.

Distribution of rainbow trout, a permanent freshwater resident,
closely coincides with that of steelhead. Both typically inhabit lake-
river systems. The most important rainbow trout drainages include the
Karluk, Ayakulik (Red), Portage, and Afognak (ADF&G 1978). Rainbow trout
are also stocked in a number of lakes around the City of Kodiak.

All five species of salmon spawn in the Kodiak Archipelago. Each
has a different development pattern and often a different stream prefer-
ence (Table 3.4) Escapement figures vary considerably among the drainages
Table 3.11).

Pink salmon utilize nearly all drainages identified as.anadromous
fish streams, and are the only species recorded to spawn on Chirikof
Island. The only river systems they do not appear to use are on Tugidak
Island, intertidally off Sukhoi Lagoon, and in Russian Harbor (ADF&G
1978). In 1979 principal pink salmon return were on the east and west

3-45

Table.-3.11. Selected Kodiak area peak salmon escaperherit counts for 1979.

ADF&G 2 3 4 Percent of Total
Stream NO. Stream Name Pink s Chum Rod Coho King Kodiak Escapement

251-10 Malina Creek 19,000 21,200
302 Thorsheim 15,000 1,200
304 E. Paramanof 13,000
825 Perenosa Greek 71,000 8,500 1,480
828 Paul's Lake 8,415

252L314 Big Kitoi 15,988
332 Big Danger 24,000
334 Marka 41,500
342 Afognak 6 -82,703 4,920
Afognak Total 7 257,191 2 123,018 9,630 0 9
Percent of Kodiak Escapement by Species 10% <.016/. 9% 10%

252-364 Coat Creek 12,000
365 Kizhuyak Creek 24,600 31,200
366 Pestchani Point 16,500
Li 371 Sheratin 38,000 11,150
I
382 Red Cloud Creek 16,200

253-121 E. Uganik 99,000 2,000 55,000
331 Terror River 80,000 5,000
332 Beaumans 18,100

254-101 Little River 36,000 9,500
201 West Uyak 19,000
202 South Uyak 147,000
203 East Uyak 58 000
301 S.E. Zachar 43:000 2,900
401 Spiridon River 18,000 21,000

Continued

Table 3.11. (Continued).

ADF&G
stream No. Stream Name Pinks2 Chum3 Red4 Coho5 Percent of Total
King Kodiak Escapement

255-lOl Karluk
201 Red River 82,973 513,137 45,262 9,555
401 S. Sturgeon .10,878 223,070 2,047 4,833
6 45,ooo 150,000
Westside Totals 812,289 226,403 801,707 47,319 14,392
Percent of Kodiak Escapement by Species 7 32% 60% 50% - 100% 43

257-304 Upper Station 174,211 li,555
402 Horse Marine 2,8oo 21,000
403 Dog Salmon 95,178 126,742
404 Little Dog Salmon 17,000
502 Deadman River 97,500 2,400
603 N. Sulua 10,500 3,2oo
701 Humpy Creek 6 306,ooo
Alitak Total 7 569,185 9,815 332,325 11,60 53 21
Percent of Kodiak Escapement by Species 23% 2% 25% 12% <.5%

258-207 W. Kiliuda 22,000 11,000
304 Ghost Rocks Creek 11,000
@j 522 'Barling Bay 67,500 3,000
541 Kaiugnak Point 13,000
542 Kaiugnak Lagoon
552 Cape Kiavak Creek 11,500
602 N. Kaguyak 33,ooo 6,ooo
701 Seven Riv6rs 100,700
703 Tundra Lakes Cr. 10,000

259-211 Buskin River 5liOOO 5,500 1,010
222 Russian River 24,2oo
223 Salonie Creek 19,500
.231 American River 45,300 5,000
242 Sid Olds Creek 80,000 6,ooo @1,355

Continued

Table 3.11. (Concluded).

ADF&G 2 3 4 5 Percent of Total
Stream No. Stream Name Pinks Chum Red Coho King Kodiak Escapement

259-251 Rosalyn Creek 11,500 5,825
301 Sacramento Creek 23,000 7,000
41o Pasagshak Trail 14,000
412 Miam River 71,000 1,000
414 Hurst Creek 17,000
415 Saltery Creek 68,000 3,000 43,000 4,000
424 Eagle Ha@rbor 57,300 10,900
General Area Total 7 879,682 186,180 76,700 25,186 27
Percent of Kodiak Escapement by Species 35% 44% 6% 27% 0%

iStream numbers are those designated by ADF&G for managing the salmon fishery. Escapement figures for 1979
generally fall toward the upper end of the range for each system.

2
Those streams with return of 10,000 or more pink salmon.

3
Partial listing, those streams with returns of 1,000 or more chum salmon. Other chum streams with peak escapement of 1,000 or more chum salmon
41-
00 are Santa Flavia (258-201) 18,000; Shearwater (258-202) 12,000; Dog Bay Greek (258-204) 9,000; Coxcomb Point (258-205) 14,000; Pass Creek
(258-208) 9,000; Amee Bay (258-301) 3,200; McCord Bay (258-302) 3,800; Nut Island Creek (258-305) 1,200; Ocean Beach (258-401) 13,000; Newman
Bay (258-513) 7,500; Midway Bay (258-521) 1,000; Old Harbor Creek (258-523) 1,300; Strip Creek (258-808) 1,350; Rough Creek (259-416) 12,000;
Finger Creek (259-421) 2000; Seal Creek (259-423) 2,060; Gull Point Creek (259-426A) 2,800; and Gull Cape Creek (259-426B) 26,000.
4Partial listing, those streams with returns of 5,000 or more red salmon. Other red salmon streams with peak escapement of 5,000 or more red
salmon are: Akalura Lake (257-302) 7,500; Ocean Beach (258-401) 15,000; and Pagagshak River (259-411) 12,000.
5Partial listing, those streams with returns of 1,000 or more coho salmon. Other streams with peak escapement of 1,000 or more coho salmon are
Selief Creek (251-101) 1,000; Malina Bay Creek (251-202) 1,200; and Pasagshak River (259-411) 2,103.
6Since only selected streams are presented, totals are greater than the figures listed in the table.
7Kodiak fishing district minus counts for Alaska mainland.

Source: ADF&C 1979.

coasts of Kodiak Island. On the west coast more than 50 percent of the
A escapement entered the East Uganik, Terror, South Uyak, and Karluk river
systems. On the east coast Sid Olds Creek and Seven Rivers received the
most pink salmon. The single largest return was to Humpy Creek in the
Alitak area (Table 3.11). Traditionally, the largest spawning popula-
tions seem to be on the Ayakulik (Red) and Karluk river systems. In
addition to using more than 300 streams, pinks also make extensive use of
intertidal areas for spawning. Pink salmon have evolved into two distinct
classes - those that spawn in,even-numbered years, and those that spawn
in odd years. In the Kodiak Archipelago, the even-year run is more abun-
dant (ADF&G 1978).

Chum salmon are second in abundance to pink salmon on Kodiak
Island, spawning in streams in all major estuarine systems and occasion-
ally in intertidal areas (ADF&G 1978). More than half the 1979 chum
salmon escapement was into river systems on the west coast of Kodiak
Island. Of these, more than half returned to the South Sturgeon River.
Most of the remaining 1979 escapement was distributed among rivers on
the east and west coasts of Kodiak Island, particularly between Kiliuda
Bay and the southern ti.p of Aliulik Peninsula (ADF&G 1979) Historically,
chum salmon are the only species to spawn on Tugidak.Island, in Sukhoi
Lagoon, and in about half the drainages on Sitkinak Island. On Afognak
Island chum salmon are identified as spawning only at the headwaters of
Kazakof Bay and Afognak Bay (ADF&G 1978). Afognak Island escapement
eq uale d less than 1 percent of the natural chum salmon escapement in
1979. In Izhut Bay, the Kitoi Bay Hatchery releases 25 to 30 million pink
and chum fry with an expected return of 250,000 to 300,000 adults (ADF&G,

no date).

Sockeye salmon frequently spawn in lakes. Freshwater systems that
have extensive sockeye spawning and are of major importance include Olga
Bay (Upper Station), Red Lake, Frazer Lake and drainage area, Karluk Lake
and drainages, and the Karluk River. Both the Frazer Lake system and the
Karluk Lake system have ADF&G projects to enhance the sockeye population.
Less extensive sockeye spawning areas are located in Selief Lake, Afognak

3-49

Lake, Pauls and Laura lakes, and Upper Malina Lake. Both Portage Lake and
Pauls and Laura lakes have fish passes to extend spawning areas. Numerous
streams around Afognak Island have shorter segments subject to sockeye
spawning. On Kodiak Isl and, short stream segments for spawning include
streams in Ocean Bay, Horse Marine Lagoon, Little River Lake, Uganik
Lake, Barabara Cove, Buskin Lake, Pasagshag Bay, Portage Bay, and Saltery
Cove (ADF&C 1978). A hatchery on Devils Creek (Buskin drainage) is.used
for incubating sockeye eggs to the eyed stage of larval development
(ADF&G, no date). After years of population-decline, 1979 red salmon
escapement equaled or set the upper limit of historical escapement in
almost half of the more productive red salmon systems (Table 3.12).

Coho.salmon prefer heads of riffles in small tributaries or narrow
side channels for spawning, although they also spawn in lakes. After
hatching, fry school in shallow waters but disperse quickly as they
establish territories in sheltered stream segments, where they remain for
one to two years. The Karluk and Red River drainages in southwest Kodiak
Island are the primary coho drainage systems (Table 3.13). However, most
salmon spawning drainages on Raspberry, Shuyak, and Afognak islands have
short to moderate stream segments where coho spawn (ADF&G 1978). Fish
passes have been provided on Little Kitoi Lake, the Pauls-Laura-Gretchen.
lake system, and Portage River to extend the spawning areas accessible to
salmon (ADF&G, no date). In northeast Kodiak Island, spawning sites are
@usually confined to the lower reaches, except for streams entering the
sou thern shores of Chiniak Bay and the northern shores of Ugak Bay. The
Devils Creek Hatchery is also used to augment the coho population. In the
southern portion of Kodiak Island only three streams have coho spawn-
ing sites, one on the Aliulik Peninsula and two entering Deadman Bay
(ADF&G 1978).

King salmon spawn only between the lower reaches of the Karluk
River and KArluk Lake, and the upper reaches of Ayakulik River. King
salmon have been introduced into the Frazer Lake system through the
Frazer Lake Fishpass and Salmon Development Project of ADF&G. The hatch-
ery at Devils*Creek is also used to provide king salmon (ADF&G, no date).

3-50

Table 3.12. 1979 Red salmon escap ements to major and minor systems.

Strea .m 1979 Average1 Historical
Escapement
Name Number Escapement Escapement Range

Akalwra 2 3 257-302 8,107 44,000 1,828 - 252,193
Afognak River 252-342 82,703 22,892 100 - 93,861
Barabara Co@e 252-363 1,000 590 10 - 3,200
Buskin Lake 4 259-211 5,367 3,017 65 - 5,367
Dog Salmon (Fraser Lake) 257-403 126,742 40,000 6 - 126,762
Horse Prine 257-402 23,000 .5,243 15 - 23,000
Kaflia 2 262-301 36,000 8,446 100 - 36,000
Karluk 255-iOl 513,137 573,000 1.37,647 - 1,375,659
Little 3River3 254-101 9,500 11,365 300 - 3 8,500
MaliI a 251-105 21,000 6,206 300 - 21,200
Miam 259-412 1,200 1,450 300 - 4,600
3
Ocean Bea@h 258-401 15,000 2,913 100 - 15,obo
Pasagshak 3 259-411 12,000 3,704 150 - 12,000
Pauls La@ e 251-828 415 13,570 -150 - 50,993
Perenosa 2 251-825 4,029 141 - 12,474
Red River (Rid Lake) 255-201 223,070 211,000 28,395 - 1,156,630
Saltery La@e 259-415 43,000 13,105 1,000 - 43,000
Selief Bay . 3 251-101 1,000 1,075 400 - 2,800
Silver S Ilmon 257-303 265 1,202 15 - 3,045
Swikshak 3 262-151 41,000 8,155 1,500 - 41,000
Thorsheim C 5eek 251-302 1,200 733 100 - 1,2ob
Uganik Lake 253-122 55,000 26,682 1,500 - 77,000
Upper Station (Olga Bay) 257-304 174,211 175,000 22,603 - 616,064

Source: ADF&G 1979.

1 Averages computed by using only those years when fish were observed in the Stream.
Many years no surveys were flown or surveys were flown at the wrong time for obser-
vation of red salmon escapements.

2
Average and historical escapement ranges based on weir counts between 1929 and 1979
and using only those years when fish were observed.

3
Escapement counts based on aerial and foot surveys.

4
Red salmon run was initiated in the 1950s. The first count of six salmon was re-
ported in 1956..In 1980 escapement reached a new high of 405,535.

3-51

Table 3.13. Present and potential ADF&G rehabilitation and enhancement projects
within Kodiak island Borough.

Sock- Rain- Project
PROJECT LOCATIONS eye Coho Pink Chum King bow Type

EXISTING PROJECTS

Kodiak Island

Karluk System
Upper Thumb R. X Incubator
E & N Forks Upper
Thumb R. X Rehabilitation
Alder and Little
Lagoon Creek X Incubator
Upper and Lower
Thumb River X Egg take site

Frazer Lake X X X X Fishpass
Devils Cr (Buskin R) X X X X X Hatchery

Afognak Island

Kitoi Bay X X Hatchery
Little Kitoi Lake X X 2 Fishpass
Pauls-Laura-Gretchen Lks. X X 2 fishpasses
Seal Bay X Fishpass
Portage R. X X 2 fishpasses

PROPOSED PROJECTS

Kodiak Island
Kizhuyak River X Hatchery
Horse Marine Lake X X Fishpass

POTENTIAL PROJECTS

Kodiak Island

Karluk System
Spring Lake X Incubator
Thumb Lakes. X Fertilizer Experi-
ment
Red Lake X Egg Take
Akalura Lake X Hatchery
Upper Station X X Egg take & incub-
ation
Browns Lagoon X Fishpass
Spiridon Lake X Rechannel or
Terror Lake hatchery
X X Flow control
Pillar & Monashka Cr X X Hatchery
Buskin Lake X X Hatchery

Raspberry Island

Selief Bay X X X Incubator

Afognak Island

2
Afognak Lake X Fishpass
Little Waterfall Lake X 2 fishpasses
Hidden Lake, X X Fishpass and incu-
bator
Paramanof Bay X Incubator
Malina Lake X X Incubator

Source: ADF&G, no date.
IPotential supply of sockeye for Karluk Lake
2Potential use for rainbow trout.
3Considered most critical site of all

3-52

Present and potential ADF&G rehabilitation and enhancement pro-
jects within the Borough indicate that sockeye receive the main emphasis
in the program. Much of the work to date has centered on the Karluk

system.

mammals and Birds

The abundant food source provided by local sai'mon runs encourages
the use of freshwater systems by other animals. Harbor seals frequently
congregate at the mouths of salmon streams to feed on migrating salmon.
Bear also rely heavily on this food source, and congregate on most salmon
streams during summer and fall months. During these periods brown bear
are widely distributed throughout Kodiak and Afognak islands; however,
areas on the western side of Kodiak Island - particularly the Karluk
River drainage; Connecticut Creek near Red Lake; Dog Salmon River;
Kaiugnak River; and areas around Uyak, Uganik, Terror, and Kizhuyak
bays support particularly dense bear populations (AEIDC 1979 Troyer and
Hensel 1977).

River otter and beaver depend on st reams and rivers throughout
the year. The entire Archipelago is considered to be prime river otter
habitat, although there are no documented areas of concentration (Donald-
son, personal communication 1981). Beaver are also widely distributed
throughout Kodiak Island. During a spring 1980 survey to assess potential
problems caused by'beaver dams on the upstream migration of spawning
salmon, the staff from the Kodiak National.Wildlife Refuge identified 400
active beaver colonies in the western and southwestern portions of Kodiak

Island. Most beaver colonies were located in backwater areas with a firm

substrate, to minimize the danger of heavy runoff destroying their dams.
Areas of highest concentration included Karluk Lake and River, Red Lake-
Ayakulik River, Deadman River, and Spiridon River and Lake (Table 3.14.)
Limiting factors on beaver populations include severe winters, marginal
food supplies, trappers, and bear (Zwiefelhofer 1981, personal commun-
ication).

3-53

Table 3.14. Beaver colony distribution.

Major Salmon Spawning Drainage No. of Active Colonies

Frazer Lake - Dog Salmon River 38
Karluk Lake and River 56
REd Lake - Ayakulik River 43
Deadman River 45
Spiridon River and Lake 58
Zachar River 18
Uganik Lake and River 17
Jerror Lake and River 9
Browns' River 11
Upper Olga Bay and Flats 32

Minor Salmon Spawning Drainages No. of Active Colonies

Aliulik Peninsula 10
Horse Marine River and Lake 5
Olga Moser Bay Narrows. 13
SUlua Portage Bay .5
Uganik Bay and Island 33
Viekoda Bay 7

Total Number of Colonies 400

Source: Zwiefelhofer 1981, personal communication.

3-54

Many birds utilize riverine and lake habitats, particularly for
nesting and feeding activities. Waterfowl, shorebirds, gulls, and terns
utilize waterbodies for feeding and raising young, and vegetated fringes
(particularly wetlands.) as nesting habitat. Wooded riparian areas provide
high-quality feeding and nesting habitats for a variety of other birds,
including songbirds, kingfishers, woodpeckers, and bald eagles.

It is estimated that there are approximately 200 bald eagle breed-
ing pairs within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Zwiefelhofer 1981,
personal communication). Eagles also occur on Afognak, as well as on most
of the other islands within the Archipelago.

Eagles concentrate their activities near coastal waterbodies.
Most nests are in mature cottonwood trees adjac ent to salmon streams
or along the coast. In areas where cottonwood trees are limited, or
do not occur (such as on Tugidak Island), eagle nests are also located
on the groun,d.or on ledges. Eagles are common in coastal areas during

all seasons.

3.1.9 IMPORTANT UPLAND HABITAT

Definition

Upland habitats occur from above the intertidal splash zone to inland

mountainous areas where soils are well drained.

General Information

The Archipelago uplands can be subdivided into three general
areas based primarily on vegetative and terrain features. These areas
are: (1) those north of Kodiak Island, (2) the major portion of Kodiak
Island, and (3) southwest of Kodiak Island, lower Aliulik Peninsula, and
the Trinity Islands (Map 1).

3-55

Shuyak, Afognak, Raspberry, Whale, Spruce, and Marmot islands fall
into the first category. These areas are characterized by well-developed
stands of mature Sitka spruce. The best developed stands are the most
northerly. In general, distribution of Sitka spruce stands is expanding
in a southwesterly direction at about one mile per century (AEIDC 1975).

The major portion of Kodiak Island forms the second category
of uplands. Habitat distributions are closely related to differences
in elevation. At very high elevations, unconsolidated material is gener-
ally absent (AEIDC 1979). Below the peaks, mountainous areas typically
have an alpine vegetation of sedges, mosses, lichens, heather, heath, and,
dwarf willows (AEIDC 1975, 1979). Steep mountains below 3,000 feet have
dense shrub and ground cover dominated by alder, willow, salmonberry,
elderberry, and devil's club. Grass-herb meadows are dominated by blue-
joint; other common species are bluegrass, brome grass, devil's club, and
salmonberry. Lower slopes and valley floors are covered by sand and
gravel of glacial origin, valley alluvium, alluvial fans, talus deposits,
and ash from the 1912 eruption of Mt. Katmai. Cottonwood and occasionally
Kenai birch, are common stands along the lower reaches of major drainages
(AEIDC 1,975, 1979).

The third distinctive region includes southwest Kodiak Island
and the Trinity Islands. This region escaped glaciation and is vegeta-
tively and topographically different from the rest of the Kodiak Archi-
pelago. Plants are uniquely similar to species found in the Alaskan
Arctic and unlike those found elsewhere in the Archipelago. Even some of
the insects of this region are unique (AEIDC 1975). The area is character-
ized by extensive moist and wet tundra surrounded by rounded low hills.

Upland Mammals

Uplands provide habitat for river otter, ermine, red fox, tundra
vole, brown bear, Dall sheep, reindeer, snowshoe hare, red squirrel,
Sitka black-tailed deer, elk, and mountain goats. Only the first five

mammals inhabited the islands before the Russians arrived. All others

3-56

were subsequently introduced. Some, like Dall sheep, were introduced as
recently as 1965. In this discussion, important upland habitats will be
identified for brown bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, elk, mountain goats,

and reindeer.

Brown bear are present from Shuyak Island in the north to the
southern tip of Kodiak Island, including Sitkalidak Island. Of the total
2,408 brown bear estimated to be on Kodiak Island in 1977, 2,161 were.
within the National Wildlife Refuge boundary. Some'of the best bear
habitat on Kodiak Island includes the drainages of the Karluk River,
Connecticut River near Red Lake, Dog Salmon River, Kaiugnak River, major
valleys tributary to the lower Terror River, and the Uganik River (AElDC
1979; Troyer and Hensel,1977). Optimum bear habitats provide sufficient

food and cover to meet the seasonal needs of bears. Favorite seasonal

food resources include new spring vegetative growth and tubers in alpine
meadows and along riparian zones; summer.and fall salmon resources in
rivers and lakes; and abundant fall berry crops on lower slopes (AEIDC
1980).

Required seasonal habitats of brown bears include areas of winter
denning, and spring, summer, and fall feeding..Denning occurs primarily
between mid-November and mid-April. The best snow conditions for denning
occur on northern slopes between 1,200 feet and 12,400 feet in the sub-
alpine ecotone. Therefore, there generally is no denning on the major
Kodiak mountain ridge, which runs northeast-southwest from Kizuyak Bay in
the north to Kaiugnak Bay in the south. Rather, denning occurs on the
slopes leading away from this central ridge (ADF&G 1973, Map 9). Brown
bear denning occurs on Afognak, Raspberry, and Kodiak islands. D enning
sites on Afognak and Raspberry islands are geographically smaller than on
Kodiak Island. On the west coast, denning extends north to the head of
Foul Bay. On the east coast, denning ends at Tonki Cape. Extensive den-
ning areas on Kodiak Island include the peninsula between Ugak Bay and
Kiliuda Bay, between Frazer Lake and Karluk Lake on both sides of Larsen
Bay, between the two branches of the Sturgeon River, around Spiridon

3-57

Lake, Campbell Lagoon, and the center of Uganik Island (ADF&G 1973).
Denning also occurs on smaller sites between Elbow Creek and Kizhuyak
Bay, the head of Saltery Creek, Narrow Strait, the northwest shore of
Middle Bay, around Olga Bay, and between the Sturgeon River and the
headwaters of the Ayakulik River (ADF&G 1973).

During spring to early summer, bears concentrate feeding activ-
ities on newly developing herbaceous vegetation, especially that on
south- facing slopes and along streams,(AEIDC 1979). Maps of spring
feeding distributions indicate that the north shore of Raspberry Strait,
the east shore of Kazakof Bay, and the east shore of Tonki Cape provide
desirable habitat on Afognak Island (ADF&G 1973). On Kodiak Island,
spring concentrations, of bear occur at the head of Kaiugnak Bay, the head
of Spiridon Bay at Weasel Cove, and between the head of the east arm of
Uganik Bay across to the northwest arm (ADF&G 1973).

Some areas that support intensive spring feeding also provide
abundant berry crops and are again heavily used by bears during the fall
months. Areas that support intensive use in both spring and fall include
two fairly extensive regions outside the boundaries of the National
Wildlife Refuge - the head of Ugak Bay and along its south @rm, and
from Shearwater Bay in Kiliuda Bay across to Eagle Harbor in Ugak Bay.
Three smaller areas occur within the refuge boundaries: the head of
Uyak Bay, the head of Deadman Bay and Alpine Cove, and the head of Sulua
Bay in Portage Bay.

By midsummer, when anadromous fish begin to return, bears abruptly
move to the salmon streams (AEIDC 1979). Salmon streams are identified
in the previous section. Some of the larger and more intensively used
areas include the Olds River, Saltery C reek, Sacramento River, Dog Salmon
Creek, Ayakulik River, Sturgeon River, Karluk River, the unnamed river
at the head of Spiridon Bay, Uganik River, and Terror River, Bears gener-
ally continue to concentrate their activities along salmon streams, with
expeditions to adjacent berry patches, until late fall. Shortly after
the salmon runs are depleted, most brown bears move to midslope denning
areas and after several weeks begin preparing winter dens.

3-58

Sitka black-tailed deer were introduced in 1934 around thecity

of Kodiak. Since then, they have extended their range north to Shuy ak
Island and south about to a line extending across Kodiak Island from
the head of Uyak Bay on the west to Three Saints Bay on the east (ADF&C
1973, Map 8). Major concentrations of deer a re more geographically re-
stricted, limited primarily by the availability and quality of winter
range. During the winter, deer are frequently restricted to the shores
where warm air limits snow accumulation (AEIDC 1975). Deer typically
inhabit a single drainage basin year round, moving seasonally from the
alpine ranges used during the summer, to the lowland timber areas after
the first heavy frost, to the shorelines during the winter. A mix of high
and low-density range sites extends along the shores of Kodiak Island
from Uganik Passage on the west, aroundthe north shore, and south to
Dangerous Cape just beyond Ugak Bay. The only breaks in that band occur

at Port Lions, t e ea o S aratin an Anton Larsen ays, and rom
Monashka Bay to Wo.mens Bay. Low-density winter range on the west coast
extends further south along Spiridon Bay and onto Amook Island.

Only isolated pockets of major deer concentrations exist on Afog-
nak Island. These include areas around Kazakof, Izhut, Tonki, and Foul

bays; Afognak Lake; an unnamed river at the head.of Paramanof Bay; and
the landward tip of Ban Island. Low-density winter range on Afognak

Island exists around Duck.Bay.

Elk, introduced in 1928, are present only on Afognak, Raspberry,
Little Raspberry, and Shuyak islands. Primary elk r ange is limited to
the first two islands. Preferred habitat is spruce forest with open
grassy meadows and stands of willow, alder, and elderberry. Elk forage
on elderberry, fireweed, and grasses during the summer and on willow,
elderberry, devil's club tips, and fern root buds during the winter
(Troyer, no date).

During winter, elk generally move to lower elevations where less
snow cover allows easier foraging (ADF&G 1973; Map 8). During this

3-59

period, elk occupy and share most of the previously mentioned deer winter
range located on Afognak Island, plus four additional areas: (1) the
perimeter of Perenosa Bay from Discoverer Bay to Big Waterfall Bay.; (2) a
section across Afognak Island from the head of Kazakof Bay to the north-
ern arm of Paramanof Bay; (3) an area extending from the west edge of
Afognak Lake, along Raspberry Strait and Afognak Bay, and back to the
east end of Afognak Lake (an area also noted as subject to intensive
spring use by bear); and (4) the southwest corner of Raspberry Island
from Onion Bay across to Driver Bay, an area only slightly more extensive
than that identified as denning sites for bear (ADF&G 1973, Map 9).

Summer elk range occurs at higher elevations along the perimeter
of winter range, and extends into several new areas. Summer range identi-
fied by ADF&G includes the northwest corner of Raspberry Island; almost
all lands between Raspberry Strait and Malina Bay; above the winter range
between Raspberry Strait and Afognak Lake;,most lands between Malina Bay
and Paramanof Bay and extending inland to include Paramanof Mountain;
Afognak Mountain; Hachery Peak; three fingers of land around Tonki Bay;
two sites west of Kazakof Bay; ridges running southwest-northeast at the
head of Foul Bay; and four smaller sites between Tonki Bay and Paramanof
Mountain (ADF&G 1973). All but the last three sites are also bear denning
sites (the area around Malina Bay is a suspected denning area). Tonki
Cape Peninsula, which provides both summer and winter range for elk, is
used intensively by bear during the spring. Despite this overlap, bear
predation is minor, limited primarily to a few calves during early summer
(Troyer and Hensel 1917).

Mountain goats were introduced into the Hidden Basin region south

of Crown Mountain on Kodiak Island in 1952 and 1953. Since this time

they have extended their territory in three broad bands extending from
Crown Mountain - one north toward Kizhuyak Bay, one southeast toward
Saltery Cove, and one southwest behind Hidden Lake halfway to Kiliuda Bay
(ADF&G 1973, Map 8). Goats have recently been observed in pockets of

3-60

suitable range from Watchout Creek to Elbow Mountain and Sharatin Moun-
tain in the north, and as far south as Oak Harbor (AEIDC 1980). Coat

winter range includes alpine and subalpine habitat. Alpine habitat ex-
tends from the alder line to the higher limits of vegetative cover, at
approximately 1000 to 2000 feet, where goats forage for coiled sedge and
rough rescue grasses on windblown slopes, exposed ridges, and rock out-
crop areas, which are less apt to be snow covered. Subalpine habitat is
dominated by alder-bluejoint communities. Here, goats forage on rhizomes
of lady fern (AEIDC 1980; Smith 1980). The principal area providing this
habitat is in the Hidden Basin-Wild Creek drainage of Crown Mountain
(AEIDC 1980).

Summer mountain goat range is at higher elevations, where the
population disperses along high alpine meadows close to the summit.
Mountain goats tend to favor south-facing slopes adjacent to steep and
broken terrain that provides.an escape route (AEIDC 1980).

Reindeer, introduced in 1921, are suffering a progressive decline
in population. The herd numbered 740 in 1957, 553 in 1965, and were
estimated at a maximum of 250 in 1977. Herds generally consist of mature
bulls; very few calves are evident. The herds have concentrated in the
northern portion of their range - a small area between Halibut Bay and
Grant Lagoon (Vivion 1978). The reindeer, which also forage primarily
on grasses and forbs, are in direct competition with the brown bear
that occupy the same range (RRA/IEC 1978).

Birds

In addition to mammals, uplands provide valuable habitat for
many bi rd species. Of particular importance among these are raptors,
passerines, and ptarmigan.

Fifteen species of raptors are. known to occur in the Archipelago
(MacIntosh 1980). Most of these are annual residents with primary nesting

3-61

and feeding affinities for upland habitats. Bald eagles, the most abun-
dant raptor, are most directly associated with coastal aquatic habitats,
and have been discussed previously. Rough-legged hawks are probably
the most abundant raptor associated with uplands. Other species include
goshawks, sharp-shinned hawks, golden eagles, marsh hawks, peregrine
falcons, boreal owls, hawk owls, and short-eared owls.

Rough-legs, golden eagles, and peregrine falcons nest on ledges
and cliffs primarily in mountainous terrain. Goshawks, sharp-shinned
hawks, boreal owls, and hawk owls prefer to nest in large, mature trees,
@while short-eared owls and marsh hawks nest on the ground in open meadows

and tundra.

The specific distribution and population status of these birds
are not well understood; however, it is believed that they are generally
distributed throughout the Archipelago within their individual habitat

preferences.

Willow and rock ptarmigan are common annual residents in upland
habitats. They are believed to have wide distribution throughout the
Archipelago. These birds are most strongly associated with alpine and
subalpine tundra during summer and with alder-willow shrub thickets
on lower slopes and along riparian zones during winter.

Among the upland habitats, riparian zones, shrub thickets, and
meadow-tundra communities probably support the most activity by the
greatest number of species. Belted kingfishers, downy woodpeckers, black-
capped chickadees, winter wrens, golden-crowned kinglets, northern
srikes, pine grosbeaks, pine siskins, song sparrows, and snow buntings
are amoung the most abundant annual residents. Although most available
upland habitats support annual activities of the smaller birds, particu-
larly passerines, woodpeckers, and kingfishers, specific distributions
.depend upon individual habitat requirements.

3-62

1.1.10 LITERATURE CITED

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1973. Alaska's wildlife
and habitat. R.A. Hinman, Ed. Anchorage, Alaska.

ADF&G. 1978. Alaska's fisheries atlas, Vols. I & II. ADF&G,.Juneau,
Alaska.

ADF&G. 1979. Kodiak management area, 1979 finfish annual report. Juneau,
Alaska.

ADF&G. 1980. Westward region Tanner crab report to the Alaska Board
of Fisheries, Dec. 1980. Kodiak, Alaska

ADF&G. 1981a. Westward region shellfish report to the Alaska Board of
Fisheries, March 1981. Kodiak, Alaska.

ADF&G. 1981b. Draft natural resource inventory maps of Kodiak Archi-
pelago. Prepared for Kodiak Island Borough.

ADF&G. No Date. Present and potential ADF&G rehabilitation and enhance-
ment projects in the Kodiak Island Borough.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources. (ADNR), Division of Parks. 1980.a.
1980. Recreation, scenic, and heritage areas of particular concern:
Kodilak Archipelago.

ADNR. Division of Research and Development, Land and Resource Planning
Section. 1980b. Public interest lands in Alaska's municipalities.

@Arctic Environmental Information and Data *Center (AEIDC), Institute
of Social, Economic, and Government Research. 1974@ The Western Gulf
of Alaska: A summary of available knowledge. Prepared for Marine
Minerals Division, Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of the Interior,.

AEIDC. 1975. Kadyak: A background for living. Anchorage, Alaska.

AEIDC. 1979. An assessment of environmental effects of constructiton
and operation of the proposed Terror Lake hydroelectric facility.
Prepared for Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. Kodiak, Alaska.

AEIDC. 1080. An assessment of environmental effects of construction
and operation of the proposed Terror Lake.hydroelectric facility.
Brown bear studies and mountain goat studies. Prepared for the
Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. Kodiak, Alaska.

AEIDC. 1981. An assessment of environmental effects of construction
and operation of the proposed Terror Lake hydroelectric facility.
Final report. Prepared for Kodiak Electric Association,.Inc. Kodiak,
Alaska.

3-63

Arneson, P. 1977. Identification, documentation, and delineation of
coastal migratory bird habitat in Alaska. NOAA/OCSEAP Ru #3, Annual
report 2:1-95.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1980. DEIS: Proposed outer continental
shelf oil. and gas lease sale 46, Western Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior.

BLM. 1981. FEIS: Proposed outer continental shelf oil and gas lease
sale 60, Lower Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait.

Hayes, M.O..and C.H. Ruby. 1979. Oilspill vulnerability, coastal morpho-
logy, and sedimentation of the Kodiak Archipelago. Final Report,
NOAA/OCSEAP RU 59. Boulder, Colorado.

.MacIntosh, R. 1980. Birds of the Kodiak Island Archipelago. Unpublished.

Manthey, K. 1980.-Salmon report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries, Dec.
1980. ADF&G, Kodiak Alaska.

North Pacific Fishe ries Management Council (NPFMC). 1979. Fishery manage
ment plan for the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fishery. NPFMC,
Anchorage.

Owen, D.L. and J.E. Backburn. 1981. Northern Shelikof Strait bottomfish
otter trawl survey, summer 1980. ADF&G. Kodiak, Alaska.

R.W. Retherford Associates and International Engineering Co., Inc.
(RRA/IEC). 1978. Application for License, Project No. 2743, Volume
2, Exhibit W. Terror Lake hydroelectric 'project, Kodiak Island,
Alaska. Prepared for Kodiak.Electric Association, Inc.

Roge,rs, D.E. et al. 1979. Seasonal composition and foodweb relationships
of marine organisms in the nearshore zone of Kodiak Island, includ-
ing ichthyoplankton, microplankton (shellfish), zooplankton, and
fish. Annual Report Contract #03-5-022-67. RU 553.

Ronholt et al. 1978. Demersal fish and shellfish resources of the Gulf
of Alaska from Cape Spencer to Unimak Pass, 1948 to 1976 (a histor-
ical review). Vols. 1-4. Seattle, Washington, U.S. Dept. of Com-
merce, National Marine Fisheries Service.

.Science Applications, Inc., (SAI). 1980. Environmental assessment of the
Alaskan continental shelf,, Kodiak interim synthesis report. Prepared
for the U.S. Dept. of Commerce NOAA, Boulder, Colorado.

.Sears and Zimmerman. 1977. Alaska intertidal survey atlas. National
Marine Fisheries Services, Auk Bay Biological Laboratory, Auk Bay,
Alaska.

3-64

Selkregg, L. (ed). 1974. Alaska regional profiles., southcentral region.
AEIDC, Anchorage, Alaska.

Smith, R. 1980. Goat winter range surveys and brown bear sightings,
Terror Lake project area. ADF&G, Kodiak, Alaska.

Sowls, A.L. et al. 1978. Catalog of Alaskan seabird colonies. USDI, FWS.

Treyer, W. No date. The Roosevelt elk on Afognak Island, Alaska. Alaska
Refuge Branch, USDI, Bureau of Sport Fish and Wildlife, (BSFW),
Kodiak, Alaska.

Troyer, W.A. and R.J. Hensel. 1977. The brown bear of Kodiak Island.
USDI, BSFW.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, (USDI), Fish and Wildlife Service, (FWS),
National Wildlife Refuge System, (NWRS). 1978. Kodiak national
wildlife refuge, Kodiak, Alaska. Annual Narrative Report, Calendar
Year 1977.

USDI. 1980. FWS, NWRS. Kodiak national wildlife refuge, Kodiak, Alaska.
Annual Narrative Report, Calendar Year 1979.

Vivion, M. 1978. Reindeer survey, file memo. U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Fish and'Wildlife Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.

Watson, L. and J.E. Blackburn. 1980. Pacific cod distribution in summer
king crab pots: 1972-1978. ADF&G, Kodiak, Alaska.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1977. Oil terminal and marine service base
sites in the Kodiak Island Borough, final report. Prepared for
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of
Community Planning.

3-65

3.2 PHYSICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY

3.2.1 METEOROLOGY

Meteorological conditions for the Kodiak region are strongly
affected by maritime influences, dominated during w inter by the Aleutian
low-pressure center and during summer by the Pacific high-pressure center.
Average wi nter temperatures range from 20 0 to 400 F. Average summer
temperatures range from 40 0 to 620 F. Precipitati'on varies considerably
according to local topography (Table 3.15). The City of Kodiak receives
an average of 56.9 inches per year. Extremes range from 23 inches at
Larsen Bay to 98 inches at Shearwater Bay (Selkregg, 1974). In Kodiak

there is little seasonal variation in amount of rainfall or number of

rainy days; it rains about 50 percent of the days each month. The dryest
months are April, with an average of 3.15 inches of rain, and July,
with an average of 3.4 inches. September, with 6.1 inches of rain, and
October, with an average of 5.6 inches, are.the wettest months. Fog
is prevalent andis most common from June through September (BLM 1980).

Winds are primarily northwesterly from late fall through spring;
shifting to southwesterly until late September. However, intense storms
during winter often produce strong easterly to northeasterly winds.

Summer winds from the southwest create favorable conditions for coastal
upwelling (BLM 1980). Upwelling brings important nutrients to the sur-
face, which enhances primary production that in turn supports the high
level of productivity of the marine ecosystem on the coast of Kodiak. In
coastal areas local topography greatly influences wind speed and direc-
tion (Hayes and Ruby 1979). Surface winds along the coast are stronger
and more persistent than at inland areas. Sustained extreme speeds have
been observed at 50 to 75 knots, with gusts to 100 knots. Wind speeds
over water are higher due to less surface friction, and for an unusually
intense storm, a sustained wind of 100 knots is possible. Considering the
frequency and intensity of storms along the Aleutian storm track on the
south side of the Alaska Peninsulai an average of one sustained 100-knot
wind can be expected to occur annually. Because winter storms are some-
times slow-moving or nearly stationary, such situations can produce

3-66

Table 3.15. Climato@'information for Kodiak Island Borough.

Summer Winter Extremes Precipitation

Sitkinak 43 0- 580F 26 0- 340F 30- 760F 51" (including
28" snow.)*
Lars.en Bay 41 -62 21 45 -50-830 23" (including
22" snow)

0 0 0 0 0 0
Shearwater Bay 40 -62 24 -37 -1 -M 98" (snow unknown)
Kodiak 40 0- 629 20 0- 400 -10-860 54" (including
75" snow)
Kitoi Bay 42 0- 600 22 0- 350 -120-820 60" (including
71" snow)

Source: BLM (1980) and.Selkregg (1974).

*Snow precipitation is measured as the amount of water it contains.

3-67

stable winds that are persistent in direction and intensity; thus creat-
ing wave conditions that are potentially hazardous to exposed coastal or

offshore areas.

3.2.2 AIR QUALITY

The Kodiak Island Borough is located in the Cook Inlet and south-
central Alaska Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AOCR). The environ-

mental Protection Agency has found that air quality in the Borough meets
Class II National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Certain activities
in and around Kodiak do create air pollution, consisting primarily of pun-
gent odors. Efforts are being made by the State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation and Borough officials to reduce the odors emitted
by the fish processing plant, land fill, and asphalt plant. In some
cases air pollution is hard to control or eliminate, while in other
cases it maybe allowed if it is in the national interest to do so.
For example, a toxic ammonia odor, emitted biannually by the Biodry
fish waste plant, does not meet state air quality standards but continues
to occur without state authorization. Smoke emitted during Coast Guard
fire training maneuvers is allowed even though it does not meet air
quality standards.

3.2.3 WATER RESOURCES INVENTORY.

Surface-Water Resources

General.Surface-water resources within the Kodiak Island Borough
include streams, lakes, and occasional springs. Streamflow, in conjunc-
tion with man-made reservoirs, accounts for most of the water supply for
the City of Kodiak and other communities in the Borough. Mean annual
precipitation generally increases from less than 40 inches along the

Shelikof Strait coastline to over 80 inches on the Pacific Ocean side of
the islands (Lamke 1979). Larsen Bay averages only 23 inches per year
(Jones et al. 1978).

3-68

Mean annual runoff ranges from 2.6 to 5.2 million gallons per day
(mgd) per square mile (sq. mi.)of contributing drainage area, increasing
from the Shelikof Strait to the Pacific Ocean coast (Jones et al.1978).

Streamflow would be much larger than mean annual flow in spring and early
summer as the snowpack melts, and in late summer and fall in response to.
rainstorms. Streamflow from December through April would likely average
less than the mean annual runoff value. However, rainstorms and resulting

floods also occur in the winter when channels are ice-covered.

The seasonal distribution of runoff is an important factor to
consider when surface water is to be used for a water supply. Relatively
shallow bedrock allows very little storage as groundwater; thus, runoff
is rapid in response to rainfall events, causing high streamflow during
and for a short time after the rainfall. Flow then decreases fairly
rapidly to low values between rainfalls. This is most eviden t in small
streams. Large streams, streams with large lakes, streams with deep
alluvium.in their valleys, and streams fed by glaciers or large snow-

fields will exhibit less flow variation than smaller streams. Due to the

variability of the streamflow, reservoir s or storage tanks would.likely
be necessary if streams are to be used as water supplies.

Natural lakes may provide a water source for small water quantity
requirements. Large withdrawals can lower lake levels, affecting shore-
line habitats and outlet channel flow characteristics. Although not
common in the Borough, springs could possibly provide a water source.

Water qual'ity samples from streams and lakes show that these
sources generally have dissolved-solids concentrations less than 60
milligrams per liter ( mg/1) (Jones et al. 1978). This is well below the
maximum of 500 mg/l for water supplies established in the Alaska water
quality standards. Stream water is predominantly the calcium bicarbonate
type, whereas lake water ranges from the calcium bicarbonate type to the
sodium chloride type (Jones et al. 1978). Surface water quality apDeared
to be acceptable for anticipated uses based on the water bodies sampled
(Jones et al. 1978).

3-69

City of Kodiak and Vicinity. The City of Kodiak obtains most of
its water from surface water supplies. A series of man-made reservoirs
and a storage tank (Table 3.16) store the water for domestic, com-
mercial, and firefighting uses.

Table 3.16 Man-made reservoirs and storage tank capacities for the City
of Kodiak water supply system.-

Reservoir Storage Capacity
(gallons)

Monashka Creek Reservoir 50,000
Pillar Creek Reservoir 100,000
Upper Reservoir 30,000
Lower Reservoir 63,000
Storage Tank 100,000

Source: KCM 1978.

Current water use varies from 3.0 to 3.5 mgd when the major sea-
food processors are not in operation to 10 to 12 mgd when the processing
plants are operating [Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. (KCM) 1978]. During
periods of dry weather, the current storage system may be inadequate to
supply the maximum level of demand. Additional storage on Monashka Creek
is planned. Water for the U.S. Coast Guard facility is pumped from Buskin
Lake at an average rate of 1.15 mgd (KCM 1979). Domestic water stor-
age is provided by three tanks with a total capacity of 1.3 million gal-
lons; separate storage is provided for emergency supply to the central
power plant and fire protection. The water supply for the former U.S. Air
Force station at Cape Chiniak was freshwater lakes; water was pumped from
the lakes into two storage tanks with a total capacity of 180,000 gallons
(Office of Economic Adjustment 1976).

Akhiok.The water supply for the village of Akhiok is primarily
surface water (Dworsky, personal communication, 1981). An earth dam on a
very small stream creates a reservoir estimated to hold 500,000 gallons
of water. A 20,000-gallon storage tank provides additional sto rage. The
drainage area contributing to the reservoir is fairly small and rela-
tively flat. Shallow groundwater likely contributes to the reservoir

3-70

as it is drawn down. The water supply appears to be sufficient to meet

the current domestic needs of the community. There are no current major
commercial water users in the Akhiok area. The water is slightly colored,
but otherwise the quality is good (Dworsky, personal communication,
1981). Streamflow measurements for a hydropower reconnaissance study
(Jack WestAssociates 1980) obtained 4 to 5 mgd from a 1.53 sq. mi.
drainage area on 31 August 1980, or 3 mgd/sq. mi. Mean annual flow is
li kely to be about 5.2 mgd/sq. mi. in this area (Jones et al 1978).

Karluk. The water supply of the relocated village of Karluk is a.
springfed stream that runs along the west side of the village. The water
quality is good and the quantity is sufficient to serve the current
domestic water demand while leaving a flow of 10 to 100 (gpm) gallons per
minute in the stream (Dworsky, personal communication, 1981). The new
school uses water piped from a stream; the quality of this supply is
apparently fair to poor, as coliform contamination was found in April
1977 [Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 1977]. The
clinic and lodge use water from their own springs; the quality of these
sources is unknown (ADEC 1977). There is no current major commercial
water use in Karluk. Water from the stream is held in a 100,000-gallon
sto rage tank. The drainage areaIcontributing to the stream and the sub-
surface aquifer are likely to be small. Mean annual runoff in this area
is about 2.6 mgd/sq. mi.

Larsen Bay. The water supply of Larsen Bay is Trout.Creek. Water
is pumped from the creek into a 100,000-gallon storage tank for domestic
use in the village. The water quality is good and the quantity is suffi-
cient to meet current domestic water demands (Dworsky, personal communica-
tion, 1981). The Kodiak Island Seafood Inc. (KISI) cannery has its own
water supply system;.it includes a concrete dam on Trout Creek upstream
of the domestic water intake facility and 3000 feet of wood stave pipe-
line (ADEC 1977). Trout Creek appears able to support both the water use
demands of the cannery and the village's domestic needs. The school has
its own well. The drainage area of Trout Creek is roughly 6 sq. mi. Mean
annual runoff in this area is about 2.6 mgd/sq. mi.

3-71

Old Harbor. The domestic water supply for the village of Old
Harbor is provided by two surface.water sources (ADEC 1977). The older of
the systems comprises a dam on a small stream and a 100,000-gallon stor-
age tank. The drainage area contributing to the stream above the dam is
small. A newer system includes an infiltration gallery, with one of the
four intake lines running beneath Old Harbor Creek, and a 120,000-gallon
storage tank (Dworsky, personal communication, 1981). The drainage area
contributing to Old Harbor Creek is also small. The new system will
eventually replace the old.one. Water quality is good. The school, commu-
nity building, clinic, stores, and recreation house all use the community
water supply. No major commercial water users are presently located in

the Old Harbor area. Two streams, each about I mile from the old town

site, were investigated for their potential to support commercial develop-
ment (Weeks 1970). One stream, located southwest of the old townsite, was
estimated to have a mean annual flow of abou-t 6.5 mgd and an average
winter flow of about 1 mgd. The other stream, located northeast of the
old townsite, was estimated to have a mean annual flow of about 8.5 mgd
and a winter flow on the order of 1 mgd. The quality of the flow in these
streams is good, except that the water is very soft.

Ouzinkie. The watersupply for Ouzinkie is Spruce Creek. A screen-
ed pipe intake collects water for 30,000-gallon and 100,000-gallon stor-
age tanks (Dworsky, personal communication, 1981). The school and store
also use this water supply. The quality is fair, with color, taste, and
odor problems (Dworsky, personal communication, 1981). Spruce Creek
appears to maintain sufficient.flows to supply the current water needs of
the community. Before it burned, the Glacier Bay Seafoods cannery also
used Spruce Creek water, but operation has not resumed since the fire.
Mean annual runoff in the Ouzinkie area is about 5 mgd/sq. mi.

Port Lions. The water demands of Port Lions are supplied entirely
by surface water sources. A wood-and-steel dam on Branchwater Stream
forms.a reservoir that feeds a gravity system to 15,000-and 60,000-gallon
storage tanks, (Dworsky, personal communication, 1981). The 15,000-gallon
storage tank, provides.the majority of the storage for the community; a

3-72

125,000- gallon tank is proposed to provide additional storage.(Dworsky,
personal communication, 1981). The 60,000-gallon tank is located across
Settler Cove near the wharf. A pump in a sump at the confluence of Branch-
water and Bourbon creeks provides additional capacity when the gravity
system is inadequate to meet demand. The school, clinic, and motel use
the community water supply; floating canneries also apparently use the
system periodically. The piping is Idesigned for commercial use (Dworsky,
personal. communication, 1981). There is an ample supply of water avail-
able in the present water supply system for all current users. The water-
shed area of Branchwater and Bourbon creeks is roughly 4 sq. mi. Mean
annual runoff in the.Port Lions area is about 4mgd/sq. mi. The quality
of the stream water is good except for some coloration.

Ground-Water Resources

General.Generally speaking, ground water is a limited resource in
the Kodiak Island Borough. This is due primarily to widespread shallow-
lying, dense, and nearly impermeable bedrock (Jones et al. 1978). Vari-
able amounts of water can be obtained from wells drilled into bedrock,
the minimum likely to be sufficient for a single-family residence (.Jones
et al. 1978). Generally, better yields can be obtained from wells drill-
ed into unconsolidated deposits, such as alluvial deposits in stream
valleys. However, in many areas, the alluvium is too thin to yield signif-
icant quantities of water.

The quality of ground water appears to be generally acceptable
for most uses, although the reliability and areal distribution of the
data base is poor (Jones et al. 1978). Wells drilled in unconsolidated
mateIrials yielded diluted calcium bicarbonate-type water with dissolved
solids concentrations less than 100 mg/l. Water from two wells drilled
into bedrock yielded water of the sodium bicarbonate type with dissolved
solids concentrations of 170-250 mg/l (Jones e,t al. 1978). Wells located
near the coastline could become contaminated by saltwater intrusion
if excessive drawdown results from pumping.

3-73

City of Kodiak and Vicinity. Ground water use in the City of
Kodiak area is minimal compared with use of surface-water supplies. Well

data in the area are summarized in Table 3.17. It can be seen that the

well yield is quite variable, generally with low yield from bedrock and
moderate to high yield from unconsolidated deposits.

Akhiok. The water supply for the village of Akhiok is primarily
surface water (Dworsky, personal communication, 1981). However, thr ee
wells have been drilled near the village (Jones et al. 1978). Data from

two of these indicate that bedrock lies 3 to 16 feet below the surface.

One well yields 9 gpm from the sand and-gravel overlying the bedrock.

,Yields of the other wells are unknown.

Four wells drilled near Lazy Bay (4 miles southwest of Akhiok)
documented from 10 to 26 feet of material overlying bedrock (Jones et
al. 1978). Well yields range from 12 to 500 gpm in unconsolidated mater-
ials; one well drawing from bedrock yields 125 gpm (Jones et al. 1978).

Karluk.The water supply of the relocated village of Karluk is a
springfed stream. Other than that spring which identifies.the existence,
of a subsurface.aquifer, no other data on ground-water resources were

found for the Karluk area.

Larsen Bayi The majority of the water needs for Larsen Bay are
supplied by surface-water sources. However, the school has its own well,
which apparently yields sufficient quantities to meet its needs. The
water contains high concentrations of iron (ADEC 1977), but is otherwise
apparently of acceptable quality. The Public Health Service drilled a
well in 1959 (which yielded 60 gpm) to serve eight houses (ADEC 1977).

The current status of this well is not known. The identification of a
spring in the area (Jones et al. 1978) indicates the potential for fur-
ther use of the ground-water resource.

Old Harbor. Very few data are available on the ground-water re-
sources of the Old Harbor area. There are no known wells currently in
use. It is unlikely that ground water is available in significant quan-
tities (Weeks 1970).

3-74

.Table 3.17. Selected well data in the vicinity of the City of Kodiak.

Well General Area Well Depth Depth to Water Well Yield Depth to Water-bearing
Number (feet) (feet below (gallons per Bedrock Material
surface) minute) (feet below
su face)

26009 Peninsula. 260 25 1-2 Bedrock
26501 Northeast of 155 15 12-15 4 Bedrock
26052 City 144 18 4-5 7 Bedrock
26053 of 148 to 8-10 5 Bedrock
26054 Kodiak 173 15 2-3 5 Bedrock

26043 Gibson Cove 76 8 250 56
26044 1.5 miles 73 7 250 65 Gravel
Ln 26045 Southwest of 152 5 05 22 Bedrock
26046 City of Kodiak 126 7 20-30 .31 Bedrock

25010 Buskin River 46 3.5 42 Gravel
25021 valley 29 7 4 29 Gravel
25026 and 50 16 1,320 Gravel
26036 flats 145 12 3 6 Bedrock

25001 Bells Flats, 33 18.5 3 Sandy gravel
25005 Sargent, 32 9 2 31
26018 and 135 12 2 7 Bedrock
26021 Russian 135 to. 50 4 Bedrock
26024 Creeks 176 10 12 11 Bedrock

26034 Kalsin Bay 38 Sand and gravel

26028 Chiniak 100 Flowing to 8 Bedrock
26032 144 15 3-5 7 Bedrock

Source: Jones et al. 1978.

Ouzinkie. Very few data are available on the ground-water re-
sources of the Ouz inkie area. The existence of springs in t he-area (Jones
et al. 1978; ADEC 1977) indicates the presence of an underground a quifer,
but quantifying the extent of the aquifer and potential well yield would
require further study.

Port Lions. No data could be located on the ground-water resources
of the Port Lions area. The potential supply is anticipated to be fair.

3.2.4 LITERATURE CITED

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 1977. Village
sanitation in Alaska. Village Safe Water Program and U.S. Public
Health Service, contents periodically updated.

,.Buck, E.H. et al. 1975. Kadyak - a background for living. Arctic Environ-
mental Information and Data Center, Univ. of Alaska, Anchorage.
326 p.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1980. DEIS: Proposed outer continental
shelf oil and gas lease sale 60, Lower Cook Inlet-Shelikof Straight.

Corps of Engineers (COE). 1978. Special flood hazard information - Mon-
ashka Creek Reservoir, City of Kodiak, Alaska. Prepared for the
Kodiak Island Borough and City of Kodiak.

COE. 1979. Special flood hazard information - Lake Bettinger Reservoir,
'City of Kodiak, Alaska. With CH 2M-Hill, Inc. for the Kodiak Island
Borough and City of Kodiak.

Dworsky, M.D. 1981. Personal Communication. Senior Field Engineer, U.S.
Public Health Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

Hayes, M.0 . and C.H. Ruby. 1979. Oilspill vulnerability, coastal morpho-
logy, and sedimentation of the Kodiak Archipelago. Final Report,
NOAA/OCSEAP RV 59. Boulder, Colorado'.

Jack West Associates. 1980. Reconnaissance of micro-hydroelectric poten-
tial, Akhiok Village, Kodiak. With Fryer:Preasley:Elliot for Kodiak
Island Borough. 28 p. + appendices.

Jones, S.H., R.J. Madison, and C. Zenone. 1978. Water resources of the
Kodiak-Shelikof subregion, southcentral Alaska. U.S. Geological
Survey, Hydrological Investigations Atlas HA-612.

Kramer, Chin, & Mayo, Inc. (KCM). 1978. Kodiak Island Borough, Regional
Plan and Development Strategy, Summary Report. Prepared for Kodiak
Island Borough and the Division of Community Planning, Dept. of
Community and Regional Affairs. 84 p.

3-76

KCM. 1979. U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, Kodiak,' Alaska develop-
ment plan. Prepared for 17th Coast Guard District, Juneau, Alaska.
pp. A3.18 to A3.21.

Lamke, R.D. 1979. Flood characteristics of Alaskan streams. U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey Water,Resource Investigations 78-129, Anchorage. 61 p.
Office of Economic Adjustment. 1976. Defense impact on Kodiak Island,
Alaska. West Coast Regional Office. 29 p.

Selkregg, L. (Ed). 1974, Alaska regional profiles, southcentral region.
AEIDC. Anchorage, Alaska.

Weeks, J.B. 1970. Water-resources reconnaissance of the Old Harbor area,
Kodiak Island, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Alaska District, Open File Report. 8 p.

3-77

3.3 GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS

3.3.1 OF GEOLOGIC ORIGIN

Introduction

This geologic hazards investigation involved a literature review
and brief aerial reconnaissance of the geology at the six coastal vil-
lages and Kodiak City on April 27 and 28, 1981. The purpose of the study
is to make a preliminary identification of the geologic hazards present
at the communities. The geologic hazards maps included in this study are
of a general nature. Hazards information was compiled at a scale of
1: 63,360 from maps of unconsolidated deposits, land slides (AEIDC 1975),
island-wide geology (U.S. Department of Interior, 1977) and soil associa-
tions at scales ranging from 1:1,000,000 to 1:1,584,000. Hazards mapping
at a larger scale for site-specific planning should be conducted for
future developments and better resolution of tentatively identified

hazards.

A number of ongoing studies address specific geologic hazards
relevant to the Kodiak Island group. H. Pulpan and J. Kienle.of the
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, are continuing their study
of the seismic risk to onshore and offshore development, and of volcanic
risks in the area. R. Updike of the Alaska Department of Natural Re-
sources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, is monitoring
Pillar Mountain. M.A. Fisher, T.R. Burns, R.E. Von Huene, 6t al. of the
Department of Interior, USGS, are analyzing the transverse tectonic
boundaries near Kodiak Island, as well as mapping the nearsurface struc-

ture of the Kodiak shelf.

In the following subsections the regional plate tectonics and
geologic setting of the Kodiak Archipelago are described and geologic
.hazards related to seismic, volcanic, and mass wasting origins are iden-
tified. An analysis of the geologic hazards at the six village sites
and the City of Kodiak is presented, and followed by recommendations for
further study. Figure 3.6 is a glossary of geologic terms.

3-78

Figure 3.6 Glossary of geologic terms.

Andesite - a type of volcanic rock composed essentially of andesine,
a mineral containing sodium, calcium, aluminum, silicon, and oxygen.

Biogenic - pertaining to a deposit resulting from the physiological
activities of organisms.

Deformation - any change in the original volume or form of rock masses.
produced by tectonic forces, i.e., faulting and folding.

Lithify - to turn to rock; to consolidate, such as the process of indura-
tion of loose sediment.

Semilithified - partially turned to rock.

Tectonic - of, pertaining-to, or designating the rock structure and
external forms resulting from the deformation.of the earth's crust.

Terrigenous - produced from or of the earth.

Unconformable - having the relation of unconformity to the underlying
rocks. (See unconformity.)

Unconformity - a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from
older rocks.

3-79

Geologic Setting

Regional Geology.

Plate Tectonic Setting The Kodiak Archipelago consists of Kodiak
Island, Afognak Island, and numerous adjacent smaller islands. These
islands are located along the convergent margin of the North American
plate where it is being underthrust by the Pacific plate (Figure 3.7).
Plate tectonics explains the underlying cause of the geologic and seismic
activity in southcentral Alaska as the product of the subduction of the
Pacific plate at the Aleutian trench as the plate spreads northward from
the east Pacific Rise (Isacks et al. 1968; Tobin and Sykes 1968). This
northward movement occurs at a rate of approx-imately 2.4 inches/year (6
qm/year) relative to the North American Plate. As a result of this active
underthrusting, the Kodiak Archipelago is located in an area of abundant
earthquake activity and active volcanism. At least 12 volcanoes clas-
sified as active or recently active are located along the Alaska Penin-
sula adjacent to the Kodiak Archipelago. These volcanoes are a surface
expression of the subducting Benioff seismic zone located at an approxi-
mate depth of 100 km (Hampton et al. 1979).

Geologic History - During late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic time
the Kodiak area was occupied by a deep sea with an adjoining volcanic
island arc similar to the present-day Aleutian arc (AEIDC 1975). The area
occupied by the island arc was uplifted and deformed during middle
Mesozoic time, depositing black siliceous muds and volcanic flows into
the adjacent marine basin. There was probably an ancient oceanic trench
along the northwest coast of Kodiak Island, and volcanic activity predom-
inated in the Alaska Range area associated with the volcanic island arc
system. During late Mesozoic time the Kodiak area was likely a site of
deepwater sedimatation adjacent to a broad continental shelf basin. By
early Cenozoic time a deep-sea trench had developed off the Kodiak shelf
and several cycles of uplift, erosion, and deposition ensued. Middle
Cenozoic time was marked by deposition in marine basins on all the shelf
areas of the Kodiak Island group (AEIDC 1975). In late Cenozoic time
duringthe Pleistocene epoch, glacial ice probably covered the entire

3-80

low

Dam Sites
EURASIAN F a til,
Totschunda F

PLATE Fairw
00__
6

Ile

amplona
Zone

Yakutat
011
X Block
ec Kod i ak
-0 A eutian I s I and
Group
0 PACIFIC PLATE,

L
'END
EG

::::::':::::*:':':::'Wrangell B@lock
-16, . Relative Pacific Plate Motion

300 ----Plate Boundary, dashed where inferred
A A A- Shelf Edge Structure with Oblique Slip

Intraplate Transform or Strike-Slip fault

Epicenter March 1964 Earthquake
NOTES 1500 1801, 160o
I. Base map from Tarr (1974). 3. Adapted from WCC (1980).
2. After Packer and others (1975), Beikman (1978). Figure 3.7. PLA
Cormier (1975), Reed aod Lamphere (1974),
Plafker, and others (1978).

region except for a small area on the southwest portion of Kodiak Island.
The glacial advance was probably south and east over the continental
shelf, sculpturing the island surface and offshore terrain into landforms
evident on the islands today (AEIDC 1975). All these events have yielded
the present geologic structure of the Kodiak Island group.

Seismicity -The Kodiak Islands are located in one of the most
active areas on earth, accou nting for about 7 percent of the
annual worldwide release of seismic energy (AEIDC 1974). Kodiak Island
is located approximately 140 km northwest of the active zone of subduc-
tion along the Aleutian Trench (Figure 3.7). This is a major thrust zone
and region of frequent e arthquake activity. A plot of the hypocenter
distribution of instrumentally-located e arthquake activity defines a
shallow dipping plane of concentrated earthquake activity. This kind of
subcrustal seismic zone is called a Benioff zone. A seismic activity gap,
according to plate tectonic theory, is a candidate for a major seismic
event. The area between Kodiak and Unimak Islands is characterized by
such a gap, and-is referred to as the Shumagin Gap (Figure 3.8). Studies
suggest that this area may experience a major earthquake in the near
future (AEIDC 1975). A concentration of earthquake epicenters exists
offshore of the Trinity Islands, south of 57 0N and between 152 0W and 154Q
W. This is the most tectonically active area of the Kodiak shelf. Faults
with youthful scarps occur offshore near the southeastern coastline of
Kodiak Island and on the continental slope (Figures 3.8 and 3.91) (U.S.
Department of Interior, 1977). The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964 is the
largest magnitude (8.4 to 8.5 on the Richter Scale) earthquake to affect
the Kodiak Archipelago in historic time. There was widespread vertical
and horizontal displacement, surface faulting sediment compaction, land-
slides and submarine slides, and tsunamis. Tsunamis took the most lives,
and landslides caused the.most damage (AEIDC 1975).

Geology of the Kodiak Archipelago. The rocks of the Kodiak Archi-
pelago may be grouped into: (1) lower Mesozoic sedimentary and metamor-
phic rocks; (2) Mesozoic through middle Cenozoic deformed sedimentary
deposits; and (3) upper Mesozoic to lower Cenozoic plutonic rocks (Figure
3.9 and 3.10) (Von Huene, Fisher, and Hampton 1980). The contact between

3-82

Dam-"�ites

200

d %

01
w
Ir \YAK GAI
G A
-TA\'

Kod V@ak
Island LEGEND
Group
0 01964 Location
195 earthqua
-- --- including
are outli

Inferre(I
4*
E: A N of Pacisi
Trench a
:CIFIC
PA
------ App-oxi
Iio-t A
110- margin
115, 165- ISO,

NOTE
I /
r

1. Modified after Davies and House (1979). 2. Adapted from WCC (1980). Figure 3.8. MAJOR EAR
SEISMIC GAPS IN

the lower Mesozoic rocks and the Mesozoic and lower Cenzoic rocks is an
extension of the Border Ranges fault (Von Huene, Fisher, and Hampton
1980). Rocks on the northwest side of the fault are of lower Mesozoic
age; those on the southeast side are Mesozoic And lower Cenozoic sedimen-
tary rocks in belts that trend northeast. Strata within the belts de-
crease in age southeastward from the Border Ranges fault to the Pacific
shore of Kodiak Island. A major northeast trending thrust fault separates
the upper Cretaceous rocks of central Kodiak Island from the lower
Cenozoic rocks along the southeastern coastline (Von Huene, Fisher, and
Hampton 1980). A series of high angle faults separates the various lower
Cenozoic rock formations along the southeastern coastline (Figure 3.9 and
3.10). The majority of these high angle faults have been classified as
active (U.S. Department of Interior, 1977). Intruded into the upper

Mesozoic and lower Cenozoic rocks are middle Mesozoic to lower Cenozoic

plutonic rocks. The main body of these igenous rocks forms an axial spine
through the central portion of Kodiak Island. Overall, the geologic units
trend northeast parallel to the regional trend, and the dips ate domi-
nantly northwest. Deformation generally decreases toward the southeastern
coastline, as do the rock ages.

Geology Offshore of Kodiak Island. Shelikof Strait, northwest of
the Kodiak Island group, is a structural trough which is underlain by
folded and faulted Mesozoic and Tertiary strata (Hampton and Winters
1981). These strata are blanketed unconformably by relatively undeformed
Quaternary sediments. The surficial sediment in the northeastern end of
the strait is sand, and grades southwestward into fine sand and mud (U.S.
Department of Interior 1981). Five distinct fault scarps that displace
surface sediment occur within the Shelikof Strait and may be classified
as potentially active (Figures 3.9 and 3.10) (Hoose and Whitney 1980)..
The faults trend parallel to the axis of the strait, perpendicular to the
direction of plate convergence. Present-day processes in the Shelikof
Strait define it as a depositional sedimentary environment.

The Kodiak shelf southeast of the Kodiak Island group is an ero-
sional environment (Von Huene, Fisher, and Hampton 1980). The distribu-
tion of unconsolidated sediment is related to shelf physiography, ,the

3-84

155 000, 154000, 153 000, 1 15 2000,

0
58 0 30' 58 30'-

Tr uMz
4(
r
AFOGNAK ISLAND 0
58000' 58 00'
OUZINKIE@
PORT LIONS

Tr KODIAK
tb

uMz
A R, JK uMz
0 LARSEN 8AY
57 30 --A I 1 57030'-
KODIAK ISLAND
r Tk_

r
IT

H
OLD RBOR
Y,

e
I T
57'00 u z 570001-.

AKHIOK
vp

.IT

.00,

@ox
56'30 >> 56 301
@@IRINITY ISLANDS >1
e
1 C 2C 30 aO 5 C'
10
See Figure D for Legend. (Adapted ------ r----=
from BLM, 1977; Hoose and Whitney,
1980; and Connelly and Moore, 19791 kilometer

10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Project NO, 60666A
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS General Geologic Map of Kodiak Island Group Figure 3.9

CENOZOIC

Quaternary

Q Quaternary Deposits Alluvium, dune sand, beach deposits, and
glacial deposits on Kodiak Island and on the Trinity Islands.

Tertiary

Tp Pliocene Rocks - OnTugidak and Chirikof Islands, includes inter-
bedded sandstone and siltstone of the Tugidak Formation.

Teo Oligocene and Eocene Marine Rocks - In fault slices along the
southeast side of Kodiak Island includes 3,000 m of Eocene and
Oligocene flysch of the Sitkalidak Formation, which is conform-
ably overlain by the Sitkin.ak Formation.

IT Lower'Tertiary Rocks - Strongly deformed zeolite-bearing tuf-
faceous sandstone, basalt, claystone, sandstone, tuff, and graded
beds of the Ghost Rocks Formation of Eocene and Paleocene age
on Kodiak and adjacent islands.

MESOZO!C

Cretaceous

Tkg Tertiary and Cretaceous Granitic Rocks Quartz diorite on Kodiak
Island.

Cretaceous and Upper Jurassic

uMz Cretaceous and Upper Jurassic Rocks - Sparsely fossiliferous
graywacke, sl@te, argiilite, with minor conglomerate, volcanic
detritus, and interbedded mafic volcanic rocks metamorphosed,
locally, to greenschist and amphilbolife facies.

Triassic

Tr Triassic Rocks - Shale, limestone, chert, schistose tuff, sand-
stone and beds of pillow basalt. Includes Uyak Formation on
Afognak Island.

PALEOZOIC

Trum Triassic Ulframafic Rocks - Serpentinized dunife, pyroxenite,
and gabbro on Kodiak Island.

Active Faults with Youthful Scarps; dashed where approximately
located

Inactive Thrust Fault; dashed where inferred; hatchures on
downthrown side

High Angle Fault; dotted where concealed by sediment;
movement not defined

(Adapted from BLM, 1977; Hoose and Whitney, 1980)
Figure 3.iO. Lengend for general geologic map oFf;
Kodiak ISland Group.

3-86

shelf being divided into a series of basins and troughs with banks. The
direction of sediment transport is generally from the banks into the
troughs. An exception is Stevenson Trough offshore of Afognak Island,
which is a route for high-energy bedload transport of sedi-ements across

the shelf. Surficial unconsolidated sediment consists of various pro.por-
tions of terrigenous-glacial, volcanic, and biogenic debris (Hampton et
al. 1979). This sediment forms a thin blanket over much of the shelf, but
broad areas have exposures of semilithified to lithified siltstone and
fine-grainned sandstone of Tertiary to Pleistocene age.

Geologic Hazards

Introduction. As discussed under Regional Geology, the majority of
the geologic hazards that affect the Kodiak Islands are seismotectonic in
origin. These include active faults, earthquakes and their attendant
landslides and submarine slumps, liquefaction, and tsunamis; volcanism

and its associated ash falls, acid rains, and climatic and atmospheric
changes. Other hazards are related to mass wasting phenomena. The follow-
ing subsections outline the potential geologic hazards that can affect
the Kodiak Archipelago.

Seismic Hazards. As a result of its tectonic setting, the Kodiak,
Archipelago has a high seismic risk rating. Earthquakes are a prominent
geologic hazard of the island group. The recurrence of such great earth-
quakes as the 1964 Alaska earthquake is estimated to range from a minimum
of 33 years to a maximum of 800 years (U.S. Department of Interior 1081).
The area southwest of Kodiak Island known as Shumigan Gap is due for a
major earthquake in the near future. A seismically active area offshore
of the Trinity Islands is another area of seismic concern. (See Section
3.3.1, Seismicity, an.d Figures 3.8 and 3.9). Figure 3.9 shows the distri-
bution of active onshore and offshore faults, the major zone being along
the southeast coast of Kodiak. Strong ground shaking, fault rupture,
sediment displacement, and tectonic deformation of the seafloor have all
occurred on or adjacent to the Kodiak shelf, and can be expected in the
future (Von Huene, Fisher, and Hampton 1980). The area offshore of the
southwest edge of Kodiak Island has no faults mapped to date (Hampton et
al. 1979).

3-87

Damage due to earthquakes is caused primarily by ground rupture
and ground shaking. Secondary destructive mechanisms are seismic sea-
waves (tsunami), regional and local uplift and subsidence, liquefaction,
and landslides. Records from the 1964 Alaska earthquake indicate that the
primary destructive force was ground shaking, which triggered numerous
landslides along the southeastern coast of Kodiak. Areas that exoeri-
enced the most structural damage were located in thick, loosely packed,
water-saturated deposits; rocky areas experienced the least damage (AEIDC
1974). Loose sediments also settled differentially and had partial lique-
faction. Regional subsidence of 2 to 6 feet damaged every community
except Akhoik and Karluk. The most destructive secondary mechanism was
the tsunami, which took the. most lives and caused damage to port facili-
ties-and boats. The Kodiak shoreline, particularly Marmot, Chiniak,
Ugak, and Kiliuda Bays, is exposed to tsunamis generated anywhere in the
Pacific, especially along the Aleutian seismic belt. Based on historical
events, the.zone of greatest susceptibility to tsunami damage has been
between mean sea level and elevation 16 meters. Preliminary geologic
hazard maps (Figures 3.11 through 3.17) show the potential for seismic
hazards in the major population centers of the Kodiak Island group.

Volcanic Hazards. The chain of active andesitic volcanoes on the
Alaska Peninsula adjacent to the Kodiak Islands poses several geologic
hazards associated with their characteristic violent eruptions. Because
of the,distance separating the volcanoes from the island, 75 kilometers,

volcanic hazards are limited to those of aerial extent. Turbulent ash

clouds, which are bursts of gas, st eam, and ash that rise vertically to
heights of 15,000 to 30,000 meters, can be hazardous to aircraft in the
area. Airborne ash can be transported great.distances and produce physi-
cally uncomfortable conditions. For example, an ash deposit about 10 cm
thick covered Afognak Island and the northern half of Kodiak Island from
the eruption of Mt. Katmai in 1912. Corrosive rains caused by acidic
volcanic gases mixing with precipitation can fall on communities and
cause damage. Acid rains associated with the 1912 Mt. Katmai eruption

fell on Cordova at a distance of 750 km northeast of Mt. Katmai. Other

secondary volcanic phenomena that could be hazardous are earthquakes,
seawaves, lightning discharges, and landslides. Protection from the

3-88

....... . .

owl
It

JO-)
..... .. . . ......
Aw,
.0 44
K.-

4@
.............
V.
.. ............
..........
7:
$......... """,

. ...... .......... 46-
LOP"
NN." "P7,
&Ike
us
.... ......

...... ....

" - @M
at
K,
kamah @Af:
Ile

xf z
21
Isla

.in

_QM
av
C N A
lo,
B A y
C'/
. ........

Sca I e 1: 63360
Soil: silty volcanic ash with infrequent peat
Quaternary deposits: (Qm) glacial moraine and drift
Bedrock: (uMz) Cretaceous and upper Jurassic graywacke, slate, argillife, some
metamorphic greenschist facies
Faults: none mapped, linements mapped by R&M on Pillar Mountain
Landslides: Pi I lar Mountain and Old Womens Mountain potential landslides
Water table: depth to water below ground surface ranges 4 to 25 ff
Seismic risk: high potential for earthquake and damage
Information Sources: BLM (1977); R. Updike, DGGS; AEIDC (1974); aerial photographs
Project No. 60066A Preliminary Geologic Map - Kodiak 9 3. 1 1
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS

3-89

.. . . . .......

. ..... Tk 9
Q

.4: P,
+

'x
........ .. .......
. . .......... .............
........ .

y
A'd

sop I
-ide
0
'19
Rk
zq . ..... ............
Mz 4,
do
3.

ot4 H 60-
lnhq @
Q ......
Z... .... .. :7 OR LJ
-y T4 t
/ I I -.. -,-. r7. I
44@ AMq
L41
-7 T,
Sol
Yin

N-
4-

T-k g

IM7

Soi Isilty volcanic ash with infrequent peat Scale 1-63360
Quaternary deposits: (Q) undifferentiated, (9m) moraine and drift
Bedrock: (uMz) Cretaceous and upper Jurassic.graywacke, slate and argill'ite;
(Tkg) late Cretaceous and early Tertiary quartz diorite (IT) lower
Tertiary tuffaceous sandstone, basalt, claystone, sandstone and tuff
Faults: major thrust fault 5 km SE and an active high angle fault
9 km SE
Landslide: potential near old town site
'hater table: depth to water below ground surface is 17 ft
Seismic risk: hiah potential for earthquake and damage
Information Sour@es: AEIDC (1974); BLM (1977); aerial photographs
Project No. 6066bA Preliminary Geologic.Map - Old Harbor- Fig. 3.1@2
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS I I

mober PiLwul
w
c

r J.
;2

P1
In)

.7.7
rn)1(
Qm
u M .. .....
z

N e r C'
23

IF'
%

0
V.-I X.,
)@2 7@@

C-

32
3 F@ d-

/of.
61 d
Akhl k

10 k
M` 4
e.t
C
C
5
fk

60
.'T

oc@
h
TNN

IPA,
and

18P Scale 1:63360

Soil: silty volcanic ash
Quaternary deposits: (Qm) glacial moraine and drift
Bedrock: (uMz) Cretaceous and upper Jurassic graywacke, slate, argiflite,, some
metamorphic greenschist,facies
Faults: none mapped
Landslides: none
Water table: high, depth to water is 2 ft
Seismic risk: high potential for earthquake and damage
Information Sources: AEIDC (1974); BLM (1977); aerial photographs

Project No. 60666A
-WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 1,,Iiminar-y Geol,ogic Map - Akhiok F i g .13

+ +++
+++
++
+ + J+.'+
+ $,,J- - +++
+ ++
300 +
+ +
+
+++
+ ++ -++'+++,+
+ +
+ +

-a r
cap$ !W Y
m
'ANY Q
xw1u v

T
r4,
I K g

Q
+

+
. . . . 14- +
0.
WO + +

+
+
++
A,+
1P

+
+
+
g. 77 -
+
++
+
M
+
-t7 --T

+
K, +

- - - - - - - - - - -
'A'
+ + +
+
N; W?@' - -, $- -1
+ - r'@o +/ - - -
+
Q
+0
-4 + +
+' + + 7-
+ +
- - - - - - - - - - @:
)t.'
+E) -@J M
F

+ +4
+! +
Tkg ++

+ - - - - - - - - -
+
sr- - - - - - - - -
+ I' I'I @
+ +
+
+ +

+ 'i@' -
Al-
61 1+ :4< +
+
+ V
+ + + '00& '+
+ a + + +
+
+ +
+ :+

+
+ +
+ +
+ +
30
@2 5

Soil: silty vol'canic ash with infrequent peat Scale 1:63360
Quaternary deposits: (Q) undifferentiated, (Qm) moraine and drift,
(Ql) glaciolacustrine
Bedrock: (Tkg) late Cretaceous and early Tertiary quartz diorife
Faults:,(- -) Fault, dotted where concealed, 3.5km SE
Landslides: none mapped
Water table: no information

s
Seismic Ri k: high potential for earthquake and damage
Information Sources: AEIDC (1974); BLM (1977); aerial photographs

Project No. 6o666A
Pre.Li.m.i.nary Geologic Mal) - K@+irLuk P ig. 3. 14
WOOOWARO-CLYOE CONSULTANTS

.... . ..........

.................

....... ...
- - - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - -

N
- - - - - - - ffiz ..... ..
r

2 TV
13 Y
14

43-7

M
.. .... ...
..... .......

..... .......
u z ............... .... S.
J

- - - - - - - - - - -
... ...... .
-:L-W
- - - - --- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
--- ----- ---
1')4'00'
439000m E

Scale 1:63360

Soil: silty volcanic ash -aine and drif
Quaternary deposits: (Q) undifferentiated, (Qm) glacial mor t
(QH glaciolacustrine
Bedrock': (uMz) Cretaceous and upper Jurassic graywacke, slate and argillite,
(Tr) Tr-'iassic shale, limestone, chert, schistose tuff, sandstone and
pillow basalt
Faults: (A-&). major thrust 3.5 km west, hatches an downthrown block
Landslides: none mapped
Water table: high, wells and springs
Seismic risk: high potential for earthquake and damage
Information Sources: AEIDC (1974); BLM (1977); aerial photographs,

Project No. 60666A
@7 i 9
WOOOWARO-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Preliminary Geologic Map - Larsen Bay -z.15

3-93

............

............ ..
.@ .........
4
I'. N'.

Room
V.,
X

n*' nt

..... ....
I. ............
0"I
...... .. .. :
. ..... ....
Y.-

Alk point

.......... *;-*-V.-'..A
.............. ... 4A
..........
.. .... ..... ..... I..

.. ...........

. ..... .....
.... ........ ........
... .....
.... ........

t..... .
N

...... bni
-N
va

............. ......
4.
-04 'N '

............
Z

::;_::'F-- . -z
4 ....... ..
.. ........
.0i

.........

:06
v

QM
L4.

MIA

... ........ ........
.,23
....... ....
....... .. .....

.. . .................
......... . .. . ............. ...... .....
....... ... ........... .. ...
Sol I a 1c, as with infrequent peat Scale 1:63360
Quaternary deposits: (Qm) glacial moraine and drift
Bedrock: (uMz) Cretaceous and upper Jurassic graywacke, slate, argillife, some
metamorphic greenschist-facies
Faults: none mapped; linears from aerial photographs
Landslides: none mapped
Water table: no information
Seismic risk: high potential for earthquake and damage
Information Sources: AEIDC (1974); BLM (1977); aerial photographs
Project No. 60666A Preliminary Geologic Map - Port Lions Fig 16-]
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 3.

CD
0

...........
....... ....
..... .....
. ........... .....

.. . ....

00) K

; ...... .....
(2

Aah "age ..... . .
a d Mrs

..... . .....

...............

.. ..........

fk'W
.. ........
.1z
j
V
............
........... @_*-..N:..
.. .. ...........
4
...... ...

...............
.......... .. . ..
. .......... . .
...............
Scale 1: 63360
Soil: Silty volcanic ash with infrequent peat
Quaternary deposits: (Q) undifferentiated
Bedrock: (uMz) Cretaceous and upper Jurassic graywacke, slate, argillife and some
metamorphic greenschist facies
Faults: none mapped; linears from aerial photographs
Landslides: none mapped
Water fable: no information
Seismic risk: high potential for earthquake and damage
Information Sources: AEIDC (1974); BLM (1977); aerial photographs

Proje 6
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTA Ouzink i e F ig. 3.17
ct No. 60 66A
NTS1 Preliminary Geologic Map
3-95

atmospheric effects of a violent volcanic eruption could be mitigated by
adequate public notice of volcanic activities.

Mass Wasting. Hazards related to mass wasting include landslides,
submarine slumps with resultant tsunamis, rockfalls, and avalanches.
Landslide describes the downhill movement of earth, rock, mud, or debris.

Avalanche refers to similar movements of snow and ice. Processes which

trigger landslides are rainfall, erosion, earthqu akes, and man-induced
cutting and filling. Earthquake-induced slides do not require a steep
slope, as was noted on Kodiak Island during the 1964 Alaska earthquake.
Almost 2,000 slides were triggered, most of which occurred along the
southeast coast of Kodiak Island on moderately steep slopes, deeply
weathered and mantled with thick deposits of glacial till, volcanic ash,

and colluvium. Most of the slides on the southeastern coast were con-

trolled by local lithology and structure. The combination of steep topog-
raphy, unconsolidated materials, considerable precipitation, fa,ults and
joints, and earthquake activity makes landslides potentially very hazar-
dous to many communities on Kodiak and surrounding islands. Pillar
Mountain and Old Womens Mountain have been identified as the potentially
most dangerous unstable slopes near a coastline community. It has been
estimated that a 3 meter high seawave would be generated if Pillar
Mountain slid into Saint Paul Harbor (U.S. Department of Interior 1980)..

Figures 3.11 through 3.17 delineate areas of high landslide poten-
tial based on the following criteria: (1) relatively low-strength mat-
erials like clay, siltstone, and tuff; (2) numerous faults and joints
which reduce shear strength in Mesozoic bedrock; (3) thick accumulations
of weathered Tertiary bedrock; (4) steep-sided stream valleys and wave-
cut cliffs with no lateral support; (5) high water table; and (6) uncon-
solidated Quaternary deposits.

Submarine slides are rare on the Kodiak shelf, whereas slides are
abundant on the adjacent continental slope. Some slides have been noted
on the trough banks that cross the shelf. No evidence of massive slumps,

3-96

liquefaction, or debri s flow have been found in the Shelikof Strait OJ S.
Department of Interior 1981)..Rockfalls pose a potential hazard in scat-
tered areas of Kodiak and surrounding islands in areas of consolidated
rock. Avalanche hazard is directly related to snow accumulation and a
critical 300 to 450 slope. Spring runoff on south-facing slo Ipes creates a
high avalanche risk in areas of steep slopes. Most areas.with high ava-
lanche risk are in the uninhabited interior of Kodiak Island; an excep-

tion is Anton Larsen Bay, 1 5 km northwest of Kodiak.

Site-Specific Geologic Hazards Analysis

Introduction. The site-specific analysis of geologic hazards at
the six villages and the City of Kodiak consisted of a brief aerial
reconnaisance on Apri'l 27 and 28, a review of published literature, and a
brief aerial photographic analysis. Geology of the islands-was derived
from the geology and structure map (Department of Interior 1977) at a
scale of 1:680,000 and the geologic features map of S hielikof Strait by
P. J. Hoose and J. Whitney (1980) at a scale of 1:250,000. Hazards @nfor-
mation was compiled on a base map scale of 1:63,360; information accuracy
is typically generalized in such a data transfer. Additional detailed
studies of the geologic hazards would provide needed information of their

extent and likelihood of occurrence.

City of Kodiak. The City of Kodiak is located in a high seismic
risk zone because of its regional proximity to the seismically active
eastern coastline (Figure 3.11). The risk is high in terms of the likeli-
hood of earthqauke occurrence and degree of damage that would result.
Based on analysis of the effects ofthe 1964 Alaska earthquake, ground
shaking, landslides, and tsunamis are the primary causes of damage. The
structure relationships of the Mesozoic graywacke and argillites near
Kodiak are potentially susceptible to landslides at Pillar and Old Womens
Mountain (R. Updike, DGGS, personal communication 1981). A combination of
0
steep dips (50 W), extensive jointing, and man-induced undercutting have
contributed to the potential haza.rd. The U.S. Geological Survey has
posted 'an alert for Pillar Mountain and a verbal alert for Old Womens

3-97

Mountain (J. Staford, personal communication 1981). R. Updike recently
completed a two-year monitoring of Pillar Mountain, during which no appar-

ent movement was noted. It is theorized that movement would be an all-in-

one collapse of the mountain rather than a slow creep mechanism. An
estimated 3 meter high seawave would be produced if Pillar Mountain slid
into the harbor (U.S. Department of Interior 1980b).

Tsunami damage to the City of Kodiak was considerable as a result
of the 1964 earthquake. The line of maximum inundation was 22 feet along
Benson Street, and a 30-foot wave washed 30 homes from the Shahafka
Cove area into Potato Patch Lake (AEIDC 1975).

Old Harbor. The village is situated on undifferentiated, unconsol-.
idated deposits of undetermined thickness at the base of a steep slope
which is underlain.by Mesozoic graywacke, slate, and argillite (Figure
3.12). Depending on the angle of dip of these rocks and the fracture pat-
terns, there could be a potential for a Pillar Mountain-type slide in the
area.. Local field mapping of structures needs to be conducted to verify
this potential. The unconsolidated Quaternary deposits may form unstable
foundation materials in the event of ground shaking. Old Harbor is 5 km
northwest of a major regional thrust fault which may be inactive, and
9 km northwest of an active high angle fault (U.S.,Department of Interior
1977). Maximum tsunami run-up height from the 1964 earthquake measured 12
feet above tide lev el and destroyed all structures ex .cept the church and
school buildings. Due to its proximity to the active fault zone and its
vu lnerability to tsunamis, the village is placed in a high seismic risk

category.

Akhiok. Akhiok village is located on Quaternary glacial moraine
and drift deposits that are largely unmodified (Figure 3.13). Depth to
the Mesozoic bedrock has not been determined. No major or active faults
are mapped in the area. Tsunami risk is moderate due to the village's
location leeward of a barrier island configuration. Seismic risk is high
for Akhiok, based on the potentially unstable nature of the saturated
Quaternary deposits and the regional seismicity.

3-98

Karluk. The village is built on undifferentiated Quaternary depos-
its of possible glacial origin (Figure 3.14). It is located at the base
of a steep slope composed of quartz diorite. Local rock structure is
presently poorly understood, but tentatively the igneous rocks app ear to
be stable, based on aerial photographic analysis of linears. A regi. onal
fault is mapped 3.5 km southeast of the village. Its location on the
southwest side of the island makes the village less prone to tsunami
damage generated from.a Pacific Ocean source. Earthquake likelihood is
high based on the regional seismotectonic setting. Its location on uncon-
solidated deposits contributes to possible ground shaking, subsidence,
and liquefaction damage. Such damage is also dependent on other factors
such as duration of shaking, response spectra, earLhquake magnitude,
depth of focus, and building design and contruction. Secondary volcanic
phenomena are a potential risk to Karluk since it borders the active

Alaska Peninsula volcano zone.

Larsen Bay. The community rests on Quaternary deposits of possible
glacial origin (Figure 3.15). A major inactive thrust fault lies 3.5 km
west of the village site (U.S. Department of Interior, 1977). The
graywacke, argillite, and slates south of town appear stable topograph-
ically, based on a limited aerial photographic study. Across the bay the
steep scarp slope of the same rock types could pose a landslide threat if
the dip of the rock unit is steep and daylights into the scarp and frac-
tures are extensive. Data from wells and springs indicate a high water
table, whic.h would make the unconsolidated deposits of the village site
unstable under ground shaking conditions. The tsunami threat is low
because of the location of the village on the west side of Kodiak Island.
Seismic risk is high due to regional tectonism.

Port Lions. Large-scale geologic mapping places Port Lions on
bedrock of graywacke, slate, and argillite (Figure 3.16). There does not
appear to be a landslide problem based on aerial photographic analysis.
No faults are mapped in the area. Regional seismic risk is high due to

tectonism.

3-99

Ouzinkie. The village is located on graywacke, slate, and argil-
lite bedrock (Figure 3.17). There is no landslide threat, as determined
by the low relief. No faults are mapped-near the town. Seismic rating is
high due to regional tectonism.

3.3.2 OF OCEANIC ORIGIN

Oceanographic Setting ofthe Kodiak Region

Surface water circulation in the Gulf of Alaska traces a generally
counterclockwise pattern (Figure 3.18). Water is carried eastward across
the Pacific Ocean by the Subarctic Current. Upon entering the Gulf of
Alaska, this current splits to form the northward Alaska Current and
the southward California Current. Following the Alaska coastline, the
Alaska Current passes southwest of Kodiak Island, where, as it narrows
and becomes more intense, it is known as the Alaska Stream. Some of the
,Alaska Stream reenters the Subarctic Current to.complete the circuit,
while the remainder is believed to flow northward through various Aleu-
tian passes into the Bering Se a. Direct measurements of the Alaska Cur-
rent indicate that current speeds are greatest over the continental
slope, and are as much as 1.5 knots south of Kodiak Island.

Circulation along the Gulf of Alaska continental shelf is also
affected by strong tidal activity, wind stress, and surface water runoff
from the land masses. Tidal activity produces as much as 85 percent
of the variance in current measurements (Buck et al. 1975). Nearer to

Kodiak, current patterns can vary dramatically, especially close to shore

where both tides and winds can affect them. Inshore water circulation is

altered substa ntially during runoff season by the influx of large volumes
of river water. In some embayments the runoff can re-tard the flood tide
and enhance the ebb flow. Locally intense winds, known as "williwaws,"
can.also affect nearshore currents substantially and create occasionally

hazardous sea wave conditions.

Tides in the Kodiak region are semidiurnal (two highs and two lows
per 25-hour period) in character. Mean tidal amplitudes along the Gulf
.of Alaska coast range from 6 to-12 feet, with flood currents usually

3-100

BERING

SUBARCTIC CURRENT

Figure 3.18. Surface water circulation

in the Gulf of Alaska.

3-101

trending northward and ebb currents to the south. However, since the
pattern of tidal currents can be extremely variable and complex due to
local influences, further generalization is impractical. Tidal currents
can reach significant speeds: for example, 4 to 5 knots at the Larsen Bay
entrance; 3 knots at Sitkalidak Passage; and 2 to 3 knots at the north
entrance to Kodiak Harbor. Major tide rips occur in Sitkinak Strait, over
17-Fathom Bank, and in Stevenson Passage. When opposing trains of waves
encounter these rips, potentially hazardous sea conditions develop as a

result of the ra ndom and chaotic nature of the wave and current inter-

action.

Sea ice formed in Upper Cook Inlet is transported southward by
northerly winds and tidal currents. This sea ice is rarely observed any
farther south than Cape Douglas on the west shore of Lower Cook Inlet or
Anchor Point on.the east shore. No sea ice forms around Kodiak Island,
but occasional small bergs, calved from tidewa@er glaciers,in South-
central Alaska, have been observed near Kodiak.

Oceanic Hazards

Storms are the source of the most persistent of all potentially
hazardous agents in the coastal environment. By their action o ver long
stretches of the ocean surface, storm.winds produce waves that vary
in size (i.e., height, length, and period), according to the exposure
(i.e., "fetch"), duration, and intensity of the wind. Such waves, genera-
t*ed by the wind, are known as "sea waves." These waves can transmit
substantial amounts of energy which, when expended on a shoreline, can
be either erosional or accretional to the beach, with both effects some-
times occurring within a short distance. For coastal zone management
purposes, it is important to identify areas that are particularly suscep-
tible to the erosional effects of sea waves. This is accomplished by
consideration of the area exposed to potentially destructive sea waves
and also the material composition of the shoreline. A rocky headland
is not generally vulnerable to significant wave damage, while a sedimen-
tary shoreline deserves special attention in this context; that is, any

3-102

development of the latter should be consistent with the usually transient
character of sedimentary shorelines, or substantial efforts will- be
necessary to protect or preserve the beach and whatever develooment
is, permitted upon it, or even nearby.

Another storm effect of potential concern is "storm surge," which

is also known as th e "meteorological" tide. A storm over nearshore waters
can generate large fluctuations in sea level if the storm is suffi-
ciently strong and the. nearshore region is shallow over a large area.
Storm activity can cause either a rise (set-up) or a fall (set-down) of
the wat er level at different locations and times , with the set-up predom 1-
nating in magnitude, duration, and areal extent. Because of the rela-
tively narrow continental shelf around theKodiak Archipelago, it is
unlikely that storm surge is a factor of genuine concern, except possibly
in shallow lagoons that are exposed directly to the open ocean.

Seismic.and volcanic activity, which often results in severe earth-
quakes and produces landslides or avalanches, provides yet another source
of water disturbances that qualify as hazards of oceanic origin. Tsunamis
are the long ocean waves produced by an abrupt uplift or subside nce
of the ocean floor. These waves travel rapidly and are capable of wreak-
ing havoc by impact on and inundation of coastal areas. Waves produced
by landslides or avalanches are sometimes referred to as tsunamis but,
in most cases, would be more correctly identified as "seiche." The latter
term applies to standing waves in a body of water, produced by some
impulse and manifest by the "rocking" of the water back and forth within
its basin. Any region that is subject to frequent seismic activity can be
expected to be susceptible to both wave forms.

Coastal Erosion. Many beaches along the southern coast of Kodiak
Island were flattened and subsequently receded shoreward as a result
of the 1964 Alaska earthquake. A regional zone of tectonic subsidence
is located along most of Kodiak Island adjacent to the Kodiak Mountain
range. Widespread subsidence of this range, triggered largely by earth-
quake displacement, has been occurring for the past several centuries

3-103

(Plafker and Meyer 1967; Plafker and Kachadoorian 1966). During the 1964
earthquake, the northern section of the tectonic zone subsided more than
6 feet. According to Plafker and Kachadoorian (1966), "Southern shores
were repeatedly washed by destructive waves having run-up heights along
exposed coasts approximately 40 feet above existing tide levels, and
another 8 to 20 feet along protected shores."

Surficial subsidence of unconsolidated deposits as well as tec-
tonic subsidence can greatly alter beach formations. The earthquake
caused beach berms and stream deltas to shift landward in subsided -areas.
Shorelines composed of poorly consolidated deposits were brought within
reach of the tides and rapidly eroded by wave action at the higher sea
levels. Surficial subsidence also contributed to the formation of tidal
lagoons where beach-barred lakes had existed at bay heads or stream

mouths.

Most Kodiak beaches are narrow and composed of sand and gravel.
These sand and gravel deposits are found in the narrow valley botEoms
at heads of bays. Sandy barrier islands and spits are also present,
usually within the same area. Approximately 10 to 15 percent of the
island coastline is composed of these unconsolidated sediment mater-
ials. The deposits are thin, not more than 30 to 40 feet, and most occur
along the southwestern end of the island (Buck et al. 1975).

The prevailing wind direction at Kodiak is northwest from August
to April@ shifting to east from May through July. During autumn and
late winter, winds are strongest in the Kodiak region, with waves higher
,than 17 feet occurring often (Buck et al. 1975). Although prevailing
winds are from the west to northwest, intense storms in the Gulf of
Alaska will produce strong easterly winds, accompanied by high waves
that pound east-facing coastlines. Sustained easterly winds sometimes
require removal of small boats from Kodiak Harbor, so that they will not
be damaged by being battered against the docks. Some of the worst sea
conditions occur when the tide ebbs southward out of Shelikof Strait
under opposing waves from the southwest. Given the exposure of the Kodiak

3-104

Archipelago and the combination of prevailing and storm winds, there is
hardly a section of the coastline that is not subject to occasionally
severe wave conditions (Map 10).

Tsunami Flooding. Coastal flooding by tsunamis generated during
the 1964 Alaska earthquake produced some severe beach erosion. This
occurred on Kodiak Island along exposed southern-coast beaches where
the beach subsided and allowed waves to reach above the high tide mark.

The tsunami waves climbed beyond the beach face, causing scour erosion
and alteration of beach features. The highest waves struck during high
tide. Tsunami run-up heights ranged from a minimum of 5 feet or less
to 31.5 feet between Chiniak and Narrow capes. Exposed beaches received
the highest run-up (Plafker and Kachadoorian 1966). Those beach features
that were altered or destroyed reappeare d and stabilized in their normal
shapes within a few months after the earthquake. Within protected shores,
more uniform recession of the beach face area took place because tsunami
wave action was less dynamic, Presumably, this was because the beach face
was flatter and composed of sand which is less readily moved by wave
action (Stanley 1971). Within sheltered embayments, such as Kaguyak, a
run-up of 17 feet occurred. Tsunamis altered and destroyed spits, bay-
mouth bars, and barrier beaches found in the vicinity of bays located at

the southeast end of Kodiak Island. The waves scoured channels through
ridges and spits and formed new outlets. Tsunami run-up within Shelikof
Strait and Stevenson Entrance was only slightly above normal high tide
levels. Flooding did not occur along t he southwest shore of Kodiak or. at
Sitkinak Island. Although this discussion has focused on the 1964 tsu-

nami, Table 3.18 indicates that such phenomena are not uncommon for these

shores.

Existing data on the extent and magnitude of oceanic hazards in
the seven borough communities is extremely limited. Table 3.19 shows data
on damage sustained during the 1964 earthquake and resulting tsunami ...
Figures 3.19 through 3.27 (Buck et. al. 1975; Sears & Zimmerman 1977)
show reported coastal erosion in the vicinity of the seven borough commu-

nities.

3-105

Table 3.18. Tsunamis observed within the Kodiak Archipelago.

Whe re H t T
Date Cause Origin Observed feet hours min. Observations and Remarks

July 22, 1788 Alaska Peninsula Kodiak Island Continental Shelf origin
Three Saints Bay indicated.
Aug. 13, 1868 Northern Chile Kodiak, Alaska 22 Thousands killed by tsunami
in Chile.
1Aug. 27, 1883 Krakatoa Java, Indonesia Kodiak, Alaska 0.3 Small waves, generated by
explosions atmospheric pressure waves
resulting from explosion of
LJ
Krakatoa.

0 Nov. 5. 1952 Earthquake of East Kamchatka Great tsunami.
magnitude 8.25
Nov. 4, 1952 Kodiak Island 1.3 5.8 6.2
Womens Bay
Mar. 9, 1957 Earthquake of Unimak Island Kodiak Island 0.7 Considerable damage to areas.
magnitude 8.3 Womens Bay in the Hawaiian Isl@nds and
parts of Japan.
May 22, 1960 Earthquake of Southern Chile Kodiak 2.3 19.2 Tremendous damage and many
nagnitude 8.5 casualties in Chile, Hawaii,
and Japan.
Mar. 27. 1964 Earthquake of Prince William Throughout Refer to Text Refer to text for detailed
magnitude 8.3 Sound, Alaska Kodiak Island discussion.
Group
Feb. 3, 1965 Earthquake of Rat Islands, Kodiak 0.3
magnitude 7.75-8 Aleutian Islands

Source: Buck et al. 1975.

Note: H maximum run-up height or wave height; t travel time from
origin; T period between wave crests.

Table 3.19. Damage sustained during 1964 earthquake and resulting tsunami.

Tsunami Highest
Level Run-up in Shoreline MaJor Property Seiche
Feet Above MLLW Inundation Damage Occurrance

Kodiak 12.8-20.0 x Terror River
Uganik River
Myrtle Creek
Old Harbor 1 22.5-30.5 x

Akhiok 6.4 x

Karluk 1.5 x

Larsen Bay 4.2 x Spiridon Lake
Outlet
Port Lions 2 --- x
Ouzinkie3 15.7-22.0 x x

1 Old Harbor - almost completely destroyed by tsunami (22.5-30.51).
2
Port Lions - relocated village of Afognak abandoned due to regional subsidence
of 4.5.
3 Ouzinkie - substantial inundation - 15.7-22.0' above MLLW.

KaIguyak - completely destroyed, survivors moved to Akhiok and Old Harbor
(25-321).

3-107

(@O

r
0
)
0
p.
D,
Al-

ROCk

KOMO Rack

'3
60
d
3
-0 ;enill Pnt jV 4L@_[
A@,l
do
-dy

0
@60
i 0
T-V
Iffa n d,
C
@D

'POD
ID I

12
L; sing
luff
V.
0

14
Awk

Figure 3.19. Kodiak. Coastal erosion from sea wave action
amount of shoreline -affected is unknown.

Source: 'Buck et al. 1975; Sears and Zimmerman 1977.

3-108

;oV

4
'-4 9IP

-A
el

C7
?

over

VV 0 0
d 3 Pa, 2
I S I a n c
VV-
CO n d
lick
L4 V
t

A
L

vow.,
A Y
0

Figure 3.20. City of Kodiak. Coastal erosion from sea wave action
amount of shore line affected is unknown.
Source: Buck et al. 1975; Sears and Zimmerman 1977.

3-109

57-

-J.
Buskin Lake
T

,CC
M

puffin
N
%X

4,
54%)
!-7

ej
10-C,
91

.4
.7 OF
Iff

10 J
Mt

.27*
point
.3
___ A4
31 @,jC'O A '34
. . . , , : @ ,
ary

100
JY
A

00'
'00 4
4_

Figure 3.21. City of Kodiak Womens Bay,.. Coastal erosion from
@ea wave action - amount of shoreline affected is
unknown.

Source: Buck et al. 1975; Sears and Zimmerman 1977.

3-110

C)
Soo
680
JIL.

15
V-

VAS
17
-47-
V
Mi'dti y 2
Kill/ Bay I

VABM
Bush-pt
14
20 2V 1 IF 't.Sh.9 Rk
or"a b I
-@X-BM(Tid.q -;Ab
Oid H.rb0,,LA./-"

pkm
AX, --dmf. A, 4,,, 91 ^moo I.,
ji, tti@ J@G '28
2B

r cot
rth
/V
b

93,

"Qj

a At

A
.9
;7@: @1

@t4

3r@@, 000

-4f
j

Q-
1 37
KL

Alc 0 SwUn Da@
U a &I ..McCwd'
L
rd

y, C,

Figure 3.22. Old Harbor. Coastal erosion from sea wave action
1.0 miles of shoreline affected.
Source: Buck et al. 1975; Sears and Zimmerman 1977.

3-111

. ...........
1!0 S
MOU

100
10

V
JOOO

i7
.3

s;( ik'O d I I
2
3
22

25 27
28

V
60
e

ro
12 34
.31 3 nd,
1060 -ir
I d
A k h i k
ew

k
4
0

n P
i ks'
T i esiks

M U
Ock,

L @2.4
nd

Figure 3.23. Akhtok. Coas tal erosion from sea wave action
amount of shoreline affected is unknown.
Source: Buck et al. 1975; Sears and Zimmerman 1977.
@3

3-112

A n c
Cape Karl,.@@
-44
77- Karliik Z-"--

R F
N- A

..............

Figure 3,24- Karatuk. Coastal erosion from sea wave action
1.0 miles of shoreline affected-
Source: Buck et al. 1975; Sears and Zimmerman 1977.

3-113

01.

_4
N &'tftT'm'cA

am th"dal
12 J,--o 44
a
13 A, Y C*z-
411

&Spit

22"

Figure 3.25. Larsen Bay. Coastal erosion from sea wave action
1.0 miles of shoreline affected.

Source: Buck et al. 1975; Sears and Zimmerman 1977/

3-114

h 64

.7, ------------
GWPORATE BDY':@-7-, swi!T

'-00 A
'S
14 C:

o"01

Its

a4.- mg*44h,

-N A-c
L7p--@@ Point

-Wk

Figure 3.26. Ouzinkie- Coastal erosion from sea wave action
amount of shoreline affected is unknown.
Source: Buck et al. 1975; Sears and Zimmerman 1977.

3-115

60- Bil),
0/ Point
41

ROC
2
0

0 1 FVT
r Point
1-7
0
A
10
2

Q Unik Point

3' 60

"N" 4'r egrebni
Point

to
7N

"Ib, 7

@3
3

Lelo
"0 oint ASPIV
p
U
_C"
@2
I - --!Barn?;ara
COre 60

'100

Figure 3.27. Port Lions. Coastal erosion from sea wave action
0.5 miles of shoreline affected.

Source: Buck et al. 1975; Sears and Zimmerman 1977.

3-116

3.3.3 OF HYDROLOGIC ORIGIN

Riverine Flooding

Streams in Kodiak Island Borough are characterized by small drain-
age basins, steep gradients, shallow layers of unconsolidated materials
over bedrock, and short lengths. As a result of these characteristics,
runoff from storms is among the highest in the state (Buck et al. 1975).
Maximum known floods in the.study area are listed in Table 3.20. Mean
annual floods (average of highest flow each year.) range from about
50 cubic feet per second (cfs)/sq. mi. near Karluk and Larsen Bay to
100 cfs/sq. mi. in the mountains and on the southeast side of Kodiak
Island (Buck et al. 1975).

Floodplains (areas that are inundated during floods) are generally
narrow, a result of the small drainage basins and-steep topography.
However, flooding also occurs in winter, when the stream channels are
filled with ice; such floods can inundate larger areas than would summer
floods of the same magnitude. Delineation of floodplains would require
detailed studies such as those performed by the Corps of Engineers (1978
and 1979) in the vicinity of the City of Kodiak.

City of Kodiak and Vicinity. Riverine flooding is not anticipated
to be a major hazard in the vicinity of Kodiak. Small streams in the area
would likely have relatively narrow floodplains; however, some inundation
of developed areas may occur along some streams, including Buskin River,
Devils Creek, Sargent Creek, and Russian Creek. Flooding as a result of
dam breaks has been. investigated for Lake Bettinger Reservoir (Corps of
Engineers 1978). It is predicted that a dam break on Lake Bettinger
Reservoir would inundate numerous homes and commercial property in its
two-mile pat h to the dock and bay. There is little development downstream
from the proposed Monashka Creek Reservoir.

Akhiok. Riverine flooding is not anticipated to be a sig nificant
problem in the Akhiok area. Small streams in the area will likely overtop

3-117

.Table 3.20. Maximum known floods at U.S. Geological Survey gaging
stations in Kodiak Island Borough.

LOCATION MAXIMUM KNOWN FLOOD
Station Stream Drainage Period of
No. Latitude Longitude Arga Record Gage Discharge
(mi (years/dates) bate Height 3 3 2
(ft /S) [(ft /s)/mi

15295500 Little Kitoi C nr Afognak 580 11,4511 1520 2116511 2.63 1(1960-61) Jan. 20, 1961 2.64 42 16.0
0 0
15295600 Terror R. nr Kodiak 570 3911011 1530 0113011 15.0 6(1962-68) Aug. 29, 1963 5.92 4,590 306
15295700 Terror R at mouth nr Kodiak 57 4115011 153 1011011 --46.0 5(1964-68) Sept. 26, 1966 6.48 3,820 83.0
15296000 Uganik R nr Kodiak 570 4110611 1530 2511011 123 25(1951-76) Oct. 3, 1952 10.65 13,700 111
15296300 Spiradon L 0 nr Larsen Bay 570 40,401, M039-0011 -23.3 4(1962-65) Mar. 27, 1964 1.72 189 8.11
15296500 Falls C nr Larsen Bay 570 16130-- 15305910311 5.67 2(1974-75) Sept. 25, 1975 2.73 174 30.7
0 0
00 15296520 Canyon C nr Larsen Bay 57 17,001, 153 58152" 8.82 2(1974-76) Sept. 17, 1976 2.31 45o 51.0
15296550 Upper Thumb R nr Larsen Bay 570 2110311 1530 5810411 18.8 2(1974-76) Sept. 18, 1976 2.90 1,000 53.2
15296600 Karluk R at outlet nr Larsen Bay 570 261371, 1540 0614111 100 10975-76) June 14, 1976 1.93 843 8.4
15296950 Akalura C at Olga Bay 570 1010011 1540 13135 18.4 1(1975-76) Sept. @2, 1975 1.72 166 9.0
15297000 Dog Salmon C nr Ayakulik 570 121301, 1540 0411511 72.9 2(1960-61) Sept. 24, 1961 2.08 777 10.6
15297200 Myrtle C nr Kodiak 570 361161, 1520241091, 4.74 14(1963-76) Sept. 14, 1969 5.02 1,110 234
15297300 Kalsin Bay Tr nr Kodiak 57'35-2511 1520 25155" 2.35 7(1963-69) Sept. 14, 1969 13.20 250 106
15297450 M F Pillar C nr Kodiak 570 4715811 1520 2710011 2.02 2(1968-70) June 8, 1969 2.14 364 180
15297470 Monashka C nr Kodiak 57050,3411 1520 2614411 5.51 5(1972-76) Aug. 3, 1972 9.81 562 102
15297500 Red Cloud C Tr nr Kodiak 570 4910011 1520 3712011 1.51 100963-76) June 8, 1969 12.52 69o 457

Source: Lamke 1979.

Vo, so im No M IM M

periodically, causing flooding in ad.jacent low-lying areas. Quantifi-ca-
tion of the limits of these floodplain areas would require further study.

Karluk. Riverine flooding of the new t ownsite of Karluk by the
Karluk River is not anticipated because of the high banks along the
Karluk Lagoon, and the modifying effects of the lagoon an d 9500-acre
Karluk Lake on the flood characteristics of the Karluk River. Small

streams in the vicinity of the townsite are not anticipated to cause
widespread flooding; occasional overtopping of their banks may cause

inundation of facilities located.near the streams. The small dam on a

stream near Karluk has washed out at least twice (Buck et al. 1975),
indicating that floods can be substantial in the small streams. Further
study would be required to quantify potential extents of riverine flood-

ing.

Larsen Bay. Riverine flooding is not anticipated to be a problem
in the Larsen Bay area. A relatively narrow zone of flooding could occur
along all streams in the area. The floodplain along Trout Creek would
likely become wider in the flat area near its mouth, potentially inundat-
ing a several-hundred-foot-wide area. Some structures in this area could
be inundated during flood events. Detailed delineation of the riverine
flood limits would require further study.

Old Harbor. Riverine flooding is not anticipated to be a problem
in the Old Harbor area. Floodplains bordering the small streams in the
area are likely to be relatively narrow. Quantification'of the boundaries
of such floodplains would require further study.

Ouzinkie. Riverine flooding is not anticipated to be a signifi-
cant hazard in the Ouzinkie area. The small streams in the area likely
overtop their banks periodically, inundating the low-lying areas border-
ing the stream. These floodplain areas are likely to be relatively nar-
row; quantification of floodplain widths would require further study.

3-119

Port Lions. Riverine flooding is anticipated to be an annual
problem in Port Lions (Corps of Engineers 1980), as channel icings reduce
the capacity of the stream to carry flow and cause winter floods to
overtop.the bank. Several homes may be inundated during such floods.
Quantification.of flood limits would require further study.

Stream Bank Erosion

Stream bank erosion is not anticipated to be a major hazard any-
where in Kodiak Island Borough. Existing development is generally located
along the coast, and relatively short lengths of small streams pass
through the developed areas. Thus, exposure to stream bank erosion haz-

ards is minimal.

City of Kodiak and Vicinit Stream bank erosion is not antici-
pated to be a major hazard in the City of Kodiak area. Small areas of
local stream bank erosion may occur, affecting development along Buskin
River, Devils Creek, Sargent Creek, Russian Creek, and other streams in

the area.

Akhiok. Stream bank erosion is not anticipated to be a major
hazard in the Akhiok area. However, 10 homes are documented as in danger
from river erosion (Corps of Engineers 1981).,

Karluk. Stream bank erosion has recently become a hazard that
threatens the village of Karluk (Dworsky, personal communication, 1981).
The bank of the Karluk Lagoon at the new townsite was mined for gravel
,for use in developing the new townsite; this has caused bank instability
and back-eroding of the bank toward the village (Dworsky, personal commun-
ication, 1981). Further study would be needed to document the mechanism
and the rate of this erosion hazard.

Larsen Bay. Riverine-bank erosion is not anticipated to be a
problem in the Larsen Bay area.

3-120

Old Harbor, Riverine bank erosion is not anticipated to be a

problem in the Old Harbor area.

Ouzinkie. Stream bank erosion is not a significant hazard in the

Ouzinkie area.

Port Lions. Stream bank erosion is not anticipated to be a major

hazard in the Port Lions area.

Icings

Icings form as water overflows onto land or ice and fr eezes.
Small icings are likely to occur in various areas within the Borough.
Documentation of specific areas of icing occurrence and their size would

require further study.

City of Kodiak and Vicinity. No icing hazards have been identi-
fied in the Kodiak vicinity. However, small icings are likely to occur in

some locations around the area.

Akhiok. Icings are a documented hazard in the Akhiok area (Corps
of Engineers 1980). The specific location and the degree of the hazard
were not identified. Icings should be considered a moderate hazard in the

Akhiok area.

Karluk. The presence of springs indicates that there is a high
potential for the development of icings in the vicinity of Karluk. No
specific icings have been identified.

Larsen Bay. The occurrence of icings in the Larsen Bay area is
unknown. There is a potential for icings to occur.

Old Harbor. Although there is a potential for their development,
icings have not been documented in the Old Harbor area, and they are
not considered a.major hazard.

3-121

Ouzinkie. Documentation of springs in the area (Jones, Madison,
and Zenone 1978; ADEC 1977) indicates the potential for icings to occur.
However, specific icing problems have not been documented, and thus
icings are not considered a major hazard in the Ouzinkie area.

Port Lions. Channel icings result in annual flooding of several
houses (Corps of Engineers 1980). Icings should thus be considered a
significant hazard that must be dealt with in the Port Lions area.

3-122

1*1*4 GEOLOGIC AND OCEANOGRAPHIC HAZARDS - LITERATURE CITED AND REFER-
ENCES

Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center and Institute of So-
cial, Economic Government Research. 1974. The Western Gulf of
Alaska: A summary of available knowledge, 559 p.

Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. 1975. The Western
Gulf of Alaska: A summary of available knowledge.

Berg, E., K. Susumu, and J. Kienle ' 1967. Preliminary determination of
crustal structure in the Katmai National Monument, Alaska. Bul-
letin of the Seismological Society of America 57(6) Dec. 1967,
pp. 1367-1392.

Bouma, A.H., and M.A. Hampton. 1976. Preliminary report on the surface
and shallow subsurface geology of Lower Cook Inlet and Kodiak
Shelf, Alaska. USGS Open File Report 76-695, 36 p.

Brown, D.L. 1964. Tsunami activity accompanying the Alaska earthquake
of March 24, 1964. Prepared by U.S. Corps of Engineers, Anchor-
age, Alaska. 40 p.

Buck, E. et al. 1975. Kadyak: A background for living. Arctic Environ-
mental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska. 326 p.

Burk, C.A. 1965. Geology of the Alaska Peninsula - island arc and con-
tinental margin. Geological Society of America Memorandum 99.
250 p.

Capps, S..R. 1937. Kodiak and adjacent islands, Alaska. U.S. Geological
Survey, Bulletin No. 880-C. pp. 111-184.

Committee on the Alaska Earthquake, Division of Earth Sciences, Nation-
al Research Council. 1971. The great Alaska earthquake of 1964.
National Academy of Sciences, 8 volumes.

Connelly, W. 1977. Geologic map of the northwest side of Kodiak Island,
Alaska. USGS Open File Report 77-382.

Connelly, W. and J.C. Moore. 1975. Tectonic mixing during subduction,
Kodiak Island, Alaska. Geological Society of America Abstract
with Programs 7(3) 306 p.

Dillon, J. 1979. Evaluation of seismicity in'the Western Gulf of
Alaska, Cook Inlet area. Alaska Division of Geology and Geophysics
Survey, Dept. of Natural Resources.

Donn, W.L. 1965. Alaskan earthquake of 27 March, 1964: Remote seiche
stimulation. Science 145(3629) pp. 261-62.

3-123

Donn, W.L., and E.S. Posmentier. 1965. Ground-coupled air waves from
the great Alaskan earthquake. Jour-. Geophys. Research 69(5357-
5361). p. 24.

Estes, S.A. 1978. Seismotectonic studies of Lower Cook Inlet, Kodiak
Island and the Alaska Peninsula areas of Alaska. Master's thesis,
Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Fisher, M.A. 1979. Geophysical Investigation - Cook Inlet, Shelikof
Strait, Kodiak Shelf. U.S.G.S. Open File Report (study in prog-
ress), 10/78 to 10/79.

Gedney, L.D. and J. Van Warmer. 1973. ERTS-1, earthquake and tectonic
evolution in Alaska. In Proceedings of Earth Resources Technology
Satellite 1 Symposium. Washington, D.C. pp. 745-756

Gedney, L. and J. Van Warmer. 1973. Seismically active structural linea-
ments in south-central Alaska as seen on ERTS-1 imagery. Geo-
physical Institute, Univ. of Alaska. 7 p.

Gedney, L. et al. 1977.,Summary of Alaska earthquake. Alaska Earthquake,
Analysis Center Seismological Bulletin (1) July-Sept., 1977. 33 p.

Hampton, M.A. et al. 1979. Geo-environmental assessment of the Kodiak
Shelf, Western Gulf of Alaska. In Offshore Technical Conference,
Proceedings, 1(11) pp. 365-76.

Hampton, M.A. and W.J. Winters. 1981. Environmental geology of Shelikof
Strait, OCS Sale Area 60, Alaska; Presented at the Offshore Tech-
nology Conference in Houston, Texas, May 4-7, 1981.

Hanson, W.R. and E.B. Eckel. 1966. The Alaska earthquake, March 27,
1964: Field investigations and reconstruction effort; A summary
description of the Alaska earthquake - its'setting and effects.-
111 P.

Hayes, S.P. 1979. Gulf of Alaska study of mesoscale oceanographic pro-
cesses. U.S. Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA, 10/78
to 9/79.

Hein, J.R. et al. 1979. Clay mineralogy, fine-grained sediment dis-
persal, and inferred current patterns, Lower Cook Inlet and Kodiak
'Shelf, Alaska. Sediment. Geol. 240-4) pp. 291-306.

Hoose, P.J., and J. Whitney. 1980. Map showing selected geologic fea-
tures of outer continental shelf, Shelikof Strait, Alaska. USGS
Open File Reports 80-2031 through 80-2036.

Ingraham' W.J. Jr. , A. Bakum,, and F. Favorite. 1976. Physical oceano-
graphy of Gulf of Alaska. NOAA./OCSEAP Final Report. 351 p.-

3-124

Isacks, B., J. Oliver, and L. Sykes. 1968. Seismology and the new
global tectonics. Journal of Geophysical Research 73. pp. 5855-
5896.

Kachadoorian, R., and W.H. Slater. 1978. Pillar Mountain landslide,
Kodiak, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Open File Report 78-217. 24 p.

Kachadoorian, R* and G. Plalker. 1972, Effects on the communities of
Kodiak and nearby islands. In The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964.
N.A.S., Washington, D.C. 19T2. pp.-539-540.

Kienle, J. and D.L. Turner. 1976. The Shumagin-Kodiak batholith a
Paleocene magmatic arc? Alaska Division of Geology and Geophysics
Survey; Short Notes on Alaskan Geology. p. 9,12.

Latham, G.V. 1979 * Coordinated ocean bottom seismograph measurements in
the Kodiak Shelf Area. Univ. of Texas, Marine Science Institute,
Galveston TX, 12/78 to 12/79.

Latham, G.V. and Ji Dorman 1979. Progress report on ocean bottom seis-
mology in the Gulf of Alaska. Alaska Sci. Conf. Proceedings, No.
30. 70 p.

McGee, D.L. 1972. Kodiak Island and vicinity, Alaska; geology and min-
eral resources. State of Alaska, Division of Geological and Geo-
physical Surveys Open File Report 18.

Miyashita, K. and Matsu'Ura, M. 1978. Inversion analysis of static dis-
placement data associated with the Alaska earthquake of 1964.
Jour. of Physical Earth (Tokyo) 26(4) pp. 333-48.

Moore, G. W. 1967. Preliminary geologic map of Kodiak Island and vicin-
ity, Alaska. U.S.G.S. Open File Map.

Moore, J.C. and W. Connelly. 1967. Mesozoic tectonics of the southern
Alaska margin in islands arcs, deep sea trenches, and bach-arc
basins. Am. Geophys. Union, Maurince Ewing Servi-ces, Vol. 1. pp.
71-82.

Moore, J.C. and R.L. Wheeler. 1978. Structural fabric of a melange,
Kodiak Islands, Alaska. Am. J. Sci. 278(5). pp. 739-765.

Nilsen, T.H. and G.W. Moore. 1979. Reconnaissance study of Upper Creta-
ceous to Miocene strategraphic units and sedimentary facies,
Kodiak and adjacent islands, with a section on sedimentary petro-
graphy by G.R. Winkler. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1093.
34 p.

Papper, B.B. 1979. Historical survey of U.S. siesmograph stations in
Alaska. In Geological Survey Prof. Paper 1096. P. 8-31 & 389.

3-125

Plafker, G. 1969. Tectonics of the March 27, 1964 Alaska earthquake
regional effects. USGS Prof. Paper #543-1. 174 p.

Plafker, G. et al. 1978. Petroleum potential, geologic hazards, and
technology for exploration in the outer continental shelf of the
Gulf of Alaska tertiary province. U.S.G.S. Open File Report #78-
490. 33 p.

Plafker, G. and R.'Kachadoorian. 1966. Geologic effects in the Kodiak
Island area.. In The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964, Geology,
Parts A-B. pp. 177-226.

Plafker, G. and R. Meyer..1967. Vertical tectonic displacements in
south-central Alaska during and prior to the great 1964 earth-
quake. Journal of Geosciences, Osaka City Univ. pp. 53-67.

Plafker, G. and L.R. Mayo. 1965. Tectonic deformation, subaqueous
slides, and destructive waves associated with the Alaska March
27, 1964 earthquake - an interim geologic evaluation. USGS Open
File Report. 1969. 21 p.

Pulpan, H. 1979a. Operation of a telemetered seismic network on the
Alaskan Peninsula. Univ. of Alaska, Geophysical Institute, 7/73
to 5/80.

Pulpan, H. 1979b. Strong earthquake motion studies on the Kodiak shelf.
Univ. of Alaska, Geophysical Institute, 7/79 to 11/79.

Western Gulf of Al-aska. In Environmental Assessment of th e Alaskan
Pulpan, H. and J. Kienle. 1979. Seismic and volcanic risk studies -

Continental Shelf--Annual Reporcs of Principal Investigators for
the Year Ending March 1979. Vol. 9. pp. 425-492.

Pulpan, H. and J. Kienle. 1979. Western Gulf of Alaska seismic risk
studies. Offshore Tech. Conf., Proc. 4(11). Pp. 2209-2218.

Ruby, C. 1981. Shelikof Strait shoreline vulnerability survey -
biology/geomorphology. Research Planning Institute, Columbia,
.S.C. 12/79 to 6/81.

Science Applications Inci 1980. Environmental assessment of the Alaskan
continental shelf: Kodiak interim synthesis report. Outer Con-
tinental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, NOAA Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO. 215 p.

Sears and Zimmerman. 1977. Alaska intertidal survey atlas, National
Marine Fisheries Services, Auk Bay Biological Laboratory,*Auk
Bay, Alaska.

Shapero, L., L.D. Gedney, and J. Van Warmer. 1974. Tectonic lineaments
and plate tectonics in south-central Alaska. In Proceedings of
the First International Conference on the New Basement Tectonics.
Utah Geological Association Publication #5. pp. 26-34.

3-126

Shor, G.G., Jr. 1980. Seismic refraction studies off the coast of
Alaska, 1956-1957. Seismology Society of America Bulletin. Vol.
80. pp. 1889-1902.

Spaeth, M.C. and S. C. Berkman. The tsunami of March 28, 1964 as re-
corded at tide stations. U.S. Coast and Geod. Survey 1-065. 59 p.

Stanley, K.W. 1971. Effects of the Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964
on shore processes and beach morphology. USGS Professional Paper
543-J. In The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964, Geology - Part A.
pp. 229-249.

Sykes, L.R. 1971. Aftershock zones of great earthquakes, seismicity
gaps, and earthquake prediction for Alaska and the Aleutians.
Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 75. pp. 8021-8041.

Thenhaus, P.C. et. al. 1981. Probablistic estimates of maximum seismic
acceleration in rock in Alaska and adjacent outer continential
shelf. U.S. Dept. of Interior, and USGS Interagency Report to the
Bureau of Land Management.

Thrasher, G.P. 1979. Geologic map of the Kodiak outer continential
shelf, Western Gulf of Alaska. USGS Open File Report 79-1267.

Tobin, D. G. and L. R. Sykes. 1968. Seismicity and tectonics of the
northeast Pacific Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Resources, Vol.
73. pp. 3821-3845.

Turner, B.W. 1981. Interpretation of the bathymetry and shallow sub-
bottom features, Kodiak shelf, Alaska. USGS Maps 79-263.

Tudor, W.J. 1964. Tsunami damage at Kodiak, Alaska and Cresent City,
Calif. from Alaska earthquake of 27 March 1964. Port Hueneme,
Calif, U.S. Naval Civil Eng. Lab. Tech. Note N-622. 124 p.

Updike, R.G. 1980. Surface monitoring of the Pillar Mountain landslide,
Kodiak Island. Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources.

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. 1964. Prince William Sound Alaska earth-
quake, March-April 1964--preliminary report. 83 p.

U.S. Corps of Engineers. 1967. Karluk ocean waves and tidal erosion
teriative plan of survey.

U.S. Geologi cal Survey. 1968. Seismic seiches from the March 1964
Alaska earthquake. USGS Prof. Paper #544-E. 43 p.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1976. Strong-motion earthquake accelerograms
digitization and analysis, 1971 Records. USGS Open File Report
76-609.

3-127

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, ERL, and U.S. Dept. of Interior, BLM.
1980. Environmental assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf
Kodiak interim synthesis report.

U.S. Dept. of Interior, BLM, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office.*
1977. Draft EIS, Western Gulf of Alaska-Kodiak, Alaska, OCSO,
Oil and Gas Lease Sale-No. 46, Graphic No. 12.

U.S. Dept. of Interior, BLM. 1980a. Draft environmental impact state-
ment, Kodiak outer continental shelf.

U.S. Dept. of Interior. 1980b. Final EIS, Western Gulf of Alaska
Kodiak, Alaska OCSO, Oil and Gas Lease Sale No. 46, Graphic No. 1.

U.S. Dept. of Interior, BLM, ALaska OCS office. 1981. Proposed oil and
gas lease sale 60, lower Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait. Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement. 263 p.

Van Warmer, J. 1974. Seismicity and plate tectonics in south central
Alaska. Seismological Society of America Bulletin 64(5). pp. 1469-
1475.

Von Huene, R. 1972. Structure of the continental margin and tectonism
at the eastern Aleutian trench. USGS., Menlo Park, Calif. Geo-
logical Society of America bulletin. Vol. 38. pp. 3613-3626.

Von Huene, R., M. A. Fisher, and M.A. 1i ampton. 1980. Petroleum poten-
tial, environmental geology, and the technology for exploration
and development of the Kodiak Lease Sale Area No. 61. USGS Open
File Report 80-1082. 70 p.

Von Huene, R. et al. 1976. A Summary of petroleum potential environ-
mental geology, and the technology, time frame, and infrastructure
for exploration and development of the Western Gulf of Alaska.
USCS Open File Report 76-325. 92 p.

Von Huene, R. et al. 1979. Cross section Alaska Peninsula-Kodiak Island-
Aleutian Trench. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 90(5). pp. 427-430.

Wilson, B.W. 1968. The tsunami of the Alaska earthquake, 1964. Engi-
neering evaluation. (Sect. IV 137-189), 401 p.

Wright, F.F. 1970. An oceanographic reconnaissance of the water around
Kodiak Island, Alaska. Report R 70-19. Institute of Marine
Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 23 p.

3-128

HYDROLOGIC HAZARDS LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES

Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 1977. Village sanita-
tion in Alaska. Village Sale Water Program and U.S. Public Healt
Service, contents periodically updated.

Buck, E.H. et al. 1975. Kadyak: A background for living. Arctic En-
vironmental Information and Data Center, Univ. of Alaska, Anchor-
age. 326 p.

Corps of Engineers (COE). 1978. Special flood hazard information, Mon-
ashka Creek Reservoir, City of Kodiak, Alaska. Prepared for the
Kodiak Island Borough and City of Kodiak.

COE. 1979. Special flood hazard information, Lake Bettinger Reservoir,
City of Kodiak, Alaska. With CH 2M-Hill, Inc, for the Kodiak Is-
land Borough and City of Kodiak.

COE. 1980. Alaska communities flood hazard and pertinent data - updated
to 8 May 1980. Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. p. 188.

Dworsky, M.D. 1981. Personal communication. Senior Field Engineer,
U.S. Public Health Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

Jack West Associates. 1980. Reconnaissance of micro-hydroelectric poten-
tial, Akhiok Village, Kodiak. With Fryer: Preasley: Elliot for
Kodiak Island Borough..28 p. + appendices.

Jones, S.H., R.J. Madison, and C. Zenone. 1978. Water resources of
the Kodiak-Shelikof subregion, southcentral Alaska. U. S. Geo-
logical'Survey, Hydrol.ogical Investigations Atlas HA-612.

Kramer, Chin, & Mayo, Inc. (KCM). 1978. Kodiak Island Borough, regional
plan and development strategy, summary report. Prepared for Kodiak
Island Borough and the Division of Community Planning, Dept. of
Community and Regional Affairs. 84 p.

KCM. 1979. U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, Kodiak, Alaska - develop-
ment plan. Prepared for 17th Coast Guard District, Juneau, Alaska.
pp. A3.18 to A3.21.

Lamke, R.D. 1979. Flood characteristrics of Alaskan streams. U.S.
Geological Survey Water Resource Investigations 78-129, Anchorage.
61 p.

Office of Economic Adjustment. 1976. Defense impact of Kodiak Island,
Alaska. West coast regional office. 29 p.

Weeks, J.B., 1970. Water-resources reconnaissance of the Old Harbor
Area, Kodiak Island, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Re-
sources Division, Alaska District, Open File Report. 9 p.

3-129

3.4 HUMAN RESOURCES INVENTORY

3.4.1 CULTURAWHISTORIC SITES

Map 11 indicates the cultural/historic sites identified by the
Alaska Historical Resource Survey (AHRS) within the Borough. Several
sites have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places or
have been declared eligible. These sites are described below.

AHRS Site Kod 207

The Russian Kiln Site is located on Long Island off the east

shore of Kodiak Island. This is one of the few historic sites associated

with brickmaking, which was a subsidiary industry of the Russian American
Company. The 3000 to 6000 bricks that were produced annually were used as
ballast in the company's ships, in the construction of stoves to heat
employee quarters, and in bathhouses. The quantity of bricks produced
would have been considerably larger if more lime.had been available; as
it was, the industry relied on burned sea shells as its source for this
necessary ingredient. This site is considered to be significant for its
contribution to the industrial history of Alaska. Due to subsidence from.
the 1964 earthquake, the site is subject to tidal erosion, and brick
..debris is scattered along the beach (ADNR unpublished).

'AHRS Site Kod 123

The Erskine House is located at Main and Mission Streets in the

City of Kodiak. It is the only remaining structure known to be associated
with the Russian American Company and the Alaska Commercial Company,
which were the two commercial enterprises that were controlling factors
in the early administration of Alaska. Local tradition states that the
building was erected by Alexander Baranof about 1792-3 as an office and
fur warehouse. The building was constructed in a typical Russian@American
style with rough-hewn square logs and a hipped roof. Numerous alterations
have been made to the building, and it is now being used as a historical
museum (ADNR unpublished).

3-130

AHRS Site Kod 137

Fort Abercrombie State Historic Site is located on Kodiak Island

approximately five miles north of the City of Kodiak. The site is strate-
gically located atop a high headland, and commands a view of the surround-
ing straits and bays. A natural camouflage is provided by the dense,
mature spruce stands in which the site is located. It is representative
of north Pacific coast defense installations of the type operative during
World War II. The area was withdrawn as a military reservation in 1941
but remained operational until 1945. The fort was named in honor of
Lieutenant William H. Abercrombie, who was a noted explorer in Alaska

in the late nineteenth century. Although Fort Abercrombie was never
engaged in battle, its ruins are remnants of a time when foreign invasion
was anticipated on American soil. The remains of the fort consist of
concrete beds for gun emplacements, fragments of exploded armaments,
cavernous magazines, and building f oundations. The site is presently
open to the public primarily for day-use activities (ADNR,unpublished).

AHRS Site Kod 124

The Three Saints Site is located on the southeastern shore of

Kodiak Island on the western shore of Three Saints Bay. It is a multicom-
ponent site, consisting of a prehistoric occupation dating from 0-900
A.D., followed by a historic occupation beginning in the 1700s. Excava-
tion and analysis of the prehistoric site provided the basis for the
definition of the Three Saints Bay Phase of the Kachemak Bay Tradition
in Kodiak prehistory. In 1784 the first Russian colony in America was
established at Three Saints Bay and for eight years the colony served
as the headquarters of the Shelikhov-Golikof Fur Company. The colony
consisted of numerous log buildings including dwellings,. bunkhouses,
warehouses, commissary, barns, storage buildings, smithy, carpentry
sh op, and ropewalk. All of the buildings were destroyed as the result
of subsidence resulting from earthquakes, and today there are no surface
remains (ADNR unpublished).

3-131

AHRS Site Kod 195

Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church, while less than 50 years old,
is the most distinguished architectural feature of the Kodiak skyline.
The frame church, built on the apsidal and transect ground plan is cov-
ered with white shingles. All the windows are center pointed. A single
extended church tower at the front is capped with the traditional Ortho-
dox onion dome, painted blue. A second onion dome and supporting hexagon-
al tower surmount the medium gable transept roof. A detached bell tower
and several graves marked with marble monuments are also on the site.

A church built between 1843 and 1867 and destroyed by fire in
1943 originally occupied the site. The ex isting structure was erected
in 1945. Only the detached bell tower is believed to have survived from
the earlier church. Icons and religions objects, some dating from the
early nineteenth century, adorn the interior. One icon, that of the Holy
Resurrection.(date 1793), was brought by Saint Herman (then Monk Herman)
from Russia with the original party of Orthodox missionaries in 1794.
The church is still used for Orthodox services (ADNR unpublished).

AHRS Site Kod 132

Other than the surroundings and the settling and shifting of
pits, mounds, markers, and headstones; the expected attrition of age
the American Cemetery physically appears much as it did when abandoned in
1940. Other than the Orthodox church graveyard, the American Cemetery is
the only historic cemetery in or near Kodiak that has not been oblit-

erated.

The American Cemetery originated as a military cemetery to serve
Fort Kodiak. This fort and military post was established with the
American occupation of Alaska (Russian America) immediately after the
purchase of the Territory. This cemetery received its name because it was

used for the burial of Americans rather than Russians or natives.

3-132

Five of the soldiers from the original fort are known to be buried

there. Their names are listed in the National Archives, Old Militarv

Records. In addition to these men, there exist two graves of Unknown
Soldiers, and many local residents from 1868 to 1940, includinp_ G.G.
Holt, the first white man to cross Chilkoot Pass.

The Cemetery continued to be used by the Village and then the
City of,Kodiak until 1940 (ADNR unpublished).

AHRS Site Kod Oil

This site, located on the southeastern shoreline of Middle Bay,
may be the site of a colonial Russian brick kiln. Test excavations have
uncovered a portion of a brick platform, remnants of two brick walls, and
a small standing brick arch. The site has been affected by erosion, and
by people who have collected the bricks.

The standing arch may have been one of a number of features con-
structed to (a) support the kiln floor and (b) house the kiln fires.
Kilns similar to this one continue to be used in the Near East. Brick

kilns having arches for firing purposes were certainly being used in
seventeenth century England. Such kilns allowed the hot air to circulate
upward among the green bricks stacked within the kiln, the bricks being
"baked" or "fired" in the process. While the documentary search did not
uncover any references to Russian kilns, it is quite possible that brick
firing techniques used in Western Europe would have been used in European
Russia, and subsequently Russian America, as well.

The structural remains uncovered at the KOD-011 site may repro-sent
an important subsidiary industry of Russian America. These features
currently suggest that the site may have been the location of a type
of kiln in general use for thousands of years, a type that might have
been feasible for use by Russian colonists in America. The Kodiak-Olt
Site may have enormous.potential for increasing our understanding of
Russian collonial brickmaking operations in the Weste rn Hemisphere (ADNR
unpublished),

3-133

Under section 14(h)(1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act, each regional corporation may apply for the conveyance of historic
and cemetery sites. Koniag, Inc. has applied for a number of sites under
this section, as can be seen on Map 11. All sites that are transferred
to the regional corporations under section 14(h)(1), will be considered
eligible for inclusion on the National R egister of Historic Places,
as agreed.by the Department of the Interior, the National Advisory Coun-
cil for Historic Preservation, and the Alaska State Historic P reservation
Officer. Field work will begin in the summer of 1981 to determine eligi-
bility,for transferrence.

Marine Archaeology

Eustatic sealevel changes over the past several millenia have
caused the coastline of the Kodiak Archipelago to vary greatly. At the
lower sea stands, it is possible that early peoples could have occupied
lands that are presently submerged. It appears that potentially valuable
archaeological evidence may remain on the sea floor.

3.4.2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

The population of Kodiak Island Borough and its communities from
1950 to 1980 is given in Table 3.21. The 1980 U.S. Census shows that the
population of the Borough grew by 5.6 percent from the 1970 level. The
change in the Borough population since 1970 is broken down into several
components. The Census reports a decrease of 599 in the military popula-
tion and a natural increase in population of 1887. The implied net civ-
ilian outmigration is 780 persons. The additional decrease in the number
of military dependents, civilians employed by the military, and their
dependents, resulting from the phasing out of Navy operations on Kodiak
in 1970-1971, may account.for a significant part of the net outmigration.
This is despite the small increase in,Coast Guard personnel and depen-

dents on the base since the Coast Guard took it over in 1972.

Seasonal fluctuation is a component of population data that is not

available.

3--@ 134

Table 3.21. Population of Kodiak Island Borough and Village Populations,
1950-1980.

1970-1980
1950 1960 1970 1980 % Change

Road-connected
area of Kodiak 5539 6292 8245 8806 +6.8

City of Kodiak 1710 2628 3798 4756 +20.1

Coast Guard
Base (Military
and Civilian) 1807 3052 1370 -55.1

Persons Living
Outside of City
and Base 3829 1857 1395 2680 +92.5

Other 725 882 1164 1139 -2.1

Borough Total 6264 7174 9409 9945 +5.4
Village Populations
Afognak 158 190 - 11 -

Akhiok 72 84 115 105 -8.7

Karluk 143 129 98 94 -4.1

Kaguyak - - 59 - -100.0

Larsen Bay 53 72 109 145 +33.0

Old Harbor 121 193 210 131, +11*6

Ouzinkie 177 214 160 173 +8.1

Port Bailey - - - 2 -

Port Lions 227 215 -5.3

Port 0' Brien - 1 -

Uganik 31 13 -58 .1

Uyak 34 2 -94.1

Woody Island 41 3 .-92.70

Sources: U.S. Census 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980.
University of Alaska, ISER, 1980.
Draft EIS, Lease Sale No. 46, 1977.

Road-connected area = city, base, and other.
2
People living neither in road-connected areas nor in villages.

3-135

The composition of the Borough's 1970 population displays-pecul-
iarly Alaskan characteristics, as shown in Table 3.22, figures for Kodiak
Census Division. The male-to-female ratio is 57.1 percent to 42.9 per-
cent. This can be accounted for by the presence of the military and
the fishing industry. Compared with the national breakdown by age, the
Borough's population is much younger. The median age of males is 23.1 and
of females is 21.9 in the Borough, compared with national median ages of
28.6 for males and 29.3 for females. The percentages of whites, blacks,
natives, and others are also shown. The Borough is predominantly white,
with.a sizable Native population of more than 20 percent.

The civilian population of the City of Kodiak increased by 20
percent from 1970 to 1980 (Table 3.21). The population characteristics of
the City of Kodiak are presented in Table 3.22. Age and sex character-
istics are similar to those of the Borough. The percentage of whites is
higher - 81.5 percent to the Borough's 76.7 percent. This is explained by
the higher percentage of Natives in the villages.

Village population changes on a percentage basis in the period
1970-1980 range from an increase of 33 percent at Larsen Bay to a de-
crease of 100 percent at Kaguyak (Table 3.21). Drastic population shifts
during the 1960s and 1970s can be accounted for by two factors: the 1964
earthquake and the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).

The 1964 earthquake destroyed several villages and led to resettle-
ment in other villages, both new and established. The residents of Afog-
nak were relocated in a new village, named Port Lions. An unknown number
of the villagers from Kaguyak reportedly resettled in Akhiok after the
earthquake. The changes in land ownership during the 1970s due to ANCSA

have also contributed to these shifts.

The population characteristics of the villages are not as well
detailed as those of the City of Kodiak. The median age for males ranges
from a low of 15.8 years in Akhiok to a high of 28.0 years in Larsen Bay.

3-136

OW, 'am am to aw" so OW so AW M so an M

Table 3.22. General population characteristics: Kodiak Census Division and the
City of Kd-i -k, 1970.

Sex

Male % Male Female % Female
Kodiak Census Division 5,365 (57.1) 4,044 (42.9)
City of Kodiak 2,055 (54.1) 1,743 (45.9)

Race

Alaska % Alaska
White % White Black % Black Native Native Others % Others

Kodiak Census Division 7,215 (76.7) 157 (1.6) 1912 (20.3) -125 (1.3)
U.)
City of Kodiak 3,094 (81.5) 44 (1.2) 563 (14.8) 97. (2.6)

Age

Median Age % Under V18 Years
Ma I e Female 18 Years and Older

Kodiak Census Division 23.1 21.9 38. zi 59.4
City of Kodiak 25.3 22.9 37.2 60.1

Source: USDC, 1-073; Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs, 1974-: ISER 1973.

The median age for females ranges from a low of 13.4 years in Akhiok to
26.8 years in Ouzinkie. All the villages have median ages for both sexes
lower than the national medians (Draft EIS #46 1977).

The racial composition of the villages ranges from more than 98
percent Native in Akhiok to 81 percent in Port Lions.

The population of the Borough, particularly the Kodiak area,
shows a significant seasonal swing. An indication of the magnitude of
this swing is given by the drop in the labor force,of Kodiak by 1000
persons after the 1976 salmon season (#46 DEIS 1980). The seasonal fluc-
tuation in population is decreasing due to the extended fishing and
processing seasons in recent Iyears.

3.4.3 LAND OWNERSHIP AND LAND USE

Kodiak Island Borough Land Ownership Patterns

The principal land ownership categories in the Kodiak Island
Borough (KIB) are the federal government, Native corporations, State
of Alaska, Kodiak Island Borough, and other private properties. The
1@other private properties" category accounts for less than I percent of

the total land area.

The generalized ownership patterns are still in a state of flux
as they relate to State of Alaska, Native village, and Kodiak Island
Borough land selections. Final resolution is still several years away.
The s.election adjudication process is slowed by appeals, court chal-
lenges, and the lack of a cadastral survey for the lands involved.

The following narrative for each of the ownership categories
identifies many of the contributing factors.

federal Land Ownership. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge The
major federal holding within the Kodiak Island Borough boundary is the

3-138

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Bear Refuge). Executive Order (RO) 8344
dated 2/10/40, EO 8857 dated.8/19/41, Public Land Order (PLO) 1634 dated
5/9/58, and PLO 2417 dated 6/26/61 all contribute,to the establishment of
the Refuge. Approximately 1,820,000 acres are involved. PLO 2417 con-
tained other major land decisions that laid the groundwork for the land
change:

o It revoked EO 8344 and withdrew 2,500,000 acres on Kodiak Is-
land for classification and aid to legislation;

0 It determined that lands under grazing leases were not avail-
able for homesteading until suitable areas were withdrawn from
the grazing leases and made available;

o It provided for the State of Alaska to exercise a 90 preference
.right to make state land selections of vacant, unappropriated,

and unreserved federal land;

0 It reserved a one-mile-square area surrounding Old Harbor,
Akhiok, Larsen Bay, Uganik, Uyak, Alitak, Ayakulik, and Kaguyak
(all located in the Refuge) for each Native village. The village

areas were not available for state land selection.

A 35,200-acre Indian Reservation continued to be reserved within the
Bear Refuge for the native village of Karluk.

The Bear Refuge boundary remained intact until withdrawals were
made for village land selections as provided in the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA). The impact on the Bear Refuge will be covered

in the section on ANCSA.

U.S. Forest Service, Afognak Island - prior to ANCSA and the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, PL 96-487 (commonly
referred to as the D-2 bill), all of Afognak Island was part of the
Chugach National Forest. ANCSA provided for Native village selections

3-139

within the National Forest, and Section 1427 of PL 96-487 effectively
redesignated all the remaining National Forest land on Afognak Island.
The only remaining federal land on Afognak Island will be the Red Peaks
area in the northwest corner, which is now part of the Kodiak National
Wildlife Refuge. Submerged lands adjacent to and seaward of Afognak
Island from the line of mean high tide to the exterior boundary of the
former Afognak Forest and Fish Culture Reserve are not included within
the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge.

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge - This refuge was estab-
lished by PL 96-487 on December 2, 1980. It consists of eleven existing
refuges and includes island, islets, rocks, reefs, spires, and desig-
nated capes and headlands in the coastal areas of Alaska. The Kodiak-
Island Borough boundary falls within the Gulf of Alaska Unit of the
Refuge. It includes the Barren Islands and all other unnamed islands,
islets, rocks, reefs, and spires not previously appropriated in the
Kodiak Archipelago.

Military Lands including U.S. Coast Guard - Prior to and during
World War II, a number of installations were set aside in the Borough
by executive order. Since then, most of the areas have been restored
to the public domain. The former U.S. Navy Base at Womens Bay is the
largest installation remaining; the base proper, which consists of the
buildings and docks, has been reassigned to the U.S. Coast Guard. The
ANCSA was a major contributing factor in reducing the military holdings,
since all surplus lands were made available to fulfill the Native land

selection entitlements. This includes U.S. Coast Guard facilities and

FAA installations in the Archipelago.

Public Domain Lands - Not all of the federal land outside of

the Refuge was seleted by the State of Alaska. Land encumbered with
federal grazing leases was not available for selection. Only those graz-
iers wishing to come under state jurisdiction opted to relinquish their
federal grazing leases to allow state selection. All of the grazing

3-140

leases fronting on Ugak Bay, one lease in Middle Bay, and one lease
in Anton Larsen Bay remain on federal land. Federal grazing leases are
usually written for a 20-year term and are renewable.

State Land Ownership. The State of Alaska selected all of the
available land possible in the Kodiak Island area. At one time the state
selections involved 624,000 acres; This included the following islands:
Sh@uyak, Marmot, Raspberry, Whale, Spruce, Woody, Long, Sitkalidak, and
the Trinity Islands. Lands encumbered with consenting grazing lessees
also went to the state and became subject to a grazing lease similar
to the one issued by the Bureau of Land Management. The State of Alaska
passed a special law to cover the situation (AS 38.05.075).

Very little of the state-selected acreage has been patented to the
state. The selected areas have not to this date, 20 years after selec-
tion, been surveyed to provide an adequate legal land description for
title purposes. This non-patented land status allowed the state-selected
and tentatively approved selections to be made available for Native
village land selection. Each village is allowed to select up to three
townships of this state land within its ANCSA Section 11(a)(1) withdraw-

als. The state may lose half of its selected acres to Native selections.

State land acreage is also being reduced through the Municipal
Land Entitlement Act (AS 29.18.201-213). Under this act, the Kodiak
Island Borough is entitled to receive 56,500 acres of state land.

The State of Alaska made a community grant land selection on
Afognak Island while the island was still part of the Chugach National
Forest. This selection is at Tonki Cape and is provided for in Section

1427 of PL 96-487. The selection was made for recreation values.

No state game refuges have been established within the KIB boun-
dary to date. A bill died in the 1980 session of the Legislature to
establish a refuge on Tugidak Island. Legislatio n is to be introduced'
in 1981 to propose a state park and state game refuge on Shuyak Island.

3-141

State land ownership includes tidelands (submerged lands extending
three miles seaward of the mean high tide line) and shorelands (the
bottoms of nontidal waters that are navigable). Title to these water
bottoms was conveyed to the State of Alaska in the Alaska Statehood
Act (PL 85-508 Section 6(m)). Exceptions to this are water.bodies that
.were appropriated at the time of statehood and remain appropriated.
The Afognak Forest and Fish Culture Reserve, established on December
24, 1892, is an example of this.

The state issues shore fishery leases on the tidelands. A shore
fishery lease affords the lease holder exclusive rights to set nets

within the leased area.

Native Corporation Land Ownership. The ANCSA, passed in 1971,
and subsequent amendments to the act, specifically Section 1427 of PL
96-487, have altered the ownership patterns of both federal and state
land within the KIB boundary. The initial total acreage entitlement
for Koniag, Inc., the regional corporation, and 17 identified villages
was 1,420,000 acres. The ensuing years brought about challenges to the
elibigility of seven villages and to the requirement that a sizable
part of the selection be made on the Alaska Peninsula. The Alaska Penin-
sula selections Vere required because of selection limitations on refuge
land national forest land, and state-selected land. In addition, vill-

age selections within the Bear Refuge are subject to further limitations
that are not comparable to fee title ownership. The limitations affecting
acreages and degree of title on National Wildlife System lands are:

� No more than three townships of National Wildlife Refuge System
land may be selected by a native village (ANCSA, Section 12(a)
(0).

� The subsurface estate (mineral estate) is not available for
native selection on U.S. National Wildlife System land (ANCSA,
Section 14(f)).

3-142

o The National Wildlife System reserves the right of first refusal
for any former wildlife system lands offered for sale by a
Native corporation (ANCSA, Section 22(g)). This condition could
effectively prohibit any development of native lands by others.

When U.S. Forest Service or State of Alaska lands are involved, Section
12(a)(1) of ANCSA also restricts the number of acres a village can se-
lect. No more than three townships in each category may be selected.

This restriction increased t he need to make in lieu selections on the

Alaska Peninsula.

Section 1427 of PL-487, which is known as the Koniag Amendment,
.is to resolve the problems of village eligibility and deficincy selec-
tions made on the Alaska Peninsula. In summary, the following apply
to village and region selections:

o The seven challenged villages are to be recognized as village
entities, with Bells Flats, Anton Larsen Bay, Port William,
and Litnik not receiving any land. The villages of Uyak, Uganik,
and Ayakulik are to be conveyed the surface estate to the one
square mile of excluded land from the Bear Refuge by PLO 1634.
Each of these three villages is to convey 20 of its acres to

the state in trust for any municipal corporation established
in the Native village.

o The surface estate of village and regional selections made
on the Alaska Peninsula is transferred to Afognak Island; how-
ever, the subsurface estate for these Afognak lands is not
to be conveyed to Koniag, Inc. The surface area transferred
to Afognak Island is approximately 80,000 acres less than that
selected on the Alaska Peninsula. No additional surface acreage
is to be made available to compens ate for the deficiency.

Final implementation of the Koniag Amendment is contingent on
a series of agreements that are going through the process of adoption
and approval.

3-143

As previously mentioned, this piece of legislation eliminated
U.S. Forest Service presence on Afognak Island. It is not clear if Sec-
tion K of ANCSA now applies to these former U.S. Forest Service lands.

Native villages and their land entitlements within the KIB bound-

ary are:

Village Number of
village Corporation Acres

Afognak Natives of Afognak, Inc. 115,200
Akhiok Natives of Akhiok, Inc. 69,120
Kaguyak Kaguyak, Inc. 69,120
Karluk Karluk Native Corporation 92,160
Larsen Bay Nu-Nachk Pit, Inc. 115,200
.Old Harbor Old Harbor Native Corporation 115,200
Ouzinkie Ouzinkie Native Corporation 115,200
Port Lions Port Lions Native Corporation 92,160
Woody Island Lesnoi, Inc. 115,200
Kodiak Natives of Kodiak 23,040

Afognak, Larsen Bay, Ouzinkie, and Woody Island had deficiency selections
on the Alaska Peninsula that are now transferred to Afognak Island.
The transferred acres go to a joint venture of these villages, the Koniag
12(b) Village Corporations, and Koniag, Inc., and therefore lose an indi-
vidual village acre identity.

Besides the joint ventures and consolidation of villages required
by PL 96-487, other village and regional mergers have taken place. Port
Lions and Afognak villages merged and now go by the name Afognak. Akhiok
and Kaguyak villages merged to form Akhiok. Koniag, Inc. put together
a merger of itself, Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Woody Island,
and Afognak to be called Koniag, Inc. The inclusion of Afognak in this
merger is a matter of court litigation that has not been resolved at
the time of this writing.

3-144

Kodiak Island Borough Land Ownership. The KIB received a land
grant entitlement of 56,500 acres from the. State of Alaska (AS 29.18.
201(9)). The land is to be selected from state lands within the Borough
boundary. As of January .1, 1981, the KIB had a state patent to 2,206
acres and approved selections for 12,340 acres. Another 76,101 acres
were under selection. This amounts to a 62 percent overselection. The
overselection is to allow for adjustments if certain st,ate tentatively-
approved lands are conveyed to Native corporations. The land selection
process and restrictions written into the conveyances have been chal-
lenged by the KIB. Resolution of the matter is being worked out in an
out-of-court settlement. The settlement is to list acres to be conveyed

to the KIB, acres to be relinquished back to the state, easement identi-
fications, and a priority for adjustments if certain Native village-

selected lands become available.

Only the surface estate is conveyed to the KIB. In.this instance,
gravel is considered a part of the surface estate and is conveyed to
the KIB. State retention of the subsurface estate is required by state
law (AS 38.05.125). The Borough-selected lands are not known to be miner-
alized, so no conflicting mineral estate use is anticipated at this

time.

The KIB has offered most of its patented land for sale. Ninety
percent of it lies within the City of Kodiak vicinity. Much of the other
se lected land, to which patent is anticipated, is not on a-road system.
Access will be limited to boats or float planes.

The KIB land and resource disposal procedures are found in Title
18 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code of.Ordinances.

Private Land Ownership. Private lands, other than Native Corpor-
ation land, account for less than 1 percent of the total KTB. Areas
of private ownership are limited to the cities, villages, and road system
between Kodiak and Cape Chiniak. Scattered small-parcel ownership, us-
ually 10 acres or less, can be found in the roadless areas. These result

3-145

from fish cannery sites and the State of Alaska Open-to-Entry land dis-
posal program.

As previously mentioned, most of the KIB area has been withdrawn
from entry under the federal settlement laws. Homesteading was not al-
lowed, except by persons with grazing leases. The federal townsite pro-
gram accounts for most of the private lands in the villages. Alaskan
statehood, along with the formation of the KIB, accounts for most of
the acreage sales outside of the City of Kodiak.

It is interesting to note that some of the oldest United States
,surveys exist on Kodiak Island., U.S. Survey Nos. 24, 40, and 82 are
found in Karluk and were conveyed into private ownership in 1900 and

1901.

Map 12 shows the land ownership pattern as it exists May 1, 1981..
Lands identified as conveyed Native selection, other private land owner-
ship, and the unencumbered Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge are the only
areas firmed up at this time. The final adjudication of the Native selec-
tions will determine overselections. The overselected acreage will then
be restored to the refuge, public domain, or state, for administration by
the appropriate land managing agency. Lands selected by native villages
not qualifying for land (PL 96-487) are shown on the map for information
purposes. Those selected areas will return to the appropriate agency. In
instances where a land-qualifying Native corporation has top-filled over
the non-land-qualifying corporation, the map shows only the valid selec-

tion.

Easements. Access across native lands onto public lands has been
established at certain designated locations by the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These agencies have been
directed to identify, map and publicize publi c easements under Section 17

of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and CFR 2650.4-7: Public

Easement Section. The BLM has located and mapped all easements within the
Borough, however, they have not physically located these easements on the

3-146

ground* Maps showing the location of easements are available in the
District BLM office'in Kodiak and at the federal b uilding in Anchorage.
Streamside easements and recreation easements established by BLM prior
to 1978 have been replaced by these public access easements and site
easements. In case of trespass in unauthori zed areas it is the respon-
sibility of the local police department to arrest or cite the trespasser.

Public Interest Lands

Large amounts of state lands located within municipalittes were
made avaiable to the public in 1979 under Section 13, Chapter 85 of
the State Lands Act. The majority of the land was selected for private
use, andsome lands were ma.de available for residential.development.
Certain lands containing valuable natural res .ources were selected by
the state to be managed for specific uses. Within the Kodiak Island.
Borough the state has claimed 529,100 acres. of tentatively approved
and patented lands. Of this land, 165,858 acres have been selected as
Public Interest Land, consisting of public recreation, fish and wildlife
habitat, watershed, forest, and mineral resources.

The Division of Parks and Recreation has selected 24 public recrea-
tion sites along various trails, highways, and marine waysides scattered
through the Borough. Thirteen compsites and access-areas' and seven
recreational easements have also been selected. In addition, 200-foot
scenic view easements on.,either side of Cape Chiniak.and Kalsin Creek
highways have been'selected.

The State Department of Fish and Game has selected'five sites
(containing 41,465 acres), necessitating special management designation,
and public access. These sites include Shuyak Island, where sea otter
concentrate along the coast and two permanent eagle nest sites are found.
A segment of this island has been nominated as part of the State Game
Refuge. Marmot Island has be.en selected because it is a major sea lion
pupping area for the gulf coast of Alaska. The head of Unnamed Bay be-
tween Eagle and Boulder Bay has been selected as a major deer wintering

3-147

range and a popular deer hunting area. Tugidak Island was selected to
protect the habitat of the world's largest harbor seal population, a
rich waterfowl population, and a diverse bird population. Sitkinak Island
was selected to protect the wetlands, which provide an excellent water-
fowl production area.

Three other resources nominated by the state for their public
interest values include three watersheds, two forested areas, and ten
material siters. The Peller Creek, Port Lions, and Port Baily watersheds
were selected because they provide the primary source of water supplied
to the Borough. Two state forest lands, located on Shuyak and Marmot
Islands, were selected to be managed as multiple-use land. The ten ma-
terial sites selected by the Department of Transportation and Public
Facitlities are located along the major highways on Kodiak Island. These
sites will provide sand, gravel, and fill for road maintenance and con-
struction, and riprap for boat facilities.

Land Use and Management

Land use patterns in the Kodiak Island Borough are a product
of steep topography, limited access, land ownership, and relatively
isolated communities. The vast majority of the Borough is undeveloped,
and development is limited to the seven Borough communities, with the
exception of timber and agricultural uses.. Land use planning has focused
on the Kodiak road system area, although a Borough-wide comprehensive
plan was prepared in 1979, and preparation of a comprehensive plan for

Port Lions has been proposed.

Agricultural Use. Agricultural-land use in the Kodiak Island
Archipelago consists entirely of cattle grazing. Federal and state graz-
ing leases currently account for all grazing activity, although the
Borough has considered leasing land for grazing activities. Grazing use
is concentrated along the Kodiak road system at Anton Larsen Bay, Middle
Bay, Kalsin Bay, Pasagshak Bay, and Saltery Cove. The largest single
grazing use area in the Borough is located on Sitkalidak Island.

3-148

Timber Use. Timber harvesting is limited to Afognak Island, where
the extent of commercial timber and Native corporation land ownership are
favorable to harvesting activities. Harvesting is concentrate d in the
central portion of Afognak Island, and both camp housing and log storage/
export areas are located on the eastern shore of Kazakof Bay. Shuyak
Island is the only other portion of the Borough with commercial timber
potential, but recent land ownership agreements between the Alaska Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Kodiak Island Borough make timber use

unlikely.

Residential Use. Areas of residential use are concentrated along
the Kodiak road system and six villages;'however, remote residences
ares cattered around the Borough. Road system residential areas are

concentrated within Kodiak municipal boundaries, but other important
residential areas include Monashka Bay, the Coast Guard Base, Bells
Flats, and Chiniak. Residential areas in Akhiok, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions.
are concentrated in a single location each. Old Harbor and Larsen Bay
each have two separate residential areas; Karluk's residences are conc en-
trated in one area, but families still live in two older village sites.

Commercial Use. The City of Kodiak is the only major commercial
center in the Borough. Commercial use is concentrated along the downtown
waterfront, and along major arterial roads. In addition to commercial
services to the general populace, commercial support of the fishing
industry and recreation/tourism are key use compon ents.

Commercial use in the outlying communities is limited to small
stores, marine supplies and service, and lodging in Old Harbor, Ouzinkie,
and Port Lions. There is virtually no commercial use in Akhiok, Karluk,

and Port Lions.

Industrial Use. Fish Processing accounts for the primary indus-
trial land use in the Borough, and is concentrated in the City of Kodiak.
Several large fish-processing plants are located along the waterfront
to the immediate north and south of the small boat harbor. Other shore-
based.processors are located in the Larsen Bay and Akhiok areas; floating

3-149

processors temporarily locate near Karluk and Old Harbor during crab

seasons.

The only other industrial use of significance is a gravel mining-
processing operation in the Bells Flats area. This use in this area
is currently creating conflicts with adjacent residentia I development.

Land Use Planning. Six land use planning studies have been pre-
pared for the Borough or its various communities since 1968: the Borough-
wide Comprehensive Plan (1968); Near Island Comprehensive Plan (1974);
Port Lions Comprehensive Plan (1975); Kodiak Island Borough Regional Plan
and Development Strategy (1978); Kodiak Island Borough OCS Impact Study/
Draft Kodiak Island Borough Village Sketch Plans (1977); and a Draft Five
Year Capital Improvement Program. In addition, preparation of a new Port
Lions Comprehensive Plan will be initiated this year. The Borough Re-
gional Plan and Development Stra tegy project is an update of the 1968
Comprehensive Plan, and contains eight elements. The primary accomplish-
ment for these various studies has been the scheduling and implementation
of capit al improvements aimed at upgrading community facilities, particu-
larly in the village areas. The Borough's Zoning Ordinance and Sub-
division Rregulations were also upda te d as part of the Borough Regional
Plan and Development Strategy Study.

3.4.4 RECREATION RESOURCES

Kodiak Island is rich in recreation, scenic, heritage, and wilder-
ness resources, attracting use by island residents and nonresidents.
This use supports a significant portion of local hotels, air taxi ser-
vices, and guiding operations.

Hunting and fishing are the two most popular recreation pursuits

of residents and nonresidents. Notable attra ctions in the Kodiak Archi-

pelago are hunting for brown bear, and elk, and steelhead and salmon
fishing on the Karluk River. Hunting Sitka black-tailed deer, and water-
fowl, fishing for salmon, and trout, clam digging, crabbing, and berry

3-150

pi cking are popular island-wide activities. In re cent years, hiking,
camping, kayaking, rafting, and sailing have.grown in po pularity.

Federal, stat e, and local government agencies have direct or
indirect recreation management responsibilities, including operation
of some recreation facilities. The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is
a major attraction, and includes public and private cabin sites on both
Kodiak and Afognak islands. Three state parks - Fort Abercrombie, Pasag-
shak, and Buskin River - are managed by the State Division of Parks.
All three offerlimited day use facilities; camping facilities are avail-
able only at Fort Abercrombie. The Kodiak Island Borough has prepared and
adopted a Borough Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and also spon-
sors various organized recreation facilities. The primary city govern-
ments participating in recreation management are Kodiak and Port Lions.
Kodiak operates several recreation facilities and sponsors a wide range
of recreation progra ms. Port Lions has recently prepared a comprehensive
parks.and recreation plan, which identifies city-operated local recrea-
tion areas and assigns priorities to future recreation management objec-

tives.

Recreation and tourism have created conflicts with both subsis-

tence activities and community lifestyle in several Borough communities.
Conflicts result from nonresidents entering rural communities, competing
for subsistence resources, trespassing on private lands, and generally
disrupting the daily lifestyle. Nearly all village residents prefer
to keep nonresident recreation out of the immediate village area.

Primary Recreation Attractions

Hunting. The most popular recreation.attraction on Kodiak Island
is the Kodiak brown bear. Trophy hunting for bear attracts' people from
other countries and the lower 48 states, while tourists come.to photo-
graph the animal. The second most popular recreation attraction is sport
hunting for Roosevelt elk, found only on Afognak Island and Raspberry
Island. The elk were transplanted, in 1929, to Afognak Island by the

3-151

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with Sitka black-tailed deer and'
mountain goat. The third most popular sport hunting attraction, the Sitka
black-tailed deer, is hunted for both recreation and for subsistence.

More residents hunt this animal than do nonresidents. Kodiak residents

hunt deer along the road system and around the bays within the boundaries
of the wildlife reserve (Troll 1979). Another popular recreation attrac-
tion for residents is duck hunting. Most duck hunting occurs around
Kalsin Bay and Middle Bay (BLM 1980). Trapping has become an increasingly
.popu lar recreational attraction within the wildlife reserve during the
past few years. Animals such as the red fox, lynx, mink, and muskrat can
be trapped five to six months of the year.

Fishing. Sport fishing ranks second to big game hunting as a
recreation attraction. Themost popular sport fish on Kodiak Island are
freshwater salmon and trout, representing approximately 80 to 85 percent
of the recreational fishing occurring on the island (BLM 1980). Most
fishing activity occurs close to the City of Kodiak. Of approximately 30
sport fishing locations identified by the State Division of Parks and
Recreation, the most popular areas are located along the road system
outside Kodiak. The American, Buskin, Kalsin, Olds, Roslyn, Sulaine,
Saltery Creek and Pasagshak rivers are popular (Troll 1979). The rivers
and lakes along the road to Chiniak Bay are stocked with rainbow trout,
land-locked coho salmon, and Arctic grayling. The lakes on Woody Island
and Lo ng Island are also stocked with these.fish. Freshwater fishing,
particularly for rainbow trout, is also popular on Afognak Island. The
best-known freshwater sport fishing area on Kodiak Island is the Karluk
River, at the northwest end of the island. Both king salmon and steelhead
trout are caught in this river. Salmon are caught in May and June, and
steelhead are caught in October. Table 3.23 shows the total number of
sport fish harvested by species between 1977 and 1979 (ADF&G 1979).

Saltwater fishing ranks second as a sport fishing activity. This
activity occurs offshore within the coastal zone. Dolly Varden and a
variety of salmon species (pink, sockeye, coho, king, and chum) are
popular seasonal activi ties with sport fishing for halibut and rockfish

3-152

Table 3.23. Sport fish harvest by species, Kodiak Region, 1977, 1978, and 1979.

Species 1977 1978 1979

Chinook 483 350 752

Sea-Run Coho Salmon 22,618 26,079 31,081

Land-Lotked Coho Salmon 229 90 373

Sockeye Salmon -1,255 1,776 2,436

Pink Salmon 14,519, 17,739 15,871

Chum Salmon 1,645. 1,287 500

Steelhead 232 162 318

Rainbow Trout 1,472 994 972

Dolly Varden/Arctic Char 14,536 15,805 25,421

Arctic Grayling 54 .325 127

Halibut 994 1,721 3,013

Rockfish .2,810 1,907 3,599

Smelt 5,652 0 943

Razer Clams 7,474 8,363

Other Fish 2,775 2,227

Source: ADF&G 1980.

3-153

occurring throughout the year. There is also some ice fishing, primarily
by island residents. The BLM estimates that 750 to 1,000 angler-days each
year are spent ice fishing (BLM 1980).

Boating. Boats are the most common mode of transportation used
for recreation, allowing access into remote portions of the coastline.
Boating activities occur near shore in i nner bays, inlets, and fiords,
where recreational opportunities abound. Photography and bird watching
are associated with boat excursions into these areas (BLM 1980). Boats

customarily moor in Kodiak Harbor, Anton Larsen Bay, Port Lions at the
,northeast end of Kodiak Island, and Old Harbor at the southwest end
of@the island.

Boating as well as some rafting, canoeing, and kayaking occurs on
and around Kodiak, Afognak, and Raspberry islands. Saltwater excursions
are popular within Eagle Harbor, Old Harbor, Barling Bay, Dry Spruce Bay,
Monashka Bay, and Anton Larsen Bay. Boating on Afognak and neighboring
islands occurs in such places,as Tonki Bay, Kitoi Bay, Duck Bay, Para-
manof Bay, Onion Bay, and Kazakof Bay. Many hunters and sport fishers
depart.from Anton Larsen Bay and boat into Kazakof Bay. Boaters like to
stop here to picnic, explore, and.walk the beaches.while on their way
through Raspberry Straits (Troll 1979).

Rafting and saltwater kayaking are growing in popularity. Bear
and duck hunters often raft the Karluk River (Troll 1979), and Olga Bay
provides excellent kayaking and sailboat opportunities. Opportunities
also exist to canoe and raft from Red Lake to the mouth of Ayakulik
River. Saltwater kayaking takes place in Seal Bay, along Afogna.k Island,
and to a very limited extent along the northeast shore of Shuyak Island.

Other. Other recreation attractions that are most frequently
enjoyed within the Kodiak Island Borough by residents and tourists alike
are driving, picnicking, hiking, crabbing, clamming, beachcombing, photo-
graphing scenery and wildlife, berry picking, and wildlife observation
(KCM 19,78; Troll 1979; USF&WS 1980). Many residents, as well as tourists,

3-154

particularly enjoy driving along the road to Chiniak Cape. Cl amming is
popular at Buskin Beach and Middle Bay near Kodiak. In all island communi-
ties beachcombing and berry picking are very.popular afternoon activities.

Recreation Use Characteristics

Information was obtained from the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game District office in Kodiak showing the number of days residents
and nonresidents spent hunting for Kodiak brown bear and deer in Unit
8 (Kodiak Island Group) during the 1980 hunting season. These statistics
show that residents spent.more days (1,873) hunting brown bear than did
nonresidents (688), for a combined total of 2,561 use-days during the
brown bear hunting season (April 1-May 15). Residents spent more days
(8,741 compared with 3,674 for nonresidents) hunting Sitka black-tailed
deer during the hunting season (August.1-January 15). A little over half
of the days (1,315) spent hunting brown bear in Game Unit 8 took.place
in the National Wildlife Reserve on Kodiak Island. Approximately one-
third of the total deer-hunting days were spent within the refuge. While
data to indicate the number of resident and nonresident days spent hunt-
ing Roosevelt elk were unavailable, cumulative figures showed that during
the 19 80 season.(August I-December 31) hunters spent 2,281 days h unting
elk. Island-wide use figures for migratory bird hunting are not avail-
able, but during the 1979-1980 hunting season (September 10-January
20), 168 days were spent hunting migratory birds within the National

Wildlife Reserve.

Table 3.24 presents data on the number of anglers and angl.er-use
days for the Kodiak region. Both show steady increases between 1977
and 1979. No figures that distinguish between resident and nonresident
fishing participa tion are availab.le. Both freshwater and saltwater fish-
ing aIre open between January I and December 31 with a few exceptions.
Information on bag limits and seasonal restrictions can be found in the
Alaska Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations.

3-155

Table 3.24. Kodiak region angler use characteristics.

Number of Anglers

1977 1978 1979

2,955 3,182 3,418

Angler Use Days

1977 1978 1979-

41,563 44,502 59,045

Source: ADF&G 1980.

3-456

The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge manager prepares an annual
public use report containing the number of activity hours visitors spend
(by month) within the reserve. The report shows that during a.1 2-month
period (October 1979 to September 1980), 26,213 people visited the
refuge. The highest number of visits (15,924) occurred during the 1980
tourist season, between June.and September. The second highest visitor
use periodoccurred during the Kodiak brown bear hunting season (October-
November: 3,375; April-May: 3,133). Many visits to the refuge between
December and April of 1979-80 are associated with trapping (247 days) and
other small-game hunting activities. Approximately 985 vi.sits were made
to the refuge per month during this period..

Data extracted from the 1980 refuge public use report reflect
the following trends in recreational visitor use of the refuge. Most
camping, hiking, boating, and photography excursions occur during the
tourist season..However, in 1980 more days were spent camping in the
refuge during May than in June, July, August, or September. Much of
the May camping activity is associated with Kodiak brown bear hunting
outings..@iking in the refuge was most popular in July and August, while
most boating and photography excursions.occurred in August. Those persons
who engaged in clamming and crabbing did so during May and 'June and to
a lesser extent in September and October.

Recreation Facilities and Management Responsibilities

Federal. The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is Kodiak Island
Borough's principal recreation attraction. People enter the refuge to

fish and hunt in the interior reaches of the island. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service's principal responsibility is to manage the habitat of
bear and other fish and game, marine mammals, and migratory birds. Use of
refuge lands for recreation purposes is allowed to the extent that it
does not conflict with refuge management objectives. Recreation use of
the area is monitored through a special.use permit system. These permits
can be obtained at the game refuge headquarters in Kodiak.

3-157

The Fish and Wildlife Service maintains 12 cabins for public
use within the refuge, and will eventually manage two additional cabins
on Afognak Island that are located within the boundary of the new refuge.
Hunters and fishermen are the primary users of these cabin facilities.
Eight commercial guides and outfitters who transport hunters and fisher-
men into the refuge have eight additional campsites at their disposal. 'in
1981 they obtained special use permits to use six campsites.

One of four cabins on Afognak, Waterfall Lake Cabin, is located
within the new refuge boundary. Currently these cabins are being managed
by the Chugach National Forest. The Forest Service will continue to
maintain and handle reservatio ns for all four cabins during the 1981 use
season. The other three cabins - Pillar Lake Cabin, Upper Malina Lake
Cabin, and Laura Lake Cabin - are located on lands that have been select-
ed by Koniag Inc., but until the land has been conveyed, the Forest
Service will continue to manage these cabins as well.

There are many privately owned cabins located along the shoreline
areas of the refuge. These cabins are used as base camps by gill net

fishermen and occasional hunters. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

has allowed use of the private cabins to continue as long as the use
does not conflict with refuge management objectives. Aircraft are allowed
on the refuge, but may land only on lakes, rivers, or other water bodies,
except in emergencies. Use of motorited vehicles such as jeeps, trail-
bikes, dune buggies, and snow machines is not permitted in the refuge
(USDI 1.972).

State. The State Division of Parks and Recreation provides and
maintains three state park facilities pn Kodiak Island: Fort Abercrombie
State His torical Park, Pasagshak State Park, and Buskin River State Park.
Fort Abercrombie is managed by the Parks Division as a historical park.
In 1970, the fort was listed on the National Register of Historical
Place's. There are 183 acres of land within the park boundary (KCM 1979).
Park visitors come here primarily to fish, picnic, sightsee, and-swim.
The area is also used quite frequently by overnight campers on a year-

3-158

round basis; overnight accommodations are limited to seven campsites.
Only five picnic sites are currently available.

Two fairly recent additions to the state park system are Pasagshak
State Park and Buskin River State Park. Pasagshak Park is loc ated on
Pasagshak Bay, encompassing approximately 20 acres of land at the head
of the bay near the mouth of the Pasagshak River. The Park Department
secured the land to protect and provide river access for sport fisher-
men and to allow access to remote camp ing sites used during duck hunting
season and sport fishing for salmon and Dolly Varden. Principal recrea-
tion activities enjoyed in.this area include deer and small game hunting,
beachcombing, picnicking, and off-road vehicle driving. A few picnic

tables are located at the site.

The Buskin Lake, River, And Beach area is owned by the U.S. Coast
Guard. The State Division of Parks has secured a 5-year lease for a
100-acre parcel near the lake that it intends to develop,into a day
and overnight use area. The Buskin River is the.most heavily used sport-
fishing area in the region because it is the most accessible, has a
large run of silversalmon, and has the longest fishing season. About
a third of the Kodiak.-area sportfish salmon catchand over half of the
Dolly Varden catch are taken from the Buskin system. Management of this
area focuses on sportfishing and picnicking (Troll 1979).

Kodiak Island Borough. The Kodiak Island Borough recently ob-
tained park and recreation powers by developing park and recreation
.policies consistent with its regional plan. The Borough's Comprehensive
Parks and Recreation Plan (KCM 1979) identifies the location and types of
facilities and programs Kodiak Borough residents are most interested in
having. The policies.outlined in the Parks and Recreation Plan reflect
the activity preference patterns identified in a community survey and
other sources of information. The survey results represent the opinions
of the Kodiak Parks and Recreation,Council, the City of Kodiak Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board, and other community volunteers.

3-159

The Borough currently assists the City Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment by providing some of the needed space to conduct many of the indoor
activities the city sponsors. The Borough also provides indoor facilities
through its "area-wide school powers" and "community schools concept"
(KCM 1979). These are primarily Borough school.facilities. The Borough
does not have the jurisdiction to operate parks and recreation programs
within the city. It can, however, recommend that the city provide recrea-
tion facilities and programs where they are needed.

The Borough does lease land for recreational purposes. It cur-
rently leases a campground site to the Boy Scouts at Island Lake, and
leases land to the veterans of Foreign Wars at Monashka Bay for a pistol
and rifle range.

The City of Kodiak Parks and Recreation Department and the Kodiak
Island Borough School District have entered into a joint-use agreement,
which allows the city to use school gyms in exchange for conducting
recreation programs in the high school swimming pool, as well as maintain-
ing the facility. The city's 1980 Parks and Recreation Inventory of
Programs and Facilities lists programs conducted in Borough school facil-
ities and city facilities. City-owned park facilities include the Teen
Center, Baranof Park, Hillside Park, Larch Street Park, and Spruce Street
Park. The city also sponsors organized games during the annual May Crab

Festival.

A number of Park and Recreation programs are conducted at the
high school gym and swimming pool. These include youth basketball and
youth baseball, open gym, ladies night-gym/pool exercise classes, open
swim, adult and family swim, lap swim, and swimming lessons. Junior high
school programs include City League basketball, power volleyball, badmin-
ton, a women's exercise program, and youth gymnastics. At East Elemen-
tary School the city conducts a 6-week yout h summer program and provides
special recreation activities for the mentally handicapped. This program
@also runs for 6 weeks during the summer.

3-160

The city sponsors dances at the teen center twice a month for
junior high and high school students. This facility also functions as
a leisure center, attracting persons 10 to 30 years of age.,Many organ-
ized sports programs are conducted by the city at Baranof Park, including
tennis tournaments; softball and baseball games for both men and women
of various age groups; and a punt, pass, and kick after-school event that
attracts youth 8 and 13 years of age. Hillside Park, Larch Street Park,
and Spruce Street Park contain children's playground equipment. A grass
baseball field complete with backstop, foul line fence, and team benches
is located at Hillside Park. Games organized by the City Parks and Rec-
reation Department for the May Cr ab.Fest.ival include badminton and tennis
tournaments, a mi.le run, youth races, and an endurance race over Pillar

Mountain..

Port Lions. The Port Lions Comprehensive Parks and Recreation
Plan was written and adopted in 1979. Although parks and recreation were
not given high priority with respect to other community needs, citizens
did feel recreation opportunities for local residents-should be available
and expanded where necessary. It was also suggested that lands used for
subsistence purposes b e designated as parklands so that the lands could
be preserved in their natural character. It is the opinion of the commun-
ity that parkland classification.may be the only way to preserve lands

for subsistence use.

The plan identifies nine recreation facilities, three of which are
proposed facilities. The Ci ty of Port Lions currently owns and operates
four of the existing park facilities. The three proposed facilities will
also be located on city property. The rifle range is located on property
owned by Afognak Native Corporation, while the Kodiak Island Borough
school district owns and operates another facility, the high school gym.
Some of the activities are picnicking, beachcombing, swimming, snow-
machining, 3-wheeling, skating, and hiking. Eleven public access routes

to recreation areas such as beaches and rivers have been identified and

acquisition or dedication of lands recommended. Fourteen indoor/outdoor

recreation events, activities, and programs are discussed. Most are

3-161

sponsored by the school, KANA, and the community Health Representative
Program. The level of participation in organized recreation in the com-
munity is high. These activities include volleyball, baseball, basket-
ball, dancing, socials, and arts and crafts instruction.

Tourist facilities to accommodate recreational vehicles and tent

campers were discouraged. Residents are not interested in encouraging
tourists to visit the community. It was recommended that an overnight
camp facility be provided for tourists who are stranded for a day or
so while waiting for a ferry. Settler Cove Inn is the only lodging now

available.

Use Conf licts

Recreation/tourism activities are viewed by many island residents
as a mixed blessing. Resident and nonresident activities provide a major
'portion of income for many hotel/lodge operators, air taxis, and guiding
outfits. However, in many areas, nonlocal resident recreation activities
are perceived to conflict with subsistence hunting and fishing and with
the community lifestyle. At the present time, conflicts take place in the
vicinity of ruralcommunities; village coastal management survey results
showed uniform discouragement of recreation/tourism in the immediate
vicinity of villages.

Of the seven Borough communities, existing recreation conflicts
are limited to three villages:.Karluk, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions.

Karluk. As previously mentioned, the Karluk River and Lake at-
tract many visitors for fishing, hunting, and rafting/kayaking opportuni-
ties. Fishermen and hunters usually pass through the village or village
corp oration lands during their visits, often tre.spassing on corporation
land, illegal camping, littering, and disruption of daily lifestyle.
Because it has no store or general lodging/camping facilities, Karluk

receives no benefits from this recreational use.

3-162

Karluk residents are also concerned about pot ential competition
between recreation, commercial, and subsistence fishermen for Karluk
fishery resources. If use increases to levels that require resource
allocation, residents fear that subsistence harvests may be reduced

to accommodate recreation use.

Ouzinkie. Icon Bay, on the east side of Spruce Island, is a
popular recreational fishing area for Kodiak urban area residents. It is
also an important historic site, as the burial place of St. Herman, and
bears special significance to Ouzinkie residents and other Russian
Orthodox Catholics, Recreation activities have sometimes resulted in
trespass on village corporation lands., illegal camping, and littering.
Local residents are concerned that site degradation will continue unless

some action is taken.

Port Lions. Because of its connection to the state ferry system,
recreational vehicle traffic, camping, hunting, and fishing by non-
residents has increased. This has often resulted in trespass on private
and village corporation lands, illegal camping, littering, and general
disruption of community lifestyle. Recreation use increases during deer
season (hunters are attracted by the four-deer bag limit) and has reduced
the deer population in the immediate vicinity of town. Local residents
feel that nonresident recreation hunting is affecting local subsistence

harvests.

In response to the con flict, Port Lions has requested that the
Kodiak Fish and Game Advisory Board reduce the deer.bag limit in the
immediate village vicinity to one deer. Residents hope that this will
lessen the r4creation us'e of the community by nonresidents.

3.4.5 TRANSPORTATION

Air and water provide the principal means of both intra-Borough
and.external transportation.for people and goods. The highway network
in the.Borough is limited to the.Kodial.,c urban area and its environs

3-163

(map 14). There are a total of 94 linear miles of road, 19 of which
are paved, under state jurisdiction in the Borough. Most are in the
northeast portion of Kodiak Island. None of the villages are linked
by overland routes. The cost of extension of road connections to the
villages, widely separated by difficult topography, is prohibitive.

Since the economy of the Kodiak Archipelago is based on fishing,
marine transportation services are of the utmost importance. The region's
harbors are atc.essible to deep-draft, seagoing vessels; its sea routes
are usually ice-free during the entire year.

Kodiak Island Borough is generally well served by local and re-
gional air carriers as well as by on-call charter operations. Air travel
to and from Kodiak has grown rapidly in recent years. The Borough's air
transportation facilities are summarized in Table 3.25. There are airport
or float plane landing sites at nearly every village in the Borough.
Protected bays and coves provide seaplane landing sites most of the year.
Severe crosswinds are a major problem at most village airstrips.

Kodiak Western Airlines serves many of the villages in the Borough
through a postal delivery contract. The majority of village flights
utilize amphibious aircraft. Service is once a day to Karluk and Larsen
Bay.(Monday through Friday) and twice daily to Akhiok, Old Harbor, Ouzin-
kie, and Port Lions. The airline also provides service, three times
a week during the summer and twice a week in winter, to Bristol Bay.
During 1979 Kodiak Western carried 25,000 passengers and 1.2 million
pounds of freight. Port Lions also receives thrice-weekly service to
Anchorage by Klondike Air.

Emergency transportation via helicopter is available from the

Coast Guard Air Station in Kodiak.

City of Kodiak and Vicinity

Marine. Due to its strategic location, the Port of Kodiak is
evolving as a very important consolidation and transshipment point for

3-164

Table 3.25. Kodiak Island Borough air facilities.

Runway Runway Largest Other
Airport Location Size (feet) Surface 'Aircraft Information

Kodiak
Civilian 7539 X 150 Asphalt .731 Lighted
Military 5379 X 150 Asphalt 720 Lighted
Military 5002 X 150 Asphalt Lighted

Kodiak Muni 2883 X 100 Gravel City run

Akhiok 2200 X 100 Gravel

Karluk 2500 X100 Gravel

Ln
Larsen Bay 2400 X100 Gravel Home base for Uyak Air Service

Old Harbor 2000 X100 Gravel 402 State maintained; runway to be
surfaced in 1995

Ouzinkie Seaplanes only Airstrip to be constructed in
1986

Port Lions 2650 X 150 Gravel 402 State-maintained

Sitkinak CGS 4500 X 150 Asphalt Lighted

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Survey, 1975.
AEIDC/ISEGR, 1974.

cargoes to the smaller communities of the area. The City Dock is the
center of activity. Its facilities include a 22,000-square-foot warehouse
and two piers, 360 feet and 350 feet. Water depth alongside is 26 feet
and 40 feet, respectively. There is also a marshalling yard for approxi-
mately two hundred and fifty 35-foot containers. Congestion has been
reported at the City Dock due to problems with ship scheduling and shore-
side.freight handling and storage.

Sea-Land Service Company is the major freight supplier. The city
provides dock facilities to Sea-Land under a preferential-use agreement
.extending to 1992. Between 1975 and 1980 the amount of freight handled
by Sea-Land doubled.

Goods are delivered from Seattle or Anchorage on containerships.
Due to the lack of storage area, the vans are then loaded on trucks
and delivered to their destinations, where they remain until the ship
returns. In 1979 there were 20 dockings, resulting in the movement of

30,000 containers.

American President Lines (APL) has bi-weekly service to Japan,
hauling seafood products. The Maritime Shipping Act of 1936 prohibits
APL from calling at other American ports after leaving Kodiak. If the

move to relax this restriction is successful, APL would like to institute

weekly service between Kodiak, Anchorage, and Seattle.

Petroleum products are delivered to Kodiak by Chevron's Alaska
Standard, a shallow-draft tanker based in Valdez. This vessel has a

bulk capacity of 18,000 barrels of diesel, heating, and motor fuel and
90 tons of capacity for other petroleum freight, such as barrelled avia-
tion gas. The Alaska Standard delivers to the Chevron plant in Kodiak
about once a month. Deliveries are also made to canneries and/or some
of the villages of the Borough on a demand basis.

Unscheduled sailings through various carriers are arranged when
additional freight requirements are justified. Fo r 1981, Northland Marine

3-166

LinesI'plans two scheduled sailings from Seattle to Kodiak. Also to begin
in 1981 is an inter-island freight service. Alaska Transfer, a local
firm, plans to'use a 90-foot landing craft for this service.

There a re eight cannery wharves of varying lengths an d depths
within the city limits. At Womens Bay, 6 miles by road from Kodiak,
are three large Coast Guard wharves and a private shipyard wharf., The
Coast Guard wharf faces have lengths of 500, 600, and 1400 feet. The
shipyard wharf has a 675-foot face with depths alongside ranging from

26 to 33.feet.

The Ferry Terminal is used primarily by the Alaska State Ferry,
M.V. Tustumena. This 296-foot ferry can accommodate 200 passengers,
including staterooms to sleep 58, and 54 standard size vehicles. Vans
of 40 feet maximum length can be transported. The ferry uses an elevatbr
system to load vehicles.

The Tustumena serves Kodiak three times a week from the end of

March to early December on a Kodiak-Homer-Kodiak-Seward-Kodiak loop.
Included in this.loop are scheduled stops at Port Lions on the.way to
Kodiak on Monday and on the way to Homer.on Tuesday. During the summer.
(May 29 to September 7) the ferry adds a Seward-Valdez-Cordova-Valdez-

Seward run on the weekends. Truck trailer service between Kodiak and the
Kenai Peninsula utilizes the ferry system. Ferry service is summarized

below:

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday* Saturday*

Seward Port Lions Kodiak Homer Kodiak Seward Cordova

Kodiak Port Lions Seldovia Seward Valdez Valdez

Homer Homer

Seldovia

Homer

Kodiak

*Summer (May 29 to September 7) only.

3-167

During 1979 the ferry began service from Kodiak to the Alaska
Peninsula communities of Sand Point, King Cove, and Cold Bay. Three
trips are planned for the summer of 1981. These communities are 450
straight-line miles to the southwest of Kodiak.

The City of Kodiak's small boat harbor (SBH) has 225 stalls,
all of which are filled. There are 400 vessels, ranging in size from
17-foot recreation boats to 160-foot crab boats, on a waiting list for
moorage space.. During 1980 a total of 1575 vessels occupied some part
of the city -operated facilities, an increase of 11 percent over 1979.
Of these vessels, approximately 400 are year-round fishing boats; the
remainder are transient', government, and recreational vessels.

The inadequate SBH facilities have prompted the city to actively
pursue the proposed Dog Bay SBH, located at Near Island. A contract
has recently been awarded for dredging and breakwater construction to
be started in September 1981. Final plans and specifications for the
$6.2 million SBH are being prepared. The facility will contain 268
stalls, the largest of which will accommodate 170-foot vessels. Construc-

tion is scheduled for the summer of 1982.

Air. The Borough's major airport is located on the Coast Guard
Base, and is owned and operated by the state. In spite of a high inci-
dence of inclement weather,the airport has a relatively good record of
dependability. Its terminal facilities are owned by Wien Air Alaska and
include ticket counters., security waiting area, car rental agencies,
indoor baggage facilities, and aircraft fueling facilities. The existing
passenger terminal facilities are,barely adequate for present traffic.

Air service to and from Kodiak is provided by Wien, with twice-
daily service to Anchorage, Kenai, and Seattle on 737 jets. During the
summer, an extra flight is added Monday through Friday. In 1979 Wien
carried approximately 100,000,passengers between Kodiak and these cities,
and about 6 million pounds of freight and mail.

3-168

Air taxi service is available from Island Air Service, Flirite,
Uyak Air, and Kodiak Air Taxi for chartered flights throughout the Kodiak

area.

The City of Kodiak operates a small general aviation airport
within the city limits. There is no formal city-maintained apron area;
however, several gravel parking areas for private aircraft have been
developed. Adjacent to the strip is Lilly Lake, which is used by float
planes. Kodiak Western Airlines accounts for a significant portion of
the float plane traffic and maintains hangar facilities at the municipal
airport. There are no air or ground traffic control activities at the
airport; however, the FAA does offer an air traffic advisory service

from its tower on the Coast Guard Base.

Land. There are 14 miles of city toads on Kodiak Island. Sixty
percent of the streets within the City of Kodiak are unpaved and the
city maintains them as either gravel or seal-coated roadways. In recent
years the city has been reconstructing and paving about 3/4 of a mile
of road per year

Afognak Island

Land. An unimprov ed road, approximately 5 miles long, extends
from Afognak Bay to Afognak Lake, where there is a military reservation

camp.

Logging roads are being built to harvest timber from the Perenosa
sale. A total of 45 to 60 miles of mainline road, more than 200 miles
including spurs, will be built. The roads go from Danger Bay to Discovery
Bay and Izhut Bay. A road is yet to.be built toward Seal Bay and Tonki
Cape.

.Akhiok

Marine. There are no docking facilities at the village, so skiffs
are used to carry cargo and passengers to the beach from larger vessels.

3-169

Akhiok has received a Community Development Block Grant for construction
of boat mooring facilities. Plans are being made to begin construction
within the next two years.

Land. There are two roads within the village, one leading to
the airstrip and the other leading to the landfill.

Karluk

Marine. There are no docking facilities at the village. Cargo
and passengers are brought to the beach from larger vessels by skiffs.

Land. There are no roads in the City of Karluk.

Larsen Bay

Marine. Kodiak Island Seafood Inc. (KISI) owns the 1035-foot-
long cannery pier with a depth of 8 feet at its outer end (DMJM Forssen
1980). A 5-ton crane is available. Sea-Land and Western Pioneer vessels
make calls at the village when.the cannery is operating. Chevron's Alaska
Standard calls at the pier twice a year. Larsen Bay also has a dock for

small boats.

Land. There are gravel roads within the town. The village has
responsibility for maintenance, but due to lack of funds, the roads are
very poorly maintained.

Old Harbor

Marine. An L-shaped pier with a 67-foot face is located here.
Depth alongside the state-owned pier is about 15 feet, but it becomes
dry at low ti.de. The Alaska Standard delivers fuel three times a year.

There is also a dock for small boats.

3-170

Land. The village has a rudimentary road system. Maintenance
responsibility is the village's, but due to lack of funds the roads
are very poorly maintained.

Ouzinkie

Marine. The Ouzink ie pier is the former Columbia-Ward wharf,
built after the 1964 earthquake. The L-shaped facility is owned by the
Ouzinkie Village Corporation. It is 104 feet long, with a water depth
of 28 feet. Currently the Alaska Standard delivers fuel to this wharf
twice yearly. There is also a dock for small boats.

Land. The village road system consists of 3 miles of improved
dirt road. The village has .maintenance responsibility, but due to lack
of funds the roads ate very poorly maintained.

Port Lions

Marine. The former Wakefield Seafood processing plant wharf was
donated to the city after a fire destroyed the plant in 1911, On "' izhuyak
Bay 2 miles by road from the townsite, the L-shaped wharf extends 1000
feet before assuming a right angle. The outer face is 400 feet long,
wi'th depths alongside of 77.feet at MLLW. Shore facilities.include a
Ramey 2500-pound hoist and an 1800-cubic-foot freezer storage room. The
M.V. Tustumena uses.this wharf. Grants have been awarded to the village
to repair damage to the dock caused by wind and fire, and to install a
new lighting system.

A timber.floating dock, 10 feet wide, is joined to the old cannery
wharf. This dock provides 800 feet of docking space, enough for about
22 vessels (average length, 40 feet). During rough weather, many boats
anchor away from the dock.

Transient fishing vessels visiting Port Lions during the year
may number well over 100. Some 52 fishing vessels make the harbor a
permanent home. The Corps of Engineers has begun construction of a break-

3-171

water for a small boat harbor (SBH) in nearby Settler Cove. The $1.7
million SBH will consist of a light7duty dock and a series of concrete
floats. The main float will be 350 feet long with three radiating fin-
gers, each 250 feet in length. Vessels up to 100 feet in length will
be accommodated., The design capacity is approximately 30 to 35 vessels.
The fueling facilities at the old Wakefield Wharf will continue to be

utilized. Construction is scheduled for the summer of 1982.

Land.,There are 4 miles of improved dirt road connecting the
town with Port Wakefield and the airport. Average annual daily traffic
is about 20 vehicles. This figure is subject to extreme seasonal varia-
tions. Within the village there is a one-mile gravel-surfaced street
system that is village-maintained. Port Lions has been awarded a $95,000
Community Block Grant to upgrade the roads.

3.4. 6 ENERGY FACILITIES AND RESOURCES

The Kodiak Island Borough is in the position of being an energy
consumer and potential energy producer. As in other areas of "rural"
Alaska, Borough residents are facing rapidly increasing costs for fuel,
for electric power generation and heat. Several villages are further
handicapped by dependence on old and inefficient power generation equip-
ment. Because all diesel and other fuel is shipped into the Borough,
residents are also susceptible to rising transportation costs and weather
delays in fuel delivery. At the present time, all ele ctri city on the
island is diesel fuel generated, and used for lighting,,heating, and
running applicances.

Generation of hydroelectric power for local consumption is the
goal of several proposed projects and the sub,ject of feasibility studies.
The'most publicized project is Kodiak.Electric Association's (KEA).Terror
Lake Project, 25 miles southwest of Kodiak. Port Lions is also investigat-
ing construction of a hydroelectric facility in conjunction with KEA,
and a small hydroelectric feasibility study was conducted for the Corps
of Engineers (CH2M Hill 1981). This study identified several potential
sites in the vicinity of each of the Borough's communities.

3-172

Another potential energy resource, viewed with mixed feelings
by Bo.rough residents, is potential offshore deposits of oil and natural
gas. Although the original lease sale was postponed, one federal and one
stale,lease sale are scheduled offshore of K odiak during the next th ree
years. Local concerns focus on potential impacts of exploration, develop-
ment, and production activities and accidents on Kodiak's fishing indus-
try. Petroleum resources are discussed later in this secti on.

Existing Facilities

Energy-generating facilities and the potentiatfor hydro-power in

each of Kodiak's communities are discussed below.

City of Kod.iak and Vicinity. Electrical energy is provided to the
City of Kodiak area by the Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. In addition
to supplying the city area, KEA also supplies power to Mona shka Bay, 4
miles north of Kodiak. Bell's Flat, 11 miles southwest of Kodiak, re-
ceives its power from the Coast Guard (Kodiak Island Borough, personal
communication 19 81). Generating facilities consist of eleven diesel
generators with a "nameplate" capacity of 25,000 kilowatts (kw). This
nominal capacity can be misleading because much of the equi pment is old
and liable to breakdowns. A new 7,000-kw generator has recently been
installed.

Due to the large cost increases for diesel fuel, new power source s
are being investigated. Under study at the present time is a hydroelec-
tric project at Terror Lake, 25 miles southwest of Kodiak. This project
was first studied during World War II by the Army Corps of Engineers.
As presently designed, the Terror Lake project would produce 30,obO kw
and 175 million kw-hour's annually. KEA has filed permit applications
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to investigate the
.feasibility of developing the project. T he Coast Guard would switch from
generating its own power to purchasing power from KEA if the project is
built. Two smaller sites with hydro-power potential have also been iden-
tified (COE 1980).

3@173

Akhiok. Electricity is supplied to the village from a new central
generation plant consisting of a 55-kw diesel generator operated by the
KANA Electrical Authority. The new underground distribution system has a
history of problems and outages. Several households continue to get their
electricity from individual 2 to 4 kw generators. A 60,000-gallon fuel
tank is used for storage. The centralized system runs from 6 to 10 hours
per day. The school is supplied separately from two 25-kw diesel genera-
tors, one of which is a backup. The school's four storage tanks can
contain 20,900 gallons of fuel. The city consumes 386 barrels of diesel
per year generating electricity and another 155 barrels are consumed
per year by the school.

Oil is the primary source of heat. The village uses 1107 barrels
of fuel per year for heating, cooking, and to heat water. Village resi-
dents use 1080 barrels per year and the school uses 27 barrels per year.
Propane is occasionally used for cooking (CH2M Hill 1980). Fuel is de-
livered two or three times per year.

Three sites that have good hydro-power potential have been identi-
fied near Akhiok (COE, 1980). There is a steady prevailing westerly wind
that may have wind-power pote ntial. The closest source of driftwood
is 7 to 8 miles away.

Karluk. The village owns a 15-kw generator that is hooked up
to a few buil dings. The reliability of this generator is poor, so it is
not used very often. The other source of electrical power is an indi-
vidual 4.5-kw generator at each residence. The school is supplied by two
7.5-kw generators.

Fuel is delivered approximately four times a year and stored below
the ground in an 8,500 gallon tank. There is a 50,000-gallon storage tank
on the beach that will eventually be hooked up. Fuel is sold to indi-
viduals in the community to operate electric generators and to heat homes.

3-174

The primary heating source for th e village is oil. The school
receives one shipment of fuel oil per year, which is extracted from the
commu nity reserve. This fuel is stored in 55-gallon drums.

Various small-scale power generation systems are being investi-
gated, including wind power. Three sites that have g ood hydro-power
potential have been identified (COE, 1980). See Map 14 for location of

these sites.

Larsen Bay. Larsen Bay has no centralized electric system; approxi-
mately 20 individually owned and operated generators (5-kw Listers)
provide electricity to 25 to 30 households. Electricity is usually gen-
erated.only during the evenings, or when needed. Some households have
wood stoves for heating. A new school, opened in 1980, has two 60-kw
generators. The Kodiak Island Seafood, Inc. (KISI). processing plant.
operates its own generating plant for cannery operations and employee
housing. KISI operates a 7.5-kw and a 30-kw diesel engine generator unit
during the winter months and two 75-kw and three 200-kw units during the
canning season (CH2M Hill 1980).

All diesel fuel deliveries.are made to KISI, which then distrib-
utes it to the residents. Generation of electricity for homes uses 480
barrels per year (bbl/yr) and the school uses 299bbl/year. The cannery
uses 1198 bbl/year. Home and school heating consumes 90 bbl/year. Some
stoves may be fueled with propane. Some homes have wood stoves for space
and water heating (CH2M Hill 1980). Under. consideration are hydroelectric
and wind turbine projects. Three hydro-power sites have been identified
(COE 1980). See Map 14 for location of sites.

Old Harbor. The village generation and distribution system is
owned by Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative (AVEC) and operated by
the village. Most of the homes are connected to the central system by an
above-ground transmission line, but a few still use their own generators.
The.AVEC generation system consists of two 155-kw diesel units. Although

3-175

the system is only 3 years old, outages are common (CH2M Hill 1 980). The
ea stern and western portions of the community are linked by an under-
ground line.

Electricity generation consumes 620 bbl/yr. Total diesel fuel
deliveries in 1979 were 820 barrels, leaving 200 barrels for uses other
than generation. Total delivery of home heating f uel in 1979 was 1,910
barrels. Fuel delivery generally occurs four times a year. Fuel is de-
livered by.tankers. Community storage facilities consist of a 60,000-gal-
Ion oil tank and a 10,000-gallon gasoline tank. An additional 60,000-gal-
Ion storage capacity is available, but is not now used. Wood stoves
are also used'for heating and cooking in some of the new homes; however,
the only.available wood is driftwood.and it is in scarce supply. Propane

is also used to fuel some stoves.

Hydroelectric and wind power alternatives and/or supplements
are being studied. Two hydro-power sites have been identified (COE 1980).
'See Map 14 for location of sites.

Ouzinkie. Electrical power is provided to residents by the village
of Ouzinkie. Ten homes are not connected to the system and continue to
use individual generators. Power is supplied by an 85-kw generator, which
operates between the hours of 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. The 85-kw generator is
adequate, but will soon be replaced by a 150-kw generator with an at-
tached heat. recovery unit; the new generator is located near the school.
A 50-kw standby generator is used by the school. Electrical meters have
been installed, but currently a flat rate of $60 per month per residence
is being charged for power. When the metered-rate system is begun, elec-
tricity costs for households will rise.

Electricity generation uses 360 bbl/year. Home heating uses 1070
bbl/year. Some new housing is being equipped with wood stoves for heat-
ing. The Village Corporation receives shipment of 40,000 gallons of
diesel fuel oil three or.four times a year. The fuel is used to run the

3-176

electrical generator and is sold to local residents for heating and
cooking. Ouzinkie' residents purchase gasoline and propane in Kodiak, for
personal use.

Oil and wood stoves, serve as the primary heating sources in the
community. Increases in fuel costs have placed more emphasis on conver-
sion to wood heat. One site has been identified for potential hydro-power
generation (COE 1980.). See Map 14 for location of site.

Port Lions..Port Lions is serviced by the Kodiak Electric Associa-
tion (KEA), which operates four generators with 1,100 kw of capacity.
There are two 350-kw generators and two 200-kw generators. usage peaks at
approximately 70 kw. It is a three-phase system. Wood-burning stoves and
fuel furnaces are used by most residents to heat their homes. The
Standard Oil tanker delivers fuel oil, diesel fuel, and gasoline to Port
Lions Oil Company. The community can store up to 21.5,000 gallons of
diesel fuel and 19,000 gallons of gasoline.

Petroleum

The Borough contain's portions of three separate sedimentary petro-
leum provinces or basins the Mesozoic province, the Lower Cook Inlet-
Shelikof Tertiary province, and the Kodiak Tertiary province.

The Mesozoic province consists of a belt of marine sedimentary
rocks that extends the length of the southcentral region from the Wran-
gell Mountains to the tip of the Alaska Peninsula. These rocks outcrop
all along the eastern portion of the Alaska Peninsula and probably extend

for some distance offshore.

The. resources in this province will be discussed with the Lower
Cook Inlet-Shelikof Tertiary province..

The Lower Cook Inlet-Shelikof Tertiary province is the southern
extension of the oil and gas-producing Tertiary, non-marine, sedimentary

3-177

rocks of the Cook Inlet Basin. These rocks are probably quite thin in

Lower Cook Inlet, but they may thicken again in a subsidiary basin in
Shelikof Strait. The presence of good reservoir beds in a setting similar
to the producing Gook Inlet fields to the north could make this a f'avor-
able petroleum province.

There is a 95 percent probability that no commercial resources
will be discovered (EIS No. 60, p. 23, 1980). Assuming a commercial
find (with a 5 percent probability), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
has developed estimates for the mean resource level of recoverable oil
and natural gas resources within the proposed lease area as follows:

Oil .335 million barrels
Gas 586.bil,lion cubic feet (5 percent change) (EIS No. 60,
p. 46).

Crude oil extracted from the Shelikof Strait is hypothesized
to be transported,by pipeline to an oil storage and tanker loading ter-
minal located near Talnik Point on the shore of Marmot Bay. Natural
gas produced in the Shelikof Strait.would be piped to a gas compressor

station located on the Kenai Peninsula.

No facilities exist on either Kodiak or Afognak Island to handle
hydrocarbons produced from the Shelikof Strait. Several facility sites
have been identified as,being physically adequate (excluding biological
considerations) for development (Map 14). The location and.construc-
tion of a pipeline to an oil storage terminal at Talnik Point is just
one of several options. For a review of potential development sites
the reader is directed to the following works: Lower Cook,Inlet/Shelikof
Straits Petroleum Development Scenarios, Technical Report No. 43 prepared
by Dames and Moore for BLM and the Oil Terminal and Marine Service Base
Sites in the Kodiak Island Borough, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consul-
tants, for the Kodiak Island Borough.

3-178

Map 14 shows some of the other sites that appear to be physi-
cally capable of hosting facilities should they be required. Even if
facilities are required, most of the potential sites would not be used,
since several alternatives have been identified for each site require-
ment. Conceivably, none of the sites may be used if other factors (com-
munity resistance, land use policies, restrictive zoning,.etc.) limit or
cause industry disinterest in these sites, and if other physically cap-

.able sites are more attractive.

The first federal offshore lease sale in Cook Inlet was held

in October of 1977. At the present time, OCS,1eases in Lower Cook Inlet
are in the post-sale exploratory phase. As of july 1980, ten exploratory
wel'Is and one Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test.(COST) well have
been drilled in thearea. No commercial finds have been announced.

The draft EIS for lease sale No.. 60 was released in 1980 and

he final EIS was released in March 1981. The combined Lower Cook Inlet
and Shelikof Strait OCS lease sale No. 60 is scheduled for September

1981.

The Kodiak,Tertiary province consists. of a thick section of Terti-
ary marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks that extends.from Kodiak
Island across the continental shelf to the continental slope. The geom-
etry of the sedimentary rocks along the broad anticlinal arch at the edge
of the shelf and the shallow drilling depths make this a favorable place
for petroleum entrapment and exploration. The area has been explored by
industry using geophysical methods but no wells have been drilled.

The probability of finding commercial reserves is only 8 percent.
Assuming commercial resources are discovered, the estimates of recover-
able gas condensate fluids and natural gas resources within the proposed

ease area are as follows:

179

Maximum Mean Minimum

Gas Condensates

(million barrels) 501 176 22

Natural Gas

(trillion cubic feet) 13.94 5.35 0.91

The first draft EIS on lease sale No. 46 was printed in April
1977. A change in the leasing schedule was announced shortly after publi-
cation, changing the proposed sale date to December 1980. Due to new
information and new EIS writing procedures, a second draft EIS was pre-
pared in December 1979. The lease sale was finally cancelled in July 1980
due to lack of in dustry interest.and environmental opposition. Sale No.
61 (for the same area as Sale No. 46) was then scheduled for 1983 but the

new 5-year lease schedule released in April 1981 does not include Sale
No. 61. OCS lease sale No. 100, which includes the Cook Inlet, Kodiak,
Shumagin, and other Gulf of Alaska areas, is scheduled for 1986.

3.4.7 COASTAL ACCESS

Coastal access characteristics of the Kodiak Island Borough re-
late to the ability to reach a coastline and the mode of transportation
most commonly used. The discussion will also focus on two related ele-
ments of coastal access - land ownership and shorefront activity. For
instance, shorelines in private ownership often have access restrictions,
while publicly-owned shorelines have open access. Furthermore, shorefro.nt
use activities require certain access factors to accommodate particular
types of uses.

Physical access to the coastline centers around the City of Kodiak
and the six vi'llages. Coastal access via boat and air service networks
are the most viable transportation systems. A port facility is located at
Kodiak, as.it lies within close proximity to a major shipping route and
the water depth can accommodate freighters and ferries with deep hulls.
Coastal access to four village communities and Kodiak is also facilitated
by the presence of small boat harbors. Boat docks and piers accommodate

3-180

inter-island freight service, recreational boating activities, and sea-
food processing activities. At Akhiok and Karluk coastal access is usual-
ly achieved by skiffs, which carry cargo and passengers to the beach from
larger vessels. Local and regional air carrier service and charter opera-
tions also facilitate coastal access to Kodiak and village communities.
Coastal access via vehicle is limited,.as topographic features and cost
restrict road construction. The highway network functions mainly to
provide access to facilities and services w ithin the imm ediate vicinity
of the communities and is extensive only in the vicinity of the City of
Kodiak. The road system outside the Kodiak urban area allows coastal
access to recreation areas and facilities such as state parks. Refer to
@Map 14 for the location of roads, marine facilities, and airstrips.

Land ownership as it relates to.coastal access can be discus-

sed for the most part only in a tentative manner until proposed land
selections are conveyed. Coastal access to lands selected by the federal
government, state, Borough, and Native corporations may also present
access restrictions. In most instances, some form of coastal access to

public lands is assured. Boat access to the shoreline of the National
Wildlife Refuge is guaranteed; however, airplane and motorized vehicle
access is restricted-State-owned tidelands, submerged lands, and lands
beneath navigable and public waters are open to public use. In addition,
coastal access is guaranteed on state lands leased or purchased.adjacent
to the coastline. Provisions have been made in the Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act to allow coastal access across Native-selected lands via

public acces s easements and site easements. These.easements ensure that
upland.areas and major waterways remain accessible for recreational use.
See Map 12 for the location of land selections.

Coastal access is necessary within the Kodiak Island Borough
for the siting of industrial, transportation, energy, and recreation
facilitie.s. The physical character of the coastline influences the suit-
ability of a.site to accommodate certain types of activities. Some of
the physical parameters delineating the minimum requirement s for siting
a facility have been identified. For siting of industrial facilities
such as fish and timber processing plants, there must be sufficient

3-181

coastline to receive, possibly process, and ship products. Potentially
limiting physical parameters might include a lack of sufficient acreage
of relatively flat terrain and the presence of navigational hazards.
Physical parameters pertinent to the placement of transportation facil-
ities (ferry termina ls, ports, small boat harbors, and airports) would
include the availability of road access, coastal processes characteris-
tics, and wave exposure. Potentially limiting physical parameters affect-
ing energy facilities along the coastline include such factors as the
presence of deep water near shore, adequate turning basins, and flat
terrain with sufficient acreage to construct a terminal. Recreation
activities such as boating, fishing, and hunting require coastal access.
Some physical parameters limiting coastal access via boat and float plane
are.theavailability of dock or moorage facilities, and protected waters
where boats and float planes can be.safely anchored offshore.

3.4.8 HOUSING

A shortage of housing exists throughout the Borough. Factors
contributing to the shortage include lack of financing, a shortage of
developable land, and shortages of available hookups for water and sewer
in areas with centralized systems. The-Kodiak Area Native Association
(KANA) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (BIA/HUD) are building homes in the villages as
part of the Indian Housing Project. The homes are to be constructed and
managed by the Kodiak Area Housing Authority. The existing and proposed
housing stock in the City of Kodiak and in each of the villages is des-

cribed below.

City of Kodiak and Vicinity

As of 1976 there were 1973 housing units, 60 percent single-fam-
ily units, in the City of Kodiak. Excluding trailers, more than 40 per-
cent of the housing units were in poor to fair condition when surveyed in
1976i A major constraint on new housing was land and hookup availability.

3-182

The Coast Guard Base contains an additional 557 units, excluding

barracks.

Akhiok

As of October 1980, there were 28 single-family housing units
within the community, 15 of which are newer BIA/HUD homes built in 1978.

None of.the houses is vacant and no .additional home construction is

planned. The average number of persons per household in 1980 was esti-

mated at 3.3.

Karluk

A severe storm in 1978 led to the relocation of.the village. The
condition of the 32 homes in old Karluk ranges from excellent to poor;
however, all.but two homes have been abandoned. A total of 23 homes were
built at the new site through the BTA/HUD program in 1978@1979.

Larsen Bay.

As of October 1980, there were 48 single-family homes and one
duplex in the village (CH2M Hill 1980). The housing stock is in need of
repair.'Beach erosion threatens several of the homes.. The vacancy rate is
zero and an average of 4.0 personsoccupy each house. BIA/HUD is planning
to build 15 to 20 single-family homes between 1981 and 1985. Residents
are currently renovating many wood frame homes bui It over 40 years ago.*

Old Harbor

In October 1980 available housing was estimated at 93 single-
family homes (CH2M Hill 1980). The Bureau of Indian Affairs built 48
homes in 1964 following the earthquake, and another 45 homes in 1978-1979
(EIS No. 46). Twelve homes are to be built in 1981. Currently all homes
are occupied, with an average occupancy of 4.5 persons per household
(.CH2M Hill 1980).

3-183

Ouzinkie

There are 59 single-family wood frame homes in the village. The
vacancy rate is less than 2 percent. The average number of persons per
household is four. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and HUD plan to build ten
homes in 1981 (CH2M Hill 1980). Many of the older homes are in poor
condition. Thirty-three of these homes were constructed after the 1964

earthquake.

Port Lions

There are 47 single-family homes in Port Lions, with an average of
five persons per household. Most of the homes, which are wood frame
structures, are in good condition. Many were built during the last 15
years. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and HUD have begun construction of 35

new homes.

3.4.9 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Water, sewer, and solid waste disposal systems within the Kodiak
Island Borough are detailed below, by community. Information on village
facilities was compiled from the draft Community Profiles (DOWL 1981).

City of Kodiak and Vicinity

Water. The largest public water system within the Borough is
operated by the City of Kodiak. It supplies water for residential,
industrial (primarily fish processing), and fire-fighting purposes.

There is one reservoir on Monashka Creek and four on Pella Creek. The

service ar ea is mainly within the city limits, but an 8-inch line ex-
tends to the end of Mill Bay Road. Service extends to the southwest of
downtown Kodiak as far as Gibson Cove. The Loran Station on Spruce Cape
also gets its water from the city.system.

3-184

The city fire dep artment currently provides fire protection ser-
vice to the already developed Island Lake and Mission Road areas. The
water supply is not adequate to serve these areas properly (KCM 1978).

At present the water system is being used to its practical limit
and any sizable population growth or additional large industrial users
in the area will require expansion of facilities. Current wate r use
varies from 3.0 to 3.5 million gallons per day (MGD), when the fish
processing plants are not operating, to 10 to 12 MCD when they are. The
current storage capacity is inadequate to insure supplies to industrial
users during periods of low streamflow. This uncertainty could dis-
e construction of new processing plants. As demand has increased,
courag
water lines have been excavated and replaced with larger lines to in-
crease the service capacity of the system. This will continue until the
supply systemand storage capacity are increased. A 20-inch line from
the water tank to the upper reservoirwill eventually provide interim

relief.

To increase storage capacity, the most likely solution involves
construction/expansi.on ofthe dam at Monashka Creek. Engineering has
been completed for the project and a 24-inch line installed. However,
the ownership of the land.involved is in dispute. Until this is re-
solved, the project cannot move ahead.

Sewer. The City of Kodiak operates the sewer system. A 2.2 mil-
lion gallon per day (gpd) secondary sewage treatment plant was comple-
ted in 1978. Recently the plant was reported to be operating well below
capacity. The projected service population is 9500, so consi derable
capacity for expansion exist.s. There are several areas near the city
where extension of service is being studied, including the Island Lake
area and the Municipal Airport area. It may be necessary to increase
the size of some portions of the downstream end of the system to accom-
modate these additi.ons,. Industrial wastes from fish processing are

dried and used for fertilizer.

3-185

Before the building of the treatment plant, untreated sewage
was handled by septic tanks or dumped into the ocean. Areas not connect-
ed to the system continue to use septic tanks.

Solid Waste. Kodiak's facilities for solid waste disposal are

inadequate. Scarcity of soil requires use of a coarse rocky cover,
which allows rainwater to percolate into the buried waste. Polluted
leachate is working out to surface watercourses. The existing site
is particularly unsuited for the disposal of sludge from the new waste-
water treatment plant.

A CEIP-Grant has been obtained to study a Solanie Creek site
for solid waste disposal, but this site also has serious potential
problems.

Akhiok

Water. Akhiok is supplied with treated water from a community
supply dam, which holds approximately 500,000 gallons of water that
runs through a gravity feed system with 3/4-inch lines. The system was
built in 1969. The shallow depth of bury results in occasional freezing
of the lines. There are two 10,000-gallon water storage tanks, the most
recent of which was added to the village system in 1979. The Akhiok
school has its own.well.

Sewer. The Public Health Service installed the sanitary sewer
system, which consists of collection line septic tanks and outfall
into the lagoon. Generally all housing is connected to the system.
It is reported that insufficient fall on the lines occasionally results
in backing up of the system and overflow from the manholes. In addi-
tion, the outfall line is beginning to float due to insufficient cover
over the pipe. The system is adequate for the community, but extensive
maintenance and repair will be required to keep it functioning. Reno-
vation of the sewer system is scheduled for 1981.

3-186

Solid Waste. A sanitary landfill was built by the Borough with
Federal Housing and Urban.Development Grant (HUD) funds in 1977, but is
not being actively used. It is locte d 1800 feet east of the center of
the village. There is a lack of transportation to the landfill and
there is no way to spread or cover the garbag e. For these reasons gar-
bage is often disposed of through tidal outflow.

Karluk

water. The Public Health Service installed a community water
system in 1979. Water is obtained from a creek south of town, where
it is stored in a 35,000-gallontank until transmittal to a treatment
plant where chlorine and fluoride are added* The system is adequate
for the community. The entire system is gravity flow and consumes no
fuel. At the present, no charge is made for water use. Fire hydrants
are attached to the water tran smission lines and are located throughout

the community.

Sewer. In 1'979 the Public Health Service installed a community
sanitary system. All houses in New Karluk are tie d into the system.
The waste is transmitted through collection lines to a septic-drain-
field system northwest of the village. Expansion of the system to accom-
modate future growth should not present any problems.

Solid Waste. A temporary sanitary landfill is located north of
the village. This location is unacceptable to the community and funds
are being sought to establish a.landfill at a more appropriate loca-
tion. Pickup service is not provided. Each.household is responsible
for hauling its own waste.

Larsen Bay

Water. A community water system was installed in 1979 by the
Public Health Service. All dwellings are connected to the system with
the exception of some of the older dwellings, which have their own

3-187

wells. Water is obtained from Humpy Creek, south of town. The water
is collected through an.infiltration gallery, fluoridated and chlori-
nated, and pumped to a 100,000-gallon storage tank.

The system is adequate for the existing community, except that
low flows in Humpy Creek in the winter occasionally require running
the pump constantly to maintain water in the storage tank. Peak flows
are reported to be 10,000 gpd. Fire hydrants are attached to the water
transmission.lines and are located throughout the community. The water
system is scheduled for improvement in 1981.

Sewer. The Public Health Service installed a community sanitary
system in 1979, which consists of a series of subsystems. These sub-
systems are required due to the sprawling nature of the community. Each
subsystem serves one or more houses and consists of service connec-
tions, collection lines, a septic tank, and an outfall into Larsen Bay.
All residents are connected to the sanitary system with the exception
of a few dwellings on the outskirts of the community.Expansion to
accommodate future growth should not present any problems. System im-
provements are planned for 1981.

Solid Waste. Solid waste is disposed of in an old rock pit in
the middle of the community or piled on the beach to be washed away
with the tide. The nearness of the pit to water sources has created
problems with water quality. Birds attracted to the dump pose a safety

hazard to aviation. Bears are also attracted'to the uncovered waste.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Quality has recommended that
$140,000 of state money be spent to develop a new site northeast of
town. The old dump would also need to be rehabilitated.

Old Harbor

Water. The water system is divided into a western and an eastern
segment, which are interconnected with a 6-inch main to provide a bal-
anced system. The western system obtains water from.a dammed creek, and
is completely gravity flow. The water is treated and stored in a

3-188

100,000-gallon tank. The eastern.system obtains its water from an infil
tration gallery. The water is pumped, treated, and stored in a 120,0007
gallon tank. Eleven fire hydrants scattered throughout the community
are connected to the systems. However, they are not adequate for fire
fighting. The waterlines are to be extended in 1982.

Sewer. The U.S. Public Health Service has installed two sanitary
sewer systems. The western system includes- a collection system,-a sep-
tic tank, and an outfall line into Akhiok Bay. The eastern system con-
sists of a collection system, a sewer lagoon, and an outfall into
Akhiok Bay. All housing is hooked into one of these systems.. The sys-
tems are adequate for the existing community and for future expansion.
The sewer lines are to be extended in 1,982.

Solid Waste. The sanitary landfill is located between the two
portions of the town north of the city docks. The landfill was construc-
ted by the Kodiak Island Borough with Housing and Urban Development
Community Block Grant funds. Collection is performed by the city at no
cost on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Using A flatbed truck. Lack
of earth-moving'equipment makes it difficult to effectively cover the
solid waste with fill material. In.addition, a newroad. past the sewage
lagoon and leading to the landfill is needed.

Ouzinkie

Water. The Public Health Service installed a community water
system in 1966 and upgraded the system in 1978. All dwellings.are con-
nected to the system with the exception of a few residences on'the

outskirts of town.

Water is obtained from Spruce Creek east of town. A small dam
ponds the water, which is then transmitted to the treatment plant.
The water is passed through a sandfilter, chlorinated and fluoridated,
and then pumped to a 30,000-gallon tank near the treatment plant or
-a 100,000-gallon tank near the town center.

3-189

The system is adequate for the existing population. However,
low pressure is reported on the west end of town. To alleviate the
low pressure problem, the installation of another 30,000-gallon tank
is planned. Peak flows are in the range of 50,000 gpd. Fire hydrants

are attached to the water transmission lines. Fire hose is available

in town and a volunteer fire department is in the planning stages.

Water rates are $7.50 per month for a family of one or two, $10
for three to five, and $12 per month for a family of six or more.

The system has deteriorated in recent years, and is scheduled
for upgrading by the Public Health Service in 1981.

Sewer. In 1966, the Public Health Service installed a community
sanitary system consisting of a series of subsystems. These subsystems
are required due to the sprawl of the community. Each subsystem con-
nects one or more houses with the larger subsystems located in the
center of the community. Each subsystem consists of service connec-
tions, collection lines, a septic tank, and an outfall into Narrow
Straits. All residents are connected to the sanitary system with the
exception of a few dwellings on the outskirts of the community. Expan-
sion of the system to accommodate future growth should not present
any problems. Improvements are scheduled for 1981.1

Solid Waste. A sanitary landfill was constructed in 1977 by the
Kodiak Island Borough, using HUD community grants. The landfill is -
approximately half a mile northeast of the community. Pickup services
are not provided; each household is responsible for hauling its own
solid waste. At the present time no machinery is available to cover
the waste at the landfill; this presents a health hazard to the vil-
lage. The traditional disposal method of depositing garbage on the
beach is still utilized.

3-190

Port Lions

Water. Port Lions is served by a full community water distribu-
tion system, which was recently upgraded by the Public Health Service.
Water is stored in a reservoir north of town. A 12,000-gallon wood
stave storage tank serves both the original portion of the town and the
new section built by Housing and Urban Development northwest of the
original townsite. Water from a new 125,000-gallon wood stave storage
tank will bypass the original townsite, and pumped across Settler Cove
to serve the new HUD section of the city on the south side of the cove
as well as the canne.ry. Port Lions maintains and operates the water
supply and distribution system, which consists of 6- and 8-inch lines.
Flouride is added to the water. In addition, a dry.60,000-gallon wood
stave storage tank s tands in the new sec tion of town on the south side

of the cove. Four-inch lines run from the tank to the residential area.

Restoring the tank to servicable condition is currently under consider-

ation.

Sewer. Community sewer service in Port Lions is operated by the
city and consists of buried gravity-flow line,s with two lift stations.
An emergency outfall system is located at Settler Cove. This outfall
has resulted in high levels of pollution in the cove. To comply with
federal and state regulations, an adequate treatment plant is needed. A
new 60,000-gallon septic system, which will serve the entire community,
is under construction. In 1981 new Lines are being built by the Public
Health Service that will tie in all sections of new housing and outfall
into Kizhuyak Bay.The-system will adequately serve the community when
upgrading is complete..

Solid Waste. A sanitary landfill is located northeast of the
town at the old village dump site. It was built with HUD Grant funds. in
1976 by.the Kodiak Island Borough. Community residents pay $4.00 per
month to have their garbage collected. Garbage is collected every Satur-
day with a flatbed garbage truck. The landfill was recently upgraded,
and has an anticipated life of 15 years.

3-191

3.4.10 ECONOMY

The economy of the Borough is based on the harvesting and process-
ing of seafood. The village economies are a combination of commercial
seafood industry activities and subsistence activities. The economy
of the City of Kodiak is based on the seafood industry, but is somewhat

diversified.

The forest products industry is small but with good growth pros-
pects. Agriculture is also small-scale but has potential. At present no
mineral resources are being exploited, but there is very strong interest
in the offshore petroleum resources.

Construction activities arelargely dependent on the ups and downs
of the seafood industry. The transportation, trade, and service indus-
tries are well developed due to Kodiak's relative isolation. The tourism
and recreation industries are growing in importance as access to the
Borough improves. Government activities, especially the Coast Guard, are
an important part of the Borough's economy. There are virtually no manu-
facturing activities.

Overall, the Borough's economy in the past has been quite seasonal
in nature, but the economy is now expanding and diversifying, which will
reduce the fluctuations. The growth rate and direction of the economy
are being determined by combined decisions of'private industry, Native
corporations, and the various levels of government.

Fish Processing

The most important industry in the Borough's economy is fish
processing. The wholesale value to processors is around $200 million.
Eight herring and salmon/shellfish processors are located in the Borough,
all in, or around the City of Kodiak. There are ten processors handling
only herring and salmon in the Borough, with four of these located around
Kodiak. There are nine shellfish-only processors in the Borough, seven of

3-192

which ar e located around Kodiak. Other locations for processors included'
Alitak, Larsen Bay, Moser Bay, Port Bailey, Uganik, and Uyak. Some of
the processors outside of Kodiak operate only during years of good fore
casts. During the 1980-81 season there were also ten catcher/orocessors
for king crab operating in the Westward Region, (Region IV).of the

ADF&G's Commercial Fisheries Division.

Several Native corporations have bought processing plants during
the past few years. Koniag, Inc. has purchased Kodiak Island Seafood Inc.
.(KISI), at Larsen Bay, and Swiftsure Alaska, in Kodiak. Ouzinkie Native
Corporation has.purchased the Columbia Ward Cannery and other holdings at
Port Bailey.

The addition of shellfish and bottomfish catches to the tradi-

tional salmon, halibut, and herring processing activities are helping
to make the Borough's'seafood processing industry a diversified year-
roun&operation.

Table 3.26 shows the value of the Kodiak area salmon fishery to
processors in 197.9.. Salmon caught in other districts, such as Chignik
and Bristol Bay, are also brought to Kodiak for processing. The catch of
reds in the Bristol Bay area is predicted at between 21.2.and 29.6 mi.1-

lion fish in 1981.

Seven processors in the Kodiak area handle bait and sac roe her-
ring. Table 3.27 presents the 1979 data on this segment of the industry.
Almost all of the roe is shipped to Japan.

With the large salmon catch and the short fishing season, canning
facilities have been inadequate. As a result, a larger quantity of fish
than desired has, been canned in one-pound ''talls" instead of the pre-
ferred and 1-2 pound cans.

3-193

Table 3.26. Valueof the 1979 Kodiak area salmon fishery to processors.

TYPE OF PRODUCT KINGS REDS COHO PINKS CHUMS TOTAL

Canned Salmon
of 48 lb. cases 296 21,450 6,974 549,257 25,562 603,539
Frozen Salmon2
of lbs. 7,861 2,343,558 631,918 3,743,287 1,044,452 7,771,076

2
Salmon Roe No species Breakdown 1,305,927

AVERAGE WHOLESALE VALUE PER CASE OR LB.1

Canned Salmon
$/case 72.50 81.00 70.00 65.00 60.00

Frozen Salmon
$/case 1.78 2.14 1.86 1.33 1.45

Salmon Roe
$/-lb- 4.25 Average

WHOLESALE VALUE TO THE PROCESSORS IN DOLLARS 2

Canned Salmon 21,460 1,737,450 488,180 35,701,705 1,533,720 39,482,515

iFrozen Salmon 13,992 5,015,214 1,175,367 4,978,572 1,514,455 12,697,600

Salmon Roe 7 - - - - 5,550,190

$35,452 $6,752,664 $1,663,547 $40,680,277 $3,0480175 $57,730,305

Average prices as shown in Processors Annual Reports from five canneries.
2Figures based on Kodiak area frozen pack and roe pack as determined from Processors Annual Reports.
3
Figures computed from statistical runs, subtracting frozen product and using 66% conversion factor from round
weight.
Source: ADF&G 1979.

so 4m. IM, kn" ow, a" Owl
Mis

Table 1*11* 1979 Kodiak area herring processors summary.

Processing Plant Location Type of Product

King Crab Inc. Kodiak Bait and Sac Roe
Daerim Armerica Inc. Kodiak Sac Roe
Alaska Pacific Seafoods Kodiak Bait and Sac Roe
Western Alaska Fisheries Kodiak Sac Roe
Whitney Fidelgo Kodiak Bait and Sac Roe
Pacific Pearl Seafoods Kodiak Bait and Sac Roe
Swiftsure. Kodiak Sac Roe

1979 Herring products in pounds including imports.

Raw Fish Frozen SaltedI Herring 2
Bought Pounds Bait Sac Roe Meal

8,561,008 446,609 .8,114,339 ?

1979 Commercial value of herring fishery.

Dollar Value to Fisherman Dollar Value to Processors
Bait Sac Roe Total Bait Sac Roe Total

$124,610 .$ 4,387,068 $4,511,678 $602,840 $8,722,327 $9,325,167

Source: ADF&G 1,979.

1About 4,643,000 lb s. (57%) of the herring roe and 197,000 lbs. (44%) of
the herring bait purchased was imported from other areas of the State.
2Information on weight of herring meal made from herring roe carcasses
donated to Bio Dry Inc.. is not available, nor is the value of the her-
ring meal.

3-195

Canning facilities are being expanded for the 1981 season, but
due to the predicted low catch, the expansion is on a l.imited basis and
primarily for the smaller size cans. Suitable machinery is not readily
available, and is too expensive for most operators to finance even when

obtainable.

Regarding the freezing of salmon, facility expansions during
1979, when the market for frozen salmon in Japan was promising, are
now considered ample for the immediate future. Emphasis will be on qua-
lity rather than volume. This emphasis follows the product rejections and
healvy financial losses suffered due to poor quality frozen salmon produc-
ed in 1980 for both export and domestic consumption. Controls have now
been established to ensure a standard product, and inspections by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be made both before freezing
and throughout the operation.

An expanding market is being developed for fresh chilled salmon
in many new areas throughout the United States. Again, emphasis is on
quality, rather than quantity, of the product.

Alaska Food Company, which incorporated in,Alaska to buy the
former NEFCO processing plant at Gibson Cove, is the only bottomfish
processor currently in operation. NEFCO had invested $1.1 million in 1978
to equip the plant to process pollock, but went bankrupt in April 1980.
Alaska Food won a $1.7 million grant through the Alaska Fiseries Develop-
ment Foundation to begin a large-scale cod and pollock processing oper-
ation. The grant money is to be used for equipment, construction, and a
worker training program in handling techniques and finished product
packaging. Alaska Food's goal is to process 20 million pounds of finished
product. Marketing problems remain to be worked out before the plant can
operate at ful I capacity. Presently about 100 employees are needed to
handle the seasonal shrimp and crab processing also done at Gibson Cove.
The firm plans to keep those 100 people working and to add 150 to 200
employees as bottomfish workers.

3-196

Halibut is a significant product of the Kodiak fish processing
industry. In 1979 eight proces(sors in Kodiak-.handled halibut with a
wholesale value of $6.1 million.

A total of 27 processors handled king crab during the 1980-81
fishing season in the Westward Region.,Ten of these were catcher/proces-'
sors, and king crab was the only product they handled. Fifteen processors
in the Borough handled Tanner crab during the 1980-81 season. Six proces-
sors in the Borough handled shrimp during the 1980-81 season, down from
the nine processors active during the 1977-78 season. Four processors
handled Dungeness crab during the 1980-81 season. Only one processor
handled scallops, clams, and other miscellaneous species during the 1980-

81 season.

There is also a plant in Kodiak that processes crab shells and
fish wastes into fish meal and other products. It is the largest one

of its kind in the Pacific.Northwest.

Constraints on the fish processing industry include the availa-
bility of low-cost energy, waste disposalsites, and adequate supplies of
water. In order to utilize their facilities more ful.1y,.processors would
prefer to freeze the seafood after primary processing during the busiest,
time of the year. Later, the frozen product would receive secondary pro-
cessing and be shipped out at a much lower cost. Energy costs for freez-
ing and,frozen storage are high in@the Borough. If the Terror Lake hydro-
electric project is built, electricity prices would no longer be tied
to the rapidly escalating cost of diesel fuel.

There is also a shortage of available land with good marine access
for warehouse space to store frozen products.

Fishing

Kodiak's present and future economic growth and prosperity is
vitally dependent on.the fishing industry. Currently, harvesting efforts

3-197

are directed at king, Tanner, and Dungeness crab; several species of
shrimp; and five species of salmon. Lesser amounts of other species are
also harvested. Growth is expected in both the traditional fisheries
and from the recent expansion into bottom fisheries.

The Westward Region (Region IV) of the Commercial Fisheries Divi-
sion of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game encompasses an area of
525,000 square miles. The Kodiak management units vary slightly for
different species.

Kodiak is the home port of the largest commercial fishing fleet
in Alaska, approximately 400 vessels, and. is the second largest port in
the United States in value of fish landed. In 1980 a total of 1575 fish-
ing vessels made calls at the Port of Kodiak., The weight of all species
landed in Kodiak in 1979 (including landings of catches from other areas)
was 147.8 million pounds with an ex-vessel value to fishermen of $67.9
million (ADF&G 1979).

Shellfish

King, Tanner, and Dungeness crab, as well as many species of
shrimp, are the principal commercial shellfish species landed. Additional
small harvests of octopus, scallops, and razor clams are landed.
Collectively, Kodiak Island Shellfish Management District production
totaled 68.9 million pounds of shellfish in 198;0, for a total estimated
value to fishermen $41.4 million.

Kodiak Island king crab fishing began in the late 1940s. Table
3.28 presents the historic data on the king crab fishery. Since 1960,
the fishery has expanded rapidly, growing to a historic high harvest
of approximately 94.4 million pounds during the 1965-66 fishing season.
Continued increases in vessels, effort, and gear efficiency, coupled with
declines in stock abundance during the late 1960s.and early 1970s, result-
ed in.lowered harvests, with a low commercial catch of 10.9 million
pounds in the 1971-1972 fishing season. More recently, successive years
of good recruitment produced catches of approximately 24 million pounds

3-198

Table 3.28. Historic commercial king crab catch an d effort for the Kodiak
registration area (K), 1960-61 through 1980-81 fishing
seasons.

Fishing I Number of 4 Commercial Catch
Year Vessels Number of Pounds Average Price Per Pound

1960-61 143 21,064,871 .085
1961-62 148 28,962,900 .095
1962-63 195 37,626,703 ..10
1963-64 181 37.,716,223 .10
1964-65 189 41,596,518 .10
1965-66 2 175 94,431,026
1966-67 213 73,817,779 .11
1967-68 227 43,448,492 .26
1968-69 3 178 .18,211,485 .26
1969-70 136 12,200,571 .28
1970-71 100 11,719,970 .3o
1971-72 89 10,884,152 .39
1972-73 88 15,479,916 .55
1973-74 129 14,397,287 .45
1974-75 158 23,582,720 .45
1975-76 169 24,061,651 .66
1976-77' 195 17,966,846 1.37
1977-71 179 13,503,666 1.34
1978-79 194 12,021,850 1.60
1979-80 247 14,608,900 .95
1980-81 164 20,448,654 1.05

Total 587,752,180

Average 167 27,988,199

I Fishing year defined as May 1 - April 30.
2 July I - August 30 season established.
3 August 15 - January 15 est ablished.
4 Number of vessels shown are those actually registered through 1969-70
season. Number of vessels fishing and average number of vessels is
shown from 1970-71 season.

Source: ADF&G 1981.

3-199

in the 1974-75 and 1975-76 seasons. Lowered stock abundance during the
period 1976-78 caused a reduction in the seasonal harvest. However,
an increase in recruitment observed recently has reversed this downward
trend, resulting in an upswing in the commercial harvest during the

1979-80 and 1980-81 seasons. The 1980-81 harvest amounted to 20.4 million

pounds taken by 164 vessels. This is a 40 percent increase over the
1979-80 catch and a 70 percent increase over the 1978-79 catch. The
1980-81 catch had a value of $20.8 million.

The Tanner crab fishery hasbeen in existence since 1967. The
historic data are presented in Table 3.29. As king crab abundance declin-
ed in the early 1970s, markets opened up for Tanner crab, prices in-
creased, and more vessels Participated in the fishery. By 1972-73, Tanner
crab was established as the dominant winter and spring shellfishery. The
1979-80 fishery resulted in a harvest of 18.6 million pounds by 211
vessels. This catch had a value of $10.3 million. Information available
from studies indicates a declining trend in the harvestable abundance of
legal crab.

The Dungeness crab fishery began in the Kodiak area in 1962. The
historic data are presented in Table 3.30. As a result of favorable
.market conditions and unexploited stocks, commercial harvests increased,
peaking in 1968 with a harvest of 6.8 million pounds. During the early
1970s the fishery declined due to biological and environmental factors
accompanied by adverse marketing conditions. In recent years, weak mar-
kets and other, more lucrative fisheries have kept Dungeness produc-
tion at a low level. The 1980 harvest of 2.0 million pounds had a value
to fishermen of $905,000 from 21 vessels.

The Kodiak shrimp fishery began in 1958. The historic data are
presented in Table 3.31. The shrimp grounds were steadily developed, peak-
ing in 1971 with a harvest of 82 million pounds. In 1972, quotas limiting
the total yearly harvest were established. The historic commercial shrimp

catch for the Kodiak district showed a continued decline from 58 million

pounds in the 1974-75 fishery season to 12.8 million pounds in the 1979-

3-200

Table 3.29. Commercial catch and effort for Tanner crab, Kodiak
Management District, 1967-1980.1

-ice
NIo. of I'%,'o. of Pots Pr
Year 1,1essel s' Lndgs. lNo. Crab No. Pounds L i f t- e dAvg I.-It . CPUE Per Lb.
19057 83 110,061 .07
1908 817 2,5060,687 .10
1969 85 DO 6,827,312 72,743 43 .11
19069-7011 67 833, 3,237,224 8,416,732 78,26'6 2.6 42 .11
2 05,067 6,744,16- -7 2.5 44 11
1970-71 4 2 , 608' j 60,90
1971-72 46 505 3,878,618 9,475,902 65,907 2.4 59 .13
1972-73 105 1 466 13,6.09,668 30,699,777 183,158 2.3 67 .17
1973-74-11 123 1,741 11,857,573 29,820,899 217,523 2.5 59 .20
1974-752-1 74 471 5,459,940 13,649,969 .73,826 2.5 33 .17
1975-7611 104 1 168 10,748,958 27,336,911 199,304 2.5 6.4 .2o
1976-77.1/ 102 998 7,830,727 20,720,079 164,213 2.6 48 .33
1977-7a/ 148 1,483 12,401,243 33,281,472 251,621 2.6 49 .43
1978-791./ 218 1 225 10,702,829 29,173,307 275,455 2.7 38 .55
1979-801/ 211 11385 6,813,128 18,623,875 232,946 2.7 24 .55

TOTAL 11,728 89,255,955 227,943,636 1,858,186

AVERAGE 116 1,066 8,111,452 20,722,149 168,926 2.5 48 .27

'Data Source: Alaska Department of Fish & Game Annual Board of Fish & Game Reports
and Annual Kodiak Area Management Report.
Fishing year July 1 --;- June 30,
Legal season November 1 - June 30. Season terminated May 15 due to onset of matin.g
period.
4Legal season November 1 - April 30.
SLegal season January I - April. 30.
Legal season January I - May 15.
Legal season January 5 - May 15.

Source: ADF&G 1980.

3-201

Table 3.30. Dungeness crab commercial catch and effort by fi,shing year (unwei,ghted) for the Kodi.4k Management
District, Statistical Area (J), 1962-1980.
Average
Catch Per
Commercial Catch Landing
Number of Number of Number of Number Number of Avg.Crab Avg.Price Ex-Vessel
Year Landings Vessels Crab Pounds Pot Lifts Pounds Per Pot Per Pound Value
1962 149 1,904,567 12,782 .09 171,400
1963 354 - 2,487,512 7,0.26 .09 224,ooo
1964 395 29 4 162,182 10,537 .09 375,000
1965 351 25 3:311,571 9,434 .12 397,000
1966 144 12 1,148,600 7,976 .13 1119,000
1967 439 18 6,663,668 15,179 .13 866,000
1968 .536 43 6,829,061 12,741 .14 956,ooo
1969 455 29 5.834.628 190,967 12,823 12 16 934,ooo
1970 318 33 5,741,438 249,8oo 18,055 9 .14 8011,000
1971 173 24 515,653 1,445,864 90,913 8,358 6 .18 260,000
1972 316 34 766,960 2,659,536 140,921 6,517 6 .40 824,ooo
1973 487 42 879,484 2,000,526 251,467 4,10 3 .50 1,000,000
1974 172 23 337,839 750,057 104,062 4,361 3 .47 353,000
1975 154 15 307,272 639.813 76,411 4,154 4 .61 390,000
1976 6 4 38,072 87,110 4,4io 14,518 9 .15 13,000
1977 16 2 46,333 113,026 3,805 7,064 12 .30 34,oco
1978 173 20 618,357 1,362,306 93,633 7,875 6 .75 1,022,000
1979 237 28 595,850 1,313,650 137,951 5.543 4 .75 943,000
1980 197 21 968,829 2,011,736 107,261 10,212 9 .45 905,000

TOTAL 5,072 5,074,649 49,866,851 1,451,601

AVERAGE 267 24 507,465 ?,624,571 120,967 9,435 7

Source: ADF&G 1981.

as @wp m--w im we, am. too, so, M, M,

Table 3.31. Historic commercial shrimp catch and effort for the Kodiak
District of Westward Statistical Area (J), 1960 through
1980-1981 season.

Calendar Fishing No. No. -Commercial Harvest
Year Year Vessels Landings Pounds Price

)960 1.1 94 3,197,985 .039
1961 12 203 11,083,500 o4
1962 11 204 12,654,027 .04
1963 - - 10,118,472 r)43
1964 6 - 4,339,114 .04
1965 11 320 13,823,o6i o4
1966 17 551 24,097,141 .045
1967 23 38,267,856 ..045
1968 16 - 34,468,713 o4.
1969 26 935 41,353,461 .055
1970 18 1,024 62,181,204 o4
1971 49 1,746 -82,153,724 o4
1972 63 1,398 58,352,319 o4
1973 50 1,283 70,511,477 .055
1973-74 63 1,029 56,203,992 .08
1974-75 75 1,100 58,235,982 o8
1975-76 58 884 49,086,591 .08
1976-77 62 762 46,712,083 .10
1977-78 58 653 26,409,366 .13
1978-79 50 328 20,506,021 .165
1979-80 37 242 12,863,536 .225
1980-81 67 468 27,803,009 .290

TOTAL 764,422,634

AVERAGE'(fishing year) 59 734 34,746,483 .08

Source: ADF&G 1981.

3-203

80 season. The 1980-81 shrimp harvest increased considerably and had
a value of $8.0 million to the fishermen. The length of the fishing
season differs in various areas of the Borough, in response to stock

conditions and abundance.

The giant Pacific.octopus is quite numerous in the Kodiak dis-

trict. Most recorded catches have been incidental to other commercial

fishery actl@vities such as crabbing and bottom fishing. Table 3.32 pre-
sents the historic data, which indicate steady growth. During 1980,
the octopus fishery expanded-to nearly 19,342 pounds landed.

The scallop fishery began in the Kodiak area in 1967. The historic
data are presented in Table 3.33. Total production through 1976 resulted
in 6.5 million pounds of shucked meat. There was no fishery in 1977 and
1978, however the fishery resumed in 1979. Fishing by seven vessels
yielded 371,018 pounds at a value of $1.2 million. It is felt that lack
of large-scale fishing in recent years should have allowed a good recov-,

ery in most areas.

Historic data on the razor clam catch and value are presented

in Table 3.34.

Salmon. The 1980 Kodiak salmon harvest was the largest in the past
30 years. A total of 69.8 million pounds of salmon were caught. Of this
total, 56.9 million pounds were pink salmon - the highest pink catch ever
recorded. The 1981 pink catch is predicted to be 4.4 million fish. The

estimated values of the salmon catch to fishermen in 1978 and IQ79 are

presented in Table 3.35. The historic data are shown in Table 3.36. Since
1976 the trend for total salmon caught is upward. Recent chum and coho
catches have been very good. The sockeye runs have steadily been rebuild-
ing in terms of escapement, catches are remaining at favorable levels,
and most stocks are considered to be in good shape. It is felt that the
upward trend will continue with odd years having lower catches than even
years. Weather conditions appear to havea great.effect on th e survival

3-204

Table 3.32. Commercial catch,.effect, and value for octopus in the Kodiak
Management Area, 1977-1980.

Commercial Avg. Price Estimated Value
Number of Number of Catch Per Ex-Vessel
Year vessels Landings (pounds) Pound (dollars)

1977 5. 9 1,000 .71 1,136

1978 11 .21 3,336 .75 2,502

1979 20 43 6,978 .74 5,164

1980 27 61 19,342 .75 14,506

Source: ADF&G 1981.

3-205

Table 3.33. Historic commercial catch, effort, and value of weathervane scallops,
Kodiak Manaqment District -967-1980, excluding 1977 and-1978, when
or,
G 1R*AQ
Avg. Catch Avg. Price Estimated Value
Number of Number of Catch Per Landing Per Ex-Vessel
Year Vessels Landinqs (pounds) (pounds) Pound (dollars)

1967 2 6 7, 788L/ 1,298 .07 500

1968 8 89L/ 872,803.L/ 8,983L/ .85 618,ooo

1969 11 86 1,012,860 11,777 .85 861,ooo

1 970 7 102 1,417,612 13,.898 1.00 1,500,000

1971 5 48 841,211 17,525 1.05 883,000

1972 68 1,038,793 15,276 1-15 1,200,000

1973 4 42 935,705 22,279 1.20 1,123,000

1974 3 14 147,945 1.30 192,000

1975 3 29 294jI42@ 10,143 1.40 412,000

1976 .1 6 75,245 12,541 1.59 119,000

1979 1 4 24,826 6,2o6.5 2.78 -69,000
1980 7 33-4/ 371,0181/ 11,045-4/ 3.60 1,275,000

TOTAILI/ 511 6,86o,453

AVERAGE_6/ 46 623,678 13,558

'Unshucked scallops only.
280 landings of shucked scallops, 9 landings unshucked. Average pounds/landing
3 based on shucked weight and landings.
718,671 pounds-of shucked scallops; 154,132 pounds unshucked.
4
32 landings of shucked scallops, I landing unshucked. Average pounds/landing
S based on shucked weight.and landings.
353,443 pounds of shucked scallops; 17,575 pounds of unshucked scallops.
6 1568-80 total and average, shucked scallops only.

Sou rce: ADF&G 1981.

3-206

Table 3.34. Historic commercial razor clam catch, effort, and value for
Kodi,ak Managment Di.s.trict, 1960-1980.

Numberi/ Commercial Avg. Catch Avg. Price Estimated Value
Register-@d Number of .Catch Per Landing Per Ex-Vessel
Year Diggers Landings (pounds) (pounds) Pound (dollars)

1960 76 420,636 .105 44,ooo

1961 95 381,971 .105 4o,ooo

1962 66 297,516 .105 31,000

1963 39 323,757 .11 35,6oo

1964 2 0 -

1965 4 20,000 .25 5,000

1966 29 15,429 .38 6,000

1967 9 2,155 Ao 900

1968 19 6,384 AD 2,6oo

1969 5 6 12,029 2,005 .40 4,812

1970 6 32 132,261 4,133 .40 53,000

1971 73 82 190,394 2,322 .30 57,000

1972 95 128 152,116 1,188, .35 53,000

1973 64 14o 165,282 1,181 .40 66,ooo

1974 58 74 198,381 2,681 .50 99,000

1-975@ 18 5 6,188. 1,238 .50 3,000

1976 9 0 0 0

1977 8 1 .4oo 4oo 1.00 4oo

1978 1,352 1,352 .73 11000

2/
1979 0 0 0

2/ 8 8,oo6 1,001
.79 .6,325

Re Presents registered diggers, not actual diggers,
Data unavailable due to "statewide" issuance of interim Use Perm:its.

Source: ADF&G 1981.

3-20.7

Table 3.35. Value to fishermen of salmon catch, Kodiak area, 1978 and 1979.

1978 Price 1979 Price
Species Per Pound 1978 Value Per Pound 1979 Value
King 1.00 32,273 .88 25,320
Reds 1.00 6,431,000 1.20 4,629,206
Coho .85 370,500 .90 1,01lf785
Pinks .37 22,206fO13 .395 16,793,178
.Chums .60 .57 1,623,848
Total 32,215,586 24,083,337

Estimated average catch by gear type.

Units of Gea Average Units of Gear Average
Gear Type 1978 Earnings 1979 Earnings

Purse Seine 375 $74,700 401 $48,906

Beach Seine 31 $20,800 31 $18,838

Set Gillnet 158 $22,400 169 $23,006

Source: ADF&G 1979.

3-208

Table 3.36. Kodiak area salmon catch by species in pounds of fi.0-

YEAR' KINGS REDS COROS PIM(S CHUMS TOTAL
-1-9-66' 8,625 3,S37,218 568,680 41,946,770 5,873,298 51,934,591

1967 30,152 1,851,536 8.3,867 788,815 1,858,784 4,614,1S4

1968 29,427 4,410i279 464,3SS 29,811,615 6,078,467 40,794,146

1969 19,23-1, 3,207,865 318,731. 51,031,227 4,202,872 S8,770,906

1970 16,690 S,484,019': 528,908-- 43,834,219 6,S52,567 S6,416,403

1971 11,636 3,071,143 155,440 16,744,774 11,201,220 31,184,213

1972 15,136 1,310,843 119,827 9,075,717 9,098,580 19,620,103

19 73 10,-653 1,091,853, 24,304 2,068,089 2,709,526 5,904,425

1974 7 588 2,611,570 114,703 11,268,189 2,118,618 16,120,66a

1975 1,671 826,713 203,907 12,470,661 641,305 14,144,257

1976'' 13,700 4,OS6'F2S2 205,030 44,639,533 6,340,353 55,254,8@8-

..1977 12,343 4,240,370 242,287 25,844,663 9,774,701 40,114,364

1978 39,190 6,865,805 416,027 55,958,003 7,270,160 70,549,185

1979 28,773 3,857,672 1,124,20S 42,514,374 2,848,857 50,373,SS1

1980 9,381 3,517,831 1,059,349 56,976,037 8,247,528 69,810,126

Source: ADF&G 1979.

1
Years 1965 through 1968 taken from Catch and Production Statistical Leaflets.
1969 through 1980 thaken from statistical runs.

3-209

of fish. The 200-mile limit seems to have a slight effect, but the extent
of its effect is not yet known.

Herring. The herring roe, bait, and food fisheries as well as
other forage-fish fisheries are currently in a state of expansion and
development throughout the nearshore waters of Kodiak. Historically,
large quantities of herring were harvested, primarily for food and also
for reduction, in the Kodiak area. Substantial herring catches have been
made incidental to shrimp trawling in the fall near Kodiak. The historic
data on the herring fishery are presented in Table 3.37.

The increasing demand for herring for bait and food prompted
development of a trawl fishery in the spring of 1978. Although this
fishery developed during a time when the herring did carry roe, it was
basically a bait and food fis hery. The total value to Kodiak fishermen in
1979 was approximately $2.5 million.

The roe fishery is presently limited by a guideline harvest level
of 2400 tons. The food and bait fishery is expected to expand dramati-
cally, not only as a target spec ies, but also incidentally to development
of bottomfish fisheries. Other forage species are also expected to be
exploited along with development of the bottomfish fisheries.

Bottomfish. Bottomfish, consisting primarily of pollock, cod,
flounder, and sablefish are a developing fishery. At present, 99 percent
of the fish are taken by foreigners, and most of the fish harvested by
United States fishermen are delivered to foreign processors in a.join t
venture. In 1979, 5.5 million pounds of bottomfish were landed at Kodiak
with a value of $1 million. Of this total, one million pounds were used
as bait, while the remaining 4.5 million pounds were processed as a
seafood product. It is felt that 200 million pounds (100,000 tons.) per
year could be harvested if processing facilities and a market were avail-

able.

3-210

Tabl,e 3.37. Kodiak area herring harvest, 1952-1979.

TCNS NUIBER M"ER
YEAR HARVEST CODTANIES VESSEIS

1952 1,389.0 1 4
1953 725.0 1 1
1954 No Harvest - -
1.955 No Harvest - -
1956 13,524.0 1 4
1957 21,818.5 2 8
1958 1, 7U. 0 2 4
1959 3,831.0 2 6
1960 No Harvest -
1961 No Harvest

1962 No Harvest
1963 No Harvest -
1964 567.8 2
1965 657.2 2
1966 2,769.3 5

1967 1,662.4 3 5
1968. 2,000.6 4 10
1969 1,130.0 9 21
1970 341.6
1971 284.3

.1972 215.0 1 4
1973 831 * 0 4 11
1974 868.0 4 26
1975 8.0 3 2
1976 4.6 1 1

1977 338.44
1978 903.6 7 42
1979 1,735.7 8 173 -3/

source: ADF&G 1979.

Only 621tons were sold as roe herring. The remaining 282 tons were sold
for bait.

2
For the first time trawls, drift gillnets and set gillnets were used in the
fishery. 29 seiners, 2 trawlers, and 11 gillnetters participated-in the
1978 fishery.
358 purse seiners, 43 drift gillnetters, 71 set gillnetters, and 1 beach seiner
(no trawlers).

3-211

Bottomfish require more delicate handling than other fish; on
board bleeding, heading, and gutting are required if the fish are not
delivered to a processor very soon after they are caught. Many boats now
under construction are designed for participation in this fishery.

Halibut. In 1977 Kodiak landed 2.7 million pounds of halibut with
an ex-vessel dollar value of $5.4 million.

Employment Statistics. Employment statistics for the fishing
industry are not directly available. A large proportion of fishermen are
self-employed and therefore not included in the Alaska Department of
Labor employment statistics. Using gear restriction data, multiplying the
various types of vessels by normal crew sizes, and then converting employ-
ment to an annual average year-round basis, an estimated 850 people in
the Kodiak area were engaged in fishing in 1977 (Alaska Consultants
1979). Fishermen probably account for 15 to 20 percent of the labor
force. Estimates of the incomes earned by fishermen are also difficult to

determine.

Forest Products

The forest products industry is a minor but significant segment
of the Kodiak economy. Table 3.38 presents data on the predominantly
Sitka spruce forest resources in the Borough. Almost all of the timber in
the Borough is on the northern islands and on the north end of Kodiak

Island.

Sawtimber quality over the Kodiak Archipelago is not especially
good. The trees are comparatively short, approximately 90 feet (27
mete rs) in height at maturity as compared with 200 feet (60 meters) in
portions of Southeast Alaska. High-grade sawlogs are rather rare, and
since few mature forest stands have formed, the trees are bushy, with
many limbs, and produce knotty lumber.

3-212

Table 3.38. Forested and nonforested land area. I

AFOGNAK KODIAK SHUYAK OTHER TOTAL

FOREST LAND

Commercial 230,000 2,800 22,600 14,400 269,800

Noncommercial 48,500 42,900 24,200 24,400 140,000

Total 278,500 45,700 46,800 38,800 409,80.0

NONFORES T 180,300 no data no data no data 180,300
includes plus
water

Source: AEIDC 1975 Regional Profiles Southcentral.

Includes Raspberry, Little Raspberry, Spruce, Dry Spruce, Marmot, Bare
and Whale Islands.

3-213

During World War II the U.S. Army had a logging and milling opera-
tion on Afognak Island, which logged 440 acres in the vicinity of Danger
and Afognak bays. The timber was sawn into construction lumber at a mill
located at Kazakof Bay for use at military installations in the Aleutian
chain. The project was abandoned in 1945. The first commercial sale in
the Borough was-the "Valley" sale in.1955 but prior to 1972 (when cutting
of the Afognak Straits No. 3 sale began) only local use was made of the
Borough's timber.

The first large timber sale in the Borough.was the 1968 Perenosa
sale on 120,000 acres of Chugach National Forest land on Afognak. Harvest-
ing and export did not begin until 1975.,Twelve million board feet (MMBF)
of logs were barged to Seldovia and Seward for primary processing, as
required for timber harvested from federal or state lands. The cants
and chips were then exported, primarily to Japan.

Around 1977 Koniag, Inc. and Afognak Village Corporation gained
title to much of Afognak. Round logs then became the main export product
since primary processing is not required for privately owned timber.
Some of the lower quality timber is still being processed into chips

at Seward and Sitka.

Logging of Afognak Village Corporation timber lasted one and
a half years and was completed in 1980. A total of 29.5 MMBF were harves-
ted; of this, 25.0 MMBF were exported.

The timber on Koniag, Inc. lands is being managed by KONCORj
a corporation established to assist the Kodiak Natives in managing their
timber. As of March 31, 1981, a total of 65.4 MMBF had been harvested. A

reforestation program has been initiated on the island.

Almost all of the timber sold on Afognak by both the Forest Ser-
vice and the Native groups has been purchased by Kodiak Lumber Mills,
Inc., a Japanese firm. John Daly, of the Anchorage office of Kodiak
Lumber Mills, estimates another 7 to 10 years of operations left on,
Afognak.

3-2.14.

At present, both the timber and chip markets are down. In 1980,
an average of two freighters per month, each loaded with 2 MMBF of tim-
ber, left for Japan. Currently only one ship per month is being loaded.

The timber on Afognak Island is being cut by Afognak Logging,
Inc. The company maintains an office in the City of Kodiak and a modern
.$1.5 million, 130-mancamp on Afognak Island at Danger Bay, which in-
cludes 20 mobile homes for families, 7 bunkhouses, a mess hall, a shop,
and a school. Afognak Logging presently employs more than 100 people,
including local Natives, and spends approximately $6 million annually on
payroll and local purchases.

Afognak Logging has built approximately 3b miles of main logging
road plus additional spur roads. Logs are loaded onto barges from the
beach. The easier method of loading the logs from the water is not used,
in order to protect water quality, The timber in the barges is then
loaded onto freighters in deeper waters.

In 1971 the smaller Afognak Straits No. 3 sale on Afognak Island
was held. The successful bidder was Dalmond Valley, which subsequently
third-partied it to Southcentral Timber Development Corporation, a
Japanese-controlled firm. A total of 8.1 MMBF of timber were harvested
from 1972 to 1976, barged to Southcentral's mill at.Jackolof Bay near
.@Seldovia, and then exported..

There are two small mills on Kodiak Island that produce lumber
for local use. The Timberline mill, with a 10 MMBF capacity, employs
five men and produces in excess of 2 MMBF annually. The Island Lake
Sawmill employs two men, has a capacity of I MMBF, and in recent year has
produced 0.5 MMBF annually.

The latest data indicate an average of 306 people employed by
the lumber and wood products industry in the Borough (not including
self-employed). The average monthly wage is $2378 and the total payroll
is $2.2 million (DOL 1980).

3-215

Shuyak Island has the best potential for future timber operations.

Agriculture

Cattle ranching has existed on a small scale from the time the
Russian traders first brought cattle to the island. Production has grown
slowly in recent years, but growth prospects for the future are good.
There are approximately 500,000 acres of grazing land on Kodiak and
adjacent islands. These lands are owned by the federal government, the
state, and the Native corporations. Currently around 120,000 acres are
being leased to the six ranching operations in the Borough. While some
of the grazing lands have been selected by the Natives, the existing
long-term leases are expected to be honored. the grazing season is 10 to
12 months long, so winter feed requ irements are much smaller than in

other areas of the state.

The total number of cattle in the Borough is approximately 2000,
mostly in the northeastern area of Kodiak Island. Ranchers graze 300 to
400 head on their leases, which average 20,000 acres in size. The grazing
areas on Kodiak and adjacent islands could support 10,000 animals, Or'
five times the current number. Underutilization of the range resources is
due to the undeveloped meat industry of the state. The market for domes-
tically produced meat is of a size that requires an integrated industry
in the southcentral andinterior regions of the state.

During October and November, 30 to 300 head per year are butchered
in the cooperatively-owned slaughterhouse loca ted in the Belle Flats
area, 9 miles out of Kodiak. The slaughterhouse is approved and has an
inspector on site, which allows sales to the public, but the meat is not
USDA graded. Most of the beef is used locally, with occasional ship-
ment to Anchorage. The ranchers do most of the processing work themselves
but sometimes.hire extra help. This facility could handle 2000 animals

per year.

Several livestock developments currently in the works could very
well expand the red meat industry in the state. A good supply of feed

3-216

grains is being developed in the Delta region, and feedlots and a
slaughterhouse are being planned for Interior and/or Southcentral Alaska.
These developments will dramatically increase the demand for feeder
cattle.. Kodiak',s mild weather and extensive grazing lands make it one of
the better areas in the state for this purpose.

Metallic Minerals

-Kodiak Island Borough contains two regional metal provinces
areas characterized by a distinct association or anomalous concentrations
@'of metals. These provinces are also characterized by the potential for
mineral development and concentrations of mining claim activity.

The two metal provinces occupy the northwest half-of the Borough.
The province that extends along the northwest coast of the Borough is
rated high for the occurrence of chromium and copper. The second prov-

ince, which extends from near the northwest coast to the middle of the
Borough is not rated as high. The major commodities are gold and copper;
the minor commodities are lead, zinc,,silver, and tungsten.

Exploration for minerals.in the Borough has been sporadic and
limited to areas of easy access. Nearly all the mineral claims and areas
of related activity are located near water passages. The interior por-
tions of the islands are relatively unexplored. It has been estimated
that less than 20 percent of the Borough has been adequately prospected.
Although no commercial metallic deposits have been discovered in the
Archipelago, the potential is present in the form of adequate intrusive
units and widespread host rocks. Historically, gold has been the major
commodity found in the Borough, in'both placer and lode deposits.

Metallic mineral resource. development has occurred in the past
on a small scale,but at present there are no commercial-scale mining

activities.

Placer Deposits. Placer deposits occur along beaches and are
believed to be the result of wave and current action on the tills and

3-217

gravels that form the sea cliffs along portions of the northern and
western coasts. A direct genetic relationship between the placer gold and
the gravels and tills has not be established since gold has not been
found in these sediments. The ultimate source of the placer gold is
probably quartz veins in the slates and graywackes of the interior part
of the island. The probability of offshore placer gold deposits is consid-

ered low.

Gold placer deposits occur along the beaches on the northern
side of the Borough from Miners Point to Broken Point; along the southern
beaches of Raspberry Islands; from Rocky Point to Bear Point; and along
Bumble Bay (Red River) on the west side of Kodiak Island.

Placer operations have generally been small-scale and worked
from time to time. It has been estimated that $150,000 worth of gold
was recovered from the beach sands in the early twentieth century. Very
minor.quantities of platinum and chromite were recovered with the placer
gold. Magnetite and pyrite have also been recovered from placer deposits.

Renewed interest has been shown in the Borough's placer deposits

in recent years.

Lode Deposits. Lode gold prospects, mainly in quartz veins, occur
throughout the Borough. The gold lode deposits are associated with the
quartz intrusives and with dikes and sills that are probably related at
depth to the intrusives. The host rocks are generally slates and gray-

wackes.

The lode deposits were discovered in the late 1800s, and have
.been sporadically explored and worked since. Lode mining took place
mostly before World War I, and to a lesser extent until about 1935, after
the price of gold was raised. None of the attempts to mine lodes has
been commercially successful - with the possible exception of the Amok
Claim at Uyak Bay, which produced at least an estimated $8000 of gold.
Several other gold lodes were prospected in the Uyak Bay area around

3-218

the turn of the century. Some gold was probably taken out of these lodes
by their discoverers, but there is no recorded production, and after
minor development, they were abandoned. Assays on lode of the east shore
of Uganik Passage showed high gold tenor, and a small mill was installed
on the property in 1935. There is no recorded production.

Scheelite (tungsten ore) was found disseminated as fine grains
and veinlets in quartzitic zones in graywacke on Chalet Mountain near
the head of Anton Larsen Bay. Investigations on this ore in the late
1950s concluded that these deposits are not commercial. A copper pros-
pect located on the northwestern side of Sitkalidak Island was examined
in the late 1930s and early 1940s. At the time, the deposit was not
considered commercial. Lode occurrences of other commodities, such as
silver, lead, and zinc, have been reported.,The occurrence of placer
deposits of chromite and platinum suggests the presence of lode deposits
along the northwest coast.

Nonmetallic Minerals

Thin beds of coal have been reported in Tertiary sediments in
the eastern part of Kodiak and on,Sitkinak Island. None of the coal
exposed in surface outcrops has sufficient reserves to be considered.
commercial. A large sand and gravel deposit is located on one of the
Trinity Islands.

3.4.11 EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME

Table 3.39 presents the average number of employees in each indus-
try for the Kodiak Island Borough for 1979. These statistics do not
include self-employed persons, such as fishermen.

Table 3.39 also presents a seasonality index for each industry
in 1979. The index is calculated by dividing third-quarter employment
by first-quarter employment for each -industry. The closer the ratio
is to 1.0, the less seasonal the industry. The most-seasonal large indus-
try is manufacturing, primarily seafood processing. The construction;

37219

Table 3.39. 1979 Kodiak division employment.

1
Industry Average Number of Employees Percent

Seasonality

Mining 0 0 0

Construction 149 0.76 3.3
Manufactur ing2 1,526 0_53 34.1

Transportation, Util-ities
and Communication 317 0.72 7.1

Trade, 667 0.96 14.9

Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate 100 0.97 2.2

Services 551 0.76 12.3

Agriculture, Forestries,
and Fisheries 8 0.29 o.2

Government 1,160 0.99 26.0

Total 4,478 100.1

Source: Alaska Department of Labor, 1979.

1 Shows no self-employed persons.

2 Includes fish processing.

3-220

transportation, utilities, and communication; and service industries
also show a seasonal pattern. The trade industry has shown a larger
seasonal change in other periods (0.76 first quarter of 1980 and t hird
quarter of 1979).

The seasonal nature of the Kodiak economy is reflected in the
.variation in the size of the labor.force and employment within each
year. In 1980 the labor force varied from 4247 people in March to 6473
people in July,"an increase of 52 percent. The number of employed persons
in 1980 varied from 3845 in March to 5770 in July, an increase of 50
percent. This variation is due to a combination of transient labor and
some residents not working year-round. This is evident from the unemplo y-
ment statistics. Unemployment rates in 1980 varied from 13.3 percent in
March to 5.2 percentin August.

Employment and income data for the second quarter of 1980 are
presented in Table 3.40, which provides a more detailed breakdown of
employment within each industry. This table also presents monthly wage

in formation.

It is difficult to trace trends in employment 'by industry due
to the fact that,until 1976the employment statistics contained a "mis-
cellaneous" category. In.1976 this category included .10 percent of employ-
ed persons-This c ategory no longer exists,and it is difficult to deter-
mine how this 10 percent is presently accounted for. Statistical handling
of self-employed persons has also changed.,

The manufacturing industry accounted for 24 percent of total
employment in 1976, and 34. percent in 1979. The construction industry
(1.5 to 3.3 percent), th e trade industry (11.1 to 14.9 percent), and
the service s industry (6.1 to .12.3 percent) showed a larger percentage of.
employment in 1979. The only decline was in the government sector, which
declined by 0.9 percent (26.9 to 26.0 percent), but this does not account.
for all the gains in the other industries. These shifts are partially
accounted for by changes in the structure- of the economy, and by changes

in data collection.

3-221

Table 3.40. Kodiak Division nonagricultural employment and payroll industry
series, second quarter, 1980.
Indusrial Classification Reporting Number of Employees Avg. Mo. Total
Units 2/ APril may June Average Wage PAY-roll

KODIAK DIVISION
Total - Nonagricultural Industries 378 4,559 5,124 4,661 4,781 1,495 21,444,730
insured by State Law 360 4,227 4,787 4,319 4,444 1,461 19,492,688

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 341 3,387 3,949 3,750 3,695 1,365 15,131,606

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 Metal Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 Nonmetallic Minerals, Ex. Fuels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Construction 38 107 123 102 ill 2,457 815,971
15 General Building Contractors 11 37 31 19 29 1,656 144,144
16 Heavy Construction Contractors 4
17 Special Trade Contractors 23

Manufacturing 39 1,549 2,034 1,885 1,823 1,366 7,473,571
20 Food & Kindred Products 27 1,235 1,683 1,516 1,478 1,161 5,156,997
23 Apparel & Other Textile Products 1 *
24 Lumber & Wood Products 4 280 317 322 306 2,378 2,186:021
27 Printing & Publishing 4 23 22 22 22 1,034 69 289
34 Fabricated Metal Products 1
37 Transportation Equipment 2
Transportation - Communication & Utilities 33 403 405 401 403 1,631 1,972,768
41 Local & Interurban Passenger Transit 9 35 35 25 32 342 32,541
42 Trucking & Warehousing 7 71 78 83 77 1,962 455,225
44 Water Transportation 4
45 Transportation by Air 5 87 94 90 90 1,594 432,052
47 Transportation Services 2 *
48 Communication 4 96 95 98 96 1,298 375,172
49 Electric, Gas & Sanitary Services 2

Wholesale Trade 7
50 Wholesale Trade - Durable Goods 3
51 Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods 4

Retail Trade 69 566 563 565 565 1,231 2,086,570
52 Building Materials & Garden Supplies 7 106 101 93 100 1,622 486,809
53 General Merchandise Stores 1
54 Food Stores 6 137. 141 137 138 1,028 426 663
55 Automotive Dealers & Service Stations 7 63 59 63 62 1,655 306,324
56 Apparel & Accessory Stores 5
57 Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores 4 11 13 16 13 808 32,340
58 Eating & Drinking Places 19 132 131 134 132 999 396,756
59 Misc. Retail 20 106 109 113 109 1,285 421,514

Finance - Insurance & Real Estate 18 97 94 96 96 1,505 432,081
60 Banking 2
63 Insurance Carriers 1
64 Insurance Agents, Brokers A Service 0 0 0 0 0 6 0
65 Real Estate 10 37 36 36 36 1,901 207.218
66 Combined Real Estate. Insurance, etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 Holding & Other Investment Offices 5 is 14 16 15 1,200 54,014

Services 86 555 584 597 579 1,107 1,920,998
70 Motels & Other Lodging Places 3 32 52 61 48 1,165 168,988,
72 Personal Services 4 17 18 20 18 761 41,904
73 Business Services 11 55 53 81 63 1,093 206,615
75 Auto. Repair, Services & Garages 4 22 20 24 22 1,240 81,902
76 Misc. Repair Services 4 16 15 19 17 1,928 96,400
78 Motion Pictures 1
79 Amuse. & Recreation Service s 2
80 Health Services 10 146 151 150 149 1,298 580,499
81 Legal Services 5 6 7 6 6 943 17,922
83 Social Services 14 57 59 48 55 768 126,087
84 Museums, Galleries, Gardens 1
86 Membership Organizations 18 173 177 168 173 1,046 541,616
89 Miscellaneous Services 9 9 7 8 8 953 22,886

48 $ $
Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries
02 Agricultural Production Lives 1
07 Agricultural Services 2
08 Forestry 44 21 32 28 27 1,221 98,962
09 Fishing, Hunting & Trapping

99 Nonclassifiable Establishments 3
37 1,172 1,175 911 1,086 1,938 6,313,124
Government 10 285 289 295 290 2,129 1,850,946
Federal Government 13 207 196 208 204 2,344 1,432,291
State Government 14 680 690 408 593 1,704 3,029,887
Local Government

Source: Alaska Dept. of Labor, Statistical Quarterly, 1980.
No employment recorded during. reporting period.

3-222

Even though the construction, trade, and service sectors have
grown and account for a larger share of total employment, the economy
is still.very dependent on the fishing/fish processing industr y. Despite
the diversification of the seafood industry and the resultant longer
operating seasons, the economy is still dependent on only one industry,
which may present a problem due to cyclical variations.

Without oil development, future employment forecasts for the
Kodiak area estimate that employment will grow to 10,628 by 2000. This
is an overall increase ofabout 79 percent, or equivalent to an average
annual growth rate of about 2.7 percent.

The basic employment categories of manufacturing (largely logging
and fish processing) and agriculture, forestry, and fisheries (largely
fishing) are projected to grow by about 75 percent by the year 2000,
accounting for about 40 percent of all employment growth in the forecast,
and setting the pace for the secondary economy. Trade and services exhi-
bit the fastest growth rate, together generating about 36 percent of all
new jobs. Together, these four,economic sectors provide about three-quar-
ters of the Kodiak area's economic growth.

The remaining sectors of contract construction; transportation;
finance, insurance, and real estate; and mining comprise a minor, if
essential, share of about 10 percent of the baseline employment, and will
maintain that share through the forecast period.

Village Employment and Income

The six.villages on Kodiak. Island lack stabilized employment
opportunities. The majority of the village residents are still dependent
on salmon fishing during the summer months. In past years, fishing limita-
tions have been imposed and harvesting has been allowed only two or three,
days per week during the summerfishing season. Except for a couple of
villages, it appears that village residents will not move toward diversi-
fied fisheries (crab, shrimp, etc.) for some time due to lack of capital

3-223

to purchase larger boats. Lack of water and sew age treatment facilities

also contributes to the limited economic base.

Most of the people living in the villages in the Koniag Region are
employed in the fisheries industry - in the harvest phase as fishermen or
in the processing phase as cannery or cold storage workers. The employ-
ment is highly seasonal (Table 3.41) and competitive, due to the large
number of transients seeking seasonal work.

Akhiok. Fishing is the basis of Akhiok1s economy. There are no
commercial fishing facilities in the town; however, there is a cannery
5 miles south at Alitak owned by Pacific American. Ninety-five percent
of the community are commercial fishermen. According to the KANA 1979
Overall Economic Development Program (OEDP), the total labor force was
40 people. Eighty percent of the workforce had only summer employment,
7 percent had nine-month employment, and 12 percent were employed year-
round. Income for an average family of 4.06 members was $6,932-46; 73
percent of Akhiok families are considered at the poverty level. Employ-
ers in Akhiok include the school (2 positions), KANA (3 position s),
and occasional temporary jobs associated with construction. The Japanese
are working on the possibility of establishing an aquaculture project for
scallops. If the venture succeeds, it will add greatly to the economy as
a "cottage industry."

Karluk. Fishing is the primary source of livelihood for the resi-
dents of Karluk. The Karluk Lagoon cannot accommodate large commercial
fishing vessels, so residents fish from small power boats, and catches
are delivered to floating processors. Approximately 10 percent of the
work force elects to work on larger fishing vessels elsewhere. Kodiak
Island Seafoods, Inc. operates a major cannery at Larsen Bay, 18 air
miles east of Karluk, which provides some employment when open. The
cannery is jointly owned by The Karluk Village Corporation and the vil-
lage corporations of Larsen Bay and Old Harbor. The cannery will not be
opened for the 1981 fishing season, as it has become uneconomical to

operate.

3-224

Table 1.41. Types ol village employment.

TotalLabor Summer Year-round Nine-month

Force Employment Employment Employment

Akhiok 40 312 80% 5 12% 3 7%

Karluk 31 20 64% 5 16% 3 .19%

Larsi-en Bay 52 .100 100% 6 11.5% 6 11.5%

Old Harbor 190 loo lob% 13 7% 31 16%

Ouzi nkie, 64 551 86% 6 9% 3 5%

Port,Lions 166 52 31.3% 26 15.7% 88 53%

Source: Kodiak Island 5-Year Health Plan (1979).

@3-225

According to the KANA 1979 OEDP, the average income for a family
of 3.87 was $5,489.39. Fifty-two percent of the households in the village
were considered at the poverty level. Of a total work force of 31 per-
sons, 64 percent had only summer employment, 19 percent were employed for
a nine-month period, and 16 percent were employed year-round.

Kodiak Community College employs two adult basic education instruc-
tors; the school employs five people; KANA employs one preschool teacher,
the clinic employs three people; and the tribal council employs a clerk,

a community aide, and a heavy equipment maintenance man.

The excellent local salmon fishing attracts sport fishermen.
There is a small lodge and a store in the village.

Larsen Bay. The economy of Larsen Bay is primarily based on fish-
ing and cannery work. Almost all the males and a few females 12 years of
age and older fish for a living. A large salmon cannery operated by
Kodiak Island Seafoods, Inc. (KISI) is located in the town, and employs 5
percent of the local work force. The cannery will not be opened for the
1981 fishing season, as it has become uneconomical to operate. Some
diversification into.shrimp and crab processing has been considered,
which could extend the operating season. Floating tenders come into
the area 'to buy fish from the commercial fishermen.

According to theKANA 1979 OEDP, the average income was $7,530 for
4.46 family members. Sixty percent of the households in Larsen Bay were
considered at the poverty level. Of a total work force of 52 for that
year, 100 percent were employed all summer, but only 11.5 percent were
employed year-round or for nine months.

Job positions in Larsen Bay include four teachers, one school
aide, two health aides, one postmaster, two store clerks, and a KISI
cannery winter watchman. The Tribal Council employs one clerk and one

maintenance man. The council occasionally hires two or three workers to
maintain the airstrip, as needed. The city employs one maintenance man.

3-226

KANA employs two family activity workers and one recreation director, who
also maintains the water system. Two or three people trap land otter and
fox. There are no lodges, restaurants, or guiding services.

Old Harbor. A large majority of Old Harbor residents are commer-
cial fishermen. There are approximately 42 fishing boats in Old Harbor
year-round, and up to 100 during fishing season. Shellfish, salmon,
halibut, herring, and bottomfish are harvested. Until 1975 there was
a fish proces sing plant on the floating freezer. This plant burned in
1975, however, and the work force drawn from Old Harbor became unemploy
ed. Due to the lack of an industrial supply there has been areluctance
toirebuild the cannery.

In 1979 the average income for a family of 3.06 in Old Harbor was
.$7,242.82. According to the KANA 1979 OEDP, 42 percent of Old Harbor's
households were below the poverty level. Two stores in the town provide
one job each. The post office has one full-time and one part-time em-
ployee, and Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative (AVEC) has one em-
ployee. The garbage collector and telephone operator are funded partly by
CETA and partly by KANA.

Ouzinkie. Ouzinkie's economic base is primarily commercial fish-
ing. There is a small resident fleetof commercial fishermen; however,
there have been no fish processing facilities in the village since the
Glacier Bay cannery burned in 1976. The nearest facilities are no w in

the City of Kodiak and Port Lions.

Several villagers work in the timber industry on Afognak Island.
A family-owned and operated boat building business operates outside

of town.

Two people are employed at the Columbia Ward grocery store in
Ouzinkie. There are six public,service employees and six teachers em-
ployed by the school district. According to the KANA 1 979 OEDP, the
average income for a family of 2.13 was [email protected]. Approximately 47

3-227

percent of the households in Ouzinkie were considered at the low income
level. Of a total work force of 64 for that year, 86 percent were em-
ployed all summer, 9 percent were employed year-round, and 5 percent were
employed for a nine-month period.

Port Lions. The economy of Port Lions is based primarily upon
commercial fishing and seafood processing. A fire in 1975 des troyed
the Wakefield Fish and Shellfish processing plant, which had been the
major employer. The Port Lions Native Corporation formed a subsidiary
called Northern Light Seafood, which leased the city do ck facilities,
land in the area, and van tractors for the floating processor Smokwa.
Northern Light Seafood employs 25 people when it processes king crab
in early fall, and Tanner crab in later winter/early spring. Employment,
however, can vary depending on the tides, the qqantity of crab delivered,
and quotas set by Department of Fish and Game regulations.

There are 12 local commercial fishing boats, 38 to 52 feet in
length, in Port Lions. During the summer, a fleet of 30 to 45 boats

anchor in the harbor.

Until 1976 a small sawmill operated in Port Lions. Other commer-
cial establishments offering employment opportunities include a lodge and
restaurant (three,positions), cafe (two positions), general store and
fuel sales (five positions), Kodiak Electrical Authority (one full-time,
one part-time position), boat harbor (two local positions), and Port
Lions Oil Company (one position). The school employs thirteen people,
and Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) employs four people, the city
employs eleven people, and the health clinic employs five people.

In 1979 Port Lions had a total workforce of 166 people. In the
summer 31.3 percent of the population is employed, 53 percent are em-
ployed for 9 months, and 15.7 percent year-round.

3-228

3.4.12 SUBSISTENCE

Nearly all Kodiak Island Borough residents use the island's fish
and wildlife resources for subsistence. However, the degree of reliance
on these resources as subsistence food sources varies, and is a function
of income, food costs, traditional use, culture, and resource abundance.

The villages and rural areas of Kodiak Island have a long history
of.subsistence use of resources. Village sites were often strategically
located to take advantage of -fish and wildlife resources, which, prior
to the establishment of a fishing industry and a cash income, were the
sole source of food. Reliance on subsistence hunting and fishing also
reinforced village social relationships and strengthened the associated
traditions. As the*commercial fishing industry developed, the associated
cash income to those participating in fishing reduced the economic neces-
sity of subsistence. However, income fluctuates with the annual salmon
catch, and not all residents could participate in commercial fishing. In
addition, the isolation of remote villages means high transportation
costs to bring in food supplies. Availability of cash income also.does
not replace the social values of subsistence and dietary preferences for

local fish and wildlife.

As in other areas of Alaska, subsistence has become controversial
.as use of finite res.ources for subsistence and recreation purposes in-
creases. Historically, sport hunting and fishing have attempted to re-
flect subsistence through bag limits based on resource abundance (species
population dynamics), user demand levels, and sustainable harvest. In-
creased competition could require resource allocation among users. Subsis_
tence and reliance on subsistence aredifficult to define, which compli-
cates equal@allocation of resources.

Local subsistence hunting and fishing activities are focused
around the seven island communities. Subsistence resource harvest areas
by communi ty are sh own on Map 15.

3-229

City of Kodiak and Vicinity

The primary subsistence resources utilized in the Kodiak metropoli-
tan area are shellfish (razor and butter clams, Dungeness.and king crab),
fish (salmon, trout and char, halibut, and rockfish), waterfowl (ducks
and geese), and big game (deer). Subsistence hunting and fishing take
place along the road system (Monashka Bay, Chiniak-Sequel Point, Pasag-
shak-Narrow Cape, Saltery Cove, and Anton Larsen Bay) and at areas access-
ible by skiff and larger boats.,

More than in any other area on the island, it is difficult to
distinguish between Kodiak urban resident subsistence and recreation
hunting and fishing. Competition for resources is high, due to greater
concentrations of population and hunting and fishing by nonresidents.
Higher employment and income levels make economic reliance on subsistence
less than in most village areas.

City of Kodiak resident hunting and fishing overlaps with two vil-
lage areas: Anton Larsen-Kizhuyak bays (Port Lions) and Spruce Island-
Narrow Strait (Ouzinkie).

Akhiok

The primary subsistence resources utilized in Akhiok are shellfish
(butter clams, cockles, octopus, king crab), fish (salmon, trout and
char, halibut), bird eggs (gulls, terns), waterfowl (ducks), marine
mammals (seals), and big game (deer, reindeer). Subsistence hunting
and fishing take place over a large area around Akhiok; generally, activ-
ity takes place between Flat Island-Kaguyak to the north, Olga Bay to the
northwest, and Aiaktalik Island to the south. Subsistence areas important
to Akhiok in the immediate village vicinity are Akhiok Island, Miller
Island, Fox Island, Middle Reef, Humpy Cove, Drake Head, and Tanner Head.
Important areas farther from the village are Olga Bay (waterfowl, crab,
and deer), Red Lake uplands (reindeer, deer), Deadman-Portage bays (fish,
seal, deer). Access to subsistence hunting and fishing areas is primarily
,by boat and on foot.

3-230

Akhiok residents are heavily dependent on subsistence resources,
both economically and socially. Approximately 73 percent of Akhiok f@m-
ilies are considered to be at the poverty level (DOWL 1981). Employment,
and hence income, is limited,to some commercial fishing and seasonal
cannery employment, and transportation costs for bringing.food supplies
into the village are high. Akhiok and relocated Kaguyak -residents have
tr aditionally utilized a variety of subsistence resources.

At the present time, conflicts with recreation and other subsis-
tence resource,users are minimal. Akhiok subsistence areas overlap with
Karluk in the Red Lake-Olga Bay area to the northwest, and to,a lesser
extent with Old Harbor around Kaguyak.

Karluk

The primary subsistence resources utilized by Karluk are shellfish
(crab), fish (salmon, trout and char), bird eggs (gull), waterfowl
(ducks), marine. mammals (seals), and big game (deer, reindeer). Sub-
sistence hunting and fishing take place over a large area surrounding
Karluk; general activity takes place between Cape Ugat north of Uyak
Bay@ Uyak Bay to the east, and Bumble Bay to the south. Subsistence areas
important to Karluk in the immediate village vicinity are Karluk Lagoon
and River (salmon,ltrout, and char), Gurney Bay-Cape Uyak (crab), Stur-
geon Head (seal),.Rocky Point (seal), and Halibut Bay (waterfowl). Impor-
tant areas farther from the village are north of Red Lake (reindeer)
Middle Cape-Bumble Bay (seals), and Uyak-Spiridon-Zachar bays (duck,
seal, bird eggs deer). Access to subsistence hunting and fishing areas
is primarily by'boat.and-o .n foot.

Karluk residents are dependent on subsistence resources, both
economically and socially. Employment, and hence income, is limited
to some commercial fishing and seasonal cannery employment, and trans-
portation costs for bringing food supplies into the village are high.
Approximately 52 percent of K arluk families are considere d at the poverty
level. Karluk residents have traditionally used a variety of subsistence
resources (DOWL 1981)

3-231

At the present time, there is a potential conflict between sub-
sistence/commercial and recreation use of the Karluk Lake-River-Lagoon
system. While recreation harvests have not measurably decreased local
salmon and trout catches, there is local concern that increased recre-

ation fishing will lessen local harvests and necessitate fish allocation
between users. Karluk subsistence areas overlap with Larsen Bay in Uyak-
Spiridon-Zachar bays to the north, and with Akhiok in the Red Lake area

to the south.

Larsen Bay

The principle subsistence resources utilized by Larsen Bay resi-
dents are shellfish (crab, shrimp, clams), fish (salmon, trout, gray-
ling), waterfowl (ducks), marine mammals (seal), and big game (deer).
Subsistence hunting and fishing activities center around Uyak Bay and
surrounding uplands. Subsistence areas important to Larsen Bay are Uyak
Bay (crab, shrimp, clams, ducks, seal, and salmon), along with Zachar
and Spiridon bays. The uplands surrounding the bays are hunted for deer,
with some upland lakes fished for trout, and salmon. Access to sub-
sistence hunting and fishing areas is primarily by boat and on foot.

Larsen Bay residents are dependent on subsistence resources for
economic and social reasons. Because both commercial fishing participa-
tion and cannery employment is greater than at Akhiok or Karluk, reliance
on subsistence may not be as economically important. However, fishing
and canne ry employment depend on the success of the fishing season,
and transportation costs for bringing food into Larsen Bay are high.
Approximately 60 percent of Larsen Bay families are at the poverty level
(DOWL 1981). Larsen Bay residents have traditionally harvested a variety

of subsistence resources.

At the present time there is no conflict between subsistence,
recreation, and commercial fish and wildlife resource uses. Larsen Bay
subsistence areas overlap with Karluk resident use of Uyak, Zachar, and
Spiridon bays.

3-232

Old Harbor

The primary subsistence resources utilized by Old Harbor residents
are shellfish (crab, clams, shrimp), fish (salmon, trout), bird eggs
(gull and tern), waterfowl (ducks), marine mammals (seal), and big game
(deer). Subsistence hunting and fishing take place over a large area
around Old Harbor, from Kiliuda Bay to the north to Kaguyak Bay to the
South, including Sitkalidak Island. Subsistence areas important to Old
Harbor residents in the immediate vicinity of the village are Sitkalidak
Straight (crab, clams, bird eggs, seal), Sitkalidak Island (salmon,
trout, deer), the head of Barling Bay (du cks), and upland areas around
the village (deer). Important areas further from the village are Kiliuda
Bay (ducks, deer), Kaiugnak Bay (seal), and Kaguyak Bay-Twoheaded Island
(crabs, seal).Access to subsistence hunting and fishing areas is pri-
marily by boat and on foot.

Old Harbor residents are dependent on subsistence resources for
economic and social reasons. Commercial fishing participation by village,
residents is, relatively high but the loss of the local cannery has lim-
ited cannery employment to floa ting processors. In addition, transpor-
tation costs to bring food supplies into Old Harbor are high. Approxi-
mately 42 percent of Old Harbor families are at the poverty level (DOWL
1981). Old Harbor residents have traditionally harvested a variety of

subsistence resources.

At the present time, there is no conflict between subsistence,
recreation, and commercial fish and wildlife uses. Old Harbor subsistence
areas border the Kaguyak area, which is infrequently used by Akhiok
residents.'

Ouzinkie

The primary,subsistence resources utilized by Ouzinkie residents
are shellfish (crab, shrimp, and clams), fish (salmon, halibut), water-
fowl (duck), small game (rabbit,), and big game (deer). Subsistence hunt-

ing and fishing take place over a large area around Ouzinkie, from Kaza-
kof (Danzer) and Duck bays on Afogonak Island, south through Spruce
Island and Sharatin Bay and west to Whale Island. Subsistence areas impor-
tant to Ouzinkie residents in the immediate vicinity of the village
are Spruce Island (salmon, rabbit, deer), the east side of Ouzinkie
Narrows (deer), and Marmot Bay (crab, shrimp, halibut). Important areas
further from the village are Kazakof-Duck bays (crab, salmon, trout,
duck, deer), Anton Larsen Bay (crab, deer), Sharatin Bay (crab, salmon,
deer), and Whale Island (deer). Access to subsistence areas is primarily
.by boat and on foot.

Ouzinkie residents are dependent on subsistence resources for
economic and social reasons. Transportation costs for bringing food
supplies into Ouzinkie are high. Approximately.47 percent of the house-
holds in Ouzinkie are considered to be at the low income level (DOWL
1981). Ouzinkie residents have traditionally harvested a variety of

subsistence resources.

At the present time, there is a,potential conflict between sub-
sistence and recreation users concerning deer hunting at.the Otmeloi-
Coarse Points area if a road is extended from Monashka Bay. Ouzinkie
subsistence resource areas overlap with Port Lions along Kizhuyak Bay,
Whale Island, and Marmot Bay. They also overlap with recreational use of
Marmot Bay by Kodiak residents.

Port Lions

The primary subsistence resources utilized by Port Lions residents
are shellfish (crab, shrimp, clams), fish (salmon, trout, grayling),
waterfowl (ducks), and big game (deer). Subsistence hunting and fishing
take place over a large area surrounding Port Lions, from Raspberry
Island to the northwest, north of Afognak Bay, west to the Kupreanof
Peninsula, and south to the head of Kizhuyak Bay. Subsistence areas
important to Port Lions residents in the immediate vicinity of the vil-
lage are Kizhuyak Bay (crab, clams, shrimp, salmon, duck, and deer) and

3-234

upland areas west and north of Port Lions (trout, grayling, duck, deer).
Important areas farther from the village are Raspberry Island (salmon,
deer), Afognak Bay and uplands (crab, clams, salmon, duck, deer),
Kupreanof Peninsula (deer), and Whale Island (deer). Access is primarily
by boat, motorized vehic les west of Port Lions, and on foot.

Port Lions residents are dependent on subsistence resources for

.economic and social reasons. Transportation costs for bringing food
supplies into Port Lions are high. While Port Lions i's not a '.'traditional
village" at its present location, residents havetraditionally harvested
a variety of subsistence resources.

Recently there has been,a growing conflict over subsistence and
nonresident harvesting of deer, facilitated by ferry access from Homer,
Seward, and Kodiak-A request for reduction of the deer limit in the
immediate village vicinity from four to one is pending before the local
Fish and Game Advisory Board to make the area less attractive to nonlocal
hunters. Port Lions subsistence resource areas overlap with Ouzinkie in
eastern Kizhuyak Bay, Whale Island, and Afognak Bay.

3.4.13 EDUCATION

The following discussion of educational facilities was obtained
from the Draft EIS, Lease Sale No. 60, Lower Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait
(BLM 1981).

Borough

As a second-clas's borough, the Kodiak Island Borough is respon-
sible for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the public
school system throughout the Borough. The Borough operates a total of
13 schools: 8* village schools, 3 elem entary schools, a junior high
school, and a senior high school inthe City of Kodiak. Although the
Kodiak Aleutian High School was originally designed to be the secondary
facility for.the entire Borough, the Borough has recently begun to pro-
v1ide secondary education programs in the villages.as well.

3-235

City of Kodiak

Table 3.42 presents a summary of school facilities in the City

of Kodiak.

Elementary students in Kodiak attend one of three public schools:
East Elementary School, Peterson Elementary School, or Main Elementary
School. All Kodiak seventh and eighth graders attend Kodiak Junior High
School. Kodiak Aleutian High School serves students in grades 9 through
12. Although Kodiak's population has increased since 1970, total school
enrollment has declined. By far the largest decline has taken place
in the elementary school population. The high school decline can be
explained in part by the gradual introduction of secondary programs
in the villages, thereby reducing the number of boarding students.

According to school district personnel, Kodiak's elementary
schools are currently operating at capacity, and substantial increases
in Kodiak's population could require the construction of new elementary
facilities. The Main Elementary Junior High School complex is in marginal
condition and deteriorating rapidly. It is obvious that theh plant will
require substantial investments in the next several years to bring it
up to operating standards. Kodiak Aleutian High School is in good physi-
cal condition and is large enough, according to school district person-
nel, to accommodate double its current enrollment without excessive
crowding.

Akhiok

Akhiok School serves grades kindergarten through 12. The school
was constructed in 1968, and has an area of 4140 square feet. The four
classrooms include kindergarten, elementary and secondary rooms, and
a library. There is a playground at the school. Two teachers instruct
20 students. There are plans to build a new school in Akhiok in the

summer of 1981.

3-236

Table 3.42. Summary of school facility information, City of Kodiak.

No. of No. of
Facility Grade Classrooms Teachers Enrollment

East Elementary K-6 19

Peterson Elementary K-6 22
Main Elementary K-6 20 522 971

Kodiak Junior.High 7-8 20 18 235

Kodiak Aleutian High 9-12 20 42 502

Source: BLM 1981.

Classrooms only and does not include shops, gyms, special purpose rooms,
etc.
2 Total elementary teachers in three Kodiak schools.
3
Includes all elementary enrollment in Kodiak. Enrollment is for school
year 1,977-19.78.

3-237

Karluk

Karluk Elementary School serves grades kindergarten through 8.

There is one classroom..A teacher sometimes conducts classes in his

hou se. The school, built in 1980, is a temporary structure. Money has
already been appropriated for construction of a school at the new town-
site, and site selection is almost complete. Twenty-four students are
instructed by two full-time elementary school teachers, and one teacher
who splits his time between special education and the Title 1 funded
supplementary reading and mathematics program There is also a part-time
teacher's aide and a fulltime t,eacher's aide. The school has a playground.

Three high-school-age students are in the cottage home program
in Kodiak, and one student remains in Karluk and takes correspondence

courses.

KANA operates a preschool. One teacher instructs 9 students,
2 hours daily, Monday through Friday.

Old Harbor

Old Harborhas two schools. The'elementary school, built in 1966,
contains 4,905 square feet and serves grades kindergarten through 8.,

There are 77 students.

The Old Harbor High School, built in 1979, contains 7,621 square
feet. It serves grades 9 through 12 and has 25 pupils. The new school
contains a multipurpose room/gym that can be divided into spaces; a
vocational education room that has space for welding, and a kitchen
space, as well as one classroom. There is one administrator between
the two schools, who also spends part of his time instructing elementary
and secondary education, and ten fulltime teachers.

3-238

Ouzinkie

Ouzinkie School serves grades 1 through 10. The original struc-
ture, built in 1972, contained 4,200 square feet. In 1980, a 5,600-
square-foot addition was built. The building has five classrooms, includ-
ing.a vocational education room, a-home economics room, and a science
room. There is also a learning resource library and a media center.
In addition, there is a playground and a gymnasium. The gymnasium remains
open in the evenings and on weekends for community recreational activi-
ties. Ouzinkie's 3.7 stu'dents are instructed by four teachers.

Eleventh and twelfth grade students ar e in the cottage home pro-
gram in Kodiak. Kindergarten, for 4- and 5-year-olds, is conducted pri-
vately at the Baptist.Mission. One teacher instructs nine students from
9 AM to noon Monday through Friday. The Kodiak Area Native Association
runs. a preschool for 3-year-o Ids. it is conducted at the Mission, and one
teacher instructs four students for 2@2 hours Monday through Friday.

Port Lions

Port Lions has two schools. The elementary school, built in 19.64,
contains 4,905 square feet and serves grades kindergarten through 8.
There are three general classrooms for 34 students.

The Port Lions High School, built in 1979, contains 7,621 square
feet. It serves grades 9 through 12 and has 18 pupils. The new school
contains a multipurpose room/gym, which can be divided into spaces,
and a vocational education room that has space for welding and a kitchen
space; as well as one classroom. There is one administrator between
the two schools, who also spends part of his time instructing secondary
education, and six fulltime teachers. The gymnasium remains open in
the evening for community recreational activities.

3-239

3.4.14 HUMAN RESOURCES LITERATURE CITED

Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1979. Kodiak Management Area,
finfish annual report. Juneau, Alaska.

ADF&G. 1980. Westward region Tanner crab report to the Alaska Board
of Fisheries, December 1980. Kodiak, Alaska.

ADF&G. 1981. Westward region shellfish report to the Alaska Board of
Fisheries. Kodiak, Alaska.

Alaska Dept. of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health.
1979. Alaska Vital Statistics. Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Dept. of Labor. 1979. Statistical quarterly, first quarter, 1979.
22 p.

Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources. Unpublished Document. Alaska histori-
cal resources survey site report.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1980. DEIS: Proposed outer continental
shelf oil and gas lease sale #46, Western Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Interior.

BLM. 1980. DEIS: Proposed outer continental shelf oil and gas lease sale
No. 60, Lower Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait, Alaska. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Dept. of Interior.

BLM. 1981. FEIS: Proposed out continental shelf oil and gas lease sale
No. 60, Lower Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait, Alaska. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Dept. of Interior.

CH2M Hill. 1981. Reconnaissance study of energy alternatives, Akhiok-
King Cove-Larsen Bay-Old Harbor-Ouzinkie-Sand Point. Prepared for
Alaska Power Authority. 40 p.

DMJM Forssen. 1980. Aleutian and southwestern coastal ferry study. State
of Alaska, Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities. pp. 75-
78.

DOWL. 1981. Kodiak, Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Port Lions, Ouzinkie,
and Ofd Harbor community profiles. Prepared for the Dept. of Com-
munity and Regional Affairs.

Dept. of the Army, Alaska District Corps of Engineers. 1980. Regional
inventory and reconnaissance study for small hydro-power projects.
Ale.utian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Vol. II-
Community Hydro Reports.

Kodiak Area Native Association. 1980. KANA OEDP Report, 1979-1980. Kodiak
Island. 119 p.

3-240

Kramer, Chin, and Mayo, Inc. (KCM). 1978. Kodiak Island Borough regional
Plan and development strategy Summary Report, July 1978. 84 p.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Survey. 1975. NETDC/ISERG.
1974.

3-241

4.0 RESOURCE ANALYSIS

4.0

RESOURCE ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

To implement their Coastal Management Program, the Kodiak Island
Borough will make dec.isions on the use of coastal resources. Residents
strongly support main taining the productivity and economic growth of fish-
eries resources, improving transportation facilities and services, develop-
ing low-cost sources of energy, and guaranteeing resident use of subsis-
tence resources. Development of petroleum and timber resources, uncertain
land status, important fish and wildlife resources, high-quality recreation
resources, and potential conflicts between resource uses indicate a need
for careful management of coastal resources. By assessing the demands on
coastal resources and the capability of thoseresources to meet these de-
mands, the resource analysis, provides a reasoned approach to making re-

source use decisions.

The resource analysis has the following objectives:

o Assesses present and anticipated demands on c oastail resources;

o Evaluates resource sensitivity and capability to meet demands;

o Projects significant anticipated.changes in inventory character-
istics; and

o Classifies coastal mamagement Areas based on local needs, re-
source sensitivity, and other factors, such as public safety.

4-1

The resource analysis is structured to consider the Kodiak Island
Borough as a whole, and the seven major communities of the Borough. The
regional analysis examines known and possible changes that may affect the
natural, physical, and cultural environment of the Kodiak Island Borough,
incl'uding fisheries and subsistenceresources, geophysical hazards, land
management, and development of natural resources.

The community analysis under each section addresses specific activ-
ities and potential problems and trends, including the following param-

eters, as appropriate:

o Coastal habitits and biological resources
o Air and water quality
o Geophysical hazards
o Land ownership, use, and management

o Recreation

o Transportation
o Energy facilitie s

o Coastal access

o Housing
o Community facilities and services

o Economic characteristics

o Employment and income

o Subsistence

Areas within the Kodiak Island Borough are classified for develop-
ment, development with restrictions, and conservation. As the name sug-
gests, development areas permit development to take place according to the
zoning ordinance, building code, subdivision ordinance, and applicable
federal and state regula.tions. Development with restrictions is designated
where special biological resource, geophysical hazard, and human needs
constrain development. Areas classified as development with restrictions
may be subject to special siting, design, and construction requirements,
and will be considered by the Planning De partment on a site-by-site basis.

4-2

Conservation areas are designated where overriding biological.r.esource,
geophysical hazard, and cultural resource concerns should preclude any
development other than identified nonintensive resource use.

4.2 NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS

The economy of Kodiak Borough is primarily based on the exploita-
tion of its natural resources. Living (biological) resources are utilized
to a variable extent in each of the eight habitats designated as coastal
zone management units. Some of the resources, such as the anadromous
salmon, utilize several of these habitats at different stages of their
life history, are harvested in each habitat, and exert a major influence
on the ecology of a particular habitat in which they occur or on organ-
isms that feed on salmon. The complexity of salmon life history, and
their importance to the economy and ecology of the Borough, constitute a
difficult management problem. Management decisions that concern existing
or proposed@uses of one habitat and effects on its resources must also
consider the ramifications of an activity on resources in other habitats.

This resource analysis is presented in two parts. First, the
utilization.of biological resources is discussed without specific consid-
eration of habitat management issues (i.e., adverse environmental effects
of uses or conflicting uses). Second, uses.of biological resources are
summarized by habitat, and sources of adverse environmental effects and
conflicting uses are discussed.

4.2.1 FISHERIES RE80URCES

The fisheries resources within Kodiak Borough and from surrounding
areas of continental sh elf and slope support an exceptionally valuable
commercial fishery as well as important subsistence and sports fisheries.
The importance of commercial fishing to the Borough, State of Alaska,
and nation is underscored by the statistic that commercial landings
in 1978 were the second most valuable in the nation (SAI 1980). This
section focuses on the identification of areas that are important to

4-3

resource use; "importance" refers to source of supply, which is discussed

in this section, whereas economic considerations are discussed in Sec-
tion 3.4.10. Catch statistics are of use in describing both level of
resource abundance/availability and economic value. Consequently, some
level of repetition of information is unavoidable in this section and

that on economics.

Shellfish

Commercial harvesting of shellfish in the Kodiak area is important
not only to the Borough but to Alaska as well. One measure of the magni-
tude of this resource is that over the period from 1969 to 1977 Kodiak
produced 37 percent of the statewide harvest of shellfish. The more
important species that are the object of commercial fisheries include
Dungeness crab, Tanner crab, king crab, shrimp, and scallops. In addition
to some of the aforementioned species, razor clams support subsistence

and bait fisheries.

Dungeness Crab. The fishery for Dungeness crab operates primarily
during summer in nearshore areas at depths of 7 to 50 meters. Between
1969 and 1975 the most productive area was south of the Trinity Islands
(BLM 1980). Other productive areas were to the east and northeast of
these islands, south of Alitak Bay, from Ayakulik to Spiridon Bay along
the west coast of Kodiak Island, Ugak Bay, and south of Sitkalidak
Strait. Recent trends in the Dungeness crab harvest aresummarized by
ADF&G management districts in Table 4.1. Considerable variation in the
harvest occurs from year-to-year and among distric ts. Such variation
reflects not only the production of the stock, but market conditions
and level of fishing effort as well. The catch from 1974 to 1977 was
exceptionally low. In subsequent years the catch has increased markedly,
to a total of about 1.6 million pounds in 1980. The 1981 harvest is
expected to duplicate that of 1980, given recruitment levels comparable
to those of the last three years (ADF&G 1981a). From 1978 to 1980 the
eastside, southeast, and westside districts have been most productive. In

4-4

Table 4.1. Dungeness crab commercial harvest (in pounds) by fishing section, Kodiak Management
Distric't (Kodiak Archipelago only), 1974-1980.

Fishing Section 1974 1975 .1976 1977 1978 1979 1980.

Northeast 30,125 892 0 0 35,281 61,573 89,126

Eastside 331,156 259,096 250 103,265 420,742 459,120 224,203

Southeast 42,741 7,540 0 0 202,593 346,067 442,254

Southwest 0 0 0 429314 71,326

Westside 200,276 208,371 66,970 6,971. 277,107 .148,630 800@826

Ln TOTAL 475,899 67,220 110,236 978,037 1,050,016 1,627,735

Source: ADF&G.1981a.

Fishing section boundary between Eastside and Southeast.sections revised beginning with 1979 season.

1980 the westside district produced substantially more Dungeness crab
than in previous years, possibly signifying a shift in resource abun-

dance.

Dungeness crab are of primary importance for subsistence to the
villages of Ouzinkie and Port Lions, and are of secondary importance
in Karluk and Larsen Bay (BLM 1981). Dungeness crab are not a target
of a subsistence fishery in Kodiak, but are used as they are incidentally
taken in the king and Tanner crab catch (Bill Donaldson, personal commun-
ication, 1981).

Tanner Crab. The fishery for Tanner crab became commercially
important in 1967, and by 1972-73 had become the primary shellfishery
in winter and spring (ADF&C 1980). The Kodiak Management District is
composed of five sections and eighteen subsections (Table 4.2). The
catch from 1972 to 1980 has varied considerably among years and areas
(Table 4.3). On the average, the northeast and southwest sections have
pro duced the highest yields in the Kodiak Archipelago (4.45 and 5.31
million pounds per year, respectively). Recently (1978-80), the highest
catches were produced by the following subsections: Inner Marmot Gully,
Chiniak Gully, Compass Rose/West Chiniak Island, and Cape Ikolik (ADF&G
1980).

Areas of fishing concentration shift seasonally (ADF&G 1978).
During winter, fishing effort is concentrated in the east and northeast,
and in Shelikof Strait. After winter storms subside, more effort is

directed to offshore areas and to the south.

There is evidence that the catch per unit effort (CPUE) has de-
clined in recent years, which may reflect a general decline in abundance
of Tanner crab stocks (ADF&G 1980). CPUE from 1972-73 to 1975-76 ranged
from 59 to 83, and has fallen progressively to 24 in 1979-80. In addi-
tion, fewer legal-size male,s have been taken in recent years. To allow
time for recovery, ADF&G has reduced the catch quotas in heavily exploi-

ted areas.

4-6

Table 4.2. ADF&G Tanner Crab Sections and Subsections Adjacent
to the Kodiak Archipelago.

SECTION/SU BSECTION

NORTHEAST
Marmott Bay
Chiniak Bay
Inner Marmot Gully
Outer Marmot Gully
Chiniak Gully
Undefined.

EASTSIDE
Ugak/Barnabas
Undefined

SOUTHEAST
South Sitkalidak Strait/Two Headed Island
South Trinity Island

SOUTHWEST
Alitak Bay
Compass Rose/W.,Chiniak Island
Cape Ikolik
Undefined

WESTSIDE
@Uyak Bay
Kupreanof Strait/Uganik Bay
West Afognak

Source: ADF&G 1980.

4-7

Table 4.3. Tanner crab catch in pounds and metric tons by fishing sections for he
Kodiak Management District, 1972-73 through 1979-80 fishing seasons.1

5 -78Y -79 1979- 0
.Sections 1972-73 1/ 1973-74 1974-752-1 197 -761/ 1976-77 1 1977 1978 8

Northeast lbs. 4,539,417 6,152,046 2,764,127 4,054,131 2,871,225 3,881,767 6,359,777 4,986,120
m.t. 2,059.07 2,790.54 1,253.79 1,838.94 1,302.37 1,760.75 2,884.77 2,262.30

Eastside lbs 5,370,516 5,619,276 2,423,228 5,032,755 3,071,856 3,910,122 3,032,083 2,119,244
m.t: 2,436.05 2,548.89 1,099.17 2,282.84 1,393.38 1,773.62 1,375.34 961.54

Southeast lbs. 1,655,000 1,883,948 623,990 5,859,831 5,908,729 5,222,577 2,529,316 974,921
m.t. 750.70 854.55 283.04 2,658.00 2,680.18 2,368.95 1,147.29 442.34

Southwest lbs. 9,243,861 7,383,704 3,938 ' 902 3,455,050 1,793,648 8,831,087 5,185,730 2,647,294
m.t. 4,192.99 3,349.23 1P786.67 1,567.20 813.59 4,005.75 '2,352.23 1,201.13

Semidi Is. lbs. - - - - - 722,600 1,292,275
m.t. - - - - - - 372.77 586.33

N. Mainland lbs. 6,876,969 7,009,117 3,536,872 4,568,804 3,433,147 6,791,254 7,111,498 4,677,742
00
m.t. 3,119.37 3,179.31 1,604.31 2,072.39 1,557.26 3,080.49 3,225.75 2,122.39

S. Mainland lbs. 120,124 50,419 191,554 23,638 20,651 59,255 277,921 500,247
m.t. 54.48 22.86 86.88 10.72 9.36 26.87 126.06 226.97

Westside lbs. 2,893,890 1,722,389 171,293 4,342,700 3,620,823 4,585,410 3,954,882 1,426,032
m.t. 1,312.66 781.27 77.69 1,969.83 1,642.39 2,079.9 1,793.92 647.02

TOTAL lbs. 30,699,777 29,820,899 13,649,966 27,336,909 20,720,079 33,281,472 29,173,807 18,623,875

m.t. 13,925.33 13,526.67 6,191.58 12,399.94 9,398.57 15,096.38 13,233.15 8,450.03

'Table re vised 1/79 to reflect creation of Semidi, Southeast, and Southwest sections from old "Southern" section and minor
modification of Eastside section description. Semidi Island section added beginning 1978-79 fishing season.
2Fishing season July 1 - June 30.
3Fishing season November I - June 30.
4Fishing season November I - April 30, shortened due to price disputes and market conditions.
$Fishing season January 1 - April 30.
6Fishing season January 5 - May 15.

aw@ 0"

The subsistence fishery for T anner crab is very limited. Karluk,
Larsen Bay, and Ouzinkie villagers consider Tanner crab a secondary food
resource, and Port Lions villagers rarely use it.

King Cr ab. The king crab fishery in the Kodiak Management Area
was initiated in the 1940's, expanded greatly during the 1960's when
a peak harvest occurred in 1965-66, and then dropped to a substantially
reduced level sustained throughout the 1970's (Table 4.4). Six stocks
have been identified as being biologically distinct, and are managed
accordingly. The distribution of these stocks is shown in Figure 4.1.
Stocks 1, 11, and III are the largest. Since the 1974-75 season, Stock
III has produced the largest c atch of king crab.

Between 1969 and 1979 the most productive king crab area was
in the Sitkalidak district (No. 20) (Figure 4.1).. Landings in 1980 sug-
gest a shift in relative stock abundance, because the Compass Rose (No.
30) and Cape Ikolik (No. 34) districts produced the highest yields (ADF&C
1981a). In 1980 the fishing season was extended to 107 days to provide
more opportunity to fill quotas. However, the extended season was not
accompanied by a commensurate increase in the total catch.

Subsistence use of king crab is extensive. It is considered a
primary subsisten ce and commercial resource for the villages of Ouzinkie

Port Lions. Ten fishermen in Port Lions and six in Ouzinkie held
commercial entry permits.for king crab in 1980 (BLM 1981). King crab
are a secondary subsistence resource for residents of Karluk and Larsen
Bay. Three fishermen in Larsen Bay held entry permits in 1980 (BLM
1981a). There is also extensive subsistence.use of king crab by Kodiak
residents,(Bill Donaldson, personal communication, 1981).

Shrimp. The commercial shrimp fishery in the Kodiak area has
a history of overfishing various stocks, with the result being frequent
shifts to raw fishing grounds to allow overfished stocks time to recover.
The commercial fishery began in 1958 and developed through the 1960s
reaching a peak harvest of 82 million pounds in 1971. In 1972 quotas

4-9

Table 4-4. Commercial red king crab harvest by biological stock (number and pounds),
1960-61 through 1980-81, Kodiak Management Area, Alaska.1

Fishinq Stock I Stock Il Stock III Other Stocks Totals
Year No. Lbs. No. Lbs. No. Lbs. No. Lbs. No. Lbs.

1,960-1961 269,429 2,499,909 658,120 7,405,755 837,216 7,M,131 351,610 3,344,076 2,116,375 21,064,871
1961-1962 498,344 4,580,779 869,707 8,735,268 1,146,059 9,358,636 665,444 6,288,217 3,181,554 28,962,900
1962-1963 1,037,540 10,257,992 1,267,138 12,136,629 1,393,632 11,010,718 447,833 4,221,364 4,146,143 37,626,703
1963-1964 1,666,875 16,479,593 1,362,566 12,295,969 712,034 5,605,489 417,513 3,335,172 4,158,988 37,716,223
1964-1965 1,374,436 13,570,650- 2,755,000 21,763,800 449,851 3,461,206 344,022 2,800,854 4,923,309 41,596,518
1965-1966 2,339,423 22,966,614 6,995,585 57,643,489 1.504,577 12,036,222 222,124 1,764,701 11,061,709 94,431,026
1966-1967 1,541,723 15,716,564 4,645,057 39,215,389 1.919,636 15,562,670 369,883 3,322,956 8,476,299 73,617,779
1967-1960 987,324 9,540,196 1,080,565 8,387,022 2,596,691 21,121,856 482,741 4,399,418 5,147,321 43,448,492
1968-1969 546,995 4,714,838 652,627 4,730,183 807,360 6,109,150 341,968 2,657,314 2,348,950 18,211,485
1�69-1970 400,245 3,246,190 430,846 3,152,575 410,620 3,157,224 364,470 2,644,582 1,606,181 12,200,571
1970-1971 374,933 3,142,881 606,948 4,216,123 284,104 .1,998,344 295,333 2,370,462 1,561,318 11,727,810
1 147 1 - 197) 2. .1-4, C398 658,749 656,082 4,579.,149 736,298 5,128,154 68,079 525,086 1,539,157 10,891,138
D
11972-1973 12H,120 1,039,847 071,238 6,600,988 906,794 6,844,092 123,518 1,005,036 2,029,670 15,469,963
1973-1974 202,178 1,648,990 1,009,625 7,896,548 543,451 4,092,729 92,425 759,020 1,847,679 14,397,287
1974-1975 567,843 4,640,274 972,086 8,069,791 1,140,450 9,084,000 168,828 1,276,307 2,849,207 23,070,372
1975-1976 2 690,044 7,747,625 631,474 5,018,948 1,230,413 9,501,631 225,478 1,793,447 2,977,409 24,061,651
1976-1977 752,044 6,i188,083 578,995 4,516,641 708,522 5,377,321 139,315 1,191,653 2,178,876 17,973,698
1977-1978 2H9, 806 3,012,932 446,728 3,501,170 787,772 6,398,641 66,1411 590,923 1,590,447 13,503,666
1978-1979 187,344 1,829,449 245,440 2,011,580 948,069 7,484,847 83,138 695,972 1,463,991 12,021,048
1979-19130 3 202,931 2,345,934 237,778 1,679,972 1,348,491 9,740,907 110,194 842,007 1,979,394 14,608,900
1960-19111 3 555,161 4,589,704 516,955 3,703,322 1,408,485 9,921,245 304,598 2,234,38 3 2,787,199 20,448,654
TOTAL 14,971,436 141,117,801 27,492,560 227,260,301 21,822,525 170,810,413 5,684,655 4a,083,030 69,971,176 587,271,555

I Fish ticket statistics.
2 In years prior to 1975-76 season the totals for "other stocks" may Inadvertently omit a catch of crab from the Kilokak Rocks and Cape Kumlik area
of tile AlaNka Peninsula.
3 Data is stjbject to minor change.
Source: ADF&G 1981a.

MW Mo. on -W AM, on, M ow. M M. M, w UM am" M M w M,

SO,

1570 1540 1530 1520 1510 150' 149' 1480

600
A'-
0 20 40 60 80 1

1 0 10 20 30 40 50.0

-n3
690
A,
Q E, . . . . . . . . . . . .

E!.

WON
E
E@

Fb
J@
580
4-

Z
E 14
J,

SCHo o tebESIGNATION
18
57'
BAYSt 5 Marmot
9 Chiniak
13 Kiliuda
17 Sitkalidak
2
21 Alitak
r
OCEAN: 6 Portlock
10 Inner Marmot Gulley
12 Outer Marmot Guile
14 Chiniak Gulley
18 Barnabas
KING CRAB 20 Sitkalidak
22 Trinity Islands
56'
Average Annual Production 1969-75 24 East Chirikof
2
24 26 West Chirikof
U100-399mt
30 Compass Rose
400-800mt 34 lkolik-Alitak
8oo Mt
00

1560 155' 154' 153' 152' 1510 150, 149') 1
Figure 4.1. King crab reproduction.areas I through VI, king crab schools most
heavily exploited by the fishery in the Kodiak management district, and areas
of high commercial catches of king crab by U.S. fishermen, 1969-75.

were established to limit annual harvests, and thereby minimize overfish-
ing of stocks (ADF&G 1981a). In the early @970s Uyak Bay was a prime
shrimping area. It was closed to shrimping in 1973 and was not reopened

until the 1980-81 season. Marmot Island and Twoheaded Island were the

prime
grounds between 1973 and 1977. Both areas were subsequently closed
in 1978 and 1979, respectively. During the 1980-81 season, Alitak Bay and
the adjacent offshore area was the primary ground (Table 4.5) (ADF&G
1981a).

The subsistence fishery for shrimp is limited. Residents of Ou-
zinkie consider shrimp a primary subsistence resource. Those in Port
Lions and Larsen Bay value shrimp as a secondary subsistence resource.

Scallops. Commercial harvest of scallops began in 1967 (Table
4-6). Catch peaked in 1970 at 1.4 million pounds. Post-1973 declines
in landings culminated in the absence of fishing effort in 1977 and
1978. The lack of fishing effort in those years has been atrributed
to static prices for scallops, lack of experienced crew, and the use

of the vessels in other, more lucrative, fisheries. Recent renewed inter-
est in the fishery reflects declines in scallop stocks in New England and
a strengthening of market conditions. Incidental catches of Tanner and
king crab remain a problem for scallop fishermen. Scallops are not used
in the villages or in Kodiak as a subsistence resource.

Razor Clams. Although razor clam beaches exist on Kodiak Island,
they are no longer commercially harvested for human consumption. Rather,
the fishery provides only bait for the Dungeness crab fishery. Economic
and natural factors prompted curtailment of commercial harvest. Economic
problems included a weak clam market and increased federal and state
regulation of clam processing. Natural problems centered on the need
for continuous monitoring of the stocks for paralytic shellfish poison-
ing, and changes in'benthic characteristics after the 1964 earthquake.

Villagers in Karluk and Larsen Bay use clams as a primary subsis-
tence resource. Those in Ouzinkie and Port Lions use clams as a secondary
resource (BLM 1981).

4-12

M owl so a*

Table 4.5. Comparison of Kodiak District trawl shrimp harvest by fishing section for.the 1973-74 through
the 1980-81 fishing seasons.

Fishing
Section 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-71 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81

Inner Marmot 3,363,507 2,84o,884 3,051,753 2.707,340 1.9 482,689 473,700 -0- -0-
Marmot Island
15,555,319 16,44o,280 15,925,966 12,197,407 34298,643 -0- -0- -0-
Chinlak Bay 1,396,297 2,894,115 760.727 1,009,352 33,811 -0- -0- -0-
Kalsin Bay - 2 - 2 1,277,202 1,506,366 1,913,233 1,163,818 925,388 135,80
Kiliuda Bay
5,934,647 8',753,689 6,608,702 6,688,416 6,059,2o4 -0- -0- -0-
Two-Headed Is. .12,737,189 12,734,937 12,812,771 11,885,465 4,038,294 1,600 -0- 2,164,645
Southern 8,991,722 4,185,268 4,248j602 4,896,996 4,416,986 3,1185,531 3,537,017 4,713,808
Olga Bay - - - - 1.794,091 2,259,906 1,164,641
Ugak Bay 21,911 63,167 _O_ -0- 19,000 -0- -533,598 i,o47,092
Uyak Bay 722,166 j29,190 478,911 2,309,710 1,003,946 -0- 426,800
Uganik Bay 1,935.597 1,600,994 842,553 908,027 1,481,186 367,838 -0- -0-
West Afognak 843,8o6 .664,154 831,461 986,024 879,082 478,327 1,275,719
Northern 1,417,357 3,090,640 1,033,971 1,065,966 46,407 1,149,071 1,430,362 2,101,66i
S. Mainland 69,483 -0- 1-21,930 214,185 274,484
Kukak Bay 2,150,814 48o,484 1,023,566 217.998 776,989 586,496 534,187 1,160,987
Portlock 303,922 3,765,204 218,195 1,949,630 -0-
Wide Bay - - - - 1,181,936 977,680
Puale Bay - 1,841,223 663,954
Non-Section -0- -0- -0- -0- -O@ 9,600,848 141,592 11,970,218

TOTAL 56,203,992 58,235,982 49,086,591 46,712,083 26,409,366 20,506,021 12,863,536 27,803,009

Source: ADF&G 1981.
I'Catchles of zero usually indicate that a section was not opened for harvest.
2 Dashes indicate that no section existed that year.

Table 4.6. Historic commercial catch of weathervane scallops, Kodiak Management
District, 1967-1980, excluding 1977 and 1978, when no effort
occurred.

Commercial Avg. Catch
Number of Number of Catch Per Landing
Year Vessels Landings (pounds) (pounds)

1967 2 6 7,788 1 1,298
1968 8 89 2 872,803 3 8,9832

1969 11 86 1,012,860 11,777

1970 7 102 1,417,612 13,898

1971 48 841,211 17,525

1972 5 68 1,038,793 15,276

1973 4 42 935,705 22,279

1974 3 14 147,945 10,568

1975 3 29 294,142 10,143

1976 1 6 75,245 12,541

1979 1 4 24,826 6,206.5
1980 7 @334 371,018 5 11,045 4

Total6 511 6,860,453

Average6 46 623,678 13,558

Source: ADF&G 1981a.

1
Unshucked scallops only.
80 landings of shucked scallops, 9 landings unshucked. Average pounds/landing
based on shucked weight and landings.
3718,671 pounds of shucked scal lops; 154,132 pounds unshucked'
432 landings of shucked scallops, 1 landing unshucked. Average pounds/landing
based on shucked weight and landings.
353,443 pounds of shucked scallops; 17,575 pounds of unshucked scallops.
61968-80 total and average, shucked scallops only.

4-14

Finf ish

Herring. Since 1964 the herring fishing in the Kodiak area has
been directed toward sac roe and provision of bait to the crab and hali-
but fisheries (ADF&G 1980). A summary of salient features of this.fishery
is given in Table 4.7. The sac roe fishery operates during spring prior
to spawning when roe is ih prime condition. The bait fishery targets
on herring when roe is not in prime condition. The fishery has grown
rapidly from 16 vessels in 1974 to III vessels in 1980, In this period
there was a shift from larger seine vessels to smaller seiners. At this
time purse seiners (89 vessels) comprise only.38 percent of the fleet,
but take about 84 percent o. f the catch; most of the Other vessels are
gill netters.

Management.of the herring roe fishery is difficult be cause of
the timing necessary to ensure that herring are taken whilethe roe
is prime prior to spawning (ADF&G 1980). Spawning is sensitive to several
environmental parameters, es pecially to temperature, and can occur at
a number of locations at any time from late April to early June (Figure
4.2). Erratic spawning patterns in the early and mid-1970s resulted
in poor timing of the fishing effort.and herring quotas were not filled.
Quotas were finally reached in 1979. Several bays were closed well before
the end of the season, including Melina, Red Fox, Terror, Inner -Uyak,
Womens, Sulua, and Moser-Olga bays. Eventually all estuaries with in the
Uyak, Uganik, and Afognak Districts were closed. Sixteen bays produced 50
to 200-,ton harvests, and 19 bays produced 1 to 49-ton harvests in 1979.
Many bays were fished,for the first time: Red Fox, Sulua, Moser-Olga,
Shearwater, Wide, Duck, and Seal bays.

Traditional herring areas are extensive on the east coast of
Afognak Island where historically only Iz-hut Bay was fished. Other areas
subject to hi storical fi.shing efforts include estuarine areas from Cape
Chiniak to Whale Pass, including outer Chiniak Bay, estuaries south
of Ugak Bay to Alitak Bay, estuaries south of Shuyak Strait to Sturge on
Head, especially Zacha.r, Spiridon, and Uyak bays, and Raspberry and
Kupreanof straits (BLM 1980, 1981; ADF&G 1980).

4-15

Table 4.7. Kodiak Area Roe Herring Harvest, 1964-1980.

Harvest Number of Number of
Year (tons) Companies Vessels

1964 567.8 2 No data
.1965 657.2 2 No data
1966 2,769.3 5 No data
1967 1,662.4 3 5
1968 2,000.6 4 10

1969 1,130.0 9 21
1970 341.6 No data No data
1971 284.3 No data No data
1972 215.0 1 4
1973 831.0 4 11

1974 868.0 4 26
1975 8.o 3 2
1976 4.6 1 1
1977 338.44 3 11
1978 903.6 1 7 422
1979 1,735.7 8 1733
1980* 2,384.3 9 2364

Source: ADF&G 1979.

1
Only 621 tons were sold as roe herring. The remaining 282 tons were sold
for bait.

For the first-time trawls, drift gillnets and set gillnets were used in
the fishery,. In 1978, 29 seiners, 2 trawlers, and 11 gillnetters parti-
cipated in the fishery. . 1
58 purse seiners, 43 drift gillnetters, 71 set gillnetters, and 1 beach
.seiner (no trawls).
489 purse seiners, 145 gillnetters, 1 trawler, and 1 beach seiner. (Includes
2 gillnetters that fished without Interim Use permits for herring roe).

*Preliminary figu res.

4-16

ALASKA
.PENINSULA

C3
@.- e'vs

ICODIAIC
ISLAND.
AV Mir

e-V�R,
Figure 4.2.

Arrow 16
77*
Star 19 d

Herring are of only secondary importance to the villages of Kar-
luk, Larsen Bay, and Port Lions as a subsistence resource. They are
rarely used in Ouzinkie (BLM 1981).

Groundfish. The groundfish fishery has been characterized by
rapid growth during the last few years, during which time the fishery
was redirected from the bait market to use for human consumption. Prior
to 1978 trawlers targeted on bottom fish to provide bait for the crab
fis heries. In 1978 processing facilities became avail able to handle
bottomfish for human consumption, and landings in Kodiak increased to
more than two million pounds, substantially more than ever before. In
1979 the groundfish catch exceeded five million pounds (Table 4.8).
Pollock comprised 60 percent of the catch, followed by cod which consti-
tuted 28 percent; no other species contr ibuted more than 2 percent of the
catch. Apparently there has been a shift in this fishery because in 1976,
91 percent of the landings were cod, 6 percent were flounder, and 2
percent were rockfish (NPFMC 1979).

The major commercial fishing areas for pollock and cod are estuar-
ies on the west coast of Kodiak Island, the east coast of Shuyak Island,
and Shelikof Strait (BLM 1981).

Halibut has tranditionally supported a commercial fishery olperated
by local residents. This long-line fishery primarily focuses on areas
near the Barren Islands, off the southwest tip of Kodiak Island, and
along the west coast of Kodiak from Uyak Bay north to Black Cape on
Afognak Island (BLM 1981).

Of the two groundfish species, halibut is most frequently used
for subsistence. Residents of Larsen Bay, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions con-

sider halibut a primary subsistence resource. Larsen Bay villages also
consider flounder and cod as primary resources, although residents of
Ouzinkie and Port Lions rate them of secondary value. Karluk residents
rely on flounder more than halibut as subsistence resources, and rarely

4-18

Table 4.8. Catch of groundfish in 1979 in.the Kodiak [.1anagement Area, by' species and month.

Unspecified Cod Flounder RDckfish Bullhead Pollock Skates Sablefish Atka Total
Mackerel

1,867 142,995 12,825 7,730 3,889 U,997 19,018 201,321
Feb 2,760 110,136 1,201 1814,929 18,712 1,512 327,681
Mar 115,598 148,868 26,586 2,789 1,307,670 9,091 9,432 1,620,029
Apr 195,990 397,737 8,427 3,500 1,366 891,309 10,923 47,429 1,556,681
May 6,601 560,465 4,409 68,879 640,354
June 8,254 8,254

July
14,186 50,018 315 295,234 78 17,500 377,331
Aug 51,375 .64,811 64 447,103 4,763 568,116

Sept 13,910
13,910

Oct 7,335 7,335
Nov 1,457 11,066 22,895 35,418
Dec 910 51114 1,820 7,094 8,545 23,483
Total 390,744 1,520,709 .62,813 6,348 10,297 3,229,002 60,346 82,154 17,500 5,379,913
% of total 7. 28 < .01 < 1 60 1 2 < i

Source: ADF&G 1979.
Note: In 1976, 113 of 124 landings in,Kodiak were for cod, 8 for other flounder, and 3 for
other rockfish (.NPFMC 1979).

consume cod (BLM 1981). Commercial fishermen most often retain Pacific

cod as an incidental subsistence catch (NPFMC 1979).

Halibut is the only groundfish heavily pursued in the recreational
fishery. Recent regulations have limited the catch and possession limit
for sport fishermen to two fish of any size caught with hookattached
to a handline, rod, or by spear. Kodiak landed 6 percent of the 1979
Alaskan sport catch, a substantial increase over the previous year (ADF&G
1980).

Salmon. Salmon are of great importance to the Borough, supporting
valuable commercial, subsistence, and recreational fisheries. Prior,
to the turn,of the century, red salmon was the primary target of the
commercial fishery; subsequently, fishing effort switched to the pink
salmon. In 1980 nearly 70 million pounds of salmon were caught, comprised
of 81 percent pinks, 12 percent chums, 5 percent reds, 2 percent cohos,
and a trace catch of kings. The composition of the 1980 catch is reason-
ably close to the average for the last 15 years. In 1968 processing of
salmon for their roe was initiated, and in 1979 more than one million

pounds of roe were processed.

Purse seiners are the primary method of harvest, having replaced
fish trapping in 1958 (ADF&G 1980). In addition to purse seining, beach
seines and gill-nets are used to catch salmon commercially. About three
quarters of the purse seine and gill-net fleets are registered to Kodiak
residents, and nearly all of the beach seiners are residents.

The commercial salmon fishery is closely regulated. To facili-
tate the management of the numerous salmon stocks, the Archipelago has
been divided into nine districts, each of which consists of subdistricts
or fishing units. Management is achieved by selectively opening and
closing fishing units to provide sufficient salmon escapement for mainte-
nance of salmon stocks in particular stream systems.

4-20

The highest catches (all species) in 1979 were from southeast
Kodiak (No. 258-00), south Kodiak (No. 257-00), and west Kodiak between
Uyak Bay and Raspberry Island (Nos. 253-00 and 254-00). Escapement
figures are not.necessarily closely related to commercial catch statis-
tics because of area closures. For example, the Karluk (No. 255-00)
and Ayakulif (No. 256-00) systems are among the most productive red
salmon areas on Kodiak Island, but because of closures the catches were
among the lowest in the Arch ipelago, in 1979.

The commercial salmon fishing season begins with red salmon that
move into theestuaries to run up natal streams from late June through
early July. Red salmon comprised 8 percent of the total salmon catch by
weight and 10 percent of the fish taken averaged over the period from
1966 to 1980 (Table 4.9, ADF&G 1980). The highest catches in 1979 were
from Uyak Bay, Spiridon Bay, Ayakulik, Alitak Bay, and the Dog Salmon-
Fraser Lake system.

Pink salmon runs occur from late July to early August and sustain
the fishery during this. period, which is the height of the season. This
species has accounted for an average of 78 percent of.the total catch by
weight and 83 percent of the number of fish. Even-year runs produced
about 4.6 million more fish per year than odd7year runs from 1966 to
1980. In 1980 the primary fishing grounds for pinks on Kodiak Island were
Viekoda Bay, Uyak Bay, Alitak Peninsula, and the east coast north to
Womens,Bay. On Afognak Island, Kazakof, Duck, and Izhut bays were prime
fishing areas in 1979.

The chum salmon run follows that of pink salmon, and has become
an increasingly important part of the Kodiak fishery in recent years.
From 1966 to 1980 chums comprised an average of 14 percent of the annual
catch by weight and 7 percent of the total number of fish. In 1979 the
highest chum,catch.was from southeast Kodiak Island in Sitka lidak Strait
south of Old Harbor and in Kiliuda Bay.

4-21

Table 4.9. Kodiak area salmon catch by species, 1948-1980.

YEAR KINGS REDS COHOS PINKS CHUMS TOTAL

1948 1,401 1,260,465 32,364 5,958,487 330,795 7,583,512
1949 851 892,336 55,737 4,927,779 699,548 6,574,25.1
1950 2,127 920,885 40,653 5,304,701 685,109 6,953,475
1951 2,204 470,172 47,724 2,005,947 422,179 2,948,ZZ?
1952 . 961 631,094 35,875 4,553,697 983,800 6,205,47.7
1953 2,927 391,855 38,889 4,947,481 490,012 5,871,16 -4
1954 906 329,370 56,426 8,325,034 1,139,763 9,851,499
1955 2,468 164,482 34,582 10,794,164 482,424 11,478,121
1956 576 306,194 54,215 3,349,203 660,326 4,370,514
1957 1,023 234,127 35,028 4,690,994 1,152,416 6,113,588
1958 1,942 288,014 20,555 4,038,938 .930,698 5,280,147
1959 1,837 330,087 14,512 1,799,675 733,784 2,879,895
1960 1,191 362,194 54,213 6,684,798 1,133,412 8,199,808
1961 864 407,979 28,579 3,926,023 518,935 4,882,380
1962 11095 784,664 53,831 14,188,745 794,717 15,823,052
1963 286 407,040 57,011 5,480,158 305,061 6,249,556
1964 1,302 477,938 35,567 11,861,785 932,219 13,299,811
1965 786 346,137 26,672 2,886,831 431,340 3,691,766
12,218,2-71
1966 593 631,650 67,681 10,755,582 762,765
1967 962 283,588 10,083 187,813 221,149 703,595
1968 1,936 760,348 56,013 8,760,533 749,854 10,328,684
1969 2,241 603,798 '35,126 12,492,576 536,808 13,670,549
1970 1,089 917,057 66,426 12,045,586 919,306 13,949,464
1971 920 478,195 22,844 4,332,994 1,541,227 6,376,180
1972 1,300 221,604 16,646 2,485,802 1,164r526 3,889,878
1973 800 167,341 3,573 511,708 317.,921 1,00.1,343
1974 542 415,236 13,329 2,646,097 247,879 3,323,073
1975 101 135,418 23,659 2,942,801 84,431 3,187,410
1976 766 641,484 23,714 11,077,992 740,495 12,484,451
1977 585 623,468 27,920 6,252,.405 1,072,313 7,976,69.1
1978 3,228 1,071,782 48,795 15,004,065. 814,345 16,942,21:5
1979 1,905 631,735 140,629 11,287,591 358,400 12,420,26D
1980 529 651,394 139,154 17,290,615 1,075,557 19,157,249
1949-19'79
ODD-YEAR 1,298 410,547. 37,535 4,801,151 585,497 6,190,573
AVERAGE

1948-1986
EVEN-YEAR 11257 627,727 47,968 8,487,098 .827,376 9,991,42*6
AVERAGE

1948-1980
AVERAGE 1,280 519,569 41,843 8,737,565 709,574 8,009,831

I/ Catches prior to 1948 were estimated from casepack production.

Source; ADF&G 1979. 4-22

Coho salmon run late in the season (mid-September) and comprise
a very small percentage of the total salmon harvest. In recen t, years the
only consistent area of production was at Karluk Lagoon.

There is no season established for king.salmon, and its catch
is totally incidentailto that of other species (ADF&G 1980)..

Red, pink, and.coho salmon are the primary species in the subsis-
tence fishery, accounting for an annual average of 93 percent of the
catch (Table 4.10). Red salmon.account for 48 percent of the catch, more
than double that for coho and pinks (22 and 23 percen t respectively).
Chum salmon account for 7 percent of the catch, and king salmon account

for a trace catch4

Red salmon.are considered a primary subsistence resource in most
areas. In 1979, a total of 10,376 fish were taken in the Borough, of
which 34 percent were harvested in-the Buskin area of Chiniak Bay. The
second largest catch (11 percent) was from Afognak Bay. Pink salmon
were also taken in good quantities in the*Buskin area, as well as near
Old Harbor, Barling Bay, and Uyak Bay. Nearly half of the coho harvest
was from the Chiniak area; other areas on Kodiak that provided good
catches were Kizhuyak Bay and the Karluk area. On Afognak Island good
subsistence yields of coho came from Afognak Bay, Litnik, Selief Bay,
and Danger Bay (ADF&G 1980).

Sportsmen concentrate their fishing efforts in Chiniak Bay. Salt-
water harvests for sportsmen totaled three-forths that of subsistence
users (Table 4.11). Species composition of the sport catch differed from
that of subsistence users. Cohoand pink.salmon were the primary tar-

gets.

The sport catch in fresh-water in 1979 more than doubled the
saltwater,harvest that year. Pink and coho salmon again dominated the

harvest.

4-23

Table 4.10. Kodiak area subsistence fishery, 19062-1979.

Permits Permits Soecies Catch
Year Issued Returned Kinqs Reds Cohos Pinks Chums Total

1962 74 13 0 0 43i 397 20 850

297 57
1963 74 15 0 6 836 195 1,904

1964 43 9 6 332 184 88 71 681

1965 67 7 2 19 318 244 12 595

1966 48 13 0 295 331 334 393 1,353

84 29 2 1,306 571 894 344 3,117
1967

1968 132 28 0 658 433 529 45 1,665

0
1969 242 30 1 481 338 620 30 1,47

1970 213 49 1 959 939 797 265 2,961

1971 267 131 5 3,442 1,720 1,276 472 6,915

1972 329 176 11 3,633 1,531 2,516 2,729 10,420

.4,453 2,289 1,393 1,166 9,308
1973 400 149 7

8
1974 367 90 1 1,909 846 1,094 128 3,97

1975 506 90 1 1,141 922 947 221 3,232

536 243 4 4,338 962 2,275 370 7,949

1977 739 451 54 8,119 2,508 2,849 317 13,847

1978 860 539 50 7,239 3,699 2,747 572 14,307

1979 1,085 697 ill 10,376 3,840 3,300 333 17,960

Source: ADF&G 1975.

4-24

Table 4.11. Kodiak Area* sport fish-.,h arvests and effort by fisheries and species, 1979.

Days DV
Fished KS SS RS PS CS LL RA SH RT AC Other

SALTWATER:

Boat 7,750 10- 1,335 63 1,345 0 0 2,887 0 0, 800 2,890
Shoreline 15,374 8@ 2,271 267 7,508 382 0 126 9 0 4,481 12,242

SALTWATER TOTAL 23,124 98 3,606 330 8,853 382 0 3,013 9 0 5,281 15,132

Percent of Total Salmon 1 27 2 67 .3

FRESHWATER:
4-
Ln Buskin River 19,336 0 2,870 424 4,036 0, 0 0 0 0 15,150 0
PasAgshak River 5,785 0 29409 236 1,173 9 0 0 0 0 982 0
Other Streams 8,017 654 2,346 1,289. 1,809 109 0 0 309 136 2,172 0
Roadside Lakes 1,258 0 136 31 0 0 109 0 0 300 173 127
Other Lakes. @1,525 0 155 126 0 0 264 0 0 536 1,663 0

FRESHWATER TOTAL 35,921 654 7,916 2,106 7,018 118 373 0 309 972 20,140 127

GRAND TOTAL 59,045 752 11,522 2,436 15,871 500 373 3,013 318 972 25,421 15,259

Percent of Total Salmon 2 37 8 51 2

Source: ADF&G 1981b.

*Kodiak Area (Area Q): All waters and drainages of the Kodiak and Afognak Island groups.

KS = King Salmon SH = Steelhead
SS = Silver Salmon (Coho) RT = Rainbow Trout
RS = Red Salmon (sockeye) DV/AC = Dolly Varden/Arctic Char
PS = Pink Salmon CS = Chum Salmon
LL = Land locked coho HA = Halibut

Sports Fisheries. Most freshwater fishing effort is directed
toward Dolly Varden (Table 4.11). This occurs primarily during the spring
in streams along the Kodiak road system. The Busk in and Pa sagshak rivers
are among the most.popular. Catches from areas not easily accessible
by road are usually incidental to salmon, rainbow trout, or steelhead
fishing (ADF&G 1978).

Steelhead fishing is a popular sport fishery, running from late
September through early November; however, catch statistics indicate
that very few steelhead are harvested. In 1979 the catch totaled 318
fish. The'Karluk River receives the greatest steelhead fishing effort
(ADF&G 1978).

Rainb ow trout, graylings, and landlocked coho are stocked regular-
ly in lakes around the City of.Kodiak. Although rainbow trout are fished
year-round, the major fishing pressure occurs during the summer months.
Native stocks are more remote and are usually taken incidental to other
activities, such as bear hunting (ADF&G 1978).

4.2.2 WATERFOWL

Waterfowl are hunted for subsistence and sport purposes. Ducks
are the primary waterfowl taken, 50 percent of which are mallards. Fewer
than 50 geese per year were taken between 1977 and 1979 for the entire
Archipelago. Approximately one-third of the sport harvest is taken in
Kalsin Bay. American River is also a popular hunting area (Timm 1980).

4.2.3 MARINE MAMMALS

Marine mammals are used for subsistence in Karluk, Larsen Bay,
and Ouzinkie. Seals are considered a primary subsistence resource in
all three villages. Sea lions are considered a primary resource only
in.Larsen Bay. They are of secondary importance in the other two villages
(BLM 1981).

4-26

4*1*4 UPLAND GAME

Ptarmigan and Rabbit. Ptarmigan and rabbit are primary subsistence
game. They are also exploited by sportsmen. No harvest figures are avail-
able, however, to indicate where and how many are taken.

Bear. Bear are a recreational game animal. Harvests are closely
regulated through two permit processes. All of Kodiak except for the
northeast section is regulated thr ough permit drawings (Tabl e 4.12).
Sixty percent or more of the permits must be issued to residents; eligi-
bility is restricted to one bear every four years. Afognak, Shuyak, and
Raspberry islands and northeast Kodiak have an open registration issued
throughout the spring and fall hunting seasons.

Average annual harvests between 1961 and 1979 equaled 133 bear
(ADF&G 1980a). The recommended.maximum annual harvest is 140, divided
among 5 harvest subunits (Table 4.13).

Allowable harvests are greatest on southwest Kodiak Island. There,
hunters tend to focus their efforts in the Karluk River area (USF&WS
1977). Afognak Island also offers prime hunting, reflecting its proximity
to*Kodiak and open registration.

Mountain Goat. Limited mountain goat harvests preclude the useful-
ness of goats for subsistence purposes. In 1980 hunting was limited
to 15 goats regulated through a permit drawing; successful applicants
are limited to alternate year drawings. Four management units each have
separate quotas (Table 4.14).

Harvests range from a low of 3 goats in 1976 to a high of 16 goats
in 1974. Average annual harvest between 1973 and 1980 equalled 11 goats.
1980 game recommendations indicate that the goat population on Crown
Mountain is thriving. As a result, the hunting ar ea may be expanded
to include the eastern slope of the mountain (ADF&G to be published).

4-27

Table 4.12. Fall 1980 drawing permits: Kodiak Brown Bear.

No. of Permits Total No. of Total No. of
to be issued Applications Fall Brown
Area (Game Management Unit 8) Res. Non-Res. Received Bear Harvested""

South & west of Kizhuyak Bay 2 1 5 0
,West of Ugak Bay 3 2 12 2
South of Ugak Bay 3 2 13 1
Kiliuda Bay 3 13 1
Sitkalidak Strait 3 2 4 1
Sitkalikdak Island

West of Kaiugnak Bay .3 .2 8 1
Aliulik Peninsula 3 2 8 2
Deadman Bay 3 2 25 2
Salmon Flats and Moser 2 1 15 2
Peninsula
South of Olga Bay 3 2 10 1
North of Olga Bay 3 2 52 1
Frazer Lake 1 68 2
Karluk Lake 3 2 96 4
East of Halibut Bay 3 2 5 1

Sturgeon River 3 .2 11 1
North Karluk River 3 2 30 0
Amook Bay, Amook Island 3 2 16 2
.South of Amook Bay 2 1 3 1
South & east of Zachar Bay 2 1 4 1

South & east of Spiridon Bay 2 1 6 1
Spiridon Lake, north of 3 2 13 1
Spiridon Bay
South & west of Uganik Bay 3 2 8 0
South & east of South Arm 2 1 3 0
Uganik Bay
Uganik Lake 3 2 6
Uganik Passage, Terror Bay 3 2 15
Kupreanof Peninsula 2 1 5 0-

TOTAL 454 30

Source: Sexton 1981.

A person could be drawn for an alternate bear hunt.
Fall Season: October 25-November 30.

4-28

Table 4.13. Distribution of brown bear harvest in Unit,8, 1979.

Recommended Maximum
Harvest Submit Number Total Number Annual Harvest

1-Afognak, Raspberry 15 20
and Shuyak Islands

2-NE Kodiak Island 18 15

3-SE Kodiak Island 25 20

4-SW Kodiak Island 52 55

5-NW Kodiak.Island 29 30

139 140

Source: Hinman 1980.

4-29

Table 4.14. Fall 1980 drawing permits for Kodiak mountain goats.

Number of Number of Goats
Area Permits Issued Applicants Harvested

Wild Creek-Center Mt. 10 23 5

Crown Mt. 5 33 1

Hidden Basin-Terror
Lake 8 33 3

West Uyak Bay 13 5. 2'
36 94 11

Source: ADF&G, to.be published.

4-30

Elk. Restricted geog raphic distribution and limited permit avail-
ability on Raspberry Island limit the usefulness of elk as a subsistence
resour ce. Most of the harvest is from northwest Afognak Island, too far
from the population centers to be hunted economically. Distribution
of the elk harvested in 1979 indicates that the Duck Mt.-Discovery T@ay

area where 12 elk were taken was best. Ten elk were taken near Tonki
Bay/Peninsula area; 9 near Izhut Bay, 4 near Waterfall Lake, and 3 near
Paramanof Bay.

Harvest-allocations were increased in 1980 in response to in-*
creases in elk population. Permit drawings were dropped for southwest
Afognak, and Raspberry Island district special draw permits were increas-
ed by 15 (Table 4.15). The 198.0 harvest was almost two-thirds greater
than that of 1979. Most of the increase came from northwest Afognak

Island. One location was unknown.

Future management of the elk stocks may b e influenced by three
factors. First, winter weather can influence the elk populations. Mild,
winters enhance the populations by expanding forage areas; harsh winters
take a toll on the population. Second, hunting pressure can change.
Currently there is an increase in hunter participation, particularly
in northwest Afognak Island. Permits issued for elk hunting in that area
nearly doubled between 1979 and 1980, and 1979 hunter participation was
the highest on record. (Some of the overall increase in permits is attri-
butable to the change in permit status in southwest Afognak Island.)
Third, timber pradtices may alter the availability of preferred habitat,
replacing areas of mature spruce-open meadow mix with first cle ar cuts,
followed by planted stands which eliminate the open meadows.

Deer. The proximity and abundance of deer make them a primary
resource for both subsistence and recreational hunting. Productive har-
@vest areas are Afognak and Shuyak Islands and northwest Kodiak Island.
Shuyak Island is particularly popular with mainland hunters.

4-31.

Table 4.15. 1979-1980 Elk harvest.

No. of Permits Applicants Hunters Harvest
1979 1980 1979 1980 1979 1980 1979 1980

Area 1
NW Afognak
Island 524 907 - 268 ? 39 70

Area 2
SW Afognak
Island 150 389 198 54 ? 14 22

Area 3
Raspberry Is. 50 65 ? 352 35 ? 15 9

724 .1361 352 375 68 101

Source: ADF&G, to be published; Hinman 1980b.

4-32

Nearly hall,those who participate in the,deer harvest are local
residents. Between 180 0 and 2000 persons participated in the 1979 de6r
harvest. Average annual harvest of deer between 1968 and 1979 was 1434.
The 1979 harvest totalled 3500, or 1400 more deer than the previous

record take in 1968.

Both the number of hunters and deer harvest s increased dramatic-

ally in 1979. In spite of increased hunting pressure, deer-population
is still increasing and currently is at the highest level since deer
were introduced in 1924. As long as harvest continues to lag behind the-
increase in,population, deer will continue to expand into new areas. Loss
of habitat through logging,.construct.ion, or natural phenomena suchas
climate or seismic hazard could have a major detrimental effect on the
expanded population.

4.2.5 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES

R.esidents of Kodiak Borough,are heavily dependent upon the.natural
resources of the area to sustain the economy, for subsistence, and for.
recreation. Present use& of these resources are extensive, .and use or
overuse of one resource or habitat may be in conflict with other resource
and habitat uses. Utilization of the majority of important resource
species is managed and regulated by the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. The goal of the management policies is to allow a maximum sustain-
able yield of each resource, which necessitates the setting of harvest
quotas to minimize overexploitation that could result in the decline or
demise of a stock, or in erratic fluctuations of stock abundance.

Given the importance of the biological resources, other uses
of the coastal zone are expected to hold some elements of conflict with
biological resource use in Kodiak Borough. In the marine environment
(tidal to offshore), the principal sources of potential conflict with
the commercial and subsistence fisheries are oil and gas activities
on the OCS, development of new port facilities, and the construction
and operation of fish processing plants. In the terrestrial and aquatic

4-33

(freshwate r) environments, potential conflicts with biological resource
use could arise from use of habitat for urban development, cattle graz-
ing, logging, and hydroelectric devel opment.

Virtually all coastal marine habitats could be adversely affected
by oil and gas exploration and development on the OCS. BLM is currently
reviewing its plans for leasing tracts on the OCS to expedite oil and
gas exploration. Thus, while the Kodiak Lease Sale has been dropped
from the current five year plan, it could be reinstated in the near
future. BLM (1981) has assessed the environmental impacts of the pre-
viously proposed Kodiak lease sale (No. 46). The fact that this sale was

not held can be taken as a measure of the level of concern for the im-

pacts that could occur in the Kodiak area attending OCS development. BLM
(1981) concluded that a large oil spill could severely affect fisheries
resources over an extensive area with the potential for long-term adve rse
impacts. Oil spills, drilling vessels and platforms, abandoned well
heads, and marine traffic could adversely affect commercial and subsis-
tence fisheries. Spilled oil, drilling fluids and solids, and produced
waters discharged into the ocean could introduce toxic substances that
might not kill significant numbers of organisms but could contaminate

the marine food web or taint the flesh of fisheries stocks. The coastal

management plan should provide for a review of all permits to drill
offshore to ensure that adequate measures will be taken to minimize

adverse effects on natural resources.

OCS development and the growing commercial groundfish fishery
could generate increased demand for new or expanded ports. Since existing
ports,are located in bays and new ports would probably also be located
in bays, potential conflicts could develop with herring, salmon, ground-
fish, and shellfish fisheries. Construction of port facilities typically
necessitates dredging and filling, which disturbs or preempts habitat;
once constructed the facilities could alter circulation patterns and
the transport of sediments. Planning for new port facilities should
provide for the location of facilities in presently disturbed areas,
rather than disrupting or destroying pristine habitat. Most bays contain*

4-34

a mix of habitats, including exposed high energy coasts near the bay
mouth, possibly rocky islands and seacliffs, and an estuarine system
with tideflats and wetlands penetrated by one or more rivers or streams.
The outer portions of bays can be offshore in character. Thus, a broad
spectrum of resources could. be affected by development of bays. The
coastal management plan should provide for review of development permits
and constructions plans to ensure that proposed facilities will not
significantly reduce. utilization of, the bay by important resource spe-
cies, and that construction impacts are mitigated to the extent possible.

Similar resource use conflicts could arise from the construction

and operation of fish processing plants, and in addition, water quality
impacts could occur from the discharge of cannery wastes and process
waters. The discharge of waste water into pristine receiving waters
could have significant adverse effects if diffuser design or circulation
in the receiving water body is inadequate to disperse and dilute the
effluent. Given the high level.of human consumption of biological re-
sources, and the importance of the nearshore marine envi r6nment to sus-
taining the resources, consideration should be given to setting even more
stringent discharge criteria than required under the Federal Water Pollu-

tion Control Act.

In general, construction of nearshore and onshore facilities
that would have significant adverse effects on water quality should
be scheduled to minimize coincident timing with salmon runs and herring
spawning. Increased turbidity and generally lowered water quality could
disrupt spawning, upstream migration, and fishing operations that target
on these species at this time (June through August). Similarly, con-
struction activities with attending high noise levels near waterfowl
nesting areas and haulout and pupping grounds for seals could disrupt
reproductive success. Scheduling of heavy construction to be out of
phase wi th nesting and pupping would minimize this source of impact.

Significant conflicts in habitat.use are unlikely to occur from
urban development or from cattle grazing. Projections of population

4-35

growth and for the cattle industry indicate very little growth over
the next several years (section 3.4.2). Very limited population growth
is expected to result even if a major oil deposit.is found on the Kodiak

OCS.

Logging of timber on Afognak Island is an activity that may be
in conflict with other uses of upland forests and may have serious ef-
fects upon local stream and lake systems. Logging is thought to reduce
elk.habitat and to contribute to increased silt loads in anadromous
fish streams. Little data are currently available to assess this situ-

ation.

If Alaska Department of Fi sh and Game setback recommendations are
followed for the twelve land classifications of the State Department of
Natural Resources, adverse effects on riverine systems and associated
biological resources should be minimized. Recommended setbacks include:

o 200 feet for public recreation lands and private recreation
lands. A minimum buffer is considered adequate to control septic
systems, pollution from fueling operations, and the need for
stream bank stabilization projects.

o 400 feet for agricultural lands, grazing lands, and timberlands.
The setback would mitigate problems derived from agricultural
runoff and the removal of stream vegetation through grazing
or timber harvesting.

o 800 feet for commercial-industrial lands, material and mineral

lands, residential lands, and reserved use lands. Problems
encountered by these developments include adding excessive
siltation, creating fish traps or blocking fish migrations,
shifting river channels, adding toxic pollutants, and disturbing
animal migrations and human recreation (ADF&G 1980b).

4-36

Some changes in the clas sification scheme have been proposed.
Among the alterations are adding greenbelts, watershed lands, and wild-
life habitat land to the most restrictive setback category. The rationale
supporting these setbacks reflects the need or desirability to provide
utmost separation of possible infringements from the more critical uses
of the riverine systems (ADF&G 1980b).

An increasing demand for inexpensive electrical power could result
in the construction of a number of small hydroelectric generation facil-
ities on rivers and streams. The Terror Lake hydroelectric project is
presently proposed to meet this demand. These projects would inundate
portions of drainages that presently support resident and anadromous
fishes and potentially important upland habitat for deer, elk, and brown
bear. The reservoir formed beh ind each dam would support fish populations
that might sustain sport and subsistence fishing, and recreational uses.
However, the loss of anadromous fish spawning areas could be significant.
Provision.of fish ladders would be of importance to provide salmon with
a means of reaching upstream (above the dam) spawning areas.

Siting of a hydroelectric project would require making judgments
on the reproductive value of.candidate streams to anadromous fishes.
Alaska Depa.rtment.of Fish and Game has,developed criteria for assigning
priorities to stream systems in southcentral Alaska. Any system support-
ing anadromous fish populations is classified a priority system. Stream
systems satisfyin
any of three additional criteria is classified as high
priority. These criteria include-.

o streams with salmon escapements greater than 1,000

o streams supporting species such as coho and chinook which gen-
erally spawn in smaller numbers; and

o streams needed to preserve suitable habitat for all life cycle
stages (ADF&G 19@0b).

4-37

Hydroelectric projects also involve penstocks, road access, and
transmission line corridors. Road access to previously inaccessable
areas may subject biological resources to increased hunting and fishing
pressure, as well as disturbance. Cons :truction of roads will contribute
to increased streambed siltation potent ially affecting spawning success.
Construc tion of transmission line corridors and penstocks would have
some of the same effects as road construction, and all three would result
in the loss of upland habitat. Coastal management policy should provide
for an in-depth assessment of conflicting uses that could result from
such projects.

4.3 WATER RESOURCES ANALYSIS

4.3.1 SURFACE-WATER RESOURCES

Generally speaking, surface-water resources in Kodiak Island
Borough are plentiful and of good quality. For example, a mean annual
precipitation of 40inches, typical of the Shelikof Strait coastline,
amounts to 700 million gallons of water per year for each square mile
on which it falls. Precipitation increases to roughly double this amount

on the Pacific Ocean side of the islands.

In spite of this, water supply is a constraint to development
within the Borough. The primary problem is water collection and storage.
Near-surface bedrock limits the existence or size of groundwater aqui-
fers; thus, much of the precipitation runs off quickly as surface runoff
or in numerous small streams that have steep gradients and small valleys.
Such small streams have poor potential for the development of storage
reservoirs with significant capacities. Storage tanks are being used
successfully in many of the communities, but they are expensive and have
a limited capacity. Commercial users, such as fish processing plants,
often require large quantities of water, increasing the demand for water
storage. Site-specific investigations would be needed to identify poten-
tial surface-water reservoirs in the vicinity of developing communities
or in new areas of development.

4-38

Development within the drainage basin of streams used as surface-
'water sources can adversely affect water quality. Communities in Kodiak
Island Borough have typically developed on or near the coast and thus
have had a low degree of impact on surface'-water quality. However, devel-
opment of the timber resource in a drainage basin often has detrimen tal
effects on the quality of the receiving waters; therefore, such develop-
ment should not occur in basins being used for water supply.

City of.Kodiak and Vicinity

The current.water supply system for the City of Kodiak is inade-
quate to supply the maximum level of demand during periods of dry
weather. This inadequacy is primarily related to inadequate storage.
Additional storage is being planned on Monashka Creek. The surface-water
resources appear to be sufficient to supply more water than is currently
being used if sufficient storage is provided. Development at Cape Chiniak
could use themater system of the former U.S. Air Force Station.- Develop-

ment should. be limited in the watersheds of those streams used as water

sources to prevent deterioration of the water quality.

Akhiok

The water supply for the village of Akhiok has sufficient.quantity
and quality to meet current domestic demands (Dworsky, personal communi-
cation 1981). Substantial growth of the community or the development of
commercial water demands would likely cause the capacity of the current
water supply to be exceeded. Other surface-water supplies could likely be
found nearby, but this has not been investigated. Water quality is not
anticipated to deteriorate as a result of further development.

Karluk

The spring-source water supply of Karluk is sufficient to meet
current domestic demands ofthe community (Dworsky, personal communi-
cation 1981).. Substantial growth of the community or the development of

4-39

commercial wat er demands would likely cause the capacity of the current
water supply to be exceeded. Other small streams in the immediate vicin-
ity would likely be able to provide sufficient supplies for most addition-
al demands. The Karluk River may also be a potential surface-water sup-
ply. Further development within the community is not anticipated to
cause deterioration in the quality of the current water supply.

Larsen Bay

Current domestic and cannery water needs are being met by Trout
Creek. It is probable that additional domestic needs could be met using
Trout Creek, but further study would be needed to verify this. Large
additional commercial needs for water would probably require investiga-
tion of other water supply sources. Other small streams in the area,
.such as the one just to the east of the village, or ground-water sources
could be investigated. Deterioration of water supply quality is not
anticipated as a result of further community development.

Old Harbor

All water use in the Old Harbor area is being supplied by surfaCe7
water sources. Additional growth of the community can likely be supported
by the current system. The same water supply may be sufficient to support
development of major commercial water users in the area, although quanti-
ficAtion of the needs and the system capacity would be required. Other
surface-water sources in the area could also be developed to meet the
needs of further commercial development. For example, two streams located
1 mile northeast and southwest of the village were found to be adequate
water supply sources for limited commercial use (Weeks 1970). Surface-
water quality is not anticipated to change as a result of further develop-

ment in old Harbor.

Ouzinkie

Spruce Creek provides an adequate source of water for domestic use
in Ouzinkie. It may also be able to support some commercial use, such as

4-40

te 6@t@`_Qrev ously used Spruce Creek for its water
the shellfish processor
supply. Substantial growth@'OC'U@e community water demand, or the develop-
ment of major commercial water user demands, may cause the supply of
Spruce Creek to be exceeded. The community desires to upgrade the old
system, which has been in operation since 1965 (Kodiak Area Native Asso-
ciation 1980). It is likely that other surface-water supplies could be
found in the general vicinity of Ouzinkie. It is unlikely that develop-
ment in the Ouzinkie area will cause deterioration of the quality of the
Spruce Creek water.

Port Lions

Current surface-water supply is ample to meet current demands.
Domestic and commercial.growth in the community can be handled by current
or additional surface-water sources. The village desires to improve the
water system, including a new dam, water storage tank, water treatment
facilities., and water extensions to new homes (Kodiak Area Native Associ-
ation 1980). Streams at the head.of Settler Cove and near the airstrip

could likely be used for water supply. Further development within the
communit y is not anticipated to cause deterioration of the quality of the

surface-water resources.

4.3.2 GROUND WATER RESOURCES

.Ground- water resources in the Kodiak Island.Borough are quite
limited in distribution, extent, and yield. Thus, current and future
water demands must largely be met by surface-water sources. However,
this should not preclude the investigation of ground-water sources to
supply new development.

Use of'ground-water sources as a water source for existing or
new developments can cause water quality degradation. The primary way
that this can occur is if wells near the coast are pumped sufficiently
to cause brackish water to flow into the aquifer.

.4-41

City of Kodiak and Vicini.Lx

Ground water is currently not being used in any significant quan-
tity in the area. Ground-water resources can likely be used to support
isolated users with low water demand. Site-specific stud'ies would be
needed to identify the potential for ground-water use to meet a certain

demand.

.,Akhiok

Current ground-water use in the Akhiok area is negligible. Further
limited development in the area may be supported by surface or ground-
water sources. Further ground-water source investigation is warranted
if future development oc curs.

Karluk

Current ground-water withdrawal in the Karluk area appears to
be negligible. Further,development in the area can likely be served
by surface-water sources, but ground-water sources may also provide
sufficient quantities for limited development. Further studies would
be required to quantify the ground-water resource potential.

Larsen Bay

Current ground-water use in the Larsen Bay area is minimal.
Ground-water supplies may be able to support limited development in the
area, but further study would be needed to quantify this potential.

Old Harbor

Very few data are available on the ground-water resources of
the Old Harbor area. Further investigation would be necessary if ground-
water sources are needed to support new development.

4-42

Ouzinkie

Very few data are available on the ground-water resources in
the Ouzinkie area. It appears that the potential for developing the
ground water is good for small-quantity users, and fair to poor for
commercial users with high water demands.

Port Lions

No data could be located on the ground-water resources of the Port
Lions area. Although there is likely a fair potential for developing a
limited ground-water supply, surface-water sources'are adequate for
anticipated development.

4.4 GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS ANALYSIS

4.4.1 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Constraints of geologic origin fall into two categories: (1)
seismic, and (2),mass wasting restrictions. The restrictions generally
fall into the categories of no development in or adjacent to the hazards
and/or using adequate design techniques to minimize adverse affects
from the hazard. Site-specific. studies are needed to adequately address
these constraints when planning future developments.

Seismic Constraints

Several major faults either border or cross the Kodiak Island,
.Borough Coastal Management District and the southcentral area of Alaska,
which is one of the most seismically active areas in the world. One
of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history struck southcentral
Alaska in March of 1964, with a magnitude of 8.4 on the Richter Scale.
While the quake was centered in the Prince William Sound area, approxi-
mately 280 miles from the City of Kodiak, resulting tsunamis caused
extensive damage to the east side of the Kodiak Archipelago. Several

4-43

active faults with youthful scarps occur along the southeastern shore
of the Archipelago. Construction within the anticipated ground rupture
zone on these or other active fault traces should consider the consequen-
ces of faulting. The width of ground rupture along a fault is a site-
specific function; ruptures could range in width from a few feet to
several hundred feet. See Figure 3.9 for the general location of reported
active faults. Liquefaction potential is high in areas with a combination
of fine-grained deposits and high water table. Specific site response
to ground shaking, however, is also dependent on a number of other fac-
tors such as duration of shaking, response spectra, earthquake magnitude
and intensity, depth of focus, and building design and construction.

The Kodiak shoreline, particularly Marmot, Chiniak, Ugak, and
Kiliuda Bays, is exposed.to tsunamis generated anywhere in the Pacific,
especially along the Aleutian seismic belt. Based on historical events,
the zone of greatest susceptibility to tsunami damage has been between
mean sea level and elevation 16 meters. Development on the southeastern
shore of the Archipelago should avoid this elevation zone or incorporate
appropriate siting and design measures. Table 3.19 shows the highest
level of tsunami run-up in each of the Borough communities resulting
from the 1964 earthquake.

Mass Wasting Constraints

Mass wasting presents a constraint on development in the Borough.
@Landslides occur in abundance along many of the steep slopes. Develop-
ment on or near the toe of landslide deposits may reactivate the slide

and should be avoided.

Site-specific examinations should be made prior to development
on or near slopes steeper than 35 degrees in the slide prone areas of
the.City of Kodiak and Old Harbor. Avalanche chutes are generally a
phenomenon of the ste ep, higher mountainous areas, but if development
progresses into these areas, careful planning and site-specific mapping

4-44

need to be done. Activities in the avalanche-prone areas should be re-
stricted, particularly during times of high avalanche risk, characteris-
tically during spring thaw.

4.4.2 OCEANIC HAZARDS

Hazards of oceanicorigin that can potentially affect the Kodiak
Island Borough coastline include seismicity, coastal erosion, and storms.

Seismic Constraints

Constraints associated with the seismic hazard include those

to minimize damage from coastal erosion and flooding. Tsunamis and
seiches can cause significant wave-induced erosion and flooding. Further
study is needed to quantify this.hazard for use in site-specific planning
on the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management District coastline.

Coastal Erosion Co nstraint Is

Coastal erosion is a reported hazard in nearly all the Borough
communities; however, site-specific data on the rate and extent of ero-
sion are lacking. Areas particularly susceptible to the erosional effects
of sea waves are a factor of area exposed to sea waves, wave energy,
and the material composition of the shoreline. Where a sedimentary shore-
line coincides with high wave energy, the potential for coastal erosion

Is high.

There is, a need for detailed study in those communities where
coastal erosion is reported to identify the'cause, rate, and extent

of erosion. The success of any remedial measures taken to arrest the
rate of erosion is dependent on acquiring.these data. With regard to
new development, consideration of the potential hazards associated with
the coastline should be included in any analysis of development potential
of the area..Site-spec ific data should be collected in any such analysis,
since the available data base is extremely limited.

4-45

Storm Constraints

As with other coastal hazards, erosion and flooding may result
from storm-driven waves. This hazard has been significant in the City

of Kodiak, Karluk, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions. Some of the solutions discus-
sed by local residents include placement of breakwaters to protect shore-
lines from storm-induced waves. Further study is required to determine
the extent of storm-induced erosion and proper remedial measures. New
development planned adjacent to the coast or offshore should consider
the impacts of this hazard.

Summary of Geophysical Hazards

The constraints to development associated with geophysical haz-
ards can be classified into two general categories: avoidance of the
hazard area, and designing to minimize damage associated with the hazard
(Table 4.16). In most cases, avoidance of the hazard is'the best ap-
proach. When the hazard is so wides.pread that it cannot be avoided,
or when the proposed development cannot be relocated, projects should
be designed to minimize the impacts of the hazard.

4.4.3 RIVERINE FLOODING

Riverine flooding in Kodiak Island Borough is generally limited
to relatively narrow zones along the streams. However, flooding in some
areas may be widespread; detailed stream floodplains should be delineated
in areas of potential development to ensure that significant development
do es not occur in the floodplains. Floodplain lands are best suited
for open-space uses.

Construction of water supply reservoirs on a stream may slightly
decrease the flood hazards associated with snowmelt or rainfall events,
but a dam break could cause substantially greater flooding downstream. An
analysis of the flood potential related to a dam break should be con-
sidered if development is to occur downstrea m.

4-46

Table 4.16. Summary of basic development constraints associated with
geophysical hazards in the Kodiak Island Borough
Coastal Management District.

Avoid Design
Hazard for
Area Hazard

.GEOLOGIC SEISMIC,
Fault traces x x
.---Liquefaction x x
Ground shaking x

GEOLOGIC - MASS WASTI NG
Landslides x x
Avalanches x x

HYDROLOGIC - FLOODING
Within flo6dway x
In floodway fringe x x

HYDROLOGIC - ICINGS
All locations x x

HYDROLOGIC - BANK EROSION
All locations x x

OCEANIC - SEISMIC
Coastal erosion x x
Coastal flooding x x

OCEANIC - STORMS
Coastal erosion x x
Coastal flooding x x

When both avoidance and design options are identified,
avoidance is preferred.

4-47

City of Kodiak and Vicinity

Development of certain areas in and near the City of Kodiak should
be restricted due to a moderate riverine flood hazard potential. Specific
areas that have been delineated as having a flood hazard potential are
the presently developed area downstream of the Lake Bettinger Reservoir
Dam and the undeveloped land downstream of the proposed enlargement

of the Monashka Creek Reservoir. Other riverine flood hazard areas have

not been analyzed for detailed floodplain delineation. Areas of poten-
tial flood hazard would be a relatively narrow zone along both sides
of the streams in the area; the width of these zones would depend on
the topography adjacent to the streams. Further study is warranted to

delineate these areas.

Akhiok

Development in the Akhiok area is not anticipated to,be signif-
icantly restricted by riverine flood hazards. The small streams in the
area are likely to have relatively narrow floodplains. These floodplains

could be delineated in detail with detailed on-site studies.

Karluk

Development in the Karluk area is not anticipated to be signifi-
cantly restricted by riverine flood hazards. Floodplains bordering the
small streams in the area are likely to be narrow, and the terrain is
such that Karluk River flooding is not anticipated to be widespread.
Flooding potential downstream from the water storage dam should be inves-
Floodplai.n boundaries could be delineated in detail with further
study.

Larsen Bay

Riverine flood hazards are not anticipated to restrict development
in the Larsen Bay area. Detailed floodplain boundaries could be deline
ated with further study.

4-48

Old Harbor

Riverine flood hazards are not anticipated to restrict develop-
ment in the Old Harbor area. Detailed floodplain boundaries could be

delineated with further study.

Ouzinkie

Development in the Ouzinkie area is not anticipated to be restrict-,
ed by riverine flood hazards. Th.e floodplain boundaries for the streams
in the area are anticipated to be relatively narrow; this could be veri-
fied by further study.

Port Lions

Channel icings cause annual flooding in some areas of Port Lion5.
Further study is warranted to delineate the area of flooding or to inves-
tigate the potential for reducing the ici ng problem. New development
should not be located in areas that are flooded frequently.

4.4.4 STREAM BANK EROSION

Stream bank erosion is not a major hazard in the developed areas
of the Kodiak Island Borough. Future development should not be located
in areas of.obvious stream bank ero sion; this should not be a very re-
s'trictive guideline in the vicinity of the City of Kodiak, Akhi-ok, .Kar-
luk,.Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions. Akhiok and Karluk
have small areas of concern over stream bank erosion problems endangering

existing structures.

4.4.5 ICINGS

Icings are not a major hazard in the developed areas of the Kodiak
Island Borough. Smallicings may occur, but such icings need not.preclude
development. Proper.site selection and development should eliminate
any adverse effects of icings.

4-49

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS

4.5.1 POPULATION

All of the population forecast figures and some of the discus-
sion in this analysis were obtained from the population discussion in
the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Lease Sale No. 60 Lower
Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait, prepared by the Alaska BLM-OCS office, 1981.

The following population forecast for the Borough is based on
a non-OCS petroleum development scenario.

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

10,856 13,851 15,558 17,967 19,556

The forecasts for 1985 to 2000 should probably be reduced by about 8
percent due to the overestimate of the 1980 population by 8 percent.
The major portion of the projected growth can be attributed to expec-
tations of expansion in the fishing and fish processing industry. These
expectations are based on assumptions regarding the relaxing of present
constraints on the industry, such as housing, energy, and1land; and
on the conti nuing trend toward longer operating seasons. Expansion into
the bottomfishery is also assumed. If bottomfish are harvested by large
catcher/processors, or if the primary in-state processing requirement is
relaxed, these population forecasts may prove to be too high. Even delays
in dealing' with some of the industry constraints may reduce the rate
of population growth.

Due to the existing locational pattern of harbor and processing
facilities, most of the Borough's population growth will occur in the
Kodiak urban area. About two-thirds of this growth will occur within
the City of Kodiak. The city has been forecast to grow to 10,299 persons
by the year 2000.

4-50

The growth trend forecast for the Kodiak urban area is steadily
upward without big population swings. The 112 percent increase in the
City's population by the year 2000 will create a significant impact
on the community's infrastructure. A more urban physical development
pattern and lifestyle than now exists will be likely to develop. Demands
on coastal resources will be an extension of the current pattern - de-
mands for more residential land, water, liquid and solid waste disposal,

and energy.

With OCS development in the lower Shelikof Straits area, the
annual, population growth rate would increase slightly from 5.6 percent
to 6.1 percent. By the year 2000 this would mean an additional 445 resi-

dents. This forecast for the Kodiak urban area assume s the construction

and operation of offshore support service base facilities somewhere
in the road-connected area of Kodiak Island. Other than a slight increase
in pressure on coastal resources already discussed, the population im-
pacts of OCS petroleum development in the Kodiak road-connected area

are minimal.

The populations of the.villages in the Borough are expected to
grow more slowly.than thearea around Kodiak. Port Lions is expected
to grow at an annual rate of 3 percent under a non-OCS scenario. This
growth rate is slightly higher than for the other villages,.and stems
primarily from Port Lion's expressed desire to attract new industry,
and the expanded housing availability. This will encourage a larger
proportion of the younger populace to remain in the community rather
than emigrating as has been the case in the past in several of the vill-
ages. The population of Port Lions has been forecast to grow from an
estimated 266 people in 1980 to 481 people in 2000. The actual 1980
population of Port Lions was 215 people. The overestimate of the 1980
population by 24 percent means that the forecast for the year 2000 should
probably also be reduced by about 24 percent.

4-51

Even this moderate 3 percent rate of population growth is sub-
stantial in a community the size of Port Lions. The most sign ificant
problem the community faces during this period- (1980 to 2000) is an
anticipated continuing housing shortage despite the planned additions to
the current housing stock. By the early 1990s the community will experi-
ence the same housing shortage it has experienced in the recent past.
Thus, demands on coastal resources generated by population growth in Port
Lions will consist of demands on land, water, waste disposal, energy, and
fish and wildlife resources, and in short-term environmental degradation.

With OCS development Port Lions is expected to be significantly
affected due to the construction of a terminal facility in the village.
In this case, the annual population growth rate would increase to 7.2
percent over the 1980 to 2000 period, yielding a population of 648 by the
end of the century. This estimate should again be re duced by some percent-
aIge to account for the overestimate of the 1980 population.

In addition to larger demands on the resources already mentioned,
impacts on Port Lions include expansion of the local economy and competi-
tion for jobs by the secondary population accompanying the petroleum

workers.

Without OCS development the future of the other Kodiak villages
is likely to bring little, or at least relatively modest, change within
the foreseeable future. The populations of the villages are expected
to grow at an annual rate of about 2 percent per year, but rates of
growth are of little significance given the small populations. The de-
mands on coastal resources generated by growth of the populations in the
villages are nonetheless expected to be significant. Many community
infrastructure requirements, such as those for housing, waste disposal,
transportation, and energy, are not now being met in the villages. Popu-
lation growth, even at low rates, will exacerbate the problems caused by
these deficiencies. Demands on fish and wildlife resources are expected
to grow, and a potential problem exists with competition for these re-
sources by non-village residents.

4-52

orough is expected to significantly
Population growth
increase demands on coa,sta 'resources. Economic growth and development
is the driving force behind population growth. Therefore decisions on
economic growth and development strategies and plans should take into
account the resulting population changes and hence the demands on coastal
resources. Coastal resources present both choices and constraints. Devel-
opment can occur at a rate determi ned by the constraints; or it can occur
at a rate determined by public choices regarding coastal resource manage-
ment, usually at a rate less than that determined by constraints.

4.5.2. LAND OWNERSHIP, USE, AND MANAGEMENT

Land Ownership,

Because of topfiling land selections among state, local, and
Native entities, overfiling by some Native corporations, and the uncer-
tain legal status of others, it will be several years before land owner-
ship is finalized. And, even when land ownership has changed hands, many

use restrictions remain.

After the final transactions associated with the Alaska Native

Claims.Settlement Act and the Alaska N ational Interest Lands Conservation
Act, the stat us of federal lands depends on actions taken by the Depa'rt-
ment of Interior. The opening of certain federal lands in the Borough
to oil and gas exploration and other proposed programs could result
in new lease arrangements or land disposals. Should Native corDorations
show interest in selling lands within the Natinal Wildlife Refuge, and
the federal government.exercise its.option at first right of -purchase,
federal land ownership could actually increase.

The status of state-owned@lands depends on rulings on tentatively
approved and selected lands. Of the lands likely to be patented, much
may be included in the State Game Refuge and Parks systems..

4-53

The Boro ugh is still in the process of patenting its 56,000-acre
entitlement from the State of Alaska. The largest and most imminent
area to be patented is the center of.Shuyak Island; potential use for
that selection is being negotiated with the state of Alaska, which has
patented the shorefront portion of the Island. The Borough is likely
to continue its current practice of disposing patented land to private
ownership through land sales.

Native Corporation land ownership is still in the process of
adjudication. In many parts of the Borough, Native Corporation lands
are subject to several sets of restrictions. Privately-owned lands are
subject to the provisions of the Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Ordinances,
Subdivision Regulations, and Building Codes. On the National Wildlife
Refuge, corporation lands must be managed in accordance with Refuge
management guidelines, which can significantly restrict uses to those
compatible with wildlife habitat. Subsurface estate of corporation lands
remains in the possession of the refuge, which also has right of first
refusal on any lands offered for sale. This latter clause has the poten-
tial to limit sale value of corporation lands.

Other private lands will remain a small percentage of total land
ownership, although land disposals may slightly increase total private

acreage.

Land Use

Land use patterns in the Borough depend in large part on federal
policy. Opening federal offshore and onshore lands to petroleum explora-
tion has direct and indirect land use implications. An economic find
will increase industrial use directly, and possibly generate population-
induced in creases in commercial and residential uses, primarily in
Kodiak. Use patterns and distribution for timber and agriculture should
remain the same. Without petroleum development, residential use should
increase slightly in communities due to high housing demand, and possibly
in remote areas with Borough land disposals.

4-54

4.5.3 RECREAT10N

Activities

Recreation resource use in the Kodiak island Borough will' continue
to increase, with hunting, fishing, and boating experiencing the highest
resident and'nonresident use participation. Distribution of activities
is currently constrained and concentrated in certain areas by limited
access and facilities, particularly outside of the Kodiak road system.
New facilities, such as marine and state parks and recreation cabins,
could broaden the distribution of recreation use, and generally increase
use level. Increased access and cheaper access costs (such as the ferry)
should also increase recreation activity use levels. The Department of
Fish and Game re-ceived 200O.easement requests for sport fishing access in
the @Borough (Troll 1980). However, increased access to rural communities
will only aggravate existing conflicts with other resource uses.

Management Facilities and Responsibilities

Future recreation facilities and management are very much tied
to land ownership status. With the passage of the Alaska National Inter-

est Lands Conservation Act, U. S. Forest Service recreation cabins were
transferred to both the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Koniag Inc.
'Whe.ther either of these entities will provide additional facilities
remains to be Iseen. State park facilities at proposed marine parks and
on Shuyak Island are likely., but may not be constructed for several
years, depending on land conveyence and facility fund appropriation.
The facilities would consist of developed campsites and,day use facil-
ities. Several potential state marine parks have been investigated in
the Kodiak Archipelago.

Conflicts. Recreation use conflicts with village subsistence
use and lifestyle are due to several factors. Ferry and airstrip access
to Por.t Lions and Karluk coincide with prime recreation attractions,
hunting, and fishing. The lack of publicized and posted easements contri-

4-55

butes to conflict when trespass and littering of private property re-
sults. Developing facilities and providing ferry access to prime hunting
or fishing areas remote.from villages is a potential solution; posting
and publicizing recreation easements on private lands is another. An-
other more complicated solution would be for Borough communities to
site and develop recreation facilities to minimize conflicts in town
yet capture game revenue from recreation visitors. However, this solution

could attract more nonresident use.

The recreat.ion analysis for the seven Borough communities in
presented below.

Akhiok

Projected recreation use in Akhiok by nonresidents is unlikely,
with the exception of occasional bear hunters at existing camps on bays
north of the community. Areas of concern near Akhoik identified by the
Alaska Division of Parks include Russian Harbor, Tugidak Island, Drake
Head, and South Olga Lakes..

Kodiak

The City of Kodiak will continue to experience increasing resident
and nonresident recreation use of the road system area. Several current
recreation-related problems could become more severe: lack of campground
facilitie s for visitors and transient work force, limited boat launch
and harbor facilities for recreational boating, reduced access to recrea-
tion areas on Native corporation lands, and increased hunting and fishing
pressure on fish and game resources.

The Borough Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan element fore-
casts priority needs for parks, boat launch facilities, a pistol-rifle
range, trails, bike trails, and campgrounds over the next five years.
More detailed information can be obtained in the-plan report.

4-56

Areas of concern in the Kodiak road system area identified by

the Alaska Division of Parks include Monashka Creek, Pillar Creek, Fort
Abercrombie, Spruce Cape, Holy Resurrection Church, Erskine House, Gibson
Cove, Baskin Lake-River-Beach, Woody Island, Long Island, Cape Chiniak
Road, Womens Bay, Cliff Point, Middle Bay, Kalson Bay, Isthmus Bay,
Cape Chinfak, Narrow Cape, Pasagshak Bay, and Saltery Cove.

Karluk

Recreation fishing and floating make the Karluk River the most
popular recreation area outside the road system. Recreation activity
levels will probably increase, but no new federal, or state facilities
are planned. Posting easements through Native corporation lands is needed
toreduce trespass and property damage. Provision and maintenance of
recreation facilities on public easements are also needed to eliminate
camping on private lands and reduce littering.

Local residents are concerned that if recreation fishing on the
Karluk increases, fishery resources will be allocated between subsistence

and recreation use.

Areas of concern near Karluk identified by the Division of Parks
include the Ayakulik River, Halibut Bay, and the Karluk Lake and River.

Larsen Bay

Larsen Bay will continue to be a jump-off point for fishermen

and hunters flying out to more remo te areas. The probability of develop-
ing any attractions in the immediate area of town are low at this time.

Areas of concern near Larsen Bay identified by the Alaska Division
of Parks are the head of.Uyak Bay, Carlsen Point, Chief Point and Cove,

and Little River Lake.

4-57

Old Harbor

Like Akhiok, nonresident recration use of the immediate Old Harbor
area will remain at low levels, probably limited to bear hunters util-
izing local guides, and occasional tourists. Bear hunting will continue
to occur in the major bays north and south of the community.

Areas of concern near Old Harbor identified by the Alaska Division
of Parks include Midway Bay, Barling Bay, Three Saints Bay, and Ocean
Bay-Rolling Bay.

Ouzinkie

As Kodiak metropolitan area residents pursue recreation activ-
ities, they are likely to increase hunting and fishing pressure around
the community and Native corporation lands at Icon Bay, Anton Larsen
Bay, and southwestern shore of Narrow Strait. Ouzinkie residents are
concerned about the impact on subsistence resources. Posting of easements
through Native corporation lands is needed to reduce trespass and prop-
erty damage. In places like Icon Bay and Anton Larsen Bay, provision
and maintenance of recreation facilities on public easements are also
needed to eliminate camping on private lands and reduce littering.

Areas of concern in the Ouzinkie area identified by the Alaska

Division of Parks include Anton Larsen Bay, The Triplets, and Icon Bay.

Port Lions

Recreation activity levels and demands in Port Lions have com-
munity resident and nonresident components. To meet resident needs the
Port Lions Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan identifed a need
for three proposed facilities; a ball field-ice rink at Andersen Field,
a swimming beach at Gunderson Beach, and a ski area at Hansen Hill.
Five recreation-related capital improvement recommenda tions were also
made for 1980-85 at the city hall, playground, library, boat harbor,

and ski hill.

4-58

The recent influx of tourists and nonresident hunters and.fisher-
men have presented several problems for Port Lions residents, inclu ding
trespas s, property damage, competition for subsistence resources, and
disruption of lifestyle. As public transportation, ferry access for
nonresidents can't be prevented, and local residents feel that improving
recreation facilities for local needs may only encourage more nonresi-
dent recreation use. Two solutions have been recommended: reducing the
deer bag limit from four to one in the immediate town area, and provid-
ing a new lodge/campground for tourists stranded by the ferry. The Parks
and Recreation Plan states that the problem needs further planning.

Areas of concern in the Port,Lions area identified by the Alaska
Div ison of Parks include Kizhuyak Bay, Anton Larsen Bay, and Barbara

Lake and Cove.

4.5.4 TRANSPORTATION

Transportation is of paramount importance in the Kodiak Island
Borough due to the relative isolation of the Borough and the even greater
isolation of the villages. Therefore, demands on coastal resources gener-
by transportation needs will be likely to receive high priority. The
major demand is for additional land on which to expand or to build new
transportation facil ities. Increased accessibility of the Borough will
enlarge demands on several coastal resources such as fish and wildlife.
While transportation is vital to the economic well-being of the Borough,
transportation-generated demands on coastal resources will have to be

reconciled with other needs.

The importance to the Kodiak Island Borough of marine transporta-
tion is expected to become even more crucial in the future. New or im-
proved deep water docking, cargo and passenger handling, and cargo stor-
age facilities are needed to exp and the Borough's role as a transshipment
point and to provide better marine services to the Borough residents.
Expanded ferry service for both passengers and commodities is being
considered by the state. A potential conflict exists because while vil-
lagers want expanded and improved ferry service, they are also concern-
ed about the accessibility of their villages and local resources to

4-59

outsiders The expansion of the fishing and recreation industries is
creating needs for new and improved small boat harbors.

Air carrier operations are expected to continue to expand, along
with population and economic activity, while general aviation operations
are expected to expand even faster. These expanding operations are creat-
ing needs for new and improved runways, and passenger and cargo facil-
ities and equipment, such as navigation aids.'Except in the case of
seaplanes, land is the only coastal resource demanded to meet the needs
of expanded air transportation.

The demands on coastal resources generated by land transportation
needs are significant. Even though the villages.contain relatively few
miles of roads, their needs are as critical as the needs of the road-
connected area around the City of Kodiak. Demands on coastal resources
include land for new or enlarged rights-of-way, and material sites for

road construction and maintenance.

The transportation needs for each of the villages and the City
of Kodiak area are discussed under each individual community.

Akhiok

Transportation facilities and service in Akhoik are limited,
and suffer from weather contraints, lack of maintenance, and erosion.
The community badly needs a protected moorage area for local fishing
boats. Boats are currently tied up on the beach and hauled out of the
water during storms. Funding for such a facility has been appropriated,
and preliminary investigation of sites near Akhiok has begun by the
Alaska District Corps of Engineers. Weather conditions, especially during
the fall and winter months, interrupt air access to the community for
several days at a time..However, little can be done to alleviate this

situation.

4-60

As elsewhere in the Borough, lack of maintenance of transportation
facilities jeopardizes their continued use. Without maintenance, the
road connecting Akhiok and its airstrip will cont inue to erode and event-
ually become impassable.

Karluk

Like Akhiok, transportation facilities and service in Karluk
are limited, and suffer from weather constraints, lack of maintenance,
and erosion. The community needs protected boat moorage facilities in
Karluk Lagoon; boats are currently tied up on the beach and can be dam-
aged during bad weather. Weather, particularly winds from the southwest,
west, and northwest, interrupts. air service into Karluk. Air service
is further constrained by topography and orientation of the airstrip.
In both cases, little can be done to alleviate the situation.

Gravel mining operations and the lack of maintenance have resulted
in erosion of the road connecting the airstrip with the old village
site. Without a so.lution to the erosio n problem the road could become
impassable within a few years..

Kodiak

The City of Kodiak is faced with several major transportation
problems and needs. The Sealand port facility has limited nearby space
to serve as marshalling yards, and has sustained periodic damage from

severe storms and coastal erosion. The small boat harbor has been ex-
tremely overcrowded for many years; during peak fishing season .s boats
can be rafted seven deep. Construction of the Dog Bay small boat harbor.
in 1982 should help alleviate small boat overcrowding. The instability
of Pillar Mountain makes.construction or expansion of f acilities in
the St., Paul Harbor area questionable, particularly in terms of receiving
state or federal financing.

4-61

Larsen Bay

Larsen Bay has limited transportation facilities and services.
Relatively well-protected, weather is not as significant a problem for
air service as in other communities, and the community has protected
moorage for fishing vessels available. Road erosion and maintenance
are the principal transportation problems in Larsen Bay. Local roads,
not built to state standards by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, were in
poor shape. The State of Alaska takes no maintenance responsibility
for them, and the community cannot afford to maintain them. Road recon-
struction is the best long-term solution.

old Harbor

Old Harbor has good dock ing facilities and a small boat harbor,
and proximity to the City of Kodiak results in good air service. Trans-
@ortation needs are associated with the maintenance of facilities and
preferred relocation of the airport. As in Larsen Bay, BIA roads are
not up to standard and are poorly maintained. The road connecting the
townsite wit h the new housing area is eroding, and without proper atten-

tion will continue to deteriorate. Some local residents feel that the

boat harbor is slowly filling with sediment and in need of dredging
(Old Harbor 1981, community meeting). The community's airstrip is located.
immediately adjacent to the northeast edge of town, and an airplane
accident could result in substantial loss of life and property damage.
An alternative site just past the lagoon and landfill has been suggested.

Ouzinkie

Transpor tation facility and service needs in Ouzinkie vary. Close
proximity to the City of Kodiak means relatively good floatplane service
and lower transportation costs than other villages. However, the commun-
ity badly*needs an airstrip; one has been planned, but has in the past
been deleted from state transportation improvement priorities. The commun-
ity also lacks a formal boat harbor. There is limted tie-up space at

4-62

the village corporation 666k-'@;`-and most boats are moored in the open
water of Ouzinkie Harbor. S, of protection from the southeastern
storms is desirable to loc,al residents (Ouzinkie 1981, community meet-
ing). As in other villages, local roads were built by BIA, below state
standards, and are deteriorating. The state has not taken maintenance
responsibility, and the community does not have sufficient funds to

do so.

Port Lions

Transportation facilities and service for Port Lions are the
best'of the Borough's six rural communities. The community's need for
.@,a.srftall boat harbor willbe met upon completion of a new harbor facility
north.of.town. Port Lions major transportation problem is related to
ferry service, and is often cited when other Borough communities discuss
extension of ferry service. As state-funded public transportation, the
ferry provides.access to and from Port Lions, allowing an unwanted influx
of recreation hunters and fisherman. This influx has resulting in compet-
ition for subsistence resources, trespass on private property, and geh-
eral disruption.,of community lifestyle. Port Lions has sought to mitigate.
this impact by reducing local fish and game limits.

4.5.5, ENERGY FACILITIES

Energy costs in the Borough will continue to be a critical factor
in the determination of the rate of economic growth and the viability
of village life. The shift towards more en ergy intensive methods in.
the fish processing industry will make energy costs a crucial factor
in the growth of this industry. Energy costs will also affect the cost
of living of all.Borough residents, thereby affecting wage levels and.
possibly the rate of economic growth.

The remoteness of the villages forces the utilization of high-cost
sma 11-scale, les s efficient.fuel oil energy systems. Energy costs are

4-63

using uplarger and larger shares of the small cash incomes earned in
association with a predominantly subsistence lifestyle. This will make
life difficult for a number of village people.

Transportation improvements will help stem the rising costs of
fuel oil deliveries, but there is no relief foreseeable in the rapidly
rising costs of petroleum products. Even if oil were to be discovered
in the Shelikof Straits, this would have little if any effect on oil
prices in the Borough.

For this reason, strong interest has developed in hydropower
and other alternative energy sources such as windpower. The largest
proposed hydropower project is the Terror Lake Project. A smaller project
has been proposed for near Port Lions, and the Corps of Engineers has
.identified several potential sites near the various villages.

Hydropower has the promise of clean and, over the long term,
low-cost power. Hydropower projects have high front-end costs, but it
appears that the state will be willing to help finance these costs.

Hydropower projects have the potential for significant impacts
on coastal resources. The biological resource section of this report,
section 4.1, discusses the impacts of dams and power lines on biological
habitats. Recent experience with the Terror Lake Project has revealed
aregulatory conflict, which has been temporarily resolved. The U.S.
Fish,and Wildlife Service found the Terror Lake Project incompatible
with its resource management goals. While this issue is resolved for
Terror Lake and possibly for some of the other projects, hydropower
development could be delayed if found incompatible with refuge management
guidelines.

Petroleum development in the Kodiak Island Borough region has
the potential for very significant demands on coastal resources. The
potential impacts on biological resources are discussed in section 4.1,
and the potential impacts on socioeconomic resources are discussed

earlier in this section.

4-64

A major unresolved concern is the siting of a marine terminal
if commercial reserves are,found in Shelikof Strait. The only oil termin-
al site in the Borough is hypothesized to be located at Talnik Point
near Port Lions. The residents of Port Lions are quite concerned about
this selection. Several studies have identified potential sites, and
it is now up to the Borough and other concerned groups to identify their
choices for sites among the alternatives.

If a commercial discovery is made, the Secretary of the Interior
has the authority to require a developmental EIS in a frontier area,
such as lower Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait. If major issues remain unresol-
ved, Borough residents may request such an EIS, which would take into
account an approved Coastal Management Plan for the Borough.

4.5.6 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AN D SERVICES

Community facilities and services (water, sewer, and solid waste)
are constantly changed, replaced, and improved as equipment and struc-
tures become outdated or reach.capacity as demands generated by economic
development and population growth increase.

The resource inventory detailed the existing and anticipated
deficiencies. These deficiencies are presently and will continue to
generate significant demands on coastal resources. impacts on biological
resources are detailed in Section 4.2. The constraints imposed on
economic growth due to.utility system deficiencies are detailed later

in this section.

The Community Facility and Service inventory also presents Borough
and community capital improvement to-upgrade facilities and services.

4.5.7 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The foundation of the Kodiak economy, the fishing and fish process-
ing industries, will continue to grow and diversify. Growth is expected in
both the traditional fisheries and the emerging bottom fishery.

4-65

Most of the traditional fisheries are being fully utilized, but
better scientific understanding and improved resource management will
enhance and stabilize yields, allowing more efficient use of gear, plant,
and labor force. The catch in the traditional fisheries is expected to
grow 33 percent in weight and 75 percent in real value by the year 2000.
(BLM 1980). Little growth is expected in either fishing employment or the
number of fishing vessels because the effort of the present fisherman will
be intensified rather than new people or gear being used.

The demands of the fishing industry on biological resources are
discussed in Section 3.1. The potential exists for conflicts with sport
and subsistence' use of the resource. Even though the small boat harbor in
Kodiak is used well beyond its design capacity, the projected increa .se in
the traditional fisheries harvesting activity can occur without a signif-
icant increase in the number of boats using the facility (BLM 1980).

Moderate growth is expected in the traditional fish processing
industry but the industry may be negatively affected by a change in pri-
mary processing requirements. Underutilization of present processing facil-
ities or the capability to expand capacity implies that little change
should be expected in the number of plants. The output mix of the process-
ing industry will continue recent trends toward more fresh and frozen
products. Without any increases in efficiency, processing employment is
projected to grow by 33 percent. With increased efficiency, processing
employment is expected to drop by 11 percent (BLM 1980).

Recent challenges to the constitutionality of the instate primary
processing requirement could lead to a significant drop in both employment
and the number of processing plants.

The expected growth in the processing of traditional fish catches
wil.1 create additional demand for water, land, housing, transportation,
and energy, but none of these demands will be of a critical nature. While
improved supplies of these resources will aid the growth of the industry,

4-66

the existing shortages are not of a magnitude that affects the viability
of the industry.

Predictions about expansion.into the harvesting and processing. of
bottomfish remain speculative at best. The resource potential exists - the
Alaska Sea Grant Program has projected a catch of 100,000 metric tons in
the Kodiak region by the year 2000 - but harvesting and processing methods
are still being investigated. The two main scenarios that have been pro-
posed imply different demands on coastal-resources.

The harvest by smaller vessels and on-shore processing scenario
adds to the demands,created by growth in the traditional fisheries indus-
try, namely water, energy, land, housing, and transportation. Shortages of
these resources could.significantly affect the growth potential of the
industry in the Kodiak-Isiand Borough.

The other scenario involves the utilization of large catcher/pro-
cessors. If this scenario were realized, marine service and supply and
transportation demands would be generated, primarily in and around the
City of Kodiak.

The timber industry in the Kodiak IslandBorough is not expected
to grow significantly. Operations on Afognak Island are expected to con-
tinue at the present level for at least the next 7 to 10 years. Logging on
Afognak at about present levels could continue indefinitely if the native
corporation owners decide to utilize Afognak's entire timber resource
potential on a sustained yield basis. The fluctuations in the Japanese
export market will continue to influen'ce the year to year level of logging
activity. The potential for conflicts exists between logging activity and
other uses of Afognak such as,fish habitat, elk hunting, and other recrea-
tional uses, and will require continued sound management practices. The
only potential for grow th in the timber industry over current level s would
be to make Shuyak Island available for timber operations. Land ownership
agreements between the D epartment of Natural Resources and the Kodiak
island Borough make this prospect unlikely.

4-67

Agricultural production, primarily range-fed livestock, is not
expected to grow significantly in the foreseeable future. While the range-,
land potential is great, Kodiak's distance from larger markets such as
that in southcentral Alaska is a major handicap. If large-scale feed lot
meat processing facilities were ever built in the railbelt area of the
state, the demand for feeder cattle would possibly extend to the Kodiak
Island Borough, but only on a marginal basis. Due to transportation costs
the level of demand would probably be small, but could conceivably be
large in some years, depending on production conditions and costs along
the railbelt. The impacts of expanded production on coastal resources
would be minimal due to the virtual lack of competing uses for the grazing
areas. Bear predation of livestock will continue to be a problem, and
growth of the industry may stimulate the search for longer-range solutions
to the problem

The potential for metallic mineral mining is unknown at this time,
but continued explorations are expected. Renewed interest in the gold
deposits in the Borough are not likely to lead to any major developments.

The limited supply of gravel deposits near Kodiak has created
@conflict in the-past. The lack of designated gravel borrow sites and un-
certain land ownership are the prime causes of conflict. The only formally
designated site in the Borough is located at Bells Flats, adjacent to a
developing rural.residential area, where residents are organizing to limit
or close down gravel mining and processing in the area. Gravel removal
from a site in Anton Larsen Bay for breakwater construction at Port Lions
did not have approval from Koniag, Inc., which owns the property. In
Karluk, gravel removal from a beach to provide material for a new airstrip
is a possible cause of erosion to the road connecting the airstrip and the
old village site. All of these problems point to a need for a cooper ative
effort by federal, state, Borough and Koniag representatives to identify
appropriate areas and mining techniques for gravel mining throughout the
'Archipelago..

4-68

The future of petroleum resource development i n the Kodiak region
is hard to predict at this time. Petroleum potential exists in both the

Gulf of Alaska and the Shelikof Straits offshore areas. The Western Gulf

of Alaska OCS lease sale number 61 was cancelled in 1980, and it is not

now known whether this will be reactivated. OCS lease sale number 60, for
tracts in the Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait area, will take place in Septem-
,ber of 1981. Strong interest is being shown in this'sale. There is also an
OCS lease sale number 100 scheduled for 1986, which includes the western
Gulf of Alaska. This lease sale area has not yet been precisely delineated.

There is a I to I percent probability of discovering commercial
resources in the lease sale number 6.0 area. The potential economic impacts
of a commmercial find are discussed below (p araphrased from leased sale
No. 60, BLM 1981

The employment impacts of a mean level find are mild. Direct em-
ployment would peak in the late 1980s with 276 jobs and then level out
with around 200 permanent jobs (BLM 1981).

Secondary employment would also peak in the late 1980s with 132
jobs created, with minor fluctuations thereafter at a slightly lower
level. The location of, these jobs would primarily be in the City of Kodiak
and to a lesser extent at an oil terminal if located near other Borough

communities.

The size of the impact expected in the City of Kodiak area is
small relative to total Borough employment. The employment impacts of an
oil terminal in an outlying area or village may be considerable.

Petroleum industry purchases of specialty supplies, equipment, and
services would not be large enough to support Borough-based industry sup-
pliers and subcontractors. Only mild increases, in trade and transport
services wou,ld be likely to occur. Tf an oil terminal were located within
the Borough, this would represent a very substantialsource of property

tax revenue..

.4-69

Unless chosen as the site of the oil terminal, the villages in the
Borough are not likely to be significantly affected.

The tourism and recreation industry is expected to show modest
growth. Promotion of Kodiak's historical and recreational assets and im-
proved visitor facilities should attract increased numbers of tourists,

conventioneers, and vacationers to the Kodiak area.

The Kodiak Coast Guard Station, currently a major military install-
ation with about 980 military personnel and an on-base population of about
2,500, is forecast to remain at about its current strength. However, a
modest increase is foreseen in civilian employment at the base.

Kodiak already has an unusually well-balanced trade and services

sector.for a town of its size, and it is anticipated that e xpansion of
tourist and bottom-fishing industries will reinforce these sectors.

4.5.8 SUBSISTENCE

Subsistence harvesting of resources will continue to be important
to Kodiak Island Borough residents; degree of utilization will be influ-
enced by economic factors, competition among resource users, and legal
questions. In the Borough's village communities, significant new employ-
ment opportunities or increased income levels are highly unlikely, as
are reduced transportation costs for food and other goods. Therefore,

the economic and social reliance on subsistence resources will remain

high. Although Kodiak metropolitan residents are not as economically
dependent on subsistence, there are no indications that.their subsistence
needs will decrease. Both areas face increasing competition for subsis-
tence resources, whether from commercial fishing, recreation hunting
and fishing, or other subsistence users.

Subsistence harvesting activities are affected by the human demand
for these resources, and by resource population dynamics or the ability

to sustain certain levels.of harvest. When combined use demand exceeds

4-70

the abi lity to sustain harvest levels, there is littlechoice but to
allocate resources among users and/or limit harvest levels in specific
areas. The legal status of resource allocation has been repeatedly chal-
lenged throughout the state; harvest quotas, and closing fish and game
areas to some or all users have been more acceptable. The Kodiak road
system is already experiencing forms of resource allocation, closings
or quotas; pressures on road system resources, including subsistence,
will remain constant or increase. In village areas such measures have not
been necessary, although Port Lions has voluntarily request ed game limit
reductions to protect subsistence resources.

Perceived conflicts between subsistence and other resource uses

in village areas will remain when traditional harvest'levels are threat-
ened and resource allocation appears possible. Nonresident recreation
use conflicts with subsistence are the most likely, although impacts
of oil and gas development on subsistence are also a concern. Avoidance
of conflicts@ over subsistence,, and conflict resolution, need cooperative
solutions.from the parties affected.

Access and the vicinity of subsistence resources are important
to village residents. Since most s,ubsiste,nce.harvesting is done by boat
or on foot, subsistence resource areas in the immediate vicinity of
villages are the most important. In these areas subsistence resource.
use should be maintained when faced with competing uses'(recreation)
or potential impacts (oil and gas development). Areas of.secondary subsis-
tence importance remote from village sites are not as critical to subsis-
tence harves,ts, although'they should still be ma intained for subsistence
use to the.extent feasible.

4.6 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA CLASSIFICATION

Based on the resource analysis, portions of the Kodiak Island
Borough Coastal Management District have been classified a's Development,
Development with Restrictions, and Conservation. This classification

4-71

system is intended to guide resource use and activities in the coastal

management area.

It should be emphasized that this classification system in no
way eliminates the requirement of complying with existing federal, state,
and Borough regulations. Nor does,it influence additional restrictions
that public and private land owners place on resource use and activities.
In many cases, such compliance will meet use'constraints identified
under this classification system.

4.6.1 DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Development areas within the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Manage-
ment District are those areas where economic and coastal development are
overriding objectives and are not subject to constraints created by
geophysical hazards, biological resources, coastal habitat, recreation,
land ownership, coastal access, and air/water quality concerns. Economic
and coastal developments are preferential uses for these areas, within
the bounds of appropriate federal, state, and local regulations.

4.6.2 DEVELOPMENT WITH RESTRICTIONS

Development with Restriction areas in the Kodiak Island Borough
Coastal Management District are identified where coastal development may
be subject to constraints created by biological resource needs, geophys-
ical hazards, coastal habitat, subsistence, recreation, land ownership,
coastal access, and air/water quality. No activities and development
should necessarily receive preferential status in Conditional Development
areas (for example, petroleum development always preferred to recrea-
tion). Activities and development within Conditional Development areas
are subject to coordination with the Planning Department and appropriate
state and federal agencies. The Coastal Management Program will identify
potential constraints on activities and development within Development

with Restrictions areas.

4-72

4.6.3 CONSERVATI,ON AREAS

Conservation areas in the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Manage-
ment District have been identified based on over riding geophysical haz-
ards, biological resource, subsistence, recreation, and air/water qual-
ity concerns. Activities and development within Conservation areas should
be limited.to nonconsumptive, nonintensive human use acti vities such as
subsistence, recreation, and grazing (where permitted.).

Tables 4.17 and 4.18 show resource areas and volumes classified as

Development with Restrictions and Conservation, and the resource maps and
figures where they appear. Areas not classified as either are considered
Development areas.

4-73

Table 4.17. Development with Restrictions areas.

Resource Map No. Resource Area/Value Use Contraints

Map 2 a Estuaries o Coastal development must minimize dredge
o Lagoons and fill activities, discharge of efflu-
ents, obstruction of circulation, fish
passage, and shoreline alteration.

Map 3 Wetlands o Coastal development must minimize dredge
o Tideflats and fill activities and adverse impacts
on habitat, water quality, and flood-
water retention values when siting and
constructing facilities.

Map 6 o Anadromous fish streams o Restricted use with 300 feet on either
bank to minimize stream erosion, silta-
tion, and obstruction of fish passage.

Map 7 o Waterfowl concentrations o Coastal development must minimize des-
truction of waterfowl habitat from dredge
and fill activities and facility construc-
tion.

Map 8 o Winter habitat - deer, elk, goats o Logging, industrial, and residential de-
velopment should minimize habitat loss to
the extent feasible. Major construction
should be scheduled to avoid wintering
concentrations of game.

Map 9 o Suspected bear denning o Structures and facilities should not lo-
o Spring full intensive use areas cate with one mile of suspected denni.ng
sites; activities and facility siting
should minimize human-bear conflicts in
intensive use areas.

Table 4.17. (Concluded).

Resource Map No. Resource Area/Value Use Con.traints

Map 10 o Coastal erosion areas o Site, design, and construct facilities
for Figures 3.19-27, o High wave energy coastline high wave energy conditions and to mini-
mize coastal erosion impacts on facili-
ties and adjacent shorelines.'

Figures 3.11-17 o Landslide areas o Development within potential landslide/
mass mass wasting areas should exhibit ap-
propriate si.te investigation and mitiga-
tion measures.

Figures 3.11-17 o Faults o Development over known or potential
faults should exhibit appropriaie s-ite
investigation and sit ing-des igy@-co`nst ruc-
tion mitigation measures.

Map 11 o Cultural sites with insufficient o Coastal development should con's 6 lt'wi th
the information state archaeologist before siting and con-
structing development to utilize proper
mitigation measures.

Map 12 o All lands selected but not conveyed, o Because of uncertain land ownership no
patented, or tentatively approved development or resource use, including
the State of Alaska, Kodiak Island extraction, shall take.place without
Borough, and pertinent Native corp- agreement between parties selecting land.
orations

Map 15 o Primary and secondary subsistence o Coastal development must minimize impacts
areas on subsistence resources and habitats
through facility siting, design, and con-
struction measures.

Map 16 o Areas Meriting Special Attention o Proposed development must exhibit meas-
nominated for recreation values sures to minimize impacts to recreation
values and use such as noise levels, emis-
Sion of noxious odors, and degradation of
scenic vistas.

Table 4.18. Conservation areas.

Resource Map No. Resource Area/Value Use Contraints

Map 4 o Seal pupping areas 0 No facility siting, material borrow, or
any activities that destroy this habitat
area should be approved.

Map 6 o Anadromous fish streams o No development should take place within
25 feet of anadromous fish streams. Road
or utility crossings of such streams
shall comply with Alaska Dept. of Fish
and Game regulations.

Map 7 o Seabird colonies 0 No facility siting, material borrow, or
4- any activities that destroy this habitat
I areas should be approved.

.Map 9 o Known bear denning sites o No new development should be located with-
in one mile of known bear denning areas.

Map 11 o Sites eligible for inclusion in o No development should take place within
the National Register of Historic these sites.
Places

o ANCSA 14(h) Sites

Map 13 o Designated and proposed o Nonpark-related development should not
take state parks place bordering these areas. Development
in the vicinity should minimize impacts
to recreation values and use, such as
high noise levels, emission of noxious
odors, and degradation of scenic vistas.

Map 12 o Proposed Marine Wildlife Refuges o No coastal development should take place
within these areas.

4.7 LITERATURE CITED RESOURCE ANALYSIS

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1978. Alaska's fisheries
atlas, Vols. I & II.; Juneau, Alaska.

ADF&G. 1979..Kodiak management area, 1979 finfish annual report.
Juneau, Alaska.

ADF&G. 1980..Westward region Tanner crab report to the Alaska Board
of Fisheries, Dec. 1980. Kodiak, Alaska.

ADF&G. 1980b. A synthesis and evaluation of ADF&G fis h and wildlife
resources i .nformation for the Willow and Talkeetna sub-basins.
Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service.

ADF&G. 1981a. Westward region shellfish report to the Alaska Board of
Fisheries, March 1981. Kodiak, Alaska.

ADF&G. 1981b. Draft natural resource inventory maps of Kodiak Archi-
peiago. Prepared for Kodiak Island Borough.

ADF&G. No date. Present and potential ADF&G rehabilitation and enhance-
ment projects in the Kodiak Island Borough.

ADF&G. To be published. Annual report (if survey - inventory activities,
mountain goat and elk.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). Division of Research and
Development, Land and Resource Planning Section. 1980. Public inter-
est lands in Alaska's municipalities.

Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, (AEIDC). 1075. Kadyak:
A background for living. Anchorage, Alaska.

AEIDC. 1979. An Assessment of environmental effects of constructiton
and operation of the proposed Terror Lake hydroelectric facility.
Prepared for Kodiak Electric Association., Inc. Kodiak, Alaska.

AEIDC. 1980. An assessment of environmental effects of construction
and operation of the proposed Terror Lake hydroelectric facility.
Brown bear studies and mountain goat studies. Prepared for the
Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. Kodiak, Alaska.

AEIDC. 1981. An assessment of environmental effects of construction
and operation of the proposed Terror Lake hydroelectric facility,
.,Final report. Prepared for Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. Kodiak,
Alaska.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1980. DEIS: Proposed outer continental
shelf oil and gas lease sale 46, Western Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak.
''Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior.

4-77

BLM. 1981. FEIS: Proposed outer continental shelf oil and gas lease
sale 60, Lower Cook Inlet-Shelikof Strait.

Hinman, R. 1980a. Annual report.of survey - inventory activities.
Part I. Black bear and brown bear. ADF&G, Juneau, Alaska.

Hinman, R. 1980b. Annual report of survey - inventory activities.
Part II. Deer, elk, and moose. ADF&G, Juneau, Alaska.

Manthey, K. 1980. Salmon report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries, Dec.
1980. ADF&G, Kodiak Alaska.

Mills, M. 1981. Statewide harvest study, vo 1. 22. ADF&G, Juneau, Alaska.,

North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC). 1979. Fishery manage-
ment plan for the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fishery. Anchorage,
Alaska.

R.W. Retherford Associates and International Engineerng Co., Inc.
(RRA/IEC). 1978. Application for License, Project No. 2743, Volume
2, Exhibit W. Terror Lake hydroelectric project, Kodiak Island,
Alaska. Prepared for Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.

Science Applications, Inc. (SAI). 1980. Environmental assessment of the
Alaskan continental shelf, Kodiak interim synthesis report. Prepared
for the U.S. Dept. of Commerce NOAA, Boulder, Colorado.

Selkregg, L. (ed). 1974. Alaska tegional profiles, southcentral region.
AEIDC, Anchorage, Alaska.

Sexton, J. 1981. Memorandum to Lee Glenn re. permit results, Fall 1980.

Smith, R. 1978. Report submitted for annual survey - inventory activ-
ities. ADF&G, Juneau, Alaska.

Smith, R. 1980. Goat winter range surveys and brown bear.sightings,
Terror Lake project area. ADF&G, Kodiak, Alaska.

Sowls, A., S. Hatch, and C. J. Lensink. 1978. Catalog of Alaskan seabird
colonies. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Timm, D. 1980. Report of survey-inventory activities. Waterfowl. Juneau,
Alaska.

Troyer, W. and R.J.,Hensel. 1977. The brow n bear of Kodiak Island. USDOIj
BSFW.

4-78

U.S. Dept. of the Interior (USDI), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS.),
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). 1978. Kodiak national wild-
life refuge, Kodiak, Alaska. Annual Narrative Report, Calendar Year
1977.

USDI. 1980. FWS, NWRS. Kodiak national wildlife refuge, Kodiak, Alaska.
Annual Narrative Report, Calendar Year 1979.

Vivion, M. 1978. Reindeer survey, file memo. U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.

4-79

I
I
5.0 SUBJECT USE, POLICIES, PROPER
I AND IMPROPER USES.
I
I
I
I .. -
I
I
I
I
I
I -
I
I
I
I

5.o

SUBJECT USE, POLICIES, PROPER
AND IMPROPER USES

5.1 SUBJECT USES

The following activities and uses of coastal land and water re-
sources are subject to the Kodiak Islan d Borough District Coastal Manage-

ment Program:

o Coastal Development industrial, commercial, and residential

development.

6 Recreation designation of area's and facilities.

o,Energy Facilities- petroleum and petrochemical product refin-
ing, storage, transportation, and transfer; electric, hydro-
electric, and wind generation facilities and transmission lines

.o Transportation highway, air, and marine facilities.

o Utilities - water and sewer lines and facilities, solid waste
disposal,utility lines.

o Fisheries -,seafood processing, fishery enhancement and rehabili-

tation.

o Timber Harvesting and Processing timber sales and harvesting,
log storage and transfer.

o Mi ning and Mineral Processing hard rock minerals, gravel,
sand, and other construction materials.

5-1

o Subsistence subsistence areas and activities.

5.1.1 USES OF STATE CONCERN

The policies of the Kodiak Island Borough District Coastal Manage-
ment Program reflect the five categories of Uses of State Concern, which
are defined as those land and water uses that would significantly affect
the long-term public interest. The five categories are listed below:

o Uses of national interest, including the resources for the
siting of ports and major facilities which contribute to meeting
national energy needs, construction and maintenance of naviga-
tional facilities and systems, resource development of federal
land, and national defense and related security facilities
that are dependent upon coastal locations;

o Uses of more than local concern, including those land and water
uses that confer significant 'environmental, social, cultural,
or economic benefits or burdens beyond a single coastal resource
district;

o The siting of major energy facilities or large-scale industrial
or commercial development activities that are dependent on
a coastal location and which, because of their magnitude or
the magnitude of their effect on the economy of the state or
the surrounding areas, are reasonably likely to present issues
of more than local significance;

o Facilities serving statewide or interregional transportation
and communication needs; and

o Uses in areas established as state parks or recreational areas
under AS 41.20 or as state game refuges, game sanctuaries,

or critical habitat areas under AS 16.20.

5-2

5.2 PROPER AND IMPROPER USES

In accordance with the policy of multiple use of resources, the
determination of proper and improper uses of coastal land and.water
resources within the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management District
is not an exclusionary process. Proposed uses are measured by performance
with regard to policies, resource concerns identified under conditional
development areas found in the Resource Analysis, and Areas Meriting
Special Attention (AMSA) management guidelines.

Specific proposals for land and water uses or activities shall
be submitted to the Community Development Departmen t for review and
determination of both proper/improper use and consistency with the Dis-
trict Coastal Management Program. Decisions made by the Community Develop-
ment Department can be appealed to the planning and Zoning Commission
and Kodiak Island Borough Assembly; This process in no way precludes
the need for compliance with the Borough's Zoning Ordinance, subdivision
regulations, building codes, and other pertinent Kodiak Island Borough

land and water use controls.

In addition to the specific policies, conditional development
resource concerns, and AMSA guidelines, the following points shoul..d
be emphasized in the evaluation of resource use./activities proposals:

1. Zoning Ordinance. Acceptable uses under the Kodiak Island
Borough Zoning Ordinance must address applicable conditional
development concerns.

2. Water Dependency. Water-dependent or@watei;-related uses have
priority use of the shoreline. Non-water-dependent or related,
uses :should be l.ocated inland when feasible and prudent inland
locations are available. Feasibility reflects zoning con-
straintsi population distribution, and economic hardship to
private individuals.

5-3

5.3 DRAFT POLICIES

The Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program is centered
on recognition that local government is developing the tools necessary
.to implement the goals and objectives of the district program. To accom-
plish this, a set of principles or policies is needed to guide decisions
concerning activities and uses in the coastal zone. The following policies
are presented in three categories: 1) general policies on land and water
activities, and consistency and coordination; 2) policies for specific
coastal activities and resources iand 3) policies regarding development

areas.

Where applicable, the policies incorporate the standards and
guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Management Act. These policies actively
promote: sensible and efficient use of coastal lands; consolidation
of activities; concurrent or multiple use of lands; use of sound engi.-
neering practices; protection of environmental quality; enhancement
of fish and wildlife resources; regional cooperation; and coordination
between state and federal agencies and the Kodiak Island Borough.

Achieving balance is also important, particularly where there
are potentially competing goals, such as industrial development and
resource enhancement; where local preferences differ from state and
.federal interests; where planning for activities in the coastal area
can lead to unnecessary restrictions; or where short-run gains result
in the forfeiture of long-run benefits.

Finally, the policies are action-oriented. With its planning
and regulatory powers, the Kodiak Island Borough intends to implement
this program through its municipal authority, the allocation of fiscal
and human re sources, and cooperation with private developers and other
levels of government.

5-4

5.3.1 GENERAL POLICIES

Land and Water Activities

1. Water-Dependent/Water-Related Uses..
Water-dependent and water-related activities or uses as defined
in this plan will receive priority for waterfront are as. Uses

that are neither water-dependent nor water-related will be
considered in shoreline areas only when inland sites are not

available.

2. Concurrent- and Multiple Uses.
o Recreational use of undeveloped shoreline areas not needed.
for other activities is encouraged provided that recreation
activities are compatible with the maintenance and use of

resources in the area.

o Cooperative use of piers, cargo handling, storage, parking,
and other facilities is strongly encouraged or may be re-
quixed.

o The navigable waters around the Kodiak Island Borough shall
continue to be available for many users.

3. Compatibility.

Activities on and uses of coastal lands shall be comoatible

with adjacent land use to the greatest extent feasible.

Consistency and Coordination

Uses and activities in'the coastal zone, including public activ-
ities by all,levels of goye rnment, shall be consist.6nt with the district
plan.

5-5,

Federal or State agencies shall not issue any permit for dredging/
filling or any other activity without first contacting the Community
Development Department and without first complying with all applicable
provisions of the Coastal Management Plan.

Implementation

1. To the extent feasible, the Kodiak Island Borough shall minimize
new regulations by using existing ordinances and-codes, and by
drafting Memoranda of Understanding, to implement the Coastal
Management Program.

2. To the extent feasible, regulations should be performance-oriented
to allow flexibility in the techniques used to achieve desired
goals of local government.

5.3.2 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES

Coastal Development

-Industrial Development.

1. Optimum Location
The Kodiak Island Bor"ough shall assist with the identifica-
tion of suitable sites for industrial development that
satisfy industrial requirements, meet safety standards,
protect fish and wildlife resources, and maintain environ-
mental quality.

2. Natural Features

Excavation, shoreline alteration, and disturbance of anadro-

mous streams, tideflats, and wetlands shall be minimized
when constructing and operating port, harbor, dock, and

industrial facilities.

5-6

3. Views and Natural Setting
Ports and industry shall be encouraged to minimize impacts
that detract from the natural setting of the Kodiak Archi-
pelago, and to enhance and maintain positive visual aspects
of. their development and to provide opport,unities for public
viewing of such positive aspects whenever practical and

safe.

4. Dredge and Excavation Material
Dredge and site excavation material shall be disposed of
in upland sites identified by the Community Development
Department; dredge spoil may be utilized in shoreside land-
fills if permitted under applicable regulations for the
purpose of creating usable waterfront land.

5. Facility Design
Developments in or over the water, such as piers, docks,
and protective structures shall be located, designed, and
maintained in a manner that prevents adverse impacts upon
water quality, fish, wildlife, and vegetative re.sources,..
and minimizes interruption of water circulation patterns
and coastal processes..

6, Buffer Zones

To the extent feasible, buffer zones shall be established
between industrial areas and major public transportation
routes and between industrial development and adjacent,
nonindustrial properties.

7. Accessory Development
Accessory development that does not require a shoreline
location in order to carry out its support functions shall
be sited away from the shoreline. This category includes
parking, warehousing, open air storage, waste storage,
and treatment or storm runoff control facilities, utilities
and land transport development.

5-7

Commercial Development

The following industrial policies shall also apply to commercial
development:

o Natural features

o Views and natural setting
o Dredge and excavation material
o Facility design
o Accessory development

Filling or drainage of water bodies, floodways, backshores, or
natural wetlands for expansion of upland areas for commercial
development is subject to review by the Community Development

Department.

Resi dential Development

1. Location

In areas with poorly-draining soils, development shall not be

allowed unless connected to a sewer line. Where this is not feasi-

ble, on-site facilities shall be designed so as not to cause

conditions that will pollute rivers, lakes, and other water bodies,
including the ground-water supply.

2. Open Space
Maximum retention of green areas and open space shall be
encIouraged.

3. Access

New subdivisions or other residential developments on the shoreline
shall provide a community recreation and public access area along
the shoreline, extending the length of the development. Such
areas shall be of a minimum width of 50 feet measured land-ward
.from ordinary high water mark (OHWM).

.578

Hazardous Lands
Development shall not occur in hazardous areas such as avalanche
runout zone, active floodplains and high water channels, and
unstable slopes and shorelines. Siting, design, and construction
measures to minimize exposure to these hazards may be required

for conditional hazardous areas.

Energy Facilities

The siting and approval of major energy facilities shall be based
on,the standards and guidelines set forth in the Alaska Coastal Manage-
ment Act (6 AAC 80.070).

1. Energy.facilities must be compatible with nearby land and water

uses.

2. Energy facilities will be located in areas set aside by Kodiak
Island Borough.for' industrial use.

3. Sites must have enough space for reasonable expansion of facili-

ties without preempting lands suitable for other development.

4 Preference will be given to sites where existing roads, docks,
and services can satisfy industrial requirements, or where an
enclave development may be deemed feasible.

5. Companies must strive to consolidate their activities and, where-
ever feasible, share their facilities with other companies or

the community.

6. Sites.will be approved that call for a minimum of dredging, clear-
ing, and construction in productive habitats..

7. Priority will be given to sites that are free from navigational
hazards and.where new vessels will not cause overcrowding.

.5-9

8. Sites must be selected where water discharges and oil spills
can be contained and damage to the environment minimized.

9. Energy facilities with airborne emissions must be located where
winds and air currents can disperse emissions and where the cumu-
lative impact does not violate state and federal air quality

standards.

10. Effluent discharge of energy facilities must be located where
currents can disperse effluents and where the cumulative impact
does not violate state and federal water quality standards.

11. Energy facilities will be sited to protect scenic, recreational,
environmental and cultuial values in the immediate vicinity.

'Recreation, Tourism, and Natural Setting

1. Recreational developments shall provide the local population
with a balanced choice of recreation experiences in appropriate
locations. Public agencies and private developers shall coordinate
their plans and activities with the Community Development Depart-
ment to provide a wide variety of recreational opportunities
without needless duplication of facilities.

2. Facilities for water-dependent recreation such as fishing, tour
operators, and boating, and water-oriented recreation such as
picnicking, hiking, skiing, and walking shall be located near
the shoreline, while non-water-related recreation facilities

should be located inland.

3. Recreational facilities shall be located and designed to minimize
conflicts with other uses, activities, and user groups not compat-

ible with recreational uses.

5-10

4. Recreational and access developments shall, wherever appropriate,
preserve or enhance@scenic views and vistas as well as improve

the aesthetic area.

5. Industrial/energy a"'AIJIty, development in Kodiak Island Borough
has proven compatible with or has enhanced recreation/tourism.
New development shall incorporate where applicablerecreation
facilities such as trails and educational aids and tours and

displays.

The Kodiak Island Borough shall support state and federal efforts
@to develop marine parks, roadside pullouts, and other recreation
facilities on public lands within and adjacent to coastal manage-
ment district boundaries when identified in conjunction with
the Kodiak Island Borough.

Transportation and Utility Routes

1. State Highway Construction and Maintenance
..The Kodiak Island Borough shall support state highway construction
and maintenance efforts to improve transportation corridors.

2. Location

Wherever there is an inland alternative, transportation and util-
ity routes shall be located away from the sho-relines. Shoreline
routes shall incorporate pullouts and other means of public access.

.3. Facility Design, Construction, and Maintenance
Highway, airport, port, and utility design, construction, and
maint.enance shall minimize alteration of water courses, wetlands,
and intertidal marshes, and visual degradation.

4. Stream Crossings
Roads and trails shall cross anadromous streams only when neces-
sary to provide access as deemed necessary by the Kodiak Island
Borough. Bridge or culvert construction.and design must minimize

5-11

habitat disturbance and allow fish passage. Phasing of construction
scheduling shall be done to avoid critical migration periods
for salmon and other anadromous species.

5. Underground Utilities
To the extent feasible, underground installation of utilities
is recommended in areas of high recreational or scenic value
or intensive public use.

6. Utility Service
New development shall locate in areas where water and sewer ser-
vice are already developed or suitable on-site systems are feasi-

ble.

7. Sanitary Landfills
To avoid leachate pollution, landfills shall be located well
above the ground-water table. The soils shall be of proper perme-
ability and texture to restrict the passage of polluted waters
into the ground-water system. Landfills shall be located above
any floodplains and away from water bodies or wetlands so as
to avoid pollution of these aquatic environments. Landfill sites
shall be screened from transportation routes and neighboring
properties, and located in areas protected from high winds.

Geophysical Hazards

1. Utilization

The Kodiak Island Borough shall support safe and sensible utiliza-
tion of potentially hazardous lands.

2. Coordination

The Kodiak Island Borough, state and federal government, and
private interests shall coordinate to develop information defining
the extent of geophysical hazards, and proper siting/design and
construction measures to maximize safe utilization of potentially

hazardous lands.

5-12

3. Avalanche Hazards
Coastal development shall be prohibited in areas identified as
avalanche chute and runout zones. These areas shall remain in

open space.

4. Landslides and Mass Wasting Hazards
Commercial and residential development shall be prohibited in
areas identified as subject to landslide and mass wasting hazards.
Industrial development shall be subject to approval of siting/
design/c6nstruction measures to mitigate the hazard.

5. Riverine Flooding
Development shall not take, place with the 10-year recurrence
(or 10 percent probability) floodplain in order to-protect life
and property and to avoid construction of unnecessary flood control
structures at public exp ense. Development considered necessary
within the 100-year (1 percent probability) floodplain shall
be subject to proper siting/design/construction measures to mini
mize the potential flooding hazard.

.6o Coastal/Seiche Flooding
Development shall be limited to water-dependent uses within
feet elevation abov e mean sea 1evel (100-year recurrence
or 1 percent probability event). W'ater-dependent development
within feet above sea level shall be subject to siting/
design/construction measures to mitigate the potential hazard.

7. Seismic Events
The Kodiak Island Borough shall institute programs to identify
and further delineate areas of known and potential hazard, and
to identify,proper and improper use of.seismi.c hazard areas..
Proposals for development within known and potential seismic
areas shall be required to prepare a geotechnical i nvestigation
prior to.development to determine an area's physical capability
to accommodate various uses. It shall also address siting/design/

construction measures to minimize the hazard.

5-13

Coastal Access

1. Public Access
New development shall be encouraged to provide physical or visual

access to shorelines when such access does not cause interference

with operations or hazard to life and property.

2. Recreation Facilities

The Kodiak Island Borough, through the Community Development
Department, shall continue to provide access to the shoreline
through trails, bikepaths, and development of State Public Interest
Lands under its management.

3. Access to State and Federal Lands

The Kodiak Island Borough shall continue to support state and
federal efforts to provide Lparine access to their lands in the
Kodiak Island Borough.

Fisheries and Seafood Processing

1. Fisheries Enhancement

The Kodiak Island Borough 'shall continue to actively promote
the development of hatcheries and aquaculture programs.

Fisheries enhancement programs will strive to maintain or restore
the biological productivity of anadromous streams and lakes in

the coastal zone.

2. Optimum Resource Use
Maintenance and enhancement of fisheries should be given priority
consideration in reviewing shoreline use proposals that might
adversely impact fisheries habitat, migratory routes, and harvest
of significant fish.

5-14

3. Industrial Development
Development of industrial and energy-related facilities shall
include programs to replace fishery stock affected by water
supply or other applicable aspects of construction and operations.

Mining and Mineral Processing

Material Sources

The Kodiak Island Borough shall identify preferred locations
for extracting gravel and other material sources within the Coastal

Management District.

2 Gravel Mining
Plans formining gravel in floodplains shall be reviewed by the
Community Development Department prior to initiating gravel mining.

'Timber and Timber Processing

1. Timber harvesting activities shall be managed to ensure a sustained
yield, except whenharvesting insect-,infested and blowdown timber.

2. Timber harvesting activities shall be conducted in a manner that
most minimizes damage to or lo.ss of. anadromous fish.streams,

and elk winter habitat.

Archaeological/Historical Resources

1. Resource Identification

Because prehistoric and archaeological sites ane important assets
to both local municipalities and the state, local and state govern-
ments should institute conscientious programs designed to identify
and preserve all significantsites not already protected by federal
and state programs.

.5-15

2. Resource Distribution Forecast Map
The cultural resource distribution forecast map presented in
the Coastal Management Program shall be used as a guide to develop-
ment, but does not satisfy the requirements of the Alaska Historic

Preservation Act or Procedures for the Protection of Historic

and Cultural Properties.

Ai r and Water Quality

1. Cumulative Impact
New industrial developments shall be required to evaluate and
provide information on their cumulative impact on district air
and water quality prior to siting facilities.

2. State-of-the-Art Technology
Equipment and procedures ut-ilizing the best available technology
for limiting emissions and effluents, and for handling, cleanup,
and disposal of oil and hazardous materials shall be required
of all facilities.

3. Wastewater Discharge
The discharge of wastewater and toxic wastes into Kodiak Island
Borough waters shall be limited to areas with adequate flushing
action and in accordance with State of Alaska regulations. Dis-
charge shall,not be in amounts to render such water unsuitable
for fish survival, industrial cooling, and industrial process
watering supply purposes.

4. Harbors

Harbor, small boat harbor, and marina designs shall incorporate
facilities for proper handling of sewage and refuse. Discharge
of untreated sewage and surface waters from boats shall be prohib-

ited. Water channels should be interconnected to aid in maintain-

ing water flushing action.

5-16

5. Siting
The Kodiak Island Borough shall work with proposals for industrial
facilities for evaluating emission and effluent dispersion, and
assist in siting industrial facilities.

Resource Enhancement and Protection

Enhancement

The maintenance and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and vegetative.
resources shall be given high priority through a hatcheries/
aquaculture development program, and other programs as appropriate.

2. Habitat Protection

Management of sensitive areas such as estuaries, wetlands, tide-
flats, beaches, rivers, streams and lake systems, and high energy

coasts shall be done in accordance with thestandards of the

Alaska.Coastal Management Program.

3. Siting and Design
Development shall be designed, located, and built to preserve
or use wiselythe natural features that are valuable or scarce.

4. Natural Processe s

Estuaries, tideflats, and wetlands shall be managed so as to
assure water flow, natural circulation patterns, and nutrient
and oxygen levels. Dredging sh all not be permitted in-these areas,
unless approved by the Community Development Department, U.S.
Army Corps of.Engineers, and other appropriate state and federal

agencies.

Upland habitats shall be managed to retain natural drainage pat-
terns, prevent excessive runoff and erosion, surface water quality,
and natural ground-water recharge areas.

5-17

Subsistence

1. Subsistence use of resources by Kodiak Island Borough residents
is recognized as a primary resource use, and shall be a protected
use when coastal development occurs.

5-1-8

5.4 DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATION POLICIES

The following policies are meant to guide activities and'develop-
ment in areas classified by the resource analysis.

5.4.1 CONSERVATION AREAS

1. Conservation areas within the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Manage-
ment District shall be established based on overriding geophysical
hazards, biological resource, coastal habitat, recreation, and
air/water q uality concerns.

2. Activities and development within conservation areas shall be
limited to those identified as proper uses for these areas.

5.4.2 DEVELOPMENT WITH RESTRICTIONS

1. Conditional development areas with the Kodiak Island Borough
Coastal Management District shall be established where coastal
development may be subject to constraints created by biological
resource needs, geophysical hazards, coastal habitat, recreation,
land ownership, coastal access, and air/water quality.

2. No activitie s or development shall necessarily receive preferen-
tia I status in conditional development areas.

3. Activities and development within conditional development areas
shall be subject to coordination with the Community Development
Department and with appropriate state and federal agencies.

4. Potential constraints on activities,and development within condi-
tional development areas shall be identified in the Kodiak Island
Borough District Coastal Management Program.

5-19

5.4.3 DEVELOPMENT AREAS

1. Deve lopment areas shall be established within the Kodiak Island
Borough Coastal Management District where economic and coastal
development objectives are not subject to constraints created
by geophysical hazards, biological resources, coastal habitat,
recreation, land ownership, coastal access, and air/water quality

concerns.

2. Economic and coastal development are preferential uses for these

areas.

6.0 AREAS MERITING SPECIAL ATTENTION

6.o

AREAS MERITING SPECIAL ATTENTION

Areas meriting special attention (AMSAs) are areas singled out
during coastal management program development for detailed planning.
AMSAs fulfill the national objective of identifying and designating
coastal'areas of particular concern (USC Sec 305 b 3) and the state
recognition that in certain areas specific management objectives are
@necessary to resolve problems associated with conflicting uses. As.
defined in the Alaska CoARtal Managment act [AS46.210(l)], AMSAs are,

'A delineated geographic area within the
coastal area which is sensitive to change
or alteration and which, because of plans
or commitments or because a claim on the
resources within the area delineated would
preclude subsequent use of the resources
to a conflicting.or incompatible use, warrants
special management attention, or which, because
of its value to the general public, should
beindentified for current or future planning,
protection, or acquisition.

Acceptable rationales for designating AMSA s are identified in
the Alaska Coastal Mana,gement Act (CMA) and the Alaska Coastal Management
Program standards. All propo sals for AMSAs must be related to one or more
of t-he following:

1. Areas of unique., scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habi-
tat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic

importance;

6-1

2. Areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for
living resources;
3. Areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity;
4. Areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the

utilization of, or access to, coastal waters;
5. Areas of unique geological or topographic significance that
are susceptible to industrial or commercial deve lopment;
6. Areas of significant hazard due to storms, slides, floods,

erosion, or settlement; and

7. Areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal land
or resources, including coastal floodplains, aquifer recharge
areas, beaches, and offshore sand deposits.
8. Areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gather-
ing, and foraging;
Areas with special scientific values or opportunities, includ-
ing those where ongoing research projects could be jeopardized
by development or conflicting uses and activities; and
10. Potential estuarine or marine sanctuaries. [AS 46.40.210 (1)
and ACMP Standards 6AAC 80.160 (b)]

Any person, federal or state agency, or local government may
,recommend AMSAs if the requisite information is included with the appli-
cation. Applicants must include the following information:

1. The rationale for identifying the area as an AMSA based on the

reasons listed above;
2. A map showing the geographical location, surface area, and,
where appropriate, bathymetry of the area;
3. A description of the area, including dominant physical and
biological features;
4. The existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status
of the area, including existing uses and activities;
5. The existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status
of adjacent shoreland and sea areas, including existing uses

and activities;

6-2

6. Current and anticipated conflicts among uses and activities
within or adjacent to the area, if any; and
7. A proposed management scheme.

The management scheme which "must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore
the value or values for which the area was designated," as specified in
6AAC 80.160(c). The management scheme must include:

(a) A description of the uses and activities that will be con-
sidered proper and the uses and activities that will be
considered improper with respect to land and water within

the area;

(b) A summary or statement of the policies that will be applied
in managing the area; and

Coastal Management Districts must.consider recommended AMSAs, but
are not bound. to accept an AMSA as nominated. Final decisions on AMSA de-
signations are made during program review by the Coastal Policy Council,
which considers state and federal agency comments at that time. This
minimizes speculation and diverse interpretations about how the area is

to be maintained.

The use of AMSAs to manage resource use and activities can be
easily abused; ideally AMSAs should be used to resolve conflicts between
usesor to protect single-purpose values of public importance only when
other coastal management tools are not adequate. In the case of many
potential AMSAs, policies, development conditions, and implementation
(including incorporation of state and federal regulations) are adequate
to resolve use conflicts or protect uses. A large number of individual

6-3

AMSAs can result in piecemeal planning and additional layers of require-
ments for potential resource users.

Approval of an AMSA as part of a Coastal Management Program in-
cludes both the approval of the AMSA boundaries and of the specific
management plan adopted-for it.

Many recommendations for areas of concern in Kodiak have been
maoe, primarily by state agencies. Some are as site-specific as a partic-
ular historic building; others are as general as Afognak Island. the
entire west coast of Kodiak Island, or the 1.5. meter isobath. The pur-
poses for designating sites are diverse, reflecting most of the ten
catagories listed earlier and other values as reasonable bases for desig-
nation. Purposes range from preservation of existing resources to dev elop-
ment of energy facilities (Table 6-1).

Special ares of concern identified by Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (ADNR), Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and Alaska Department of Community
and Regional Affairs (ADCRA) were published recently by the State OCM.
Recommendations have also been identified by the Kodiak Island Borough

and.'Iocal residents.

Each of the areas nominated for special attent ion is listed in
Table 6.1. Also included in the table are the nominating agency as vil-
lage and the purpose(s) for the nomination. Proposed AMSAs are also
identified on Map 16. Areas delineated AMSAs proposed by the Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, were derived from ADNR maps
indicating the watershed area associated with each AMSA. The boundaries
of sites nominated by others were derived only from textual material, and
may not exactly depict the area of concern. Moreover, several areas
identified were so extensive that they were not included on the map. These
areas include all of Afognak Island and the Kodiak Marine Sanctuary,

6-4

which follows the 20 meter isobath around the shores of the Nation@l-'.'14
Wildlife,Refuge. Other sites (such as the entire west coast of Kodiak
Island) were not included because the nomination was contingent'upoln the
development of offshore oil in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait.

Final selection of AMSAs for the coastal manangement program
@will be made by the Borough during the Phase II Program based upon a
thorough examination of nominated sites and comments received from the
public, local governments, and state and federal agencies.

6.1 AMSA LITERATURE CITED

Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Parks. 1980. Recreation,
scenic, and heritage areas of concern: Kodiak Archipelago.

Alaska Office of Coastal Management. 1980. Special areas in the Alaska
coastal zone: abstracts of proposals. Juneau, Alaska.

Marshall, W. and A. Croswell. 1981. Preliminary report: KANA Coastal
management village public participation program.

6-6

>
I? . . . . . . z 00 0 1=1 0 0 0
No I
0 x Pr
w w w > -3 -1 H 0 m P@ a 0 X
r 0 w 3 0 0 :1, a. w=I, m Ow 0 4 0
0 >
@O C: CL , 1-1
0, 0 0 X 00 no 0 :J CP
@:.m 0. @@Wfo,@ 0 0 - '. X, :1 m - , , m m 0' m
m 0 -M 0 . a :1 t"
r 3 C-)= m 0 11 a,m 0 11 C, 10 z m n X, 10 X, A, 0 V
x P 1 0. w 0 Pr 0 m CL0 _ 0
0r 0 t- 0 0 0 11C-4 :3 0 c- @c 0 :j - c- 4 t3l C) 0 4b
C W o 1 0 1 w w V 14m C, 21.11 1 - r- t- m g- > a 0 z :I m L
17 t- m o 'U P@ -0 C a, 0 0 m m 0
< o , Pr C. m 0 :1 0 0
m c 0 m @4 1.
;j W:j Z m
0 0. C C-1
w W 0 0 n 0
< 0 X =1
w
P. 0 m :3 c. 0.
0 m m m PO
0 '0 30 0
0 1 m 0.
w -0 , 0 0 0
n m Pr :3 :3 m r
m
n
m

IXIx 1>5 1. Vulnerable Na

z
X X x x x x >4 x x X Cultural Reso

1XIX Ix x x x >4 X X x x x X >4 X Historic Reso

X.IX x >4 x xlxlxl@ x >4 x XIX >4 XIX XIX x x x XIX Ix x XIX >4 >4 X Scenic Resour

X Ix x x x x XIX x X Ix x x1XIX XIX -x x x >4 XIX x x X Ix 2. Critical Habi

1XIX x Ix Ix 1@ x x jxjx xIxIx Ix XIX x IXIXIXIX >4 1XIXIX XIX Ix I. Recreational

4 .Water depende

X x x >4 x x x 5. Unique Geolog

x 6. Ifazard Area

7. Ar@as Needed
Maintain Coas

1@ Ix x K Ix 8. Subsistence A

X x x 9. Scientificall
Ix Ix 10. I:i:tent ial FSLU
irine SancLua

11. Lifestyle Impa
Ix
12. Lnergy Facilit
x x x x x
13. Timber Harvest
x
14. Residential De
xx
Land Ownership
.1,)inL Planning

16. Transportation

4' P 4' P -WW-
0, 0, 01 0, @o ?D 4' 4'
0 M I m
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
X 2@ -.2-0 0 1, @q C: c: C= H _3 Pu 0 X t: 2q Pq q 0 0 0 to :I. > ;C c: I W w W;u @u @a Z x t" Z Z
m 0 0 0 m C 0 m 0 14 00 09 C 0 C n - ,.,0 " g tr 0 -< a w -0 'r 0 00 0 0 0
00 'a ug < 3 0 0 0 t. 04 a m C, w 11 0 w M M 0 0 0 m -1 m 0 . :3 m 0 X
r m C: m n' 3 m N < N Pr Pr - CL (Dx w CL 0. 00
m :3 '4 w m 3 M w Cr m m C c 4 :s _j n 1, (P0
1@ W 1@ > w Pr Pr M W '4 mX, Pr C 0 :3 m ti - H rI,, - D. 0
11 u w Pr -0 t. r o
7 0 MX PO 3 OQ 11 1@1 14 0
4 tu < tv to ot 1P 0 00 ='4 C. -w 0 03 Ib 0 01 '0 w r@ WM 0 0 M 00 MW no 0 Z
w w 1. m a 0 W n w 3w w 1< 414 X, Ib ol CL :3 0 w A, d:3 0 P. M 'a " 1< n 0
Pr 7v m m m m
M Pr m
CL :1 0 0 m 0 X,
m
4
C lb < 0 w
m m ;3 Ib
w 00 1 w
Pr
w D,
0 0 X,
m
03

1. Vulnerab
Ix >4 X

Cultural
x X xx x xxx x X
Ix IX x x x xx x XXXX x Ix xx x Ix Historic

Scenic R
x XIX xx XXXXX Xxxxx Xxjxxx XXXX XIX XIX x x xxx

2. Critical
X X@xx xxxxx XIX x XIX x1XIXIXIX 1XIX XIXIx x x XIXlx x x xlxl@< x x X x x x x x x

XIX XIX X XIxIXIXIX 1XIXIX XIX 1XIX xlxixlxlxix x x Ix x1XIXIX 1XIXIXIXIX
10 4. Water d,!
Ix
x x x S. Unique

6. Hazard A

7. Areas N,t
Maintain

6. Subsiste
jxx Ix Ix x x Ix

scientif

10. PoLenLi,@
Marine S@

Lilescy)v
x x 12- Energy Fa

13. Timber lia

x x 14. ResidenLi

x x x x x x x x x xxx 15. Land Own,@
Joint Pla

16. Transport

m m m m 0-m m m
XIX Go
mo wo. pw. @@-r :@I, WH @01 00 S) PC; :w< 10
a W . 0 3 " 73 .. M -: P- U M r
oo :3 - , :, m , , El 7v m
Cr 1.3m W 0 M 0
m X,m (L 0 > CD
0 0 t
0 - tw W M
0 :3 0 00 A,W 0 z
0
0 p C)
:@o
0 3
:3
< M

00
m
TL

1. Vulnerable
0

Cultural Re

0 Historic Re

Scenic Reso

IXI><IXIXIXIXIX 1XIXIXIX 2. Critical Ha
0N a
1 3. Recreationa

0 4, Water depen

5. Unique Geol

6. Hazard Area

N 7. Areas Need
Maintain Co

X.X 8. Subsistence

1><Ixlxlx q. Scientifica

I o. Potential
Marine Sanc

j). Lifestyle I

12. Energy Fac

13. 'rimber liar

j4. Residentia

15. Land Owner
Joint Plant

16. Transporta

7.0 PUBLIC INV OLVEMENT

7. 0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of public involvement in the Kodiak Island Borough
coastal management program has been two-fold:
1. to provide information and to educate the public about the
purpose and impact of the program; and
2. to provide opportunities for public,input throughout the
planning and decision-making process.

During the coastal management program, public involvement activities
have been integrated into. the overall planning process. It was recognized
early in the process that a variety of "publics" exists. For that reason,
a variety of techniques was used to obtain public involvement. In an
effort to.involve as many people as possible, for as long as possible in
the program, four interrelated techniques were used:
1. select committees (CZM Technical Committee, and KANA OEDP
Committee);
@2. public meetings and workshops;
3. surveys; and

4.- media contacts.

With all of the techniques a "reiterative" approach was used. That
is, the Kodiak Island Borough staff took the responsibility of proposing
11something" as a basis of discussion and debate, as well as for review and
comment. Based on public input, draft documents were refined several times
prior to distribution to the Assembly. Two important sections of the report

7-1

were developed in this manner: issues, goals and objectives; and resource

inventory. To a lesser degree, the policies section also underwent this

process of review and refinement.

Public involvement in the Kodiak Island Borough's coastal management
program will not end with this Phase I progress report. Continuing efforts
will be made to inform the public about the work accomplished through the
program and to provide opportunities for public input in the development of
the Kodiak Island Borough coastal management plan.

The rest of this section will highlight each of the four techniques
used to obtain public input in Phase I of the Kodiak Island Borough coastal

management program.

7.2 SELECT COMMITTEES

Select committees known by a variety of names (e.g. Technical
Committee, Advisory Committee, Steering Committee, Working Groups) are
generally designed to represent interests and values that occur in a
community. As such, they usually provide a broad range of attitudes in one
group of individuals. Select committees are most often used as advisory
bodies to guide the direction of technical work throughout the planning

process.

The advantages of the select committee approach are the continuity
of the committee throughout the planning process, the potential diversity
available in one "working" group, and greater intensity of interaction with
the process and its products. One of the disadvantages of this method of
public involvement is that it tends to limit public input to those on the
committee. This can be a problem if the committee members are not repre-
sentative of broader community attitudes. In order to overcome the possible
disadvantage of the select committee method of public involvement, the
Kodiak Island Borough complemented its use of two select committees with
three other public involvment techniques. These techniques are described

later in this section.

7-2

In early October (1980), the Kodiak Island Borough established a
CZM Technical Committee. The purpose of the Committee was to 'advise the
CZM Coordinator on matters pertaining to the coastal zone management pro-
gram. Specifically, the-Committee would:
1. Provide input for the development of the detailed coastal zone
management work program, within the framework of the general work program
approve(f by the Borough Assembly; and

2. Review and comment on the documents prepared for the coastal
zone management p rogram, prior to consideration by the Assembly".

The Kodiak Island Borough CZM Technical Committee is composed

primarily of individuals who represent major community groups or interests.
The individuals and.the organization they represent are listed below:
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CZM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Robert Amesbury/Darwin Rennewanz Sea-Land Service, Inc.
Leslie Anderson/Gary Haines KONCOR Forest-Resource Management

William Anderson United States Coast Guard

Tom Azumbrado Kodiak Island Housing Authority

Forrest Blau Private Citizen

Tim Blott Kodiak Seafood Processors' Assoc.

Mike Brechan Brechan Enterprises, Inc.

Tim Hill KIB Planning & Zoning Commission
Wayne Marshall Kodiak Area Native Association
Dave Nease/Laurel Peterson Kodiak Electric Association

Hank Pennington KIB OCS Advisory Council

James Peotter Kodiak Island Borough Assembly

Thomas Peterson Kodiak Economic Development Comm.
Gordan Ryan/Bill Bivin City of Kodiak

Mary Jo Simmons Private Citizen

Richard Sims Kodiak Area Chamber of Commerce

Jeffrey Stephan United Fishermens' Marketing Assoc.
Gene Sundberg- Koniag, Inc.
Noreen Thompson/Bob Thomas KIB School District
Nell Waage Kodiak Halibut Fishermens' Assoc.

7-3

The Kodiak Island Borough CZM Technical Committee met approximately
every one to two months, during Phase I of the coastal management program
(October, December, 1980 - January, February, March, May, 1981). At all of
their meetings, the CZM Technical Committee reviewed the status and direc-
tion of the Borough's coastal management program; while commenting on
specific topics, such as the CZM draft goals and objectives and agendas for
public meetings and work sho ps.

In addition to the CZM Technical'Committee, th e Kodiak Island
Borough used one other select committee, the Kodiak Area Native Association
Overall Economic Development and Planning Committee. The Committee consists
of one representative from each of the six villages in the Borough (Larsen
Bay's position has been vacant since mid-February). The following people

serve on the KANA OEDP Committee:

KANA OEDP COMMITTEE

Duke Delgado Ouzinkie

David Eluska Akhiok

Ron Lind Karluk

Patricia Lukin Port Lions

Arthur Panamaroff Larsen B ay
Dorothy Pestrikoff Old Harbor

The KANA OEDP Committee was initially involved in the Kodiak Island
Borough coastal management program in a review capacity. The Committee
played an integral role in the CZM village participation program, sub-
contracted through KANA. The KANA OEDP Committee performed the same function
as the CZM Technical Committee in the Kodiak Island Borough's coastal
management programys public involvement efforts and met the same months as
the CZM Technical Committee. The February 1981 meeting was a joint working
meeting between the two Committees and the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly.
Further information on the role of the Committees in the Borough's coastal
management program can be obtained from the Kodiak Island Borough.,

7-4

7.3 PUBLIC MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS

One of the techniques used to supp lement the select committee
method of obtaining public input was public meetings and workshops.

Two workshops/meetings were held in each of the villages in the
Kodiak Island Borough, as well as in the City of Kodiak. The first set
of village workshops occurred from February 9-16, 1981. A workshop/
public meeting for the City of Kodiak was held on February 24, 1981.
The main purpose of the first set of workshops was educational; to provide
Borough residents with basic information about coastal management. In
addition, the following topics were discussed at the workshops: the role
of the Kodiak Island Borough in preparing a coastal management plan, and
the work program for plan preparation; the role of KANA as a sub-C.ontractor
for the village public participation program; the role of Woodward-Clyde
Consultants as a sub-contractor for the inventory analysis portion of the
program; and an introduction to the concept of Areas Meriting Special
Attention (AMSA). Additional intents of the first set of workshops were:
to explain the possible impacts of the coastal managment program; and to
obtain some initial reactions to Kodiak Island Borough coastal management
issues. The first set of workshops in Kodiak Island Borough villages was
well attended. A total of 56 village residents participated in the work-
shops. The workshop/meeting in the City of Kodiak had low attendence by

comparison, six CZM Technical Committee members and one interested citizen
attended the city workshop/meeting.

A second set of village workshops occurred from April 13-23, 1981,
with a second workshop/meeting held in the City of Kodiak on May 20, 1981.
The second set of workshops dealt with coastal management issues in more
depth than the first set. The four major topics that were discussed at
each of these workshops were: review of the general status and direction
of the Kodiak Island Borough coastal managment program; review of the
resource inventory and analysis portion of the program; identification
of fish and game resource use patterns by Borough residents; and review
of CZM draft goals and objectives. As with the first set of workshops,
those held in the villages had higher participation

7-5

than the one held in the City of Kodiak. Approximately 35 village
residents were involved in the second set of workshops. In the City
of Kodiak, only two CZM Technical Committee members attended the meeting.

In addition to the two sets of workshops/meetings held in each of
the villages and the City of Kodiak, two "CZM Intervillage Conferences"
were also sponsored. The two conferences were held February 23-25, 1981
and May 19-20, 1981, both in the City of Kodiak. The main purpose of the
CZM Intervillage Conferences was to enable village residents to discuss
and identify common coastal management issues. The first conference was
attended by 19 village residents, the second by 22 village residents,
representing all six villages in the Kodiak Island Borough. Representa-
tives from the City of Kodiak were invited to attend portions of both

conferences.

overall, the work shops/meetings appear more successful in obtaining
public input from Borough residents in villages, than from Borough residents
in the City of Kodiak. Further information on the workshops/meetings held
by the Kodiak Island Borough as part of the coastal management program
can be obtained from the Borough.

7.4 SURVEYS

The Kodiak Island Borough used two similar public opinion surveys
to supplement the other public involvement techniques used in the coastal

management program.

The Kodiak Area Native Association, through their sub-contract
with the Borough, surveyed householders in the six Borough villages. The
surveys were conducted.on a door-to-door basis in each village. Approxi-
mately 65% of the village households were surveyed, representing about
35% of the adult population in the villages.

In the Kodiak urban area, the survey was distributed to all box-
holders at the U. S. Post Office in the City of Kodiak and at the U. S.

7-6

Coast Guard Base. Additional surveys were also located in sites around
the City of Kodiak and were available at several public meetings. Approxi-
mately 3,855 surveys were distributed in the Kodiak urban area, 139 surveys
were completed and returned, representing a 3.6% response rate. A copy of
the survey distributed in the Kodiak urban area is included in this section
of the Phase I progress report.

This section will primarily summarize data obtained from the Kodiak
Island Borough coastal management surveys. In most cases, the data has
been summarized on a composite basis for 1) the six villages in the
Borough, and 2) the Kodiak urban area. As previously stated, more detailed
information can be obtained from,the Kodiak Island.Borough.

The fi rst four questions of the survey were intended to determine
Borough residents' basic understanding of coastal management. Forty-one
percent (41%) of the village respondents had some knowledge of coastal
management, but only thirty percent (30%) were aware that the Borough
was undertaking the development of a coastal managment plan. Sixteen
percent (16%) of the village respondents felt that the Borough could
represent their interests in a coastal management plan, but another
sixty-three percent (63%) were unsure of the Borough's ability to do so.

In the Kodiak urban area, there was more awarenes's about coastal
management from survey respondents. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of urban
area respondents, had some knowledge of.coastal management, and fifty-eight
percent (58%) were aware that the Borough was undertaking the development
of a coastal management plan. Only twenty-six percent (26%) of urban
area respondents felt that the Borough could represent their interests
in a coastal management plan, and fifty-nine percent (59%) were unsure
of the Borough's ability to do so.

Village respondents felt that 1) village workshops, 2) village
.representatives on the CZM Technical Committee, and 3) periodic newsletters
were the best ways to involve them in the coastal management pregram.
Urban area respondents felt that 1) surveys, 2) public meetings, and

7-7'

KODIA
COAST
P.O. BOX 1246
KODIAK, ALASKA 99615
486-5736

BOXHOLDER

T
C OA S INJ M EIV T I

a A-0

COASTAL MANAGEMENT IS A JOINT EFFORT BY LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENTS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO MANAGE COASTAL RESOURCES AND
PROMOTE THEIR WISE AND BALANCED USE."; CAN HELP! THE KODIAK ISLAND
BOROUGH IS PREPARING A "COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN." THE COASTAL MAN-
AGEMENT PLAN, WHEN ADOPTED, WILL BE A LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT GUIDES THE
FUTURE USE OF LAND AND WATER IN THE BOROUGH. WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS
TO PREPARE A GOOD PLAN. PLEASE HELP BY FILLING OUT THE ENCLOSED SURVEY
AND COMING TO OUR PUBLIC MEETING:

KODIAK COMMUNITY COLLEGE
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20,1981
7:00 P.M.

`:FRA 1, AS6

J
-8
@

COMMUNITY SURV@Y

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
KODIAK ISLflD BOROUGH
MAY 1 81

The Kodiak Island Borough is developing a. coastal management plan
for all lands located within the Borough; from the Barren Islands
to the Trinity Islands and everything in between. The purpose is
to enable local, state and federal governments and private interests
to plan for the balanced use of the coastal resources in the Kodiak
Archipelago. This survey is..@be_ing conducted by the Kodiak Island
Borough to help assess the utid'@r'@'s'tandina and.concerns of residents
about coastal management. Th*@,'.,'survey is being conducted in the
Kodiak City area and has beeht;',.`66n&icted in each of the Borough's
six villages. The answers you provide will be used to guide the
Borough in the development of the coastal management plan. We would
like to emphasize that this survey is only one way that you can .
provide direction in the development of the coastal management plan.
We encourage you to express your views at our public meetings or by
phone,.letter or in person. You can contact Linda Freed or Cindy
Bowser at the Kodiak Island Borough for more information*.. Thank
you for your interest.

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AS BEST YOU CAN. YOU MAY
WRITE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ANYWHERE ON THE SURVEY. WHEN YOU ARE
...DONE, PLEASE PLACE THE COMPLETED SURVEYS IN THE BOXES LOCATED AT:

-.CITY-POST OFFICE - HOLMES-JOHNSON LIBRARY
C. G..BASE POST OFFICE - COMMUNITY COLLEGE LIBRARY
-,BOROUGH OFFICES - SHIRE BOOKSTORE
PL`EASE COMPLETE THE SURVEY BY 14AY 29, 1981.. THANK YOU!

At the present time, how much do you know about coastal
management in general?

Good knowledge. of coastal management.
Some knowledge of coastal management.
No knowledge of coastal management.

2. Prior to this survey, were you aware that the Kodiak Island
Borough was in the process of developing a coastal.management
plan for the Borough?

Yes No

3.1 Do you feel that th e Kodiak Island Borough has the ability to
develop a coastal management plan that will reflect your interests
in the management of coastal resources?

Yes No Don't know

If yes or no, what are the main reasons for your answer?

7-9

4. After it is adopted, the Kodiak Island Borough's Coastal Management
Plan may have an effect on the manner in which coastal resources in
the Borough are used.
How do you feel that residents' interests can best be identified?

Surveys Newsletters
Public meetings Newspaper articles
Radio shows Other (please list)

5. Overall, how do you feel the land around your neighborhood
should be managed? Within 32- - 5 Beyond
1- Mile Miles 5 Miles
32
Development
Development with restrictions
Conservation

What "neighborhood" do you live in?

If you have chosen "development with restrictions", what
restrictions would you like to see?

6. A purpose of.the coastal management program is to identify the
types and locations of development that may occur in the
.Borough. The following types of development could occur in
the Borough. What do you think about their location?
Near the City In the Borough Should not occuX.
of Kodiak Outside City in the Borough
Fish processing

Tourism & recreation

Oil or gas on-shore
facilities

Port/transportation
industry expansion

Timber

Mining & mineral
processing
7-10

Near the C�ty In the Borough Should not occur
6. (Continued) of Kodiak Outside City in the Borough

Shipyards/marine repair
facilities

Agriculture/ranching

Other (list)

Of these possible types of development, which types would you
like to see for,this area?

7. The developments in question #6 could have an impact on the
Borough's environment and its resources. In considering possible
developments, please indicate your general level of concern about
the following resource protection interests:
None Minimal Some Very
Natural setting
Fish/wildlife habitat
Water quality
Air quality
Other (pl easelist):

8. The people living in the Borough are an integral part of the
island's,environment. The coastal management program mustalso
consider peoples' lifestyles. Of the following lifestyles, which
do you view as being of the most importance?
None Minimal Some Very,
Subsistence hunting & fishing
Commercial fishing or trapping
Sport fishing & hunting
Year-around employment
opportunities
Other (please list):

9. The coastal management program will also indentify specific areas
that merit special attention. These areas may merit special
attention because of unusual social, economic, or environmental
value, or because they are very sensitive to change. Do you feel
any areas in the Borough should be indentified as areas meriting
special attention! Please list area (location), reason it is
special, and how you would like to see it managed.

7-11

10. The coastal management program must also consider natural hazards
that could create problems for developmental activities in the
Borough. Of the following hazards, which do you feel are of
concern to development in your area?
LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
None Minimal Some Very
River flooding
Coastal storm flooding
Landslide & avalanches
Earthquakes
Tidal waves
Erosion
Winds
Other (please list):

This last set of questions relates to the goals of the Kodiak Island
Borough Coastal Management Program. These goals will provide the
framework for the coastal management plan. What do you think of these
goals?

1. To provide for cultural/social strength, public safety, and the
economic welfare of Borough residents when siting future land
use activities.

Good goal Fair goal Poor goal

2. To recognize that residents of the Borough utilize local fish,
game, and plant resources to meet dietary and traditional/
cultural needs.

Good goal Fair goal Poor goal

3. To protect coastal habitats and air and water quality in
conjunction with development activities.

Good goal Fair goal Poor goal
4. To preserve the scenic beauty and the cultural, ethnic, & historical'
values of the Kodiak Island Borough.
Good goal Fair goal Poor goal
7-12

e
5. To strive for compatible use of coastal lands and wa@ers between
diverse development activities.

Good goal Fair goal Poor goal

6. To encourage economic productivity and diversity in the Borough,
while minimizing any conflict with fisheries resources and the
fishing industry..

Good goal Fair'goal Poor ooal

7. To encourage the provision of land for desired development
activities.

Good goal Fair goal.( Poor goal
8. To simplify.and expedite permit procedures and governmental
agency review in the implementation of the Kodiak Island Borough
Coastal Management Plan.

Good goal( Fair.goal Poor goal

PLEASE TELL US SOMETHING-ABOUT YOURSELF:

I Male
Female

Age:

3. I'Neighborhood" that you live-in:
4. How long have you been a resident*of Kodiak:

TiiANK YOU AND PLEASE DEPOSIT THE COMPLETED SURVEY IN THE BOXES
LOCATED AT:

CITY POST OFFICE

C. G. BASE POST OFFICE

ROUGH OFFICES

.-@--.@HOLMES JOHNSON LIBRARY

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LIBRARY

SHIRE BOOKSTORE

7-13

3) radio shows were the best ways to involve them in the coastal management

program.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of the village respondents stated that
they felt there were areas near their village that deserved consideration
as Areas Meriting Special Attention (AMSA). Approximately sixty-one percent
(61%) of urban area respondents identified areas in the Borough as AMSA's.

Question 11, in both surveys, related to possible goals and objec-
tives of the Kodiak Island Borough. The goals and objectives presented in
the village survey were general goals and objectives taken from a draft
goals and objectives statement adopted by the Borough in 1977. Overall,
these goals and objectives received support from village respondents, as
being good goals and objectives.

The goals identified in the Kodiak urban area survey were specific-
ally related to the coastal management program. In all cases, a majority
of the respondents felt that the goals were good goals for the Kodiak
Island Borough coastal management program. The responses from remaining
survey questions (5.6,7,8, and 10) follow in tabular form.

7.5 MEDIA CONTACTS

The"'fourth technique used to obtain public involvement in the Kodiak
Island Borough coastal management program was contact with local media.
There are two radio stations (KVOK-AM and KMXT-FM) and two newspapers
(Kodiak Daily Mirror and Kadiak Times) basedlin the City of Kodiak.
KVOK-AM is received throughout the Borough. KMXT-FM is heard primarily
in the City of Kodiak, with fair reception in the villages of Port Lions
and Ouzinkie. The Kodiak Daily Mirror is published daily Monday through
Friday, while the Kadiak Times is published weekly on Thursdays.

Notices of all the workshops and public meetings were published
in both papers and were broadcast as public service announcements on
both radio stations. In most cases, the purpose of contact with local

7-1.4

media was to make the public aware of meetings related to coastal

management.

In addition, a few stories and editorials about the Kodiak Island
Borough coastal management program were published in both papers during
the Phase I program. As well, KMXT-FM produces a local public affairs
talk show called "Public Forum". This program*was used ap proximately
bi-monthly to inform Borough residents about the status and direction of

the coastal management program.

KANAj through their sub-contract with the Borough, also provided
information to village residents on coastal management, through articles
in KANA's newsletter.. These articles appeared in the November, December
and January newsletters. In late June 1981, a newsletter devoted exclu-
sively to coastal management will be distributed through KANA.

7.6 SUMMARY

The Kodiak Island Borough conducted an extensive public involvement
effort during Phase I of the coastal management program. Additional details
of any of the techniques used-,.or the input obtained,,are available from the
Borough. Technical Appendix 1 provides specific information on the public

participationprogram in Borough villages, performed by KANA, through a sub-
contract with the Borough.

The distribution of this Phase I progress report continues the
public involvement efforts of the Kodiak Island Borough coastal management
program., This document will be widely distributed for review and comment.
At a minimum, an additionallset of workshops/meetings will be held in
Borough villages and the City of Kodiak. At least two public hearings are
anticipated on the "public hearing draft" of the Kodiak Island Borough
coastal management plan; one before the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and
Zoning Commission and' one before the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly. Some
consideration is also being given to holding public hearings, on the public
hearing draft of the Kodiak Island Borough coastal-management plan, in each
of the six villages in the Borough.

7-15

QUESTION AKHIOK KARLUK LARSEN BAY OLD HARBOR PORT-LIONS OUZINKIE KODIAK

U) cc
5. Overall, how do you feel 0 0) 0 01 -@4 4) 0 W -0 4) C W -H 4)
Z r. @q @4 z 0 1q -H @q -4
the land around your neigh- 4.14 0 44 430 0 0 4 0-r4
" Z Ln Z 4J 'n >' z 41 'n .1 0>1 _Z' 4" 4J 011
borhood should be managed? @4 W -H I W -H W Qj -k 4) 4 4)
@3: X XI go In 3: x x M :3C x M 3 X, pq .1C x CA 3: x 9q 3: Ln

Development 12 10 4 11 12 2 21 71 - 7 15 - 1 0 - 18 23 30
Development w. restrictions 12 10 4 11 3 13 42 58 - 8 22 - 10 8 - 39 60 27
Conservation 11 12 1 12. 4 li 17 78 - 10 31 - 4 7 - 35 29 45

6. A purpose of the Coastal
Management Program is to a V V
W I W r. 0) IV Z W W 0
identify the types and loca- to 0 60 IV 00 to ca 00 to 2 0
(V -4 % W -1 @q 0 ca 4 $4
14 ra r-4 U) @4 0 r-4 W W 0
tions of development that 1 4 1-4 1-4 >1 to
1-4 H -4 -1 H `4 H
-H 4 -H .14
may occur in the Borough. > > '00 > @a > > > r.
r. I r. r -A
The following types of :3 $4 k 0 &4 W Pq
development could occur in co 0 4j W 0 W a 4j cd 0 4j Cd 0 4j (d a 4j 0 43
0) 0 W $4 a 0) 0 Q) 14 0 01 0 0) W 0 (D 0 0
the Borough. What do you 7@ z z .4 z z z -4 z Z z z @4 z
think of their location?

Fish Processing 5 18 0 14 6 - 15 12 0 97 3 0 30 15 0 14 10 a 106 56 4
Tourism & Recreation 1 5 17 8 10 - 7 11 3 22 76 2 4 19 17 1 3 13 log 85 9
Oil/Gas On-shore Facilities 0 8 15 2 11 - 3 12 3 26 65 6 7 5 32 0 3 13 22 61 65
Port/Transportation industry 4 15 4 5 11 - 10 13 1 87 12 2 23 12 8 5 5 8 99 55 9
Timber 0 7 16 3 13 - 1 14 1 2 91 4 7 11 26 4 6 7 lo 85 46
Mining/Mineral Processing 0 6 17 2 11 - 4 12 3 29 63 6 1 5 36 0 2 14 8 72 56
Shipyards/Marine Repair 7 16 0 2 14 - 5 15 0 88 10 1 26 18 1 9 10 4 108 57 6
Agriculture/Ranching 13 127 io
Other:
Gear Storage 2
Hydro-Electric Power 2
Fish Hatchery I I
Small Business 1 2
Roads 3
Manufacturing I

Composite o Kodiak surveys.

QUESTION U.S.C.G. BASE BELLS FLATS CHINIAK BUSH AREAS IN CITY LIMITS NORTH OF CITY INDETEKMINATE
to W
V0 rW 14 Is0 0 0) -H, @2 (D 0 a) .,1 .8 4)
z rrq .14 H 014 -H -1 z rA 1-1 1-4 z -H @@ z `4
5. Overall, how do you feel the r. .14 0-H a -'4 0-ri 4 -H 0-H a -H 0@4 'r,H 0 .0 -H 0 @i 4 -ri 0 -H
"Z Ln Z - Z >1 z 4j Z . vi ;@' z 4j x -@ >' Z "= 'n >1 4j z >' z 4j z In ;@' z
land around your neighborhood -H I a) H. W -H I W .'4 1 0) 1 W -'4 W rj I d)
should be managed? @1: X x P0 Ln 3t _\1 9q Ln 3: x X co, @2: x x PO Ln 3 x x Pq Ln @K x CQ :3 x X ro wl
Development 1 3 3 1 2 11 1 1 2 o 0 0 9 9 6 1 3 5 5 5 3
Development with Restrictions 4 8 3 12 16 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 i4 23 12 8 9 6 0 2 2
Conservation 4 5 9 8 9 10 2 2 3 2 2 2 13 6 15 5 4 5 1 1 1

6. A purpose of the Coastal Manage- oo to bo 00 bo bo bo bo 60 bo
Z :3 Z 0 0 :3 :3 :1 V :3 0
ment Program is to identify the 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
$ 1 @4 @4 I I - $. $ - S - , .
types and locations of development 0 0 0 0 >1 .0 0, >1 0 0 0 0 0 0 >1 0 0
4j Pq A 41 A pq Pq 0 9q M Aj PO Pq Pq M Pq pq
that may occur in the Borough. The -H 14 1-4 -H
r U (U r. V U 0) r, L) 4) 0
following types of development .10 .14 14
o $-1 4.) @4 W $@ 4j
could-occur in the Borough. What d cc 0 4j 0 0 4j
r. W co 4j
0 r. 0 9: 0 0 aj r. 0 a) r 0 4) r. 0
you think about their location? z 1-4 z z H z z @4 z z @4 z z H z z z z H
Fish Processing 13 13 0 22 11 1 5 2 0 1 0 1 38 20 0 21 5 2 6 5 0
Tourism & Recreation 17 19 3 20 19 1 4 2 1 1 0 1 39 23 1 23 17 1 5 5 1
OfIlGas On-shore Facilities 2 14 10 3 8 16 1 1 4 0 0 2 7 23 20 6 11 10 3 4 3
Port/Transportation Industry 16 10 2 21 7 2 5 3 0 0 1 1 34 19 1 18 10 2 5 5 1
Timber 0 12 10 2 12 10 2 3 1 0 0 2 3 37 13 1 16 9 2 5 1
Mining/Mineral Processing 2 10 13 1 11 12 1 3 1 0 0 2 1 29 15, 0 15 10 3 4 3
Shipyard/Marine Repair 17 9 2 23 8 1 4 2 0 1 0 1 35 22 0 21 12 2 7 4 0
Agriculture & Ranching 2 22 2 3 23 3 1 5 0 1 1 0 3 44 3 0 27 1 3 5 1
Other:
Gear Storage 2
Hydro-Electric Power 2
Fish Hatchery
Small Business 2
Roads 2
Manufacturing

QUESTION AKHIOK KARLUK LARSEN BAY OLD HARBOR PORT LIONS OUZINKIE KODIAK

7. The developments in question #6
could have an impact on the Boroughs
environment and its resources. In 14
considering possible developments,
;.1 0 >1 aj 14 (U >1 0) 0) >1 W 19 4) >1W
please indicate your general level k 13 r. 13 P. a r. 0 14 0 r. a W
of concern about the following > En 0 W 0 rq 0 0 0 -H 0 W a 0 0) 0 r4 W 0 @4 0)0 @4 0
resource protection interests.

Natural Setting 18 5 0 0 5 2 0 7 5 1 1 70 13 8 5 33 7 1 0 7 7 0 2 93 30 9 7
Fish/Wildlife Habitat 16 7 0 0 7 9 0 0 5 8 0 1 77 18 0 1 20 12,7 0 12 3 0 1 110 21 2 5
Water Quality 22 1 0 0 16 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 48 28 13 7 23 12 5 0 9 2 4 1 116 17 1 4
Air Quality 22 1 0 0 14 0 1 1 11 2 0 1 27 17 15 36 22 11 5 0 7 3 4 2 114 16 5 4
Other:
Population Control 2
Quality of Life 4
Pollution 5
Community Development Aesthetics 2
14 Road System 3
I.I Trash Control 2
00
8. The people living in the Borough
are an integral part of the Island's
environment. The Coastal Management 14 14
Program must also consider people's W
life6tyles. of the following >1 >1 (U W .14 W -H d)
$4 8 0 0 0 0 0
lifestyles, which do you view as 0 W 0 14 0 W -H 0 4) 0 0 W 0 4 0 W .14 0 W 0 ii a
being of most importance? > x z > V) z z > En = z > Cn x z > En Z z > to x 2 > En z
Subsistence Hunting & Fishing 22 1 0 0 15 0 0 0 9 6 0 0 93 3 2 0 31 2 4 0 13 2 0 1 67 41 19 4
*Commercial Fishing & Trapping 22 1 0 0 13 1 0 0 14 1 0 0 92 2 4 1 13 21 1 1 15 0 0 1 91 27 6 5
Sport Fishing & Hunting 0 0 4 19 10 2 3 1 5 7 1 2 48 24 15 8 7 16 6 3 9 2 3 2 55 53 17 7
Village Lifestyle 20 3 0 0 11 5 0 0 12 2 0 0 83 13 1 2 26 3 3 4 14 0 0 2 - - - -
Year-around Employment 2 0 6 15 8 6 1 1 8 5 1 1 85 10 0 4 30 6 2 0 14 0 0 2 84 35 8 9
Other:
Energy Alternative Lifestyle 2
Farming I
Recreation on Road System I
Cultural Development I
Affordable Land I
No trapping
Composite df Kodiak surveys. (5)

QUESTION U;S.C.G. BASE BELLS FLATS CHINIAK BUSH AREAS IN CITY LIMITS NORTH OF CITY INDETERMINATE

7. The developments in question #6
could have an impact on the BoroughlE
environment and its resources. In
considering possible developments,
co
please indicate your general level A W W
0 la $@
.14 0 0 4) 0 -H 0 W 0 -1 0 11 0 W 0 1-4 0 W 0 -rA 0 0
.Of Concern about the following 0 0 0) 0 F3 0 0 F3 W 0 r $4 0 0 0 r. r_ F3 @4
resource protection interests: > z x W z Z En > z z En z
Z Cn z X W > z >

Natural Setting 0 2 7 16 1 0 4' 20 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 4 2 12 29 0 4 6 18 2 1 0 4
Fish/Wildlife Habitat 0 1 3 21 1 0 2 22 0
Water Quality 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 2 1 10 33 0 0 5 23 2 0 1 4
0 1 4 20 1 0 2 22 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 1 0 6 39 0 0 5 23 2 0 0 5
Air Quality 0 1 3 21 1 1 1 22 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 1 0 8 37 0 3 4 22 2 0 0 5
Other:
Population Control 1
Quality of Life 2
F Pollution I
Community Development Aesthetics 1 1
Road System 2
Trash Control 1 2
2

8. The people living in the Borough
are an integral part of the island's
environment. The Coastal Management
Program must also consider people's co co
14 W
lifestyles. Of the following lif (V W 0 W (U f >1 W .,j
e- a Z a r r: 13 $4 r 0 0 14 0 0 $4 a g r. g P C r_
styles, which do you view as being 0 -ri 0 W 0 A 0 0) 0 _H cu 0 H G) 0 .,q 0 0) 0 -r4 V) a) 0 -,4 0 0)
z X 'A > z x cn > z z En > z z CA > z z > z Z
of most importance?

Subsistence Hunting & Fishing 0 7 7 11 1 2 8 13 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 3 6 13 21 0 2 10 15 0 2 3 2
*Commercial Fishing & Trapping 0 3 10 12 1 1 4 12 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 1 6 37 1 1 4 21 1 0 2 4
Sport Fishing & Hunting 0 5 10 10 1 1 9 13 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 3 4 18 18 2 5 11 9 1 2 2 2
Year-around Employment 1 2 7 15 0 0 10 14 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 3 3 7 33 1 2 9 16 3 0 1 3
Other: Affordable Land I
Energy Alternative Lifestyle 2
Farming 1
Recreation on Road System 1
Cultural Development I
No trapping (3)

QUESTION AKHIOK KARLUK LARSEN BAY OLD HARBOR PORT LIONS OUZINKIE KODIAK

10. The Coastal Management
Program must also consider natural
hazards that could create problems
for developmental activities in -4
ca
the Borough. Of the following I S
;-1 aj rq W ;-1 W W >1 .14 W 19 W >1 d) 4)
hazards, which do you feel are of $1 R .0 a S. 0 r. r. V P 0 V: k 0 V $4 El r: 0 W 0 0 0
a) 0 11 a Q) a 0 (1)0 -H 0 oi 0 0 a) 0 H 0 W 0 0 W 0 0
concern to development in your P. cn Z 07 ca Z > (n Z Z > co ;> cn
area?

River Flooding I 1 1 20 0 8 6 2 2 1 6 6 1 4 16 79 1 4 12 17 1 1 7 7 11 25 45 48
Coastal Storm Flooding 1 1 9 12 6 7 3 0 0 6 5 2 32 36 21 11 0 13 16 6 1 4 5 6 22 36 42 33
Landslides & Avalanches 1 2 12 8 5 5 2 3 2 2 3 6 11 33 36 17 0 0 17 17 3 8 3 2 28 37 47 19
Earthquakes 1 16 6 0 1 8 4 2 2 4 6 2 55 28 6 5 2 6 26 2 7 4 3 2 38 58 29 8
Tidal Waves 0 5 12 6 0 5 7 5 2 3 8 2 55 28 7 4 3 8 23 0 8 4 3 1 42 57 21 11
Erosion 16 7 0 10 4 1 0 8 5 1 0 17 44 25 9 10 28 1 1 7 6 2 1 44 46 32 9
Winds 22 1 0 0 13 2 0 0 7 5 2 1 24 26 25 18 29 10 0 0 5 8 1 2 46 47 27 6
Other
Pollution I
Fresh Water Shortage 1
Rain Damage I
Ocean Storms/Currents 1
Dusty Roads 3
Rats 1
Fire 2

Composite of Kodiak surveys.

QUESTION U.S.C.G. BASE BELLS FLATS. CHINIAK BUSH,AREAS IN CITY LIMITS NORTH OF CITY INDETERMINATE

10. The Coastal Management Program
Must also consider natural hazards
that could create problems for devel-
opmental activities in the Borough. Ca
Of the following hazards, which do 9)
-,4 W >1
you feel are of concern to develop- k 0 r. r.
0 -H 0 W 0 0 If $4
Z Z V) > Z @! En 0 0) 0 .,q 0 (U 0 -H E! r
ment in your area? > Z En > 0 01 0 0 W a 0 W
9 Z cn > Z Z Cn > Z > Z 0 >
River Flooding 9 11 3 1 1 6 13 4 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 21 14 4 3 13 10 2 0 4 2 0 1
Coastal Storm Flooding 6 10 5 4 4 4 14 5 10 0 4 1 0 1 0 1 15 14 6 7 6 10 6 3 2 3 1 1
Landslides & Avalanches 1 12 6 6 1 8 10 5 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 7 13 11 14 8 9 6 1 2 2 2 1
Earthquakes 1 2 16 5 0 8 10 5 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 .1 3 9 15 18 2 7 10 7 2 1 3 1
Tidal Waves 1 2 15 6 0 5 13 6 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 1 7 6 14 17 1 6 8 10 2 1 3 1
Erosion 1 9 10 4 0 5 8 11 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 1 5 7 17 15 1 9 9 6 2 1 1 3
Other: Winds 0 9 7 8 0 3 13 8 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 3 7 15 15 1 7 9 8 2 0 3 2
_j Fresh Water Shortage
Pollution
Rain Damage
Ocean Storms/Currents
Dusty Roads
Rats 2
Fire 2

APPENDIX A PROJECT TEAM

APPENDIX A

PROJECT TEAM

o Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Project Management
Dr. Richard Firth, Project Manager
M. Jonathan Isaacs, Deputy Project Manager

Natural Resources

Mr. Michael Joyce
Dr. Maureen McCrae
Dr. Kenneth Critchlow

Geophysical Hazards

Dr. Jack Colonell
Dr. Lawrence Rundquist
Ms. Lorrain Ferrel
Ms. Pamela Leuthold

Human Resources

Mr. Jonathan Isaacs
Mr. Jon Lockert
Ms. Pamela Leuthold

Report Production
Ms. Beverley DeWitt
Ms. Jessie Wood
Ms. Jean Borstad
Ms. Jayne Vorhiis

o Mr. Dale Tubbs, Land Management Co nsultant

o Kodiak Island Borough

Ms.,Linda Freed, CZM Coordinator
Ms. Cindy Bowser

o Kodiak Area Native Association

Public Participation Program
Mr. Wayne Marshall

A-1

3 6668 14101 7683