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

                                         Property of CSC Libra&

    I

                           YAKUTAT DISTRICT COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

                                              U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                              COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                              2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                              CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

                                        Prepared for the

                                         CITY OF YAKUTAT

                                               by

                                    ALASKA CONSULTANTS, INC.

                                         January, 1981

           This project was supported, in part, by Federal Coastal Zone Management
             Program Implementation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306) granted to the
           ,    State of Alaska by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
            Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

          ry~~~11
        cap
          ,_ -_

                               TABLE OFCONTENTS Pg

    3    ~~~FOREWORD ..1............................

           INTRODUCTION .............................3
    3         ~~~DISTRICT COASTAL MANAGEMENT BOUNDARIES ................9
           COASTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY.......................19
             I. Introduction ..........................20
    I           II~~1. Habitats ............................20
               A. Offshore Areas .......................23
               B. Estuaries ..........................26
     I            ~~~~~C. Wetlands and Tidefiats ...................28
               D. Freshwater Rivers, Streams and Lakes ............29
               E. Important Upland Habitats..................34
               F. Exposed High Energy Coasts .................36
           III. Cultural Resources........................37
               A. Population .........................37
               B. Employment .........................37
     I             ~~~~~C. Community Facilities ....................39
               D. Local Government Finances..................41
            IV. Land and Water Uses .. ....41
     3              ~~~~~A. Land Use and Utilities ...................41
               B. Navigation and Harbor Activities ..............49
            V. Land Resource Ownership and Management . .............54
               A. City of Yakutat.......................54
               B. Yakutat Area ........................62
            VI.  Historic, Prehistoric and Archeological Resources ........72
    3         ~~~FUTURE COASTAL USES AND ACTIVITIES . ...................81
             I. Recreation and Subsistence ...................82
            II. Energy Facilities........................86
           III. Transportation and Utilities ..................89
            IV. Fishing and Seafood Processing .................95
               A. Traditional Fisheries....................95
               B. Future Prospects ......... ........... .99
    I          ~~~~V. Timber Harvesting and Processing ................100
            VI. Mining and Mineral Processing..................102
           VII. Future Population........................102

           GOALS AND ISSUES ...........................107
    3          ~~~COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN........................109
             I. Introduction ..........................109
            II. Recreation and Subsistence ...................109
           III. Energy Facilities........................115
    I         ~~~IV. Transportation and Utilities ..................124
            V. Fishing and Seafood Processing .................126
            VI. Timber Harvesting and Processing ................128

          I .                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~iii

                                                                         Page

    VII.  Mining and Mineral Processing ................................ 130
    VIII. Coastal Development .......................................... 131
      IX. Geophysical Hazard Areas ..................................... 132
       X. Habitats ...................................................... 140
      XI. Air, Land and Water Quality .................................. 141
     XII.  Historic, Prehistoric and Archeological Resources ............143
    XIII. Uses of National Interest and State Concern .................. 144
     XIV. Areas Meriting Special Attention ............................. 145

    COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ...........................147
       I. Yakutat Core Area Planning Program .................5.......... 10
      II.  Yakutat Forelands Intergovernmental Planning Program ......... 152
     III. Areas Meriting Special Attention ............................. 154
          A. Shipyard Cove AMSA ....................................... 154
           B. Ophir Creek Corridor AMSA ................................ 155
           C. Ankau Lagoon System AMSA ................................. 156

    BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................ 159

                                      iv

           3                               ~~~~~~~~~LIST OF TABLES
                                                                          Page
            Table  I ... Shellfish Catch by Species, Yakutat Area, 1970-1978 ...  25
            Table  2 ... Commercial Salmon Catch by Species, Yakutat Area,
                         1970-1977 ..................I.....31
            Table  3 ... Yakutat-Yakataga Set Net Salmon Catch, 1978.......32
            Table  4 ... Average Annual Full-Time Employment, Yakutat Road-
                        Connected Area, 1977..................38
            Table  5 ... Annual Traffic Summary, Port of Yakutat.........51
    I      ~ ~Table  6  ..Yakutat Salmon Catch, Number of Boats and Landings,
                        1965-76 ........................53
            Table  7 ..Land Tenure, City of Yakutat, Alaska, 1976 .......57
            Table  8 ... Management Plan, Tongass National Forest, Yakutat
                        Area, by Management Area ................68
            Table  9 ... Coastal Recreation, Scenic and Heritage Areas of
                        Particular Concern, Yakutat Region...........83
            Table 10 ... Comparison of Capacity, Marine Oil Terminals and LNG
                        Plants.........................90
            Table 11 ..Estimated Visits Per Year, Supply Boats, Oil Tankers
       I                  ~ ~~~~and LNG Tankers, Mean and High Scenarios, Yakutat,
                        Alaska .......................1"91
            Table 12 ..Logistics Requirements for Yakutat-Based Drilling,
                          Mean and High Scenarios ................92
            Table 13 ..Forecast of General Cargo and Bulk Fuel Tonnage,
                        Yakutat, Alaska, 1980-2000...............94
            Table 14 ... Population Forecast, Yakutat Area, Base Case,
       I                  ~ ~~~~~Groundfish Scenario and OCS Scenarios, 1980-2000 . 104
            Table 15 ... Onshore Support Functions and Facilities, OCS Oil
                        and Gas Operations ...................19
    I      ~ ~Table 16 ... Possible Effects of Earthquake Activity on Geologic
                        Materials Mapped in the Yakutat Area..........134

           3                                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~v

                               LIST OF FIGURES

                                                                         Page

    Figure 1 ... Index Map of Southern Alaska .......................... 5
    Figure  2 ... Coastal Biophysical Boundaries, Yakutat Region - Cape
                  Suckling to Cape Sitkagi ............................. 11
    Figure  3 ... Coastal Biophysical Boundaries, Yakutat Region - Cape
                  Sitkagi to Cape Fairweather .......................... 13
    Figure 4 ... Coastal Habitats, City of Yakutat ..................... 21
    Figure 5 ... Yakutat Region Habitat - Map #1 .......................
    Figure 6 ... Yakutat Region Habitat - Map #2 .......................
    Figure 7 ... Existing Land Use, City of Yakutat .................... 43
    Figure 8 ... Land Use Plan - 1976, City of Yakutat .... .. 45
    Figure  9 ... Existing Water and Sewer Systems, City of Yakutat ..... 47
    Figure 10 ... Existing Land Tenure, Yakutat Region ..................
    Figure 11 ... Existing Land Tenure, City of Yakutat ................ 55
    Figure 12 ... Land Use Plan, Yak-Tat Kwaan Village Selection,
                  June 1976 ............................................ 59
    Figure 13 ... Existing Land Tenure, Yakutat Area .................... 63
    Figure 14 ... Tongass National Forest Land Management Plan,
                  Yakutat Area ......................................... 65
    Figure 15 ... Traditional Camps and Settlements, Yakutat Area ....... 75
    Figure 16 ... Economic Resources, Yakutat Region .................... *
    Figure 17 ... Coastal Land and Water Use Plan, City of Yakutat ...... 111
    Figure 18 ... Official Zoning Map, City of Yakutat .................. 113
    Figure 19 ... Monti Bay OCS Facility Site Suitability Analysis ...... 121
    Figure 20 ... Generalized Geologic Units, Yakutat Area .............. 135
    Figure 21  .. Earthquake-Related Change, Yakutat Area ............... 137

     �See back of this report.

                                     vi

                                              FOREWORD

              The Alaska Coastal Management Act and its regulations set out the content
              and guidelines for preparation of district coastal management programs.
              The regulations do not require that district programs follow a particular
              format as long as all essential elements and guidelines of the district
    *        ~~program are addressed.
              The Yakutat District Coastal Management Program is organized to present
              the elements of the district plan and management program in a logical
    I       ~ ~sequence which fits the coastal issues at Yakutat 'and is laid out in
              seven chapters as follows:
              Chapter I - Introduction: This chapter presents a broad overview of the
    I      ~ ~natural setting and history of Yakutat and its region, its present state
              of development and the major planning issues and activities of the
    5        ~~recent past.
              Chapter II - District Coastal Manaqement Boundaries: The district
    g        ~~program's boundaries and geographic sphere of influence are defined.
              Chapter III - Coastal Resource Inventory: This chapter presents an
              inventory of the coastal resources in and adjacent to Yakutat as a basis
    *        ~~for development and implementation of the district coastal plan and
              program.
              Chapter IV - Future Coastal Uses and Activities: This chapter presents
              an analysis of economic trends and future development patterns for the
              important coastal uses and activities which are subject to the district
              management program and which may affect the management of the coastal
              resources inventoried in Chapter III.

              Chapter V - Goals and Issues: The community's long range goals for
              coastal planning and management are outlined and the major coastal
              planning issues facing the district are identified.
              Chapter VI - Coastal Management Plan: This chapter presents elements of
    I       ~ ~the coastal management plan.  This plan is the outcome of an evaluation
              of the suitability of the coastal resource base (Chapter III), to
              accommodate the coastal uses and activities forecast for the district
              coastal zone (Chapter IV). The evaluation will use the standards for
              coastal development set out in the Alaska Coastal Management Act and
              related regulations. This chapter will also identify areas in the
              district meriting special attention and special measures appropriate for
              their proper management.
              Chapter VII - Coastal Management Program Implementation: This chapter
              describes the means by which the district coastal management plan will
              be implemented. The chapter treats administrative, budgetary and personnel
              needs, administrative procedures, and coordinated use of a variety of

    district planning powers such as zoning, subdivision and building codes,
    capital improvements programs, public land management, and cooperativeU
    agreements and intergovernmental coordination.
    At the beginning of each of Chapters II through VII, the section(s) of3
    the Alaska Coastal Management Act or its regulations pertinent to the
    topics covered in the chapter is cited for easy reference.
    Over the past decade, many planning and resource studies about the
    Yakutat area have been published by the City of Yakutat and other parties.
    These studies contain a great deal of information about the Yakutat
    region, much of which is directly relevant to the City's coastal managementI
    program. The present project drew upon these existing data sources,
    insofar as they were current and relevant to coastal issues. A
    comprehensive bibliography of these data sources is included as anI
    appendix to this report.

                                                 2~~~~~~~

                                                                                                                                                   IF
                                                    vi '.4  .4

                          I a,~
    Fn ~ ~    ~     ~    ~     I  '.,    ~           .  ~4,3'.            ~        t~~'..~4.f44
                 4c   14'. le4h~~ w-                         :.3.  1.,..                                     *4~4           .

                       1. 'g' ."~  .'. 44I7N45. .4534  ..1.3,eD'4U4*5CT'�fv'4.                                         IONM

                                            INTRODUCTION

              Yakutat is a physically isolated Gulf of Alaska community of about 600
    I        ~ ~~residents.  About 425 people, most of them Tlingit Indians, live within
              the boundaries of the City of Yakutat, with the remainder living outside
               but near the City. Yakutat is the only settlement and the City is the
              only local government unit within a 400 mile stretch of the Gulf of
              Alaska coastline (see Figure 1).

              Yakutat is situated at the northwestern edge of an extensive outwash
              plain, the Yakutat Forelands, amid a landscape of mountains, glaciers,.
              fiords, lowland forests and ocean coastline.. The town has developed
              along Monti Bay, a well sheltered cove at the entry to the larger Yakutat
    I        ~ ~~Bay.  In turn, Yakutat Bay is the only large, protected deep water
              natural harbor between Cordova 225 miles to the north and Cross Sound,
              150 miles to the south.
              Over the past decade, primarily because of improved local economic
              opportunities and living conditions, Yakutat's population has rebounded
              from a long term decline. The City of Yakutat exerted an aggressive
              leadership role to bring about this reversal and today the community has
              an exceptionally wide range of public services for a small and remote
              Alaska town. Yakutat has an excellent State-owned and maintained airport
    I        ~ ~~and has daily jet service.  However, shipping services have been erratic
              because of low freight volumes and the decaying physical condition of
              local port facilities.
              Commercial fishing and seafood processing is the mainstay of the local
              economy. This is supplemented by government employment, some tourism
              and recreation business geared to use of the area's exceptional scenery
    I        ~ ~~and fish and wildlife resources and, in the recent past, a spate of
              employment in support of offshore oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of
              Alaska.
              The Yakutat area enjoys natural systems which are basically healthy,
              productive and as yet little harmed by human use. Because of the area's
              small population and the absence of heavy industry, its waters and air
              are virtually unpolluted and it is free of other types of large scale
              environmental degradation. To date, the main problems of environmental
              management pertain to the growing pressure of recreational hunting and
    I        ~ ~~sport fishing upon local fish and wildlife populations, the persistent
              scars of old logged areas near town where regrowth has been slow, and
              some small scale local damage usually due to poor construction practices.
    I        ~ ~~However, on the horizon are prospects for large scale development in the
              offshore oil and gas industry and in timber harvesting which pose the
              most serious potential problems yet encountered to coastal environment
              management in the Yakutat region.
              The City of Yakutat is a first class city with a jurisdiction of eight
              square miles of coastal lands and waters. As a first class city, it is

                                                   3

    required under the Alaska Coastal Management Act to prepare a district
    coastal management program. Yakutat is smallest in population and is
    the most remote of all municipalities engaged in coastal managementI
    planning. As the only settlement and government in this vast and
    otherwise unpopulated region, the City is legitimately concerned about
    possible events within'its sphere of influence which could have a majorI
    impact on the town's social character and lifestyle, its economic
    resources and welfare, and its physical development and governing
    institutions..
    The importance of Yakutat's position as the premier natural harbor in
    the region and the only settlement with public, commercial and
    transportation services is magnified by the rough and hazardous seas ofI
    the Gulf of Alaska where storms often force fishing boats and other
    marine traffic to take shelter in Yakutat Bay. These same stormy seas
    prohibit the siting of port facilities for many miles along the exposedI
    and wave-beaten outer coastline north and south of Yakutat Bay. Another
    critical environmental factor is that the entire Gulf of Alaska is
    within an extremely active and violent seismic zone, which accents the
    importance of a natural harbor like Yakutat Bay with good protectionU
    against earthquake-caused tsunamis.

    Because of its marine transportation potential, Yakutat is of overriding
    interest to the offshore petroleum industry in the eastern Gulf of
    Alaska. It is the feasible and logical landward link, if one is needed,
    for the marshalling of industrial materials and manpower serving offshore
    exploration and for movement of crude oil and natural gas production
    from offshore fields to market via oil tankers and LNG ships. It is
    likely that Yakutat will hold a similar attraction for the bottomfish
    industry in the Gulf of Alaska if the economics of that industry beginI
    to favor shore-based processing.

    The earlier Northern Gulf of Alaska OCS Lease Sale #39 held in April
    1976 resulted in only a brief and unsuccessful exploratory-effort, but
    that sale mobilized the City to formulate the basic development policies
    which remain the frame of reference for the City's coastal management
    planning. The legacy of Sale #39 includes:
         1.   City commitment and strategy to fully exert its local planning
             powers to ensure that oil industry operations did not conflictI
             with local planning goals.
         2.   Private construction of a small marine service base on Monti
             Bay for offshore support of oil and gas exploration in the
             Gulf of Alaska.
         3.   Execution of a complex land exchange to permit expansion of
             the service base, if needed, under terms agreeable to the City
             and local residents.I
        4.   City acquisition of the Ocean Cape tract as part of the land
             exchange.
         S.   Reservation under option to Pacific Alaska LNG Company by Yak-
             Tat Kwaan of an industrial site on Monti Bay for a potential
             LNG plant and terminal.I

                                        4

                        I~om~\t~,~h SAINT                P~ (-                                                       j    FIGURE 1
         SA~INT
           LAWRENCE
             ISLAND
                                       5����~ ISLAN                                                                    !  Index Map of Southern Alaska

                          S e~~~~~s LAWRENC~~~~~~~~~~~rh-j  ~ ~~~~~~)D~~~~i Firbanksj

                                       '"'"L             "'A0N,                                                           scale in miles

                                                     �P                                                                :
                                                ~_~B\                                                       2-                                                 ..1.~  ie
                                                                 Cr                                                                                      o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 50   100   o
                                                            -~.C'                                            .._______
                                                                                           chge                                                       W5

                                                                                 Kenai       -            �             SAINT-         .

                         -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,f.    o
                                                                                         Seward                 MU

                                 a~~91~..~/CUs..~~~~                                                             I
                                                      ,~,-�.-4~~~~~'�~~4                                                                -

                              I                                                                                       t~ia~..~--.'~   ,
                                                                                             ._14;~i

              "~"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~; �''~
                                                                              ~~~~~~~~~
                                                                                           Gulf    of   Alaska

          I                                ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1rodiok Peia

         Cold Ba .                         fPerug

    P"cifi�                                                                -~1
                                                                                  CPI~I eral Coastal Zone Management Program Im-
                            cific   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This project was supported, in part, by Fed-
                                                                                  foaih ~   plemnentation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306)
                                  oceal'~~~~~~~~Qf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~l .:E    granted to the State of Alaska by the Office
                                                                                            of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce-
                                                                                            anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
                                                                                    n-d Plann, D-nIP-1 Department of Commerce.
                                                                                                      II___________ I ~Source: Yakutat Comprehensive Development Plan, 1976.

               Since Sale #35, events have introduced other new and significant elements
               to the context of waterfront planning at Yakutat. Among these are:
                    1.   State adoption and implementation of coastal management
                         legislation.
     I            ~ ~~~2.   Negative exploration results of Sale #39.
                    3.   Destruction by fire of the City of Yakutat cold storage facility.
                    4.   Further deterioration of the Ocean Cape dock.
     I            ~ ~~~5.   Rising interest in the development potential of the bottomfish
                         industry.
                    6.   Cancellation of the Pacific Alaska LNG Company's industrial
                         site option for an LNG plant and terminal on Monti Bay.
                    7.   Scheduling of a second federal 005 sale near Yakutat, the
                         Eastern Gulf of Alaska Sale #55, in October 1980.
                    8.   Scheduling of a State sale of submerged lands in the Gulf of
      I                ~ ~~~~Alaska in mid-1984, within the general region between Icy Bay
                         and Cross Sound. The State is also considering an earlier
                         sale, pending the outcome of federal OCS Sale #55.
     I            ~ ~~~9.   Scheduling of a State timber sale near Icy Cape north of
                         Yakutat in October 1980 and tentative scheduling of a timber
                         sale on the Yakutat Forelands by the U.S. Forest Service.

    I         ~~~In recent years, the City of Yakutat has consistently and energetically
               pursued its goals for community and economic development, but it has had
               to pursue those goals in the midst of rapidly shifting events. Today's
    I        ~ ~~great uncertainties stem from the unpredictable future course of offshore
               oil and gas development and the shore-based groundfish industry in the
               Gulf of Alaska region. Either one of these industries has the potential
    I        ~ ~~to alter Yakutat on a scale and at a pace which is unprecedented locally
               except for a brief influx of military activity experienced here during
               World War II. Unfortunately, it is presently not possible to determine
               the time, place or scale of specific future developments in these two
               industries, or even to be assured that any developments will materialize
               at all. Regardless, the potential water-dependent land uses and marine
               facility requirements of these industries in Yakutat's vicinity must be
    I        ~ ~~an important background factor in the City's long range planning strategies
               for coastal management and its capital improvement programs.
               Meanwhile, the City must reckon with its current needs and uncertain
               future conditions and take steps to further its community goals. During
               the past decade, the City has engaged in a series of major planning
               projects to guide local planning and development decisions. The first
               of these projects was Yakutat's first comprehensive plan, the Yakutat,
               Alaska, Comprehensive Development Plan completed in 1971. This plan
               guided many physical and economic development projects which the City
               initiated in the late 1970's.
               A second, more intense round of local planning was triggered in the mid-
    1          ~~~1970's in response to the prospect of large scale oil and gas and
               fisheries developments. At the outset of this second round of planning,
               the City sponsored a comprehensive in-depth socioeconomic survey of its
    3          ~~~residents to identify community attitudes and the development needs and

                                                  I7

    goals of the community. The results of this survey were published in
    1975 as the Yakutat Socioeconomic Survey and provided the policy framework
    for the City's subsequent planning efforts. Foremost among the City's
    broad development goals are:
         1.   Moderate economic growth compatible with the traditional
             character of the community.
         2.   Economic betterment, with particular stress on more diversified,
             productive and profitable local participation in the fishing
              industry.
         3.   Improved living conditions.
        4.   Conservation of the area's natural resources, especially itsI
             fisheries resources.

    In 1976, the City completed its updated Comprehensive Development Plan,3
    followed by the City of Yakutat Capital Improvements and Services
    Program 'in 1978. These projects addressed the City's ongoing planning
    and development needs as well as special issues raised by potential
    developments in the oil and gas and groundfish industries.  The City3
    also has had an active Overall Economic Development Planning Committee
    which has prepared and annually updates the City's Overall Economic
    Development Plan.  Most recently, the City has undertaken a number ofI
    projects to guide redevelopment of its waterfront and its fisheries
    industry, as well as a coastal management project.
    Apart from the City's own planning efforts, the resources of the City
    and the region have attracted the attention of various non-local
    development and planning interests. The community has been the subject
    of planning and resource studies by numerous other resource agencies inI
    connection with proposed oil and gas, fisheries and timber developments.
    Foremost among these studies are the Bureau of Land Management's
    Environmental Impact Statements for OCS Lease Sales #39 and #55 andI
    related environmental and socioeconomic studies, the U.S. Forest Service's
    Land Management Plan for the Tongass National Forest, State of Alaska
    development planning for OCS activities and the groundfish industry, and
    Yak-Tat Kwaan's management planning. Clearly, the coordination of this
    mixed array of development interests at play at Yakutat will be a matter
    of centralI concern for the City's coastal management program.

                                      8

    I~~~~~~ii                  -
          I~~~~~~~h~e

       ~~~~~~ISTITCAr...,
    ~~~MNG  ONAIE

                              DISTRICT COASTAL MANAGEMENT BOUNDARIES

                   6 AAC 85.040, BOUNDARIES. (a) Each district must include a
                   map of the boundaries of the coastal area within the district
                   subject to the district program. Boundaries must enclose those
                   lands which would reasonably be included in the coastal area
                   subject to the district program if they were not subject to the
                   exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.

                   (b Before council approval of the district program, initial
    I            ~ ~~~boundaries must be based on Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska's
                   Coastal Zone (published by the Office of Coastal Management and
                   the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1978, a copy of which is
    I            ~ ~~~on file with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, and which is
                   available from the Office of Coastal Management) and must include
                   the zone of direct-interaction and the zone of direct influence.

                   (c) Final boundaries of the coastal area subject to the
                   district program may diverge from the initial boundaries if
    3             ~~~~the final boundaries

                        (1) extend inland and seaward to the extent necessary to
                  manage uses and activities that have or are likely to have a
                   direct and significant impact on marine coastal water; and
                        (2) include all transitional and intertidal areas, salt
                  marshes, saltwater wetlands, islands, and beaches.

                   (d) If the criteria in (c) of this section are met, final
                   boundaries of the coastal area-subject to the district program
    I            ~ ~~~may be based on political jurisdiction, cultural features,
                   planning areas, watersheds, topographic features, uniform
                   setbacks, or the dependency of uses and activities on water
                   access.
                   (e   The boundaries of the district must be sufficiently
                   compatible with those of adjoining areas to allow consistent
                   administration of the Alaska coastal management program. (Eff.
                   7/18/78, as amended).

           I                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~Authority:  AS 44.19.893
                                                             AS 46.40.030
              3                                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AS 46.40.040

             The City of Yakutat is smallest in population and among the smallest in
              area of all municipalities undertaking district management programs, as
             well as being the most isolated from other settlements. Yakutat's
             municipal boundaries take in 8 square mi'les of which an estimated 1,940
              acres are land, 230 acres are tidelands and 2,950 acres are coastal
             marine waters. The City's coastline is about 8.5 miles long and no

                                                 19

    point within the City is more than 2,000 yards from salt water. The
    nearest incorporated settlements are Cordova, about 225 air miles to the
    northwest and Pelican, on Chichagof Island about 175 miles to the southeast.
    The Alaska Coastal Management Act requires every district to designate
    the landward and seaward boundaries of its coastal zone, that is, theI
    area which will be subject to the district coastal management program.
    The boundaries are to encompass the lands and coastal waters within the
    district's jurisdiction, management of which may significantly affectI
    marine coastal waters.
    In order to simplify and standardize the task of district boundary
    definition, the Act directs the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to
    define coastal zone boundaries for initial consideration by districts
    during program development. In its publication Biophysical Boundaries
    of Alaska's Coastal Zone, the Department defined three coastal zonesI
    according to biophysical criteria: zone of direct interaction, zone of
    direct influence and zone of indirect influences. The Department also
    mapped each of these defined zones for each coastal region.  Districts3
    may either adopt the biophysical coastal zone boundaries recommended by
    the Department of Fish and Game or may, with appropriate justification,
    propose their own definition of district coastal boundaries for approval
    by the Coastal Policy Council.
    Figures 2 and 3 show boundaries for these three coastal zones as defined
    by the Department of Fish and Game for the Eastern Gulf of AlaskaI
    subregions from Cape Suckling to Cape Sitkagi and from Cape Sitkagi
    south to Cape Fairweather.
    The municipal boundaries of many coastal districts extend far inland orI
    border other coastal management districts. For these coastal districts,
    the task of defining which areas under their jurisdiction fall within
    the coastal zone or how their district program should interrelate withI
    the coastal management programs of neighboring districts has often
    raised complex issues. Yakutat, faces a very different, almost opposite
    set of issues.  The community has a modest incorporated area and isI
    isolated from other settlements, but is almost totally dependent on
    sound management of the Coastal resources of a vast and rich coastal
    region within the unorganized borough which is primarily owned by the
    federal government.
    The City's entire jurisdiction is well within the zones of "direct
    interaction" and "direct influence" as defined by the Department of FishI
    and Game. Furthermore, for its own planning purposes, the City regards
    its entire jurisdiction to be within the coastal zone. Thus, from a
    legal and technical point of view, the issue of intramural coastal
    boundaries for the Yakutat district program is resolved by general
    agreement that the entire City is within the coastal zone and subject to
    the district management program. The absence of neighboring districts
    nullifies the issue of coordination with other district programs.

                                      10

    FIGURE 2
                                                                                                                                                                            FIGUR   2This project was supported, in part, by Fed-
                                                                                                                                                                            YAKUTA   Reral Coastal Zone Management Program Im-
                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~YAKUTAT   REGION ~ ~ ~ ~                                                                     plementation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306)
                                                YAKUTAT                                           REGION                                                             ~,~granted to the State of Alaska by the Office~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rate t te tae o Aasa y heOfic
                                                                                                                                                                            I :~r~ of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce-
    COASTAL   BIOPHYSICAL   BOUNDARIES                                                                                                                                Oph(I   . ........anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
                                                                                                                                                                         Dlrvuon ,d lr~ U lpoh~�   Deve l rpment  o   omre
    CAPE  SUCKLING TO CAPE  SITKAGI                                                                                                                                              Department of Commerce.

                                                                                                                                 '~ COASTLINE

              \,-S                                                                  '    ,N C-~R'  "SDIRECT   INTERACTION

                                   i)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                                                                                                                          DIRECT INFLUENCE

                      Bering Glacier
                     ~~X'xy ~~~I~vtt-tL~~r             -       NN .it /-v' ""'" -- � -

                                                                                                       3! .\ --
                                                                                                                                                                                                             MILES
                                                                                                                                 Li    INIRC  INFLENC

                                                                                                                                                                                                          KILOMIETERS
                                                                                             'i~." . ~.?...                                       :- ----'k
                                                                                                                                                                 Icy Bay

                                                                                                                                  N.   uvot Glacier
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cape  ~-.-.. : ':?:'':':::;:-:;. ":::: :: !:- .                             ..

                                                           I

                                                                                             x,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"
                                                                           ..~~~~~~~~.~~~~~�~~~~~-`-�l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~�I~~~~~~~i~~~~~fff~~~~~~~~~~f�~~~~~~~~~~55.i�511�'��  '�.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::.-..-??:..
           Suclrling   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~s~~~f~~~~ts~~~~-~  'f~.-'..~i~ :-:....-'  r    ..".~�:ss-:��'�~. . "   :      .       .      .       .      .      .      .      .            -.,~st

                                                                                                                                                                                              ~N~1    -          Sitkagi
                                                                                                                                                                                                        S.   \<'" Bluffs

                                                                                       0 f A  I a a k    a  Limit~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~****** **** .~~-   * ii
                                                        ~~~:�t:S�:~~~~~~~~~~zt. �~~~~~~~s~~~~t~~~sstt~~~~~~~i    .s~~~~~~~t~~~i'  S f t ~~~~~~~~~~S ~~~; s ~~~~~ s~~~~:~~~~:~~~:~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .::::

                                                                                                                                                                           ... ........
                                             ~~~~~ '""S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sr:  :tftS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .�s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~   ~ ~        ~ ~~'          '"' '~'- ""' ' '"""~""'':"'''":'~~- " . i
                               N~~~~~st ,~~

                                                                                                                                                                             Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, April 1978.

    I

                    FIGURE 3                                                                                                                                                                                                Thspoetwsspported, in part, by Fed-
                                                                    FIGYAK~~~~~~~~~~~~~~URETAT~~~~~~~ 3                                                                                                         17?rqEEGION"~~~~~~~~~~~l U  eral Coastal Zone Management Program Im-
                                                                       YAKU  TAT   REGION                                                                                                                       I~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lwj"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ plementation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306)
                   COASKUTAL  BIOPHYSICAL  BOUNDARIE                                                                                                                                                                        granted to the State of Alaska by the Office
                                                                    ~~~~~~C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OASTrr~~~~~~~~~~~AL BIOPHYSICAL BOU ~~~~~ND.A~~RIE ~S - ~. ~..,,                                                                          ............ anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
                       CAPE ~SITKAGI                   T OCAPEofCatlZnMaaeeNtialO-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ,,rld Pidn flf,,   Department of Commerce.
                    CAPE SITKAGI TO CAE FAIRWEATHER                                                                                s.............
                                                                              -s� u'..                                                           COASTLINE

                                                                                          ,.                                                      DIRECT INTERACTION
                                                                                       '-'I
                                                                               :.:::" :'~~~,
                                                                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~:":"::: : ' " ' --.'-- --,
                                                                          i~ .c   ' .~ .~.                                                                                                                                    UL
                                                                                                             �'-'                                                                           ,  ,-:1a
                                                                              Mala..spin "a'                                                                    INFLUENCEGai  SL_~rDCE
                                                           �~;                                              .,
                                                        ' ~         ?        ,,5                      q._.-~~                                                                                I~
                                                                                !��INDIRECT INFLUENCE

                                                                                                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5~~~ ~    ~          ~          ~         ~         ~         ~        ~        \
                                                                                �:: Yakutat Bay

                                                                                                                             :~~~:  .,,  �r-lSYakutat Fo                            reland

                                                                                 �� � ~If                                                                      13rabazon Range

                                                                      iiiil:::~~~��::;ii     ~
                                                                                   . ...-.... 'ria

                              ~...... ~...-.-....'.."'- .~~ ~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 " Cape Fairweather
       ILimit:;'

                   ......                                                                                                     .....
                        MalaspIna Glacier   5                       Z~:~~rssuAataA

               On the other hand, defining the sphere of extraterritorial influence of
               Yakutat's district program, that is, the geographic area outside the
    I       ~ ~City's boundaries which needs to be considered in relation to'the district
               program, is a very critical practical issue.
               Yakutat's city limits enclose the main part of the developed community
               area, but they do not include most of the land and coastal area
               traditionally occupied and currently used by Yakutat residents. The
               City's boundaries do not include most of the '"zone of direct influence"
    I        ~ ~in the Yakutat region.  However, because Yakutat is the base of operations
               and point of access for use, development and management of the coastal
               resources of the broader region, the policies and implementation of its
    I        ~ ~~district coastal management program will exert significant force over
               the resource management plans and practices of the other landlords and
               administrators of the region's coastal resources. Conversely, the
    I        ~ ~~greater part of the coastal resources, management of which is critical
               to the livelihood and lifestyle of Yakutat residents and is critically
               affected by the district program, is technically outside the geographic
    3         ~~~scope of the district.
               The interplay between local district coastal management programs and
               regional, state and national coastal management concerns is acknowledged
    I        ~ ~~in the administrative regulation rules governing the development of
               district programs, as follows:
                    1.   District programs must include a resource inventory of coastal
      I                ~ ~~~~habitats in the district and in adjacent areas and must consider
                         the interaction of its management program with adjacent coastal
                         habitats.
     I            ~ ~~~2.   District programs must give consideration to uses and activities
                         of greater than local concern, of state concern and of national
                         interest. The district must ensure that uses of overriding
      I                ~ ~~~~regional, state or national concern are not arbitrarily or
                         unreasonably excluded from its coastal zone by the district
                         program. Typical uses and activities in this class *are regional
                         marine transportation facilities; national defense facilities;
                         major energy facilities and development activities; and state
                         parks and recreational areas, state game refuges and sanctuaries
                         and critical habitat areas.
     I            ~ ~~~3.   Within the district boundaries, certain "excluded" federal
                         lands are not legally subject to local jurisdiction and are
                         not directly covered by the district coastal management
                         program. Nevertheless, activities on these excluded lands
                         must be managed in a manner compatible with an approved
                         district program.

    I         ~~~For the most part, Yakutat's extraterritorial concerns focus on the
               region's natural resources. Specifically, the City is concerned about
               the effects on the community of proposals and programs for more intensive
               Iuse and development of its natural resource base, and with the
               transportation and industrial facilities and community development which
              will be needed to support resource development programs in the region.
              3Of particular concern to the City are:

        1.   Federal plans to lease offshore tracts in the Gulf of Alaska
             for oil and gas development and State plans to lease nearshore
             and coastal upland tracts near Yakutat for oil and gas3
             development.
        2.   Timber harvest plans and management practices of the U.S.
             Forest Service, the State of Alaska, the Sealaska CorporationI
             and the Yak-Tat Kwaan in the Yakutat region.
        3.   Fisheries management programs of the Alaska Department of Fish
             and Game to conserve and enhance the productivity of anadromous
             streams in the Yakutat region.I
        4.   Proposals for development of a Yakutat-based groundfish
             harvesting and processing industry.
        5.   Potential for development of the tourist-industry, based onI
             more intensive use of the region's recreational resources,
             including fish and wildlife, scenic resources and rivers and
             lakes.
        6.   Development of transportation facilities and community
             infrastructure at Yakutat and environmental degradation ensuing
             from any of the above resource based economic activities.3
    The City of Yakutat has an obvious stake in the long term management of
    the region's oil and gas, fish and wildlife, timber and wilderness
    resources.  It has a corresponding need to formulate and assert itsI
    basic policy positions with regard to their management. Development or
    mismanagement of any of these resources will have serious adverse effects
    on the resource base upon which Yakutat residents depend for their
    livelihood and lifestyle.  Also, because of the City's central role inI
    the region's transportation network and other support services, resource
    development activities will almost surely rely upon the City as a base
    of operations and field support.  Thus, the City will effectively be aI
    partner in development decisions and its cooperation will be essential
    to the furtherance of major resource development projects. Because the
    City is the only local government in the region and represents a majorityI
    of the region's residents, it is the main public spokesman voicing local
    concern in regard to the resource management plans and activities of
    federal, state and major private resource owners and managers. For this
    reason, the district program addresses major resource management issuesI
    within the district's geographic sphere of influence, defined to encompass
    the zone of direct interaction and direct influence between Cape
    Fairweather and Cape Suckling.
    The Alaska Coastal Management Act'encourages coordination between district
    programs and other public and private land owners and resource management
    agencies outside district boundaries but within their sphere of influence.
    Of special importance to Yakutat is the potential for interagency
    agreements to develop and implement coordinated management plans for
    coastal resource units and natural systems which fall within severalI
    jurisdictions or where their management will seriously affect the interests
    of the adjacent district. The policy base of its district coastal
    management program will also provide the City with a point of departureI
    for formal participation in the planning process of federal and state
    agencies for management of the region's coastal resources.

                                     161

     In order to satisfy the statutory and regulatory standards for an approved
    district program, the present phase of the City's coastal management
     program concentrates primarily on the coastal management topics within
     the City's immediate jurisdiction. However, it also addresses
    extraterritorial areas and issues which are critical to the City's own
     concerns for sound management of coastal resources in its region.

    I~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

                                                                    4,.
    I                                   4             ~         ~        ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~40~i  1-I*<  .'. '0

      I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- -

     I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t

                                                   .-~~ .             d .A . AL REOUC

                                                       .."4, .K. :4'."'%-t".'''N"4V E''N                                       TO.'�4-'  "444".~" "-Ky"'Z

                     COASTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY

    6 AAC 85.050. RESOURCE INVENTORY.
    Each district program must include a resource inventory which
    describes, in a manner sufficient for program development
    and implementation

         (1) habitats listed in 6 AAC 80.130 that are found
    within or adjacent to the district;

         (2) major cultural resources that are found within
    or adjacent to the district;

         (3) major lands and water uses and activities which
    are conducted within or adjacent to the district;

         (4) major land and resource ownership and management
    responsibilities within or adjacent to the district; and

         (5) major historic, prehistoric, and archaeological
    resources which are found within or adjacent to the
    district. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67)

                                 Authority:  AS 44.19.893
                                             AS 46.40.030
                                             AS 46.40.040

    6 AAC 80.130.  HABITATS.  (a)  Habitats in the coastal area
    which are subject to the Alaska coastal management program
    include

         (1) offshore areas;

         (2) estuaries;

         (3) wetlands and tideflats;

         (4) rocky islands and seacliffs;

         (5) barrier islands and lagoons;

         (6)  exposed high energy coasts;

         (7) rivers, streams, and lakes; and

         (8)  important upland habitat.

                                 19

                              I. INTRODUCTION

    The Alaska Coastal Management Act singles out for inventory five classes
    of resource data deemed to be of critical importance for coastal resource
    management: coastal habitats; cultural resources; major land and water
    uses and activities; major land and resource ownership and management
    responsibilities; and historic, prehistoric and archeological resources.
    The protection and vitality of these resources is the primary purpose of
    federal and state coastal management legislation.  This chapter catalogsI
    these resources in the City of Yakutat and adjacent areas and describes
    the resource features most significant for the district coastal program.

                                II. HABITATS

    The Alaska Coastal Management Act sets out eight types of coastal habitats
    for which resources must be inventoried in the district coastal management
    plan.  These are offshore areas; estuaries; wetlands and tideflats;I
    rivers, streams and lakes; important upland habitats; exposed high
    energy coasts; rocky islands and seacliffs; and barrier islands and
    lagoons.  The inventory of habitats is to cover the district's directI
    jurisdiction and adjacent areas. In the following analysis, the term
    "adjacent" has been applied flexibly, as appropriate to fit the specific
    habitats and their associated resource values rather than according to a
    single rigid geographic boundary.
    There are significant examples within the City of Yakutat of the first
    five types of these habitats (see Figure 4).  The sixth habitat type,I
    exposed high energy coast, is found along the ocean beach both north and
    south of the entrance to Yakutat Bay, but not within the Bay nor within
    Yakutat's corporate boundaries. These ocean beaches have high recreational
    and scenic value and are an important part of the coastal ecosystem of
    the Yakutat region and are therefore included in the resource inventory.
    The remaining two types of coastal habitats, rocky islands and seacliffs
    and barrier islands and lagoons, do not occur as distinct habitat typesI
    in the immediate Yakutat area and are therefore not included in the
    resource inventory.

    This inventory is organized to present a brief definition of each type
    of habitat, an inventory of significant occurrences of each type within
    or adjacent to Yakutat, an identification of outstanding resource values
    and an account of the major management problems and issues associated
    with each. The location and extent of each habitat type is also
    illustrated. Resource data for the habitat inventory was drawn from
    many sources, but the assistance of the Alaska Department of Fish andI
    Game was invaluable for identification and descriptive purposes.

                                       20

    FIGURE 4                                                                                             '    .'"      -4

    COASTAL HABITATS - CITY OF YAKUTAT

                    HABITAT LEGEND

         Estuaries and Offshore Areas
            Wetlands and Tideflats
            (NOTE: Few freshwater muskegs or saltwater
             marshes are delineated on this map.,

             Rivers, Streams and Lakes
      F /    Important Upland Habitat
             Most Important Upland Habitat
             (This is a subcategory of "important upland
             habitat.")

                 This project was supported, in part, by Fed-VPO
                 eral Coastal Zone Management Program Im-
                 plementation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306)
                 granted to the State of Alaska by the Office
                 of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce-
                 anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
        'I SBN, rrmnDepartment of Commerce.
                                                                             J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                                        04-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            INt

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Sources: Alaska State Housing Authority,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              1971, Alaska Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                                                              I  4. ~ ~ ~e1976

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Cit of Yakutat
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Sources: Alaska State Housing Authority,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              197t; Alaska Consultants, Inc.,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~R~A,~, ~97~. ~  ~       976
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .19~~~~~~176.

     3        ~~A.  OFFSHORE AREAS

               1. Definition
     I        ~~Offshore areas include marine waters and submerged lands seaward of the
               shoreline. These areas provide essential habitat for marine mammals,
              anadromous fish, marine fish, seabirds, shellfish and marine plants and
              micro-organisms.
               2. Examples Within Yakutat
              There are an estimated 2,950 acres of offshore habitat within Yakutat's
              jurisdiction or about 58 percent of the surface area within the City's
              municipal boundaries. This includes most of Monti Bay, part of Yakutat
              Roads, Shipyard Cove and Puget Cove. These bodies of water are generally
              well protected against ocean wave action by the Ocean Cape headland and
               the network of islands north of Monti Bay. However, Yakutat Roads and
              Monti Bay experience strong tidal flushes.
              The marine species of most importance in local offshore areas for com-
    I       ~ ~mercial and subsistence harvesting are halibut, tanner and Dungeness
              crab, and salmon. The first three are found in large numbers in the
              deeper waters of Monti Bay, while large salmon populations mill along
              the south coast of Monti Bay before entering Ankau Creek to spawn. In
    I       ~ ~addition, there are important herring spawning areas at the head of
              Puget Cove and at Shipyard Cove. Puget Cove is also actively used for
              subsistence fishing. Finally, sea otters and harbor seals are reported
              to be occasionally present in Monti Bay.
              3. Examples Adjacent to Yakutat
              Yakutat residents actively use or are directly affected by others' use
              of all of Yakutat Bay and the sector of the Gulf of Alaska within fishing
              range of Yakutat (see Figures 5 and 6 at the back of this report).
    I        ~ ~~These areas include highly productive halibut and shellfish (crab,
              shrimp, scallop) grounds, bottomfish concentrations, salmon migration
              routes, probable migration routes for a number of endangered species of
              whale, and extensive marine mammal and seabird habitat.
              The continental shelf of the eastern'Gulf of Alaska is an important
              habitat for numerous groundfish species and crustaceans. Deeper waters
              offshore from Yakutat Bay and Dry Bay are reported to serve as the major
              halibut spawning grounds for the whole North Pacific halibut fishery and
              as spawning grounds for other commercially important demersal species
    I        ~ ~~such as black cod, pollock and Pacific cod.  The shallower shelf waters
              are important breeding and rearing areas for king, tanner and Dungeness
              crab and for shrimp species and scallops.

              Halibut is an international fishery with catch levels and fishing periods
              regulated by the International Pacific Halibut Commission. Although
              comprehensive data on the halibut catch in the Yakutat area is not

                                                     23

    available, it is reported that several million pounds of halibut are
    caught annually in the Yakutat area.  Only a small share of this harvestI
    is landed locally, ranging between roughly 100,000 and 200,000 pounds
    annually in recent years. However, the recent Ocean Cape Site Development
    Feasibility Study reports that if adequate processing and vessel support
    facilities were available, up to one million pounds of halibut couldI
    immediately be delivered to Yakutat. The same study also estimated that
    3 million pounds of black cod and 6 million pounds of other groundfish
    were potentially within harvest range for delivery to Yakutat.
    The offshore waters of the Gulf of Alaska near Yakutat also contain
    highly productive shellfish habitat. Table I presents the annual
    shellfish catch, by species, for the Yakutat area between 1970 and 1978.
    During that time, the annual commercial harvest averaged nearly 3 million
    pounds, with Dungeness and tanner crab accounting for almost all of the
    catch.  The Ocean Cape Site Development Feasibility Study estimated that
    up to 2 -I million pounds of crab could be landed annually at Yakutat if
    Dungeness crab stocks were fully harvested on a sustained yield basis.
    Offshore waters are critical to salmon stocks during some periods of
    their life cycle at sea. The more protected waters of Yakutat Bay and
    Russell Fiord are important herring spawning areas.3
    There are a number of resident marine mammal species in the offshore
    waters near Yakutat. Harbor seals are the most abundant, ranging along
    the nearshore coast from Cape Fairweather to Cape Sitkagi.  PopulationI
    concentrations can be found in Yakutat Bay, where they commonly haul out
    on bergy bits calved from the Hubbard Glacier, and at the mouths of the
    major rivers along the Yakutat Forelands, including the East, Alsek,I
    Akwe, Italio, Dangerous and Situk Rivers. Steller sea lions are present
    throughout the Gulf of Alaska and frequent two hauling grounds: Cape
    Sitkagi, where up to 1,000 sea lions have been observed; and Cape
    Fairweather, where 200 sea lions have been noted on occasion.  Fur sealsI
    are present offshore but are infrequent visitors to nearshore waters.
    There is a small population of sea otters in Yakutat Bay, where they
    were reintroduced by transplant in 1966 after having been wiped out byI
    intensive hunting pressure in the early part of this century.
    Limited information is available on the occurrence of whale species
    along the northeast Gulf of Alaska coast, but it is thought that theI
    waters offshore from Yakutat serve as probable migration routes for a
    number of endangered species of whales, namely, humpback, gray, fin,
    right, sei, sperm and blue whales.
    The offshore areas provide habitat for a great diversity and number of
    resident and migratory bird species.  It is reported that, during fallI
    migration, about 150,000 lesser Canada geese, 25,000 snow geese, 200,000
    white-fronted geese, 200,000 sandhill cranes, 50,000 swans, 1,000,000
    ducks and 35,000 dusky Canada geese migrate through the nearshore and
    offshore area of the Gulf of Alaska. Eastern Yakutat Bay between the
    Phipps Peninsula and Knight Island, and Russell and Nunatak Fiords are
    also important as overwintering areas for large bird populations.

                                      241

                                                         TABLE 1

                                               SHELLFISH CATCH BY SPECIES a/
                                                      YAKUTAT AREA b/
                                                        1970 - 1978
                                                         (poupds)

                                  Dungeness
    Year        King Crab            Crab           Tanner Crab          Shrimp         Scallops           Total

    1970           ---            1,508,609              ---            10,100             22,700        1,541,400
    1971           ---            1,668,700              ---               ---            84,900         1,753,600
    1972          4,500           1,992,600              15,500            ---           128,200         2,140,800
    1973           ---            3,086,000          1,893,100            ---            173,200         5,152,300
    1974           ---            1,726,800          3,087,500             ---           356,500         5,170,800
    1975          6,300 c/        1,097,500 c/       1,997,200 c/          ---            122,000         3,223,000
    1976           ---              628,900 c/       1,724,600 c/          ---            189,500 2,543,000
    1977           ---              524,700 c/          966,700 c/     185,000 c/          22,000        1,716,400
    1978 d/       6,900 c/        1,887,800 _/          988,600 c/         ---               N/A         2,893,300

    Average       2,000           1,571,100           1,187,000          21,700           122,100         2,903,900

    a/   All figures rounded to nearest hundred.
    b/   The Yakutat fisheries management area extends from Cape Suckling southeast to Cape Fairweather.
    c/   Catches of 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 seasons, not calendar years.
    d/   Preliminary figures.

    Sources:  Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries.  1975.  A Fish and
              Wildlife Inventory of the Northeast Gulf of Alaska.

    The continued high quality of this entire offshore habitat is vital to
    the many valued species dwelling there for all or part of their life
    cycle. In addition, proper management of its fish and shellfish stocks
    is critical to Yakutat's commercial fishing industry and to the future
    emergence of a domestic bottomfish industry in the Gulf of Alaska for
    which Yakutat might serve as a base of operations.
    4.  Potential Management Problems3
    In the offshore areas of Monti Bay and eastern Yakutat Bay, the major
    management problems relate to control of potential pollution from
    industrial and other sources. The operation of processing and shipping
    facilities for seafood processing, oil and gas, and wood productsI
    industries usually involves discharge of large volumes of processed
    waters and wastes into marine waters. If these industries develop and
    expand at Yakutat, there will be potential for detrimental effects onI
    the marine environment most heavily used by local residents. Likewise,
    effluents from the municipal sanitary waste treatment plant are a possible
    pollution source. Boating and small boat harbor activities are also
    potential chronic sources of low level hydrocarbon pollutants in the
    Monti Bay area.
    There is local concern that competition between local subsistence andI
    commercial fishermen for access to the favored shellfish grounds close
    to Yakutat may occur in the future. If the need arises, the Department
    of Fish and Game may be called upon to establish management guidelinesI
    for priority access to the resource for different user groups.
    In the Gulf of Alaska, the outstanding management concerns are for the
    conduct of possible offshore and nearshore oil and gas operations, andI
    for the transport of crude oil and gas. Such operations in the Gulf of
    Alaska would be beset by severe geological and climatic conditions, with
    higher than usual risk of mishaps.  The location of tracts proposed toI
    be offered for lease in OCS Sale #55 overlap with prime shellfish
    habitat and halibut and bottomfishing grounds so that there is potential
    for localized habitat disruption and onsite conflicts between drilling
    and submarine pipelaying operations and fishing activities.

    B.  ESTUARIESI

    1.  DefinitionU
    Estuaries are semi-enclosed, often elongated bodies of water which
    contain measurable quantities of salt from the mixing of seawater with
    fresh water from rivers and streams. Estuaries are actually arms of
    the sea, which often branch landward into many parts and may include
    tidal rivers and river mouths, fiords, inlets and basins of tidewater
    glaciers.  They are extremely productive and are vital habitats for manyI
    commercially important species of fish, shellfish and diverse sea and
    shorebird populations. All anadromous fish returning from the sea to

                                        26

              spawn in freshwater, such as king salmon, red salmon and steelhead
              trout, pass through estuaries. Most spawning of pink and chum salmon
              along the southern coast of Alaska occurs within estuarine habitats.
              2. Examples Within Yakutat District
              There are two examples of an estuarine habitat within the City of Yakutat.
              The mouth of Ankau Creek, a short but critical section of the Ankau
    I        ~ ~~Lagoon system, is within Yakutat's corporate boundaries but most of the
              creek and the estuary and wetlands it links through tidal flows to
              saltwater is located outside the City within lands owned by Yak-Tat
              Kwaan.
              The Lagoon on the inland side of Yakutat Highway near its intersection
    I        ~ ~with Bayview Drive is also estuarine in nature.  The construction of
              the highway across the tidelands on fill with a culvert for drainage
              appears to have altered the natural tidal flow and circulation patterns
              into the lagoon.

              3. Examples Adjacent to Yakutat
              The geological forces at work on the Yakutat Forelands have created a
              series of tidal estuaries at the mouths of all major rivers which drain
              the Forelands. These estuaries are protected against the open sea by
              characteristically elongated spits and beaches and are a critical link
              in the life cycle of anadromous fish species. In addition, these estuaries
              and extensive adjoining tideflats provide critical habitat for many
              migrant and resident bird species, including sandhill cranes, trumpeter
    I        ~ ~~swans, Canada geese and other species.  Major waterfowl concentrations
              occur at Dry Bay, Johnsons Slough and the Ahrnklin River and Dangerous
              River estuaries. Harbor seals are also reported to be frequent visitors
    I        ~ ~~to the Dry Bay and Dangerous River estuaries.
              Russell Fiord and Nunatak Fiord can also be classified as estuaries.
              The waters of these glacial fiords serve as habitat for seabirds,
              marine mammals such as harbor seals, and a variety of other marine
              species.
    I         ~~~Finally, the major part of the Ankau Lagoon system is immediately
              adjacent to the district.
              4. Potential Management Problems
              The main potential management problems for estuaries in the Yakutat area
              concern maintenance of water quality and avoidance of physical disruption
              of the habitat. Estuaries are subject to the introduction of pollutants
              from upstream sources and, where strong tidal inflows occur, also from
              marine waters. Thus, any activities which contribute to deterioration
    I        ~ ~~of water quality within a watershed may also degrade its related estuary.
              Since many of the riverine estuaries in the Yakutat vicinity do experience
              strong tidal flows, they are open to the'intrusion of marine pollutants,

            I                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~27

    such as oil spills, from outside waters. Depending on conditions, such
    a tidal flow could also be beneficial to the process of dispersing
    marine pollutants.
    The construction of roads or pipelines across the coastal edge of the
    Yakutat Forelands could pose serious environmental problems to theI
    series of estuaries which mark the outer coasts.

    C.  WETLANDS AND TIDEFLATS

    1.  DefinitionI
    Wetlands and tideflats are highly productive habitats which occur in the
    zone between land and water.  Coastal wetlands are defined to includeI
    tidal marshes and swamps. Wetlands are rich in nutrients and plant life
    and are a key link in the coastal food chain. They are used variously
    for resting, nesting, feeding and spawning by shore and wading birds,
    waterfowl, fish and some small mammals.  Freshwater swamps and bogsI
    within the coastal zone are also considered coastal wetlands.

    Tideflats include the shore edge alternately exposed and covered byI
    changing tides. Tidelands often support a rich growth of algae and
    plant life and organisms which are important as food sources or shelter
    in the life cycle of many fish and shellfish species.
    2. Examples Within Yakutat

    The major occurrence of this type of habitat within Yakutat isI
    approximately 230 acres of tidelands which border Yakutat's shoreline.
    Due to the tidal range (mean tidal range is 7.8 feet) and gradual beach
    slopes, there is a broad intertidal corridor along the entire shoreline.I
    There are especially expansive tidal areas at the mouth of the Ankau and
    between the mainland and nearshore islands northwest of the lagoon. The
    lagoon itself, which is the gateway to an upland system of inter-
    connected freshwater lakes and streams, may also be considered partly as
    coastal wetland. Other examples of coastal wetlands or tidelands include
    the shore edges of those islands in Monti Bay which are within the
    City's boundaries and the numerous low lying wetlands on coastal uplands.
    3. Examples Adjacent to Yakutat
    There are great expanses of wetlands and tidelands occurring in close
    association with the many estuarine inlets along the Yakutat Forelands
    coastline. These tidelands and wetlands contribute to the biological
    productivity of the estuaries while providing valuable habitat forI
    waterfowl and intertidal species. The coastline and deep bays of the
    Yakutat Islands group and of eastern Yakutat Bay are usually bordered by
    extensive stretches of tidelands.  Many of these beaches and bays areI
    popular sources of beach foods for Yakutat residents.

                                     28I

               4. Potential Manaqement Problems
               Coastal tidelands and wetlands are highly susceptible to degradation
               from disturbance of surface soil and vegetation and from deterioration
    I        ~ ~~of water quality.  Potential problems at Yakutat include low level
               marine pollution from harbor and boating activities; construction of
               coastal facilities; disposal of fish processing wastes and sanitary
               wastes; and operation of the petroleum dock.
               To date, development at Yakutat has not led to major disturbance of
               coastal tidelands and wetlands. The strong tidal flush tends to disperse
    I        ~ ~~low level minor spills of petroleum products and the fish processing
               wastes discharged into Monti Bay by the local processing operations with
               minimal local damage. At present levels of operation, direct discharge
    I        ~ ~~of ground-up processing wastes by the fish plants into Monti Bay does
               not seem to be a cause of environmental problems. This may not remain
               true if a high volume groundfish processing plant locates on Monti Bay.

    I          ~~~Yakutat is also fortunate in'that, unlike many other Southeast Alaska
               coastal towns, it is not so hemmed in by mountain topography that there
               is pressure to encroach upon tidelands for development. In fact, the
    I        ~ ~~residential growth pattern in recent years has tended to move away from
               the waterfront. Another positive feature is that the submarine topography
               of Monti Bay minimizes the need for dredging and filling to construct
               marine facilities.
               In the future, the main changes anticipated relate to population growth
               and a related intensification of potential management problems. Another
    I        ~ ~~potential set of management problems could result from a new industrial
               role for Yakutat as a transshipment point for crude oil and liquefied
               natural gas. Such problems could include pre-emption of nearshore
    I        ~ ~~habitat customarily used for subsistence and commercial gillnetting,
               disturbance of tidelands for facility construction, low level chronic
               pollution from discharge of treated ballast waters, small incidental
               spills and other industrial discharges, and the unlikely possibility of
               a massive accidental spill of crude oil or LNG at or near Monti Bay.

    I          ~~~D.  FRESHWATER RIVERS, STREAMS AND LAKES

               1. Definition
               Rivers, streams and lakes are attractive habitat for a wide range of
               aquatic and terrestrial species. In the Yakutat area, these species
               include both anadromous fish and resident freshwater fish species,
               resident and migratory birds and waterfowl, as well as year-round big
               game such as moose and black and brown bear, furbearers and other small
    I        ~ ~~mammals.  Most rivers and streams in the Yakutat region are important as
               migration routes and often also as spawning areas for salmon species.

                                                  29

    2. Examples Within Yakutat
    Examples of this type of habitat within Yakutat are few but important.I
    Ophir Creek crosses the southeastern corner of the city's corporate
    boundary before flowing the major part of its course to Summit Lake and
    the Gulf of Alaska.  There is also a network of freshwater streams andI
    lakes situated in an essentially undeveloped portion of the Evangelical
    Covenant Church's tract. Both of these areas have been proposed as
    areas meriting special attention and are described in greater detail in
    Chapter 6 of this report.
    Other examples of this class of habitat are a number of scattered pothole
    lakes throughout the city and a small stream discharging into Puget CoveI
    which hosts a small salmon run.

    3.  Examples Adjacent to Yakutat
    The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has catalogued a total of 93
    anadromous fish streams in the Yakutat management area between Cape
    Fairweather and Cape Suckling. Nine of these streams contribute
    significantly to the region's commercial salmon harvest. The overall
    productivity of the anadromous river systems in the Yakutat coastal
    region can be gauged from the salmon catch statistics.  Between 1970 andI
    1977, the total annual commercial salmon harvest in the Yakutat area was
    1,628,000 pounds, with reds and coho the dominant species (see Table 2).
    A review of catch figures for the separate streams or stream systems
    indicates the relative importance, by species,' of these streams to the
    commercial fishery (see Table 3). Overall, the most important rivers in
    1978 were the Situk, Alsek and East Rivers which together accounted forI
    nearly 60 percent of the total set net harvest. In terms of species,
    the Alsek, Situk and East Rivers supported the largest red salmon runs,
    while the Kaliakh-Tsiu Rivers and the Situk River were the most importantI
    coho systems. King, pink and chum salmon returns were limited in volume
    and distribution throughout the Yakutat region. Each species heavily
    favored a single river system, respectively, the Alsek River (kings),
    the East River (chums) and Humpback Creek in the Yakutat Bay (pinks).
    While salmon harvests vary from year to year, (1978 was the second
    highest harvest in eleven years and marked by an especially strong cohoI
    return but a low return of Situk River reds), 1978 was fairly
    representative for establishing the relative importance of individual
    river systems of the Yakutat Forelands as habitat for salmon species.
    The total commercial set net harvest in the Yakutat-Yakataga area in
    1978 was 297,586 fish. Another 34,987 fish were taken by the local
    troll fishery. Furthermore, as an undetermined part of the salmon
    stocks spawned and reared in Yakutat area streams are caught at sea,
    these harvest data do not fully reflect stream productivity as salmon
    ha bi tat.

                                      30I

                                    TABLE 2

                      COMMERCIAL SALMON CATCH BY SPECIES a/
                                 YAKUTAT AREA b/
                                  1970 - 1977
                                   (pounds)

    Year                      Salmon Species                             Total
              King        Red          Coho        Pink      Chum

    1970    128,000       679,000    350,000      17,000    67,000    1,241,000
    1971    138,000       837,000    359,000    282,000    41,000    1,657,000
    1972     90,000       832,000    485,000      12,000    74,000    1,493,000
    1973     75,000       878,000    377,000      72,000    89,000    1,491,000
    1974    112,000       570,000    728,000      21,000    42,000    1,473,000
    1975     89,000       459,000    360,000    297,000    32,000    1,237,000
    1976     89,000       875,000    518,000    116,000    75,000    1,673,000
    1977     66,000    1,334,000    993,000    283,000    85,000    2,761,000

    Average  98,000       808,000    521,000    138,000    63,000    1,628,000

    a/   All figures rounded to nearest thousand.
    b/   The Yakutat fisheries management area extends from Cape Suckling
         southeast to Cape Fairweather.

    Source:   Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial
              Fisheries.

                                       31

                                           TABLE 3

                          YAKUTAT-YAKATAGA SET NET SALMON CATCH
                                            1978
                                      (number of fish)

                                                                              Percent of
    River System                      Salmon Species                  Total      Total
                      King     Red        Coho     Pink      Chum

    Awke                28      1,630    14,846       199       53    16,756       5.6
    Alsek            2,285    49,646    13,402         39     164    65,536       22.0
    Dangerous          --           4     1,142        12        5     1,163       0.4
    East                80    31,003      4,727       185   5,428    41,423       13.9
    Italio               2       993      7,493       239     391      9,118      3.1
    Kaliakh-Tsiu       --        --      36,347       --      --      36,347      12.2
    Lost                19     3,906      6,264       779        5    10,973       3.7
    Manby Shore          2     2,592    12,072          4     --      14,670       4.9
    Situk              344    32,033    30,909    6,798        35    70,119       23.6
    Yahtse               1          1     3,456         3        1     3,462       1.2
    Yakutat Bay         99     5,253        654   22,009        4    28,019        9.4

    TOTAL            2,860   127,061   131,312   30,267   6,086   297,586    100.0

    Local
    Troll Fishery   3,386         --     31,601       ---             34,987

    Source:   Sea Grant.

                                               32

    The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has undertaken a number of fisheries
    enhancement projects in the Yakutat area to manage and improve the
    productivity of the local salmon habitat. These include:

         1.   Humpback Creek cooperative stream enhancement
         2.   Situk River egg take site
         3.   Situk River weir
         4.   Coho salmon rearing ponds
         5.   Old Situk River weir
         6.   Italio River fish passage

    Certain streams in the region, most notably the Lost, Situk and Alsek
    Rivers, are famous worldwide for their sportfishing quality and attract
    heavy use by recreational visitors and sport fishermen.

    Among the many rivers of the region, the Situk River has been singled
    out by the U.S. Forest Service for its outstanding habitat and recreational
    values:

        "...The Situk and its associated tributaries and lakes, provide
         habitat for approximately 100,000 red salmon, 50,000 pinks,
         30,000 coho, 2,000 kings, chums, 3,000 steelhead, sea-run
         cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden char annually. It supports
         an outstanding sport fishing stream and the strongest spring
         and fall run of steelhead in Alaska. The run of anadromous
         Dolly Varden is outstanding. Lakes within the (Situk River
         Management) Unit offer resident rainbow angling. Bald eagle
         nesting sites are numerous along the entire length of the
         river.  From Mountain Lake to Forest Highway #10, is some of
         the finest brown bear habitat in Alaska. The potential for
         non-consumptive brown bear use is high. The watershed supports
         trophy moose." a/

    The region also possesses numerous lakes with high habitat values.
    Harlequin Lake, choked with ice from Yakutat Glacier, is noted as a
    nesting and staging area for waterfowl, especially sandhill cranes.  The
    series of freshwater lakes and potholes which pock the glacial moraines
    paralleling Yakutat Bay between Sawmill Cove and Chicago Harbor provide
    nesting areas for trumpeter swans and other waterfowl.  In addition,
    the Pike Lakes area forms a distinct and unique ecological community on
    the Yakutat Forelands. This area was not covered by the most recent
    glaciation and the lakes here contain the only population of northern
    pike known to occur in Alaska south of the Alaska Range. The vegetation
    of the surrounding uplands is also not typical of the Yakutat Forelands
    and includes the westernmost stand of lodgepole pine on the continent.
    At one time, the U.S. Forest Service considered (but did not classify)

    a/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region.
         January 13, 1975. Draft Environmental Statement: Tongass National
         Forest Land Use Plan. Juneau.

                                       33

    the Pike Lakes area for management as a scientific research area because
    of its unusual ecological characteristics.I
    4. Potential Management Problems
    Aquatic habitats such as rivers, streams and lakes are susceptible to
    many types of degradation. The principal management problems concern
    maintenance of water quality. Human uses and activiti~es can affect
    adversely both water quality and other critical features of these habitatsI
    in complex and unexpected ways, thereby damaging their productivity for
    fish, waterfowl and other wildlife populations. At present use patterns
    and activity levels, these habitats in Yakutat are relatively undamaged,I
    although their maintenance will increasingly become a challenge as
    growth pressures infringe upon them.

    Lakefronts and stream banks are attractive for and sensitive to residential
    and recreational development. Such development can contribute to a loss
    in water quality, bank erosion, detrimental changes in water temperature,
    turbidity, runoff volume and water quality through addition of pollutantsU
    and excess nutrients.

    A second potential management problem is timber harvesting adjacent to
    streams and lakes. Poor logging and road building practices can
    significantly alter runoff patterns, cause erosion and stream siltation,
    smother spawning beds, elevate water temperatures and otherwise harm the
    essential features of these habitats.  In addition, insensitiveI
    recreational use can have similar adverse effects on the quality of
    aquatic habitats.3
    The productivity of these habitats is also influenced by management
    practices governing the harvest of fish and wildlife resources. This is
    most obviously the case for anadromous streams and lakes where future
    productivity may be affected by the commercial fishing harvest, and
    subsistence and recreational sportfishing harvest of naturally occurring
    fish stocks. Management programs for stream rehabilitation and stocking
    also play an important role in the maintenance and enhancement of theI
    productivity of such habitats.

    E. IMPORTANT UPLAND HABITATS

    1.  Definition
    Important upland habitats within the coastal zone are those areas where
    maintenance is essential for terrestrial wildlife populations or to
    protect the quality of other coastal habitats. Within the Yakutat
    region, the upland forests and vegetative cover perform an important
    function in regulating the drainage of surface runoff and the waterI
    quality of freshwater streams and lakes.

                                     34I

               2. Examples Within Yakutat
               The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has recommended classifying the
               entire upland area within the City as important upland habitat. Three
               particular sub-areas are also recommended for designation as "most
               important upland habitat". These include a broad corridor on both sides
               of Ophir Creek where it crosses the southeast corner of the City boundary,
               uplands surrounding the system of freshwater lakes and streams on the
               undeveloped southwestern part of the Evangelical Covenant Church tract,
               on added management importance because they border highly productive
               marine and aquatic habitats. Each of these most important upland habitats
               is within proposed areas meriting special attention in Chapter 6 of this
               report.
    I         ~~~Woodlands within the built-up area of town are also important for their
               scenic value and as buffers to road noise and traffic.
               3. Examples Adjacent to Yakutat

               The upland vegetation of the Yakutat Forelands between Yakutat Bay and
               the Deception Hills is dominated by muskeg, brush and forest. Muskeg
               and other unforested areas cover about 60 percent of the Forelands with
               a vegetation mixture of sedges, willows, deer cabbage, heather and
               similar species. The dominant species of the forested areas of the
    I        ~ ~~Forelands is Sitka spruce, with lesser amounts of western and mountain
               hemlock and black cottonwood. These uplands provide habitat for a wide
               variety of wildlife, including moose, deer, brown and black bear, wolf,
               wolverine and mountain goat.
               4. Potential Management Problems
    I         ~~~Activities posing the greatest potential management problems to upland
               habitats in the Yakutat region are timber harvesting and intensified
               recreation use. Timber harvest activities and related road construction
    I        ~ ~~inevitably involve some degree of disturbance to the soils and vegetative
               cover. These disturbances can result in serious habitat degradation,
               especially where harvesting intrudes on waterfowl nesting areas, bear
               denning areas, winter goat range and other areas which are critical in
               the lifecycle of upland wildlife.
               In a region with the heavy rainfall and complex stream patterns of the
    I        ~ ~~Yakutat Forelands, poor timber harvesting and road construction practices
               may also alter drainage patterns and promote erosion, with adverse
               effects on stream water quality and the vitality of aquatic habitats.
    I        ~ ~~Where scenic values are high, they may be severely depreciated by
               harvesting, especially clearcutting. The practice of clearcutting,
               which leaves border stands exposed to high winds, also contributes to
               windfall losses, which the Forest Service has cited as the major cause
               of tree loss in the Yakutat area.

                                                 35

    A second set of management problems stem from human use of upland
    habitats for hunting and other recreational activities. Heavy hunting
    pressure, among other factors, contributed to the steep decline in moose
    populations on the Yakutat Forelands after 1970. This type of management
    problem may grow with increased use rates and with easier access to
    remote areas due to an expanded system of forest roads or popular use ofI
    off-road vehicles. Adverse effects upon wildlife habitats and populations
    may be made more acute when recreational uses and hunting pressures are
    concentrated along access corridors or in favored use areas.I

    F. EXPOSED HIGH ENERGY COASTS

    1.  Definition3
    Exposed high energy coasts are characterized by direct exposure to ocean
    waves and storm surges which result in an active surf zone and dynamic
    shoreline processes such as erosion and deposition.  High energy coastsI
    can be extremely productive habitats due to the favorable mixture of
    nutrients, sunlight and oxygen and provide habitat for fish, molluscs,
    crustaceans, marine mammals, seabirds and marine plants.3
    2. Examples Within Yakutat
    Because the entire coastline of the City of Yakutat is within YakutatU
    Bay and is sheltered from the open ocean, there are no examples of this
    type of habitat within the City.
    3.  Examples Adjacent to Yakutat5
    Virtually the entire stretch of ocean coastline between Cape Fairweather
    to the south and Cape Sitkagi to the north can be considered an exposed
    high energy coastline, intermittently broken by river mouths. For most
    of its length, the ocean beach is backed by a heavily wooded beach
    ridge.
    4. Potential Management Problems
    The ocean beaches near Yakutat are not generally susceptible to adverseI
    use or development, mostly because they are neither needed nor suitable
    for many uses often made of beaches. The generally hostile sea conditions
    made the coast unattractive for engineered improvements.  In addition,I
    because of an abundance of other sources of gravel and fill materials
    nearer town, the beaches are not needed as a source for such materials.
    However, there are two potential uses which may provide cause for concern
    in the future. First, the delivery of crude oil or natural gas from
    offshore fields to marine facilities near Yakutat for transfer to tanker
    vessels might require one or more submarine pipeline landfalls acrossU
    the exposed outer beach or along a semi-sheltered river channel. Second,
    timber harvesting of coastal timberlands which encroach upon dunes and

                                    36

              beach ridges could damage vegetative cover and expose beach ridges to
              wind and wave erosion. These changes could upset the beach stability
              and its use as habitat.
              A further concern of the City of Yakutat is the possibility of an offshore
    I       ~ ~accident involving a crude oil tanker carrying North Slope oil southbound
              from the Port of Valdez. Such an accident might result in a massive oil
              spill offshore, with the possibility of significant damage to the marine
              and coastal environment if the spill was carried ashore to the outer
    I       ~ ~beaches or into coastal estuaries by tidal action.  The point of origin
              of the spill plus prevailing wind, current and tidal patterns would
              significantly influence the dispersal pattern of an oil spill and the
              effectiveness of measures to contain and clean up petroleum contaminants.

          3                           ~~~~~~~~III.  CULTURAL RESOURCES

              For a relatively small community, Yakutat has a reasonably comprehensive
              range of community facilities and services. However, because of its
              scale and limited local tax revenues, many of these facilities and
              services have been established with a maximum of assistance from other
              levels of government.

    3         ~~A.  POPULATION

              Yakutat is the only permanent community along the Gulf of Alaska coast
              between Cordova and Gustavus. The City estimates that a total of 600
               persons currently live within its road-connected area. Of this, it is
              estimated that 449 persons live within Yakutat's corporate limits. A
    I        ~ ~~majority of City residents claim Tlingit descent, whereas most persons
              living outside town are white.

    I         ~~B.  EMPLOYMENT

    I         ~~~The most recent count of employment in the Yakutat road-connected area
              was undertaken by Alaska Consultants, Inc. in 1977 (see Table 4). Of a
               total of 257 persons employed on an annual average year-round basis,
              almost one-third (82) were in government occupations, with local government
               employment accounting for about half of this figure. (The proportion of
               local government employment should now be higher since closure of a 13-
              man Coast Guard Loran station at Ocean Cape).

              Other major employment sectors in 1977 were agriculture, forestry and
               fishing, which employed an annual average of 38 persons; followed by 32
    I        ~ ~~persons each in trade and in manufacturing; and 30 in transportation,
               communication and public utilities. (Employment in manufacturing has
               probably decreased since a May 1977 fire destroyed most of the Yakutat

            I                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~37

                                   TABLE 4
                     AVERAGE ANNUAL FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT a/                              I
                         YAKUTAT ROAD-CONNECTED AREA
                                    1977
         Industry                                            Basic    Secondary
     Classification        Number       %       % Basic    Number        Number
    Agriculture,
     Forestry and
     Fishing                 38       14.8        100          38           0
    Mining                     8       3.1        100           8           0
    Contract
     Construction             13       5.1         46           6           7
    Manufacturing             32      12.4        100          32           0
    Transportation,
     Communication &
     Public Utilities        30       11.7         63          19          11
    Trade                     32      12.4         31          10          22
    Finance, Insurance
     & Real Estate             5       2.0         40           2           3
    Service                   17       6.6         29           5          12               1
    Government                82      31.9         40          33          49
     Federal                (34)    (13.2)        (91)        (31)        ( 3)
     State                   ( 8)    (3.1)        (25)        (2)         ( 6)
     Local                  (40)    (15.6)        ( O)        ( O)        (40)

    TOTAL                    257     100.0-        60         153         104

                                                                               'I
    a/   Includes self-employed and military personnel.

    Source:   Alaska Consultants, Inc.  September 1978.  City of Yakutat,
             Capital Improvements and Services Program.  Anchorage.

                                                                                   I

                                                                                  I
                                     381

              cold storage plant). Employment in the remaining sectors is less
              significant and has probably changed little since 1977 except for mining
              where 1977 figures were temporarily swollen by the presence of oil
              company personnel associated with offshore exploratory drilling activities.

              C. COMMUNITY FACILITIES

    N        ~~As previously noted, Yakutat has a reasonably comprehensive range of
              community facilities and services for a town of its size although most
              have been funded by either the State or federal governments.

              1. Community Buildings

    3        ~~These include a 6-room city hall which was' built in 1971 with State
              assistance and which is located on Bayview Drive adjacent to the developed
              area north of the old cannery; and the former City school which was
              condemned by the State Fire Marshal for use as a school in 1973 and
              which is now used as offices and as a residence for a physician's assistant
              who is associated with the health clinic. This office/residential
    3        ~~facility is located on Bayview Drive south of the city hall.

              2. Cultural Facilities

    5         ~~Yakutat has no museum and no public library except for a small collection
              at the school which is theoretically available to all community residents.

    *         ~~3.  Public Safety

              Yakutat has had local police protection services since 1949 although
               sch services have not always been provided by the City itself. Currently,
              the City employs a constable who has some training and there is a State
              trooper based in the road-connected area outside town who is theoretically
              responsible only for areas outside Yakutat's corporate limits but who in
    I       ~ ~practice also provides services within town.  The City has no police
              station and the local constable uses space in the city hall, as necessary.
              Yakutat has an all-volunteer fire department which provides services
              within the town's corporate limits and, when possible, also to outlying
              road-connected areas. Additional firefighting capability is available
              at the airport where the Federal Aviation Administration maintains a
    I        ~ ~pumper and the State stations a crash truck.  The City has two modern
              pumpers which are housed at the old City gymnasium, adjacent to the city
              hall. In town water sources include 24 hydrants and several streams and
              ponds. Yakutat's Insurance Services Office (ISO) class rating was
              recently upgraded from 10 to 8. The community has had several major
              fires but none involving the dest-ruction of more than one building.

                                                 I39

    4 - Heal th
    Reflecting its small size, Yakutat has no hospital, nor is any doctor,
    dentist or registered nurse based in the community. However, the town
    does have a health clinic with six attached units of elderly housing
    which is located off Bayview Drive uphill from the city hall.  ThisI
    facility is rented by the U.S. Public Health Service and is staffed by
    a physician's assistant and health aide personnel.  The facility is also
    used by visiting dentists and physicians and an itinerant State publicI
    health nurse. However, for more than routine medical or dental services,
    local residents normially travel to Juneau, Sitka or Anchorage.

    5. Education
    As a first class city, Yakutat is also a school district responsible for
    constructing, maintaining and operating its own public school system.
    In addition, the city school district serves children from the road-
    connected area outside town and is reimbursed for this by the State.

    The Yakutat high school and elementary school are located on a 20 acre
    site off Forest Service Highway near the junction of Airport Road. Both
    are modern facilities in good condition. The elementary school was
    constructed in 1978 and has ten teaching stations and five classroomsI
    plus a library, multi-purpose room and swimming pool. Final enrollment
    at the elementary school has ranged between 90 and 100 students during
    the past four years.  The high school was constructed in 1973 and includesI
    seven classrooms and a gymnasium. The facility was designed to serve 80
    students, with final enrollment over the past four years ranging between
    60 and 75 students.
    6. Parks and Recreation

    For a small community, Yakutat has a good range of formal and informalI
    recreation amenities. Formal outdoor recreation facilities include a
    small City playground off Bayview Drive which is associated with the old
    school, school playground areas, a hard surfaced basketball court withinI
    the Alaska State Housing Authority (ASHA) housing subdivision off Situk
    Road, a small boat harbor at Shipyard Cove at the north end of town, and
    an improved picnic area at Cannon Beach, outside town on the Gulf of
    Alaska coast. The City is also in the process of developing a 5 acre
    recreation area off Situk Road next to the school. Ultimately, this
    area is planned to include picnic tables, a playground and a hard surfaced
    sports area.
    Formal indoor recreation facilities in Yakutat include the Alaska Native
    Brotherhood Hall located off Bayview Drive on a bluff immediately north3
    of the old cannery, a dance spot at a local lodge off Airport Road a
    short distance outside Yakutat's corporate limits, a multi-purpose room
    at the health center which is used by elderly residents, and facilities
    associated with the two schools.

                                      40

                Finally, the Yakutat area offers a wide variety of informal outdoor
                recreation experiences, including exceptional hunting and fishing
                opportunities which attract not only local residents but also visitors
                to the community.

                D. LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

                As a first class city located outside an organized borough, Yakutat has
                a broad range of municipal powers permitted by Alaska law. To enable it
     U        ~ ~~to adequately exercise its responsibilities, cities of this class may
                levy property taxes of up to 30 mills (or 3 percent of assessed valuation),
                although this millage may be exceeded if it is applied to debt service,
     I        ~ ~~and levy a local sales tax of up to 3 percent.  Currently, Yakutat has
                established a mill rate of 13.7, a rate which has been held almost
                constant over the past three years, and levies a 2 percent sales tax.

     I          ~~~According to the State Assessor, the full value of property within
                Yakutat's corporate limits in 1979 was $10,830,510, with about one-
                quarter of this being oil and gas-related property associated with the
     U        ~ ~~marine service base constructed during 1976 on the south side of Monti
                Bay. The addition of this major new taxpayer to the local tax rolls has
                resulted in a significant increase in local property tax revenues although
    I         ~ ~~the community remains heavily dependent on assistance from other levels
                of government, particularly for the construction of new facilities and
                for the operation of its school system.

    I          ~~~On the other hand, despite limited local tax resources, Yakutat is in
                the enviable position of having incurred no long term municipal debt.
                Both schools were constructed by the State, while federal or State funds
                have also been used in construction of the cold storage plant, the
                community water and sewer systems and the health clinic, as well as for
                smaller projects such as the city hall.

                                       IV. LAND AND WATER USES

                A. LAND USE AND UTILITIES

                Excluding islands, there are about 8.5 linear miles of coastline within
                Yakutat's corporate boundaries.' However, less than one-quarter of this
                coastline has actually been developed. Despite the appeal of water
                access in a fishing community, development along the Yakutat waterfront
                is not continuous, having been strongly influenced by topography, locally
                poor surface drainage and land ownership patterns. Generally, within
    I         ~ ~~the built-up area, prime flat, developable waterfront areas have been
                given over to relatively intensive transportation, commercial and
                industrial uses which require good water access. Tracts with inferior
    I         ~ ~~access or other physical constraints are in residential, commercial and

                                                  g41

    public uses for which water access is not essential. Figure 7 indicates
    existing land use patterns and the location of major community facilities.3
    Waterfront uses at Yakutat are fairly well sorted out. Commercial
    fishing and other water transportation-related uses such as the Ocean
    Cape dock and the cold storage dock are located near the head of MontiI
    Bay. These are bordered by "heavier" industrial uses (the Standard Oil
    dock and the marine service base) to the west and by residential and
    public uses to the east and north. The entire developed area is bracketed3
    at either end by vacant natural tracts: to the west by Ankau Creek and
    its neighboring tidelands and beach, and by Puget Cove to the northeast.

    In the City's Land Use Plan (see Figure 8), there are five categories ofI
    coastal land use: residential, traditional industrial/commercial,
    general industrial, pub'lic and conservation. The coastline has been
    allocated among these uses by the plan approximately as follows:I
    residential - 18 percent; traditional industrial/commercial - 12 percent;
    general industrial - 27 percent; public - 10 percent; and conservation -
    33 percent. The plan seeks to retain waterfront areas used for traditional
    industrial and commercial activities (e.g. fisheries) and public and
    residential use in that status, to designate a logical area away from
    existing development for new water-dependent heavy industrial uses not
    compatible with existing uses (e.g. oil and gas-related development) andU
    to establish conservation and public use areas which would protect
    valued recreational areas and habitat and provide buffers for industrial
    areas.
    With certain significant exceptions, the developed waterfront is serviced
    by the municipal water and sewer systems and by a privately owned and
    operated electric utility (see Figure 9).  No water and sewer or electricI
    power services serve the small boat harbor in Shipyard Cove at the end
    of Mallott Avenue. However, extension of these public utilities to
    Shipyard Cove would improve the amenities available there and makeI
    feasible a broader range of marine services and recreational facilities
    for boat harbor users.

    Both the cold storage and the marine service base provide their ownI
    electric power requirements, due to the limited generating capacity and
    finances of the private utility. It would undoubtedly be more economical,
    efficient and mutually advantageous for the cold storage plant to purchaseI
    its power from the local utility if arrangements could be made to finance
    upgrading of the electric power system.
    Although the seafood processing plants are on the city water distribution
    system and are major water users at times of peak operation, their
    ground-up processing wastes do not enter the City waste collection and
    treatment system and are instead discharged into Moniti Bay, without
    apparent adverse effects on the marine habitat according to local Alaska
    Department of Fish and Game personnel. The marine service base derives
    its water from on-site wells and has its own waste treatment plant.

                                      423

    3            ~~FIGURE 7

                        This project was supported, in part, by Fed-
                        eral Coastal Zone Management Program Im-
                        plementation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306)
              k  ~~~  granted to the State of Alaska by the Office
                        of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce-
               o   c.  ~arnc and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.       -
              0~~~~~      t Dprtment of Commerce._

                                                     I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t

                  I                                               ~~~~~~~~Existing Land Use

                                                                              LEGEND
                                                                                 E31RESIDENTIAL
                                                                                    PUBLIC                                                                                       ,

                                                                                    COMMERCIAL
                                                                                    LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and STORAGE
                   U                                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GENERAL INDUSTRIAL                        I

                                                        B  O0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         40040080 f~ Cit11y of Yakutat
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Sources: Alaska State Housing Authority,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   1971; Alaska Consultants, Inc.

                                                               I  -' ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~96

             FIGURE 8                                                                                                                                                                 opsL Pr

                                                                                                                                                                   Small Boat Harbor

                   This project was supported, in part, by Fed-
                   eral Coastal Zone Management Program Im-
                   plementation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306)                .       '
        L~    ~ granted to the State of Alaska by the Office
                   of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce-
                   anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
        I~v sbo.~POplne... Department of Commerce.
                                                                                                                        Cemetery                 Playground
                                                                                                                                                      recommended
                                                                                                                                                      in this area,

                                                                              -t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A

                                                                                                                                 -k               Cemetery

                                                              LAND USE PLAN- 1976

                                                                  Residential

                                            !:~~~ ~  Commercial

                                                                    !~ Pr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oposed
                                                                     Commercial/ Waterfront/+Rsidential

                                         Cemetery    ~    B~ General Industrial                                                                         oposed
                                                                                                                                                                       /e reation Center

                                                                     ~ Public                                                                                   Health Clinic
                           .~~~~~~~~ ~~~PublicAra4

                                                                     Conservation Area                                                                             Proposed--.-.
                                                                                                                                                                           � ~ ~ ~ Proposed City Hal

                                                                                                                                                                                      ' RCiVy Dock and Proposed
                                                                     Major Thoroughfares                                                                              iry   and
                                            TA~~~~~~~~~TA~~~~~~~~.TTTA~~~~~~~roo e -a                                                                        e  f r -  _ ..   .. -A...
                                                                      CollectorStes
                                                                     Collector Streets                                                                Proposed Waterfro
                                                                                                                                                                  Access Site

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   4 4 '00    80 feet         1o

                                                                       T.                                                                                                                                                       Sources: Alaska State Hous
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1971; Alaska Cons
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1976.
       : AT!,~. --t  '\T ~ .
         � .. .ATA AA.AA . T AG
                       AA    ~   A~-A'~ T>~.QT~A -

    S:~i:~                                                                               ..!
                  ~ ~ ~     ~     ~    -,                                                                    ~-                                      -a
                                          -AT-,  4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,

              ,,~:::~~~~~~~~ ~  'N::                                                                                                                                               A
                                        I                                                                                                                   AAA2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~

                                                     &~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~i.A.....
            i~'~ii~~~~~i:;,~:.~:ii;~ii:~ii~~~~~  ?11.
                                                                              .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CatGad~~~~~~ ~~

            :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A.           TT    , ;:.2!:                                                                                                                                                N                     -''
                                                                           ~:~?~;i  S t a t i o  n                 S        o        u        r       c        e       s       :              A l a ska                                  State Hous~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
                �~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A !:~  1971;  AlasaEon
            ~':iii~~~~~~~~~~i:~>TT                                                                                                                                                                                           197. NATV

                                                                    * ~4- Chu  ,rporo,,    Bound~l- r y                                                                        --

                 FIGURE 9                                                                                          "             '

                       I,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
             Exidstin WaerI

                 ~II~  Water Line
                 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                   a Sewer Line
                                                                                            A,~i
               This project was supported, in part, by Fed-
         I       eral Coastal Zone Management Program Im-
               plementation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306)                                                                                                                       4
               granted to the State of Alaska by the Office
         l~_"~v - of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce-
        Of  lop h.... .anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
         Plannho  '- D Department of Commerce.                                                                   Emergency

                                                                                                                             Emergency Well House and
                                                                                                             Sewage Treatme35,000 gal. Reserve Water Tank         Wel House and two 120,000 gal.
                                                                                                                                                         VelHouse and two 120,000 gal.
                                                                                                                                                       WaterTanks .'

                                                                                                        Plant and Outfall

                                                                                                                                                                                          I

     F   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~-
                                                    d~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ b
                                                                                                               ~' ~   r ,Emergency Outfall'.                                   ..;

                                                                                           or~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
                                                                                                                                                        .i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                       K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    li-~~~~~, :':

                                                                                      /-7                                                                           0W   400    8 0 futt
                                                                                                                                                                       City of Yakutat
                                                                                                                                                       IAE FERR.ARr,197G
                                               i.~,: ,ra~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Suc Sources: Alaska State Housing Authority,~~SucsAlkataeHsigutoty
                                                                                                                                                                           1971; Alaska Consultants, Inc.,
                                                        .'W;I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1976.

               The City's developed water sources are adequate for present levels of
               use. The U.S. Public Health Service estimates that when both processing
               plants were operating, daily consumption was about 230,000 gallons per
               day, with industrial consumption accounting for close to three-quarters
               of all water use. However, the system's existing supply and storage
               capacity could be taxed fully if local seafood processing facilities
               were restored to their former levels of operation. Fortunately, it
               appears that the groundwater resources of the Yakutat area are abundant.
    I        ~ ~~The service base wells are reportedly capable of supplying up to an
               additional 360,000 gallons per day which would be ample to meet the
               town's foreseeable future needs unless extraordinary local developments
    U        ~ ~~in the groundfish or oil and gas industry took place.
               The City's capital improvements program includes projects to extend
               water and sewer lines to Shipyard Cove and to develop an intertie
               between the City and service base water systems.

    I         ~~~B.  NAVIGATION AND HARBOR ACTIVITIES

    3         ~~~As reported in the United States Coast Pilot, Yakutat Bay has a 16.5
               mile wide entrance between Ocean Cape to the southeast and Point Manby
               on the northwest. Two to three miles outside a line between Ocean Cape
               and Point Manby, there is a narrow submarine ridge at a depth varying
               from 3.5 to 16 fathoms. During very heavy weather, breakers or pronounced
               swells have been observed across the entire entrance to Yakutat Bay,
    3         ~~~making entrance dangerous at such times.

               Within Yakutat Bay itself, water depths range from about 6 fathoms west
               of Khantaak Island to 166 fathoms off Point Latouche, 23 miles above the
               entrance. Where there is no systematic current data available for
               Yakutat Bay, it is thought that the pattern of current movements is
               locally complex.

    I         ~~~The Coast Pilot also reports that recent topographic surveys show major
               discrepancies in the charted shoreline of Yakutat Bay, probably as a
               result of seismic activity, and advises mariners to exercise extreme
    I        ~ ~~caution when navigating in the area.  A hydrographic survey of the area
               by the National Ocean Survey was underway in 1979 and a new edition of
               the Yakutat Bay chart will be published when the survey is completed.

    I          ~~~In Monti Bay, water depth s range'between 20 to 40 fathoms.  According to
               U.S. National Ocean Survey data, the maximum high tide is +12.6 feet and
    3          ~~~the maximum low tide is -2.6 feet.  The mean tidal range is 7.8 feet.

               The Coast Pilot states that a strong surge is often felt at the Ocean
               Cape dock at the head of Monti Bay and local sources report that unloading
               operations at the relatively more exposed cold storage dock are sometimes
               made more difficult by rough water.

            1                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~49

    Prevailing winds in the Yakutat area are from the east, except between
    May and August when they are from the east-southeast.  The mean windI
    speed is 7 miles per hour. However, high winds from the southeast,
    occasionally in excess of 50 miles per hour and with a recorded all-time
    high of 75 miles per hour, may occur in the late fall and winter months.

    Commercial shipping activity at Yakutat is light and local dock facilities
    are in poor condition. In recent years, Yakutat has been without regularly
    scheduled marine freight service and vessels stop here only to deliverI
    or pick up accumulated volumes of cargo. During the summer of 1980,
    Yakutat received barge service from Pacific Western Lines on a monthly
    basis and from Northland Services, Inc. about every six weeks. However,
    services will either be curtailed or or eliminated during the winter
    season between November and April or May.
    Port traffic data for 1977, the most recent year for which data isI
    available, indicate that a total of 1,559 tons of dry cargo we-re shipped
    through the port of Yakutat in that year (see Table 5). Dry cargo was
    about evenly divided between incoming freight (741 tons), mostly foodstuffsI
    and outbound freight (818 tons), mostly fish products. A review of
    shipping data for previous years suggests that 1977 levels may be about
    the baseline for dry cargo commerce in and out of Yakutat, excluding the
    export of logs, logging equipment and other irregular shipments. Since
    1977, after the destruction of the cold storage plant, the volume of
    outbound cargo has undoubtedly declined somewhat, since most salmon is
    now being shipped out by air.
    Over the years, Yakutat's chronic commercial shipping problem has been
    low traffic volumes and under-use of its port facilities. Low demand
    has made it uneconomic for marine shippers to maintain regular shipping
    services to Yakutat. Furthermore, low use rates have made it economically
    infeasible to maintain, improve and operate Yakutat's port facilities.
    Partly as a result, the general cargo dock is now badly deteriorated.U
    Steady decay of the Ocean Cape dock, culminating in collapse of the ice
    house and part of the dock face in 1979, has severely impaired its
    usefulness and safety.
    In the summer of 1979, the City made temporary emergency repairs, including
    installation of some new pilings and decking, to temporarily restore use
    of the dock for cargo handling and fish deliveries. However, these were
    only stopgap meansures. A 1980 engineering survey found most supporting
    piles for the dock and related buildings to be gravely weakened by
    decay.  Short of reconstruction or a major rehabilitation project, it3
    appears that Yakutat could at any time lose the use of its only public
    dock facility which is suitable for general commerce.
    Yakutat has made improved shipping service a major economic and community
    development goal. To this end, the City acquired and is seeking to
    redevelop the Ocean Cape dock and site to provide more efficient freight
    handling and storage. The City is also pursuing expansion of the local
    seafood processing industry and some diversification into groundfish
    processing and transshipment, all of which would promote higher shipping
    volumes, especially for outbound freight.
                                     501

                                     TABLE 5

                             ANNUAL TRAFFIC SUMMARY
                                PORT OF YAKUTAT
                                     (tons)

                                   1973               1974               1977
    Inbound                        6,935               6,818             10,672
      (Fuels)                    ( 5,435)             (5,741)            (9,931)
      (Other)                    ( 1,500)             (1,077)            (741)

    Outbound                      38,717                 539                818 a/
      (Fish products)            (   945)             ( 354)
      (Logs)                     (34,583)                --
      (Other)                    (3,189)              (185)

    TOTAL                         45,652               7,357             11,490

    a/   No breakdown available.

    Source:   U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage,
              Alaska. Unpublished data.

    Bulk fuel products for consumption at Yakutat are delivered to the
    Standard Oil dock west of the Ocean Cape facility and immediately adjacent
    to the marine service base pier. Deliveries are made six or seven times
    per year by the Alaska Standard, a small 225 foot tanker with a draft of
    18.5 feet and a capacity of 18',000 barrels (750,000 gallons) of fuel.
    Fuel products are piped uphill and away from the waterfront to a dikedI
    tank storage area on the bluff above the dock facilities. The Standard
    Oil dealer supplies fishing vessels at this dock and also supplies fuel
    products to the supply boats which operated from the marine service baseI
    during the earlier OCS exploration program. In 1977, port data indicate
    that 9,931 tons of bulk liquids (fuels) were delivered to Yakutat. This
    was about 4,000 tons above the volume delivered in the two years before
    Northern Gulf of Alaska OCS Lease Sale #39 and was probably inflated by
    fuel supplies destined for offshore supply rather than strictly local
    use.

    Most vessel traffic'in Monti Bay and Yakutat Bay is made up of small local
    fishing boats and pleasure craft. Yakutat fishermen and the Yakutat
    fishing fleet are primarily engaged in fishing for salmon, halibut andI
    other species in nearshore and inside waters or in the sheltered waters
    of Yakutat Bay. A measure of activity in Monti Bay during the salmon
    season is provided by Table 6. On the average during this eight year
    period, 200 boats made 3,018 landings annually, delivering 1,489,000I
    pounds of salmon each year. To these figures must, of course, be added
    less frequent landings of crab, halibut and other fish species.3
    By recent estimate of the Yakutat Fishermen's Cooperative, the locally
    owned and based fishing fleet numbers about 38 vessels. Of these, about
    10 are in the 26 to 36 foot range and eight in the 32 to 65 foot range,
    with the rest being less than 26 feet in length. These vessels are
    suited to their customary use but are inadequate for outside deep water
    fisheries such as grou~ndfish. Offshore fishing in the Gulf of Alaska
    for bottomfish, crab and other species is normally undertaken by vesselsI
    in the 80 to 110 foot range and requires a level of capital investment
    beyond the means of local fishermen. As a result, local fishermen
    presently lack the vessels and gear as well as the experience necessaryI
    to enter groundfish harvesting.
    In addition to the local fishing fleet, several larger fishing vessels
    engaged in the o~ffshore fisheries deliver their catch at Yakutat andI
    make seasonal use of Yakutat's port and boat harbor facilities for
    supplies and moorage. However, the community's convenience for the
    offshore fishing fleet is presently offset by its lack of diversifiedU
    and large scale processing capability, its limited supply of marine
    services, the overcrowded state of its small harbor, and by the mobility
    of offshore fleet vessels which makes it feasible for them to land their
    catch at more distant but better equipped ports.
    During the two years (1976-1978) when exploration and Continental
    Offshore Stratigraphic Test (COST) wells were being drilled in the Gulf
    of Alaska, the Yakutat oil service base was visited daily by offshore
    supply boats in the 200 foot class and by occasional barges delivering

                                      52

                                     TABLE 6

                             YAKUTAT SALMON CATCH
                          NUMBER OF BOATS AND LANDINGS
                                  1-965 - 1976

               Pounds Landed        Number of Boats a/    Number of Landings b/

    1969          1,642,000                  213                    3,421
    1970          1,235,000                  214                    3,002
    1971          1,661,000                  182                    2,912
    1972          1,493,000                  180                    2,540
    1973          1,495,000                  217                    3,645
    1974          1,473,000                  227                    3,109
    1975          1,237,000                  181                    2,553
    1976          1,673,000                  184                    2,958

    Average       1,489,000                  200                     2,018

    a/   All gear types.
    b51   Number of landings equals the number of days each boat landed fish.

    Source:   Sea Grant.

                                         53

    industrial supplies. Use of the service base has virtually ceased since
    the eleventh and last exploratory dry hole was shut-in in late summer of
    1978.  However, it is expected that the service base will again be usedI
    to support exploration of tracts offered in OCS Sale #55 scheduled for
    October 1980.3

                  V. LAND RESOURCE OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

    From the time of its original settlement, Yakutat's physical development
    pattern has been strongly influenced by land ownership patterns, especially
    those of church and public agencies.  In the future, the ownership andI
    management status of lands in Yakutat and its vicinity will continue to
    be a critical factor for Planning and management of land uses and
    development.                                                                           .
    Significant changes in land ownership patterns have occurred during the
    past decade or are imminent, primarily as a result of the Alaska Native
    Claims Settlement Act. This Act has resulted in the transfer of large
    tracts in and near Yakutat to private ownership by the Yak-Tat Kwaan
    and, possibly, also by the Sealaska Corporation. In addition, it has
    triggered an intensive re-evaluation, still underway, of the futureI
    management status of federal lands in the Yakutat region (see
    Figure 10 at the back of this report).
    The City of Yakutat has also acquired some key tracts in town and has
    filed for additional acreage as part of its municipal lands entitlement
    from the State. Finally, the City is entitled to receive 1,280 acres of
    land for municipal expansion purposes from the Yak-Tat Kwaan underI
    Section 14(c)(3) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and is
    seeking to have the Evangelical Covenant Church transfer its lands to
    local ownership.  Thus, when the various land transfers now pending inI
    the Yakutat region are concluded, land tenure patterns will be radically
    different.

    A. CITY OF YAKUTAT

    Land tenure patterns within the City of Yakutat as of 1976 are shown in
    Figure 11 and summarized in Table 7. At that time, of the total land
    area of 1,940 acres within the City's boundaries, approximately 1,150I
    acres or about 59 percent was in private ownership and 790 acres or
    about 41 percent was in public ownership. Yakutat's corporate limits
    also include about 230 acres of tidelands, of which 202 acres are owned
    by the City and 28 acres by the State.
    The major private land owner is the Yak-Tat Kwaan Inc. which has acquired
    631 acres within the City, mostly as part of its total conveyance ofI
    23,040 acres under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
    Within the City, the main land holdings of the Kwaan are largely

                                      54I

           FIGURE  ,. I                                                 .                                                                                                                                                                            tr  >e1V

                                                                                                - p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....                                                                                               or      ..~ \...Watr

                                                                                                           Existing~~~~~~~~~~~_                                                                                    Lan �CvATenur
                                                                                * .   .                                                                                                                                 ?..*PRIVATEtrc   rttJ7�\
                                                                                                                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.RESTRICTED
                                                                                        UNETI ~2    rcCT.0ED
                                                                                     YA-A WAN2 rj    .                                                                                                                                            u1'fC-oct
                                                                                     *PUBLI~~t~ (-  Cou
                                                                                     *IT       of                                         YAKUTAT W.
                                                                                                                              =CITY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                                                  SELC(tTIONSLr~t
                                                                                                                                         h a.O  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~   ~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~    ~     ~    ~     ~    ~    ~     ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~     ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
                                                                                                                FEDERAL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t.
                                                                                                                                                                             7' ~  ~    \       '                             ~y~
                                                                                                          STATE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..:?

                                                                                    0"    6.44Vf.:VW~. %~,�)'                                                                               �tA
                                                                                                  X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. :~v~:WCrsct
    Ii~~~

                                                                                                  F                                       eral Coastal Zone Management Progra.v?.�v::mf 4t                     ettcity
                                                                                                                                     d lrettonFns(.. 253 e. 36
                                                                                                                                        grne4o th.tt:fAlsab h Ofc ore: Aasa tate Hosn.utoiy
                                                                                                                                                ofCatlZn.a a e e t   a ina    c                  9           1                     l          s          a         Cnutns In.,V
                                                                                                                                       Offi-if .  -'aianAtopeiAdiittoU.S*.196
                                                                                                                                  Lg~~~Deatmen)t%.:4v o                    f C mec- ...,�

                                    TABLE 7

                                  LAND TENURE
                            CITY OF YAKUTAT, ALASKA a/
                                      1976

                                       Land Area             Percent of Total
                                        (acres)

    Private                            1,150.16                     59.3
      Unrestricted                        513.26                    26.4
      Restricted                            6.32                     0.3
      Yak-Tat Kwaan, Inc.                 630.58                    32.5

    Public                                789.84                    40.7
      City of Yakutat b/                   73.14                     3.8
      State of Alaska                     694.03                    35.8
      Federal                              22.67                     1.2
        (Townsite Trustee)               (2.32)                     (0.1)
        (Other Federal)                  (20.35)                    (1.0)

    TOTAL LAND AREA                     1,940.00                   100.0

    a/   Yakutat's corporate limits also include 229.56 acres of tideland,
         of which 201.94 acres are owned by the City of Yakutat and 27.62
         acres by the State of Alaska.
    b/   As of August 1980, the City of Yakutat has selected an additional
         94.55 acres of State-owned lands as part of its entitlement to
         receive 10 percent of the vacant, unappropriated and unreserved
         State lands within its corporate limits.

    Sources:  U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
              Alaska Division of Lands.

                                        57

    undeveloped tracts between the ARCO service base and the western City
    limits, of which the Kwaan owns all but a small section. The Kwaan-
    owned tract includes a portion of the marine service base site, nowI
    leased to ARCO, and a large coastal tract zoned for industrial development
    which was formerly under option to Pacific-Alaska LNG Company for possible
    development as an LNG terminal. The western end of the Kwaan's holdings
    includes the entry to the Ankau Lagoon System. The Kwaan also owns most
    of the island group north of Monti Bay, part of which is within Yakutat's
    corporate limits.
    The Yak-Tat Kwaan has prepared a land use plan for the management of its
    lands. Within the City, some Kwaan lands have been designated for
    development and others for mixed subsistence and timber management use,I
    with restrictions on public use of some lands near the mouth of the
    Ankau (see Figure 12).1
    The Evangelical Covenant Church is another major property owner within
    the City. The Church has owned the 290 acre Mission tract located
    between the northern and central parts of town since 1908. This tract
    is now mostly vacant but it includes some valuable waterfront land onI
    Monti Bay and much of the uplands area between Monti Bay and Puget Cove.
    The Church no longer maintains a mission at Yakutat and has no specific
    plans for use of its lands.  Within the past decade, in response toI
    local initiatives, the Church leadership has expressed an interest in
    deeding its lands to the City of Yakutat or to the Yak-Tat Kwaan.
    However, although the City and the Kwaan have actively pursued discussions
    with the Church on this subject, no definite commitment from the Church
    has yet been made. The Yakutat Comprehensive Development Plan notes
    that part of the Mission tract has excellent potential for residential
    development and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has identifiedI
    another part of the tract near Shipyard Cove as important upland habitat.
    Most remaining privately owned lands within the City are small parcels
    in the subdivided areas of town. Nearly all of these lands are in
    unrestricted or fee simple ownership. However, about 6 acres of land
    are still held under restricted title. Restricted deeds retain some of
    the trust relationship between the federal government and Native citizens.I
    Properties held in restricted ownership cannot be alienated without
    approval by the federal Trustee, cannot be taxed and are not normally
    subject to local or State zoning, housing, building or other regulatory
    codes.
    Even after pending transfers to the City are completed, the State will
    continue to be a significant landowner at Yakutat.  As of August 1980,I
    the State owned about 694 dcres within Yakutat's corporate limits, of
    which about 95 acres were in the process of being conveyed to the City
    as part of its entitlement under the Municipal Land Entitlement Act ofI
    1978. Lands which will be retained in State ownership include undeveloped
    tracts bordering Airport Road and through which Ophir Creek flows, plus
    most of the forested area between Forest Highway 10 and Puget Cove.  TheI
    State also owns about 28 acres of tidelands in Yakutat, mainly on the
    south side of Monti Bay and at Shipyard Cov~e.

                                      58

      FIGURE 12

      LAND USE PLAN

      YAK-TAT KWAAN VILLAGE SELECTION

      JUNE, 1976

                SUBSISTENCE

      m   SUBSISTENCE & SUSTAINED YIELD
        *       TIMBER MANAGEMENT                                                     a

     w |. ~PUBLIC USE RESTRICTION

                ~ DEVELOPMENT AREA                                          (I    cX

     8I.''iiii!!:.:~l CITY  &  PRIVATE  LANDS                                       d

         01/41/ I2 MILES

     Source: Yak-Tat Kwaan.
            by Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, 1976.                30

                                                                    Ii

                                                  ~ ~   n:::~::~:~:...........

                                                                                                                 SELECTION BOUNDARY

                  eral Coastal Zone Management Program Im-
                  plementation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306)
                  granted to the State of Alaska by the Office
                  of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce-
     Office of the ....overnor   anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
    Divi   Pla  pment Department of Commerce.

               Under Section l4(c)(3) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the
               Yak-Tat Kwaan is obligated to reconvey to the City of Yakutat not less
               than 1,280 acres of land for future community expansion purposes, as
               follows:
       I                 ~~~~~(c)  Each patent issued pursuant to subsections (a) and (b)
                    shall be subject to the requirements of this subsection. Upon
                    receipt of a patent or patents.   .
                    (3) the Village Corporation shall then convey to any Municipal
                    Corporation in the Native village or to the State in trust for
                    any Municipal Corporation established in the Native village in
                    the future, title to the remaining surface estate of the improved
                    land on which the Native village is located and as much
                    additional land as is necessary for community expansion,
     I            ~ ~~~and appropriate rights-of-way for public use, and other
                    foreseeable community needs: Provided, That the amount of
                    lands to be transferred to the Municipal Corporation or in
     5             ~~~~trust shall be no less than 1280 acres;

               The City and the Yak-Tat Kwaan have not yet settled which lands will be
               conveyed to the City. However, given the location of lands selected by
               the Kwaan, it is clear that most of these community lands will be situated
               outside the City's present boundaries.

    5         ~~~Because most vacant buildable land in Yakutat is in State or church
               ownership, the scarcity of homesites for new residential construction
               has long been a serious community problem at Yakutat. However, the City
               has initiated a program to remedy this problem through subdivision and
               disposition of City-owned tracts suitable for residential development.
               In the summer of 1980, the City made homesite lots in a new City
               subdivision off Forest Highway 10 available for local acquisition.
    I        ~ ~~Furthermore, much of the land which the City will obtain under the
               Municipal Land Entitlement Act is in the same area and is suitable for
               residential use.
               Counting pending transfers from the State, the City of Yakutat owns
               approximately 168 acres of land and 202 acres of tidelands. These lands
               include large tracts around Shipyard Cove, on south Monti Bay, at the
    I        ~ ~~school site and north of Forest Highway 10, as well as numerous small
               parcels scattered throughout town. The City also owns the Ocean Cape
               tract, acquired from the Shell/ARCO/Mobil group in 1976. This
               approximately 7.acre tract at the head of Monti Bay is well situated for
               redevelopment of port facilities and fish processing plant use.

               The federal government is only a minor landowner in the City of Yakutat.
    I        ~ ~~Its main holding is the 20 acre Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
               tower site at the south end of town and a few parcels totaling about 2
    5          ~~~acres in the Native Townsite which are still held by the Townsite Trustee.

            1                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~61

    B. YAKUTAT AREA

    Outside Yakutat's corporate boundaries but within the immediate vicinity
    of the community there are three major land owners. These are the Yak-
    Tat Kwaan, the State of Alaska and the U.S. Forest Service (see Figure
    13).I
    Most of the Yak-Tat Kwaan's land selections are outside Yakutat's
    corporate limits and were drawn from U.S. Forest Service holdings.  TheI
    Kwaan's selections fall into three main blocks: The Phipps Peninsula
    encompassing the Ankau Lagoon System west of Yakutat; a large forested
    block extending eastward along both sides of Forest Highway 10 betweenI
    Yakutat's eastern bcundary and Humpback Cove; and Khantaak, Dolgoi,
    Kriwof and several smaller islands lying immediately offshore from
    Yakutat.  Kwaan landholdings include valuable timber resources, potentialI
    industrial sites (e.g. Sawmill Cove), extensive coastline, critical
    coastal and upland habitats (e.g. Ankau Lagoon, Redfield Cove, Humpback
    Creek and the Yakutat Island group) and numerous sites of historic and
    traditional use value.  The Yak-Tat Kwaan's land use plan for its holdingsI
    emphasizes multiple use management for subsistence use and sustained
    yield timber harvest.3
    In the immediate Yakutat area, the State of Alaska holds title to the
    3,600 acre Yakutat Airport tract and has received tentative approval for
    another 3,958 acres south and east of the City. Both the Airport Highway
    and Ophir Creek Road are bordered by State owned or State selected
    lands. State tentatively approved lands also include a 1.5 mile stretch
    of Yakutat ocean beach facing on the Gulf of Alaska.3

    With minor exceptions, primarily Native allotments, the U.S. Forest
    Service owns and manages all other lands in the Yakutat area between
    Yakutat Bay and the northern border of Glacier Bay National Monument.I
    This 703,061 acre area is part of the Chatham District of the Tongass
    National Forest and includes about forty-four contiguous townships in
    the vincity of eastern Yakutat Bay and Forest Highway 10 which have been
    withdrawn for possible selection by Sealaska Corporation under terms of
    the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. These withdrawals are part of
    Sealaska's "overselection" pool and may ultimately remain in Forest
    Service ownership, if not needed to satisfy Sealaska's land entitlement.I
    The final dispostion of this withdrawal will not be known until
    uncertainties affecting the availability of other lands selected by
    Sealaska are resolved.
    The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and
    the National Forest Management Act of 1976 direct the Secretary of
    Agriculture to "undertake land and resource management plans for unitsI
    of the National Forest System, coordinated with the land and resource
    management planning process of State and local governments and other
    Federal agencies". The Forest Service has undertaken a prolonged,
    intensive process of resource evaluation and assessment and evaluation
    of management alternatives for the Tongass National Forest, including

                                     62I

        FIGURE 13

                         This project was supported, in part, by Fed.
                         eral Coastal Zone Management Program im-
              '108 %     ~plementation Funds (P.L. 92.583, Sec. 306)
                         granted to the State of Alaska by the OfficeL.9u0
              163_fl~?of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce-                I.and
            Ofi'W ,,o    anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
              ~s~,of~oDeIpartent   of Commerce.

                                                                            Otmelo
                                                                            Island

                                                ~Island
                                            Ahduck                                              ..Sq. *    *
                                             9.y

                          .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W4
                      * 5   5 . 5 5   -.  *~~~~~~~~~~~~.   *  *~~Go g a n ' ~ ~ S S * *

                         ~~T.V"'A~~~~~~ 3   ~~~~  ~ ~ ~   -  ___~~~c

    Pi;.' C                   jar  v. -w

                          see Figure X~~
                                                  61~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~X

                              4                                                                                                                                                I~~~~~~1

                                                                      IM    0    M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                YAKUTAT AREA

                           Existing Land Tenure

                                       STATE;
                                    FEDERAL
                                       NATIVE ALLOTMENTS

                                       YAK-TAT KWAAN
                                       OTHER PRIVATE
                                    SEALASKA SELECTIONS

                                                          Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 1:63,360 Series (Topographic).

    FIGURE 14

                                       C61                             -- C52

                               I   N-       ::...::

                                                                                    PROPOSED
                                                          YAKUTAT AREAALSEK
                                                                                    ADDITION

                                                                      Zoe M             t ,C53a

                                                            S'",'",,   Department of Commerce.
                                                                        This project as supported, in part, by Fed-
                                                                        eral Coastal Zone Management Program Ia.

                                                                        Department of Commerce.

    its holdings in the Yakutat area. This process culminated with the
    March publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
    Tongass Land Management Plan (see Figure 14 and Table 8).

    The Yakutat sector of the Tongass National Forest is subdivided into ten
    management areas.  The Tongass Land Management Plan assigns each management
    area to one of four possible Land Use Designation (LUD) classes, with
    area specific guidelines for future management. The LUD classification
    system can be briefly characterized as follows:  LUD I-wilderness uses,
    including hunting and fishing; LUD II-roadless area; LUD III-multiple
    use management; and LUD IV-intensive resource use and development. The
    ten management areas in the Yakutat region are classified as follows:

         LUD I  - management area C-52 (Russell Fiord) comprising 295,252
                   acres or 45 percent of the Yakutat region.

         LUD II - management areas C-56 (Dangerous River), C-57 (Yakutat
                   Beach Dune), C-59 (Brabazon Range), C-60 (Dry Bay) and
                   C-61 (Situk River), totaling 238,631 acres or 34 percent
                   of the region.

         LUD III - management areas C-54 (Yakutat Bay), C-55 (Yakutat
                   Airport) and C-58 (Yakutat Forelands), comprising
                   137,020 acres or 19 percent of the region.

         LUD IV  - management area C-53 (Yakutat Highway) containing
                   32,158 acres or 4 percent of the region.

    The greatest density of commercial forest lands occurs in management
    areas C-53 (the Yakutat Highway corridor to Dangerous River) and C-58
    (the Yakutat Forelands between Dangerous River and Dry Bay). The
    management guidelines for C-58 note that this roadless area was closed
    to logging and other entry for a two year period beginning December 1,
    1978 under the Federal Land Policy Management Act. However, if not
    permanently classified otherwise by Congressional action by December
    1980, this management area's closed status will lapse and it may be
    opened to timber harvest, as appropriate to a LUD III management area.
    The City of Yakutat, Yakutat residents, Native organizations and
    conservation groups have consistently argued that the Yakutat Forelands
    should be placed permanently in a LUD I or LUD II classification.

    Local residents are concerned that timber harvesting across this sector
    of the Yakutat Forelands would adversely affect the area's outstanding
    fish and wildlife habitats, interfere with traditional use patterns and
    damage the important commercial fishery based on the productivity of the
    area's anadromous streams.  The City has strongly urged that classification
    of this section of the Forelands be upgraded, with management priority
    given to protection of fish and wildlife habitat. Retention of the
    Yakutat Forelands management area in a LUD III classification, with the
    prospect of its being eventually opened to commercial timber harvesting,
    stands as a major source of conflict between the City of Yakutat and the
    Forest Service over the management of the area's coastal resources.

                                       67

                                                           TABLE 8

                                    MANAGEMENT PLAN, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, YAKUTAT AREA
                                                     BY MANAGEMENT AREA

                  Management Area Summary                                        Management Direction/Emphasis

    LUD I MANAGEMENT AREAS

    C52-Russell Fiord                                            This area is proposed for wilderness.  A recreation opportunity
                                                             inventory and plan will be completed.
                                   NFS Acres   CFL Acres

    Operable CFL --- 22,000
    High Visual Sensitivity              8,867       8,867
    Medium Visual Sensitivity            1,657        1,657
    Beach Fringe Through 500 Feet        3,429       3,128
    Special/Uniqne Areas                     0            0
    Bald Eagle Nesting Areas             5,372       2,691

    Total Acres                        295,252      32,794

    LUD II MANAGEMENT AREAS

    C56-Dangerous River                                          Soil restoration work is planned for the middle Dangerous
                                                             River airport and cabin area. Major activity emphasis will
                                   NFS Acres   CFL Acres       be toward "back country" development.

    Operable CFL --- 4,277
    High Visual Sensitivity              2,143        2,143
    Medium Visual Sensitivity                0            0
    Beach Fringe Through 500 Feet            0           0
    Special/Unique Areas                    79            0
    Bald Eagle Nesting Areas             4,298       1,437

    Total Acres                         70,412       9,727

    C57-Yakutat Beach Dune                                        A water trail system is planned along the beach from Dry Bay
                                                                to Yakutat.  A number of shelters, portages, trail marking
                                    NFS Acres   CFL Acres       and camp sites are planned.  This management area has
                                                                extensive road systems used primarily by commercial
    Operable CFL --- 3,353                                        fishermen to transport freshly caught salmon to bush
    High Visual Sensitivity               3,442       3,442       airstrips to be flown to Yakutat for processing.  These are
    Medium Visual Sensitivity                 0            0      one lane unimproved roads which are essential to the
    Beach Fringe Through 500 Feet             0            0      commercial fishing industry of Yakutat.  The continued use
    Special/Unique Areas                      0            0      of these roads will be permitted.
    Bald Eagle Nesting Areas              3,260        1,515

    Total Acres                          19,534        3,442

    C59-Brahazon Range                                            Fish habitat improvement is planned for Italio Lake VCU
                                                                384. Major activity emphasis will be directed toward the
                                    NFS Acres   CFL Acres       continuance of the custodial management of the "back
                                                                country" resource values of the management area.
    Operable CFL --- 2,558
    High Visual Sensitivity               2,024        1,781
    Medium Visual Sensitivity             1,849        1,849
    Beach Fringe Through 500 Feet             0            0
    Special/Unique Areas                      0            0
    Bald Eagle Nesting Areas              1,651            0

    Total Acres                          89,053        4,291

    C60-Dry Bay                                                   A river trail is planned along the Alsek River in cooperation
                                                                with the National Park Service and the British Columbia Park
                                    NFS Acres   CFL Acres       Service.  The trail will tie into the beach trail to
                                                                Yakutat. This area has extensive road systems, a number of
    Operable CFL --- 28,240                                       bush airstrips, a fish processing plant and a number of
    High Visual Sensitivity              12,311       10,196      special use permit fishing camps.  These facilities are used
    Medium Visual Sensitivity                 0            0      primarily by commercial fishermen and are essential to the
    Beach Fringe Through 500 Feet             0            0      commercial fishery of Dry Bay.  The continued use of these
    Special/Unique Areas                     81            0      facilities will be permitted.
    Bald Eagle Nesting Areas              6,071       3,656

    Total Acres                          45,725       30,429

    C61-Situk River                                              The recreation use of the river will be facilitated with
                                                                improvement of a parking area, existing trails, the middle
                                    NFS Acres   CFL Acres       Situk airstrip and the boat landing on the lower Situk
                                                               River. Other heavy use areas will be planned for soil
    Operable CFL --- 6,051                                        restoration work.  This area is one of the outstanding
    High Visual Sensitivity              4,977        4,977       sport and commercial fisheries in Alaska.  All five salmon
    Medium Visual Sensitivity                0            0       species -- king, coho, pink, chum and reds -- are in this
    Beach Fringe Through 500 Feet            0            0      system.  The sport fishing quality of this river is well
    Special/Unique Areas                   409          136       known as is a valuable commercial fishery which is
    Bald Eagle Nesting Area              1,568        1,227       utilized by Yakutat fishermen.  There are three Forest
                                                               Service recreational cabins including two on the river
    Total Acres                         13,907        7,574      and one on Situk Lake.  One bush landing strip is
                                                               maintained to provide access to the central part of the
                                                               river. The river is a favorite float stream for Alaska
                                                               fishermen as well as many nimrods from outside the
                                                               state. Continued use of the unimproved access road to
                                                               the Situk River for commercial fishing camp use will be
                                                               permitted.

    LUD III MANAGEMENT AREAS

    C54-Yakutat Bay                                              Nearly this entire management area is Native selection
                                                               land. VCU 363 and 369 are entirely Native selection. Major
                                    NFS Acres   CFL Acres       activity emphasis will be toward custodial management of
                                                               the various resource values within the management area.
    Operable CFL --- 1,021
    High Visual Sensitivity                  0            0
    Medium Visual Sensitivity                0            0
    Beach Fringe Through 500 Feet            0            0
    Special/Unique Areas                     0            0
    Bald Eagle Nesting Areas             1,375        1,375

    Total Acres                          1,388        1,375

    C55-Yakutat Airport                                          Soil restoration work is planned for past timber sales
                                                               and other small timber sales may be planned in the future.
                                    NFS Acres   CFL Acres       Waterfowl habitat improvement is planned as well as a VIS
                                                               display at the airport. There are Native selection lands
    Operable CFL                         ---          3,131       in VCU 367.  This area has been temporarily withdrawn
    High Visual Sensitivity                339          339      under the Federal Land Policy Management Act and no timber

    Medium Visual Sensitivity              6ll          611       harvest is planned for at least 2 years.  If no action is
    Beach Fringe Through 500 feet            0            0      taken by Congress during the period the area is withdrawn,
    Special/Unique Areas                      0           0       management activities appropriate to LUD III will be
    Bald Eagle Nesting Areas               679          204      affected.

    Total Acres                         11,116        4,073

    C58-Yakutat Forelands                                        Management of this area is of special concern to the City
                                                                of Yakutat, many environmental groups and Native
                                    NFS Acres   CFL Acres       organizations.  They are concerned over the potential
                                                                effect of logging on fisheries and local lifestyles. For
    Operable CFL --- 54,437                                      this reason, special care will be taken in protecting
    High Visual Sensitivity             11,688       11,433      these values.  Moose habitat improvement is planned in
    Medium Visual Sensitivity                0            0      VCI 379.  Future independent timber sales may be scheduled.
    Beach Fringe Through 500 Feet            0            0      This area has been temporarily withdrawn under the-Federal
    Special/Unique Areas                 1,106          682      Land Policy Management Act and no timber harvest is
    Bald Eagle Nesting Areas             5,106        1,356      planned for at least 2 years.  If no action is taken by
                                                                Congress during the period the area is withdrawn,
    Total Acres                        124,516       62,943      management activities appropriate to LUD III will be affected.

    LUD IV MANAGEMENT AREAS

    C53-Yakutat Highway                                          Of special concern is the view from Harlequin Lake.  Any
                                                                timber harvesting planned will meet-visual quality
                                    NFS Acres   CFL Acres       objectives so as not to adversely affect the user
                                                                experience. This area may be considered for an independent
    Operable CFL                         ---         21,720      timber sale.  A trail may be constructed for access to.the
    High Visual Sensitivity              4,034        4,034      Russell Fiord wilderness area.  There are Native selection
    Medium Visual Sensitivity                0            0      lands in VCU's 374 and 373.  This area has been temporarily
    Beach Fringe Through 500 Feet            0            0      withdrawn under the Federal Land Policy Management Act and
    Special/Unique Areas                     0            0      no timber harvest is planned for at least 2 years.  If no
    Bald Eagle Nesting Areas                 0            0      action is taken by Congress during the period the area is
                                                                withdrawn, management activities appropriate to LUD IV will
    Total Acres                         32,158       21,720      be affected.

    Source:   U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.  1979.  Tongass Land Management Plan, Final Environmental
              Impact Statement, Part 2. Juneau.

    Ownership and management of coastal lands north and west of Yakutat Bay
    to Cape Suckling is divided among federal, State and private interests.
    The uplands northwest of Yakutat Bay and at the head of Icy Bay are part
    of the newly created Wrangell-St. Elias National Monument, administered
    by the National Park Service. The remainder of the coast and bordering
    uplands between Icy Bay and Cape Suckling have been selected by theI
    State and are presently in a tentatively approved or patent pending
    status. Finally, a large tract immediately east of Icy Bay has been
    withdrawn as part of the regional deficiency lands available for selectionI
    by Chugach Natives, Inc. under terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
    Act.

           VI. HISTORIC, PREHISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

    The people of the Yakutat area have a diverse ethnic heritage. The
    original settlers in the area are believed to have been Eyak speaking
    people from the Copper River although today the traditional language and
    culture of the area is predominantly Tlingit. Reflecting the area's
    diverse cultural heritage, Yakutat residents today perceive their area
    of management concern as being much wider than the immediate Yakutat
    area.
    The cultural origins of the people of the Yakutat area are perhaps best
    summed up by de Laguna:
        "The story of Yakutat is in many respects that of the whole
        Gulf of Alaska from Cross Sound to the edge of Prince William
        Sound. This is not because the inhabitants of this narrow
        coastal strip were alike in speech and culture, or had a
        common origin; indeed they spoke at least three to four
        different languages, and traced their origins to differentI
         homelands. But they became united through trade, war,
         potlatches, and intermarriage; and ...-they came to share a
        coijmon destiny.  The former settlements at Lituya Say, at DryI
        Bay, on the rivers between Dry Bay and Yakutat, as well as
        those farther west at Icy Bay, at Cape Yakataga and Kaliakh
        River, at Controller Bay, and about the Copper River Delta,
        are now deserted.  A few descendants of their formerI
         inhabitants may be found in Cordova, in Hoonah and Sitka, or
         in Juneau, but the greater number live today at Yakutat.
        Aside from a handful of persons at Cape Yakataga or at KatallaI
         beyond Controller Bay, or perhaps for a few isolated trappers
        or prospectors at other spots, Yakutat is the only permanent
        community left on the whole Alaskan Gulf Coast, and it still
         retains cultural traces and traditions derived from the
        diverse tribes whose shattered remnants have mingled to form
         its present native population ...I

        The history of Yakutat begins in pre-Russian days with the
        migration of interior tribes from behind the mountains to the

                                    721

                  coast, and from the mouth of the Copper River eastward along the
                  shore. There was also the northwestward expansion of Tlingit from
                  what the Yakutat people call "the Southeast of Alaska", some coming
                  on foot along the shore or over the glacier highways, or going
                  inland over the Chilkat Pass and down the Alsek River to Dry Bay,
     I          ~ ~~while others paddled their canoes up from Cross Sound or farther
                  south. Then came White men in the late 18th century: Russian
                  agents of the Shelikov Company commanding baidarka fleets of Aleuts,
     I          ~ ~~Koniags, and Chugach; and English, Spanish, and American traders
                  and explorers. For 10 years the Russians attempted to maintain an
                  agricultural colony and trading post at Yakutat, but this was
                  destroyed by the natives in 1805. Then followed a period of relative
     I          ~ ~~isolation from Europeans, while Tlingit influences became firmly
                  established all the way to Controller Bay. Before the middle of
                  the century, smallpox wiped out the inhabitants of many settlements.
     I          ~ ~~Other disasters followed, and the population began to shrink back
                  into the present settlements, moving back to southeastern Alaska or
                  to Yakutat." a/
             Initial settlement of the Yakutat area was severely hampered by the
             presence of massive glaciers. Most of these glaciers are presently in
             retreat. However, the Malaspina Glacier across the bay from Yakutat
    I      ~ ~still covers an 850 square mile area lying within the Wrangell-St. Elias
             National Park and Preserve, and remains a formidable barrier to overland
             travel. Mountainous terrain and glaciers associated with what is now
    I      ~ ~the Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve posed similar barriers to the
             southeast.
             There are no known archeological remains which suggest human settlement
    I      ~ ~in the Yakutat area before the glacial advance which occurred in Yakutat
             Bay between 970 and 1290 A.D. During a subsequent recession which saw
             glacial fronts retreat beyond even their present levels, local legends
    I      ~ ~have it that people from the Copper River first moved into the Yakutat
             area. A glacial readvance culminating in the 18th century overwhelmed
             at least one village in Icy Bay, although the advance was not as extreme
    I      ~ ~in Yakutat Bay.  The glaciers were again in retreat by the end of the
             18th century, permitting Native settlement over a greater area although
             retreat of the Icy Bay glacier did not begin again until about 1904.
             Except for the Hubbard Glacier, glaciers in the Yakutat area have continued
    I      ~ ~to retreat since the beginning of the century, except for a brief period
             of readvance between 1905 and 1910 which was stimulated by the 1899
    I        ~~earthquake.
             Reflecting its relatively short period of settlement, the Yakutat area
             has no known prehistoric or archeological remains of great antiquity.
             The area does, however, possess a number of former village or camp sites
             of archeological interest (see Figure 15). Most are located along the
             east side of Yakutat Bay, in the Ankau area, along the coast between the

             a/   de Laguna, Frederica.  1972.  Under Mount Saint Elias:  the
                  History and Culture of the Yakutat Tlinigit, Part One. Washington,
                  D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press.

            I                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~73

    Lost and Itaijo Rivers and in the Dry Bay area. According to de Laguna,
    information about villages in the latter area is sketchy, partly because
    the shifting stream channels have rendered maps inaccurate and areI
    confusing to informants.
    Sites in the general Yakutat area were evaluated by de Laguna et al inj
    1952 and, excluding Dry Bay, are described as follows:
        1.   Ankau Creek.  A village in the vicinity of the cemetery was
             charted by Dixon in 1787 and noted by Vancouver in 1794. De
             Laguna unsuccessfully searched for remains of this village in
             1952.
        2.   Port Mulgrave on Khantaak Island.  The "modern" village hereI
             was founded around 1875 to 1880 to take advantage of the
             visits of trading schooners. It was located on the same spot
             as an earlier village charted by Dixon in 1787. The "modern"
             village was abandoned by 1893 and the site is now covered by a
             graveyard.
        3.   "Old Village" of Yakutat.  This village was established in
             1899 when the mission was established nearby.  The area isI
             still occupied although there was a marked movement of population
             southward with the opening of the cannery in 1904. Part of
             the lowland where the original houses stood has since beenI
             washed away. This area of town has recently seen renewed
             residential development.
        4.   Canoe Pass.  Settlements were reported on both sides of Canoe
             Pass but de Laguna was able to identify only one site on the
             north side of the Pass.
        5.   Dolqoi Island.  A former village site was reported on the east
             side of Dolgoi Island but de Laguna was unable to locate it.I
             However, a site was discovered near the mouth of a small
             stream on the south end of the Island.
        6.   Northeast Point of Khantaak Island.  A village at this location3
             was charted by Dixon in 1787 but de Laguna was unable to find
             it. Various former camping places were reported on the north
             end of the Island, on nearby "Crab Island" and at the mouth of
             Humpback Salmon Creek opposite Krutoi Island.I
        7.   Old Town, Knight Island.  This site on the southern tip of
             Knight Island was reportedly settled before the Russian
             presence in the Yakutat area.  It is uncertain why or when theI
             site was abandoned. Since Russian times, it has been used as
             a camping place.
        8.   Knight Island.  Another site was reported about a half-mile
             east of Old Town on the south shore of Knight Island, but de
             Laguna was unable to locate it.
        9.   "Little Fort" Island.  An island east of Knight Island close
             to the mainland is supposed to have been fortified againstI
             Chugach raids. The site was examined and verified by de
             Laguna but was substantially changed by an uplift of about
             12.5 feet resulting from the 1899 earthquake.I

                                    741

    I          ~FIGURE 15

                             -ci-- -~X-~   /  J    'z>< Turner Ye.

                                                                                                     c' STK LAKE

                     ITRADITIONAL CAMPS and SETTLEMENTS/

                      I. Ankau  Crook                13. Bancas  Point
                     2. Port  Mulgrave              14. "Nova Rossiysk"(New Russia)
                     13. "Old Village" of Yakutat    15. Aka Lake
                     4. Canoe  Pass                  16. Aka  Lake
                     5. Dolgoi  Island              17. Summit Lake
                     6. Northeast  Point             18. Tawah  Crook
                     I7.aVOld Town", Knight Island  19. Tawoh  Creek
                     S. Knight Island               20. Lost River
                     9. "Little Fort" Island        2 1. Lost River
                     10. Mainland  across  from    22. "Situk Village"
                                              Knight Isla nd  23.  "Eagle    Fort"   This  ~~~~~~~~~ project was supported, in part, by Fed-
                     II. Point  Latouche  area       24. Johnstone  Slough                        eal Coastal Zone Management Program Im-
                     12. Point  Latouche  area       25. Ahrnklin  River                                             pementation Funds (P.L. 92-583, See. 306)
                                                                                                           granted to the State of Alaska by the Office
                                                                                                            of Coastal Zone Management., National Oce-
                                                                                                        c.  anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
     __               ~~~~~Source: Frederica de Lag una, 1974.                            Department of Commerce.
                     No Scale Provided                                                              __________________________

    10.   Mainland, across from Knight Island.  A former Chugach camp
          reportedly existed at this location but the site was not
          visited by de Laguna.  (This site was raised about 5.5 feet as
         a result of the 1899 earthquake).
    11.   Point Latouche area.  An old sealing camp was reported about
          3.5 miles below Point Latouche.  Malaspina noted this location
          in July 1971. De Laguna was unable to land at the site in
          1952.
    12.   Point Latouche area.  Three sealing camps used in post-Russian
          times were located between 1.25 and 3.5 miles above Point
          Latouche and were described by Grinnell in 1901. The camps
         were also visited by the Harriman Alaska expedition in the
          spring of 1899 when they were occupied by 300 to 400 natives
          from Yakutat, Sitka and Juneau. During the 1899 earthquake,
          the shore in this area was raised from 7.5 to 12 feet.
          Modern camping places are on the south shore of Haenke Island
          and on the mainland opposite.
    13.   Bancas Point.  A camp is reported to have existed on high
          ground near Bancas Point on the west side of Yakutat Bay.
    14.   "Nova Rossiysk" (New Russia).  The site of the Russian post
          (1796-1805) was on the narrowest part of the barrier beach
          between the ocean and the largest of the Ankau lagoons (Russian
          Lake).  Reportedly, the post contained seven buildings within
          a stockade and another five buildings outside. However,
          although de Laguna visited the site several times, she was
          unable to find any trace of the fort.  A site thought to
          be that of Nova Rossiysk was placed on the National Register
          of Historic Places in 1972.
    15.   Aka Lake.  The occupants of a former village along the middle
          of the ocean side of Aka Lake died in a smallpox epidemic of
          1836-1839. This site was later used as a fish-camp.
    16.   Aka Lake.  A village is reported to have existed at the
          junction of Aka Lake and a stream connecting Aka and Summit
          Lakes. This village was not visited by de Laguna but was
          originally occupied by Eyak Indians who were killed by the
          Tlingits.
    17.   Summit Lake.  A village occupied first by Eyak speakers and
          later by Tlingits was located on a sandhill along Summit Lake
          on the ocean side of the outlet toward Lost River. The
          Tlingits here died in the 1836-1839 smallpox epidemic.  This
          site was not examined by de Laguna in 1952.
    18.   Tawah Creek (Lost River).  There was a small village on Lost
          River before the Russian occupation, located almost opposite
          the Number Two runway of Yakutat airport. This later became
          a principal Tlingit village, most of whose occupants were
          subsequently wiped out by smallpox. The survivors of this
          epidemic moved to Khantaak Island and the original site is
          used today only as a fish camp. It was extensively investigated
          by de Laguna in 1952.
    19.   Tawah Creek (Lost River).  This village was located on Lost
          River about one-quarter of a mile above its confluence with

                                   77

             Little Lost River. It originally belonged to the Muddy Water
             People and was later acquired by the Bear House clan. Smallpox
             killed many residents in 1836-39 but a number survived and theI
             village remained inhabited up to about 100 years ago. This
             site was also extensively investigated by de Laguna in 1952.
       20.   Lost River (Little Lost River).  A site on the west bank of
             Little -Lost River is supposed to have been the oldest village
             of one group of Tlingits in the Yakutat area. The site was
             examined by de Laguna in 1952 but she was unable to corroborate
             local claims of great antiquity for this site.
        21.   Lost River.  Today, this site is a fish camp.  The site was
             formally established in 1919 when a railway was constructed
             and several residences constructed.U
        22.   "Situk Village".  This village was on the east bank of the
             Situk River and was founded around 1875-80 and abandoned about
             1916.  The site was explored by de Laguna in 1952.  She wasI
             unable to establish the existence of an older village at this
             site although there may have been one.
       23.   "Eagle Fort".  This village reportedly consisted of four
             houses connected by tunnels and surrounded by a palisade and
             was built by one of the Yakutat Tlingit groups shortly after
             1805 in fear of Russian retaliation. The site was not visited
             by de Laguna.I
        24.   Johnstone Slough.  This was the site of a single house built
             about the middle of the 19th century. Today, it is also the
             site of a fish camp.I
       25.   Ahrnklin River.  A site about 2 miles above the mouth of the
             Ahrnklin River was reportedly the main village of one branch
             of Tlingits in this area. The village was abandoned when most
             of the inhabitants died, either in a feud or from smallpox.
    At the time of the first recorded contact with European visitors in
    truhuthrein Thsptenpritdfraohrcnuy1783, the Native residents were still spread among many small settlementsI
    period during which a few unsuccessful efforts were made to establish
    outposts in the vicinity of Yakutat. In 1795, the Russians established
    a post called Nova Rossiysk (New Russia) near present day Yakutat on the
    shore of the lagoon between the Ankau and the ocean coast. A second
    post, a blockhouse, was established at the site of what later became
    known as the Old Village.  These outposts were shortlived.  Local residentsI
    soon became angry at Russian governing policies which interfered with
    traditional fishing practices and family patterns and rose up in 1805 to
    overrun both posts. No other outposts were established near Yakutat
    during the period of Russian ownership although many explorers, tradersU
    and whalers visited the area. This isolation from the outside world
    persisted when Yakutat, along with the rest of Alaska, was purchased by
    the United States in 1867. At the time of the first U.S. Census of
    Alaska in 1880, about 300 Natives but no Europeans were recorded as
    residents of the Yakutat area.3

    Shortly after 1880, the first lasting American influence began to be
    felt in the Yakutat area. During the 1880's, American traders and gold

                                      78

               prospectors arrived here and the black sands of Khantaak Island and the
               ocean beach south of Yakutat Bay were worked by miners for gold, with
    I        ~ ~~only limited success.  However, this marked the beginning of a period of
               steadily increasing contact between Yakutat area residents and American
               traders, travelers, adventurers and missionaries.
               With the advent of the first missionary in 1887 and the establishment of
               a mission in what is now called the "Old Village" in 1888, complete with
               a church, school and sawmill, Yakutat began to take on its modern form
               as area residents were encouraged to congregate in a single settlement.
              This trend was strengthened in 1903 through the establishment of a
    1         ~~~cannery on Monti Bay to the south of the "Old Village" and development
               of a railway between the cannery and prime fishing sites on the Situk
               River. Together, these developments resulted in a permanent shifting of
               settlement patterns from a scattering of small villages and camp sites
    I        ~ ~~to a single larger, dominant central community.
               The physical arrangement of Yakutat today still reflects the community's
               early development. The Evangelical Covenant Church mission was built in
    I        ~ ~~what has come to be known as the Old Village and much of the 291 acre
               mission property located between the northern and central areas of town
               remains undeveloped. The cannery and its railhead were situated at the
    I        ~ ~~head of Monti Bay on what is now known as the Ocean Cape tract.- The
               railroad has since been torn up but the original dock remains although
               it is now in disrepair, as are most of the remaining original cannery
               buildings. Engine No. 2 of the Yakutat and Southern Railway also remains
               and is now viewed as an historic community asset.
               However, Yakuat is also a modern community whose development has been
               influenced by more recent events, including construction of a major
               airport here shortly before World War 1I which greatly reduced Yakutat's
               isolation from the outside world, and construction of Mallott Avenue in
               1962 which drew much of the town's residential and commercial focus away
               from the waterfront. The very strong commitment of community leaders to
               improving living conditions in Yakutat has been reflected in the aggressive
               pursuit of public funds for such wide ranging projects as a cold storage
               plant, water and sewer systems and school facilities. Nevertheless,
               while the modern community of Yakutat bears little visible resemblance
               to a Tlingit village, cultural traditions remain a very important part
               of the lifestyles of many local residents.

            I                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~79

                            24 Isal,

    3     4,2.                                                                               2

                I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                3                                 2    .     2                               2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T

                                                                                            Y.2 4
                    3                  422~~24~2 *4~2           .U,22,2222.  ~2'~24224422                                 4,,
                                                                      *2~4~. ~422,422.   ,      22,'4~  ~~~Chapter~2  '4 ~    2..      .  ~2,24

                               ~~4FUTURE                                                                                                          C OSA USES    2224 2  42 .2 2

                                   .#.2"~.AND  A2  22222, 2TIVITIES42  ,,42224    22   42 42             ~           ~              242. 22 2222              .

                                FUTURE COASTAL USES AND ACTIVITIES

    *        ~~The Alaska Coastal Management Act sets out nine broad groups of coastal
              land and water uses and activities which must be addressed in a district
              coastal management program. These are coastal development-,' geophysical
              hazard areas; recreation; energy facilities; transportation and utilities;
              fish and seafood processing; timber harvest and processing; mining and
              mineral processing; and subsistence. The administrative regulations for
              the Act. define in detail the rules by which each of these groups of uses
    I       ~ ~and activities, if applicable, are to be treated in a district management
              program.
    *        ~~Administrative regulations for coastal development and geophysical
              hazard areas do not really address specific coastal uses and activities.
              Instead, they set out management priorities and standards which are
              generally applicable to all uses and activities in the coastal zone.
    I       ~ ~The coastal development standards state that priority consideration
              should be given to potential coastal land and water uses according to
              the degree of their dependence on a coastal location. First priority is
    I       ~ ~to be given to water-dependent uses and activities, second to water-
              related uses and activities and third to uses and activities which are
              not water-dependent or water-related but for which a suitable inland
              site is not available. The geophysical hazard area standards require
              identification of hazard areas and the adoption of protective measures
              to ensure that development in such areas does not unduly threaten the
              safety of persons or property. As they are more appropriate to that
    I       ~ ~section, priorities for coastal development and standards for geophysical
              hazard areas are included in the Coastal Management Plan chapter of this
    *        ~~~report.
              The remaining seven groups of coastal uses and activities relate to
              specific human uses of coastal lands and waters, with the nature and
              extent of these uses being largely determined by basic economic activities
              and the population growth and secondary economic activities which they
              engender. The administrative regulations require each district to
              identify sites or areas which are suitable and unsuitable for these uses
    I       ~ ~and activities, so that they can be accommodated in a manner compatible
              with overall goals of the district coastal management program and
              maintenance of coastal resources.
    U        ~~This chapter analyzes present trends and probable future developments at
              Yakutat in each of the following basic economic sectors: fishing and
              seafood processing; energy development; timber harvesting and processing;
              transportation and utilities; mining and mineral processing; and recreation
              arnd subsistence. This analysis focuses on future facility and 'land use
              needs for these economic activities. Finally, this chapter includes a
    I       ~ ~forecast of future population growth at Yakutat as a basis for estimating
              population-related demands which will made upon the district's coastal
              lands and waters. This assessment of future demands for the use of
    *         ~~coastal sites and resources is then matched against the City's coastal

            *                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~81

    management goals and the inventory of coastal resources to develop the
    district coastal management plan.

                       I. RECREATION AND SUBSISTENCE

    In its Comprehensive Development Plan and Capital Improvements and
    Services Program, the City of Yakutat identified municipal improvements
    projects needed to accommodate the formal recreation activities ofI
    present and future local residents. Three of these projects are'of
    coastal importance. These are development of public parks with shelters
    and picnic facilities both at Sandy Beach on Monti Bay and on the woodedI
    point between Shipyard and Puget Coves, and rehabilitation of the old
    foot trail which linked town with the small boat harbor. These waterfront
    parks, combined with the small boat harbor and municipal ownership of3
    most of the tidelands will ensure good public access to water and beach
    areas and good in-town opportunities for water-oriented outdoor recreation.
    The Cannon Beach picnic area outside town is popular for large community
    events, while local natural areas important for recreational use includeI
    the Ankau and Ankau Beach, the lakes area on the Missibn Tract, and
    Ophir Creek.

    Outside Yakutat, there are few developed public recreational facilities
    in the region, consisting mainly of eleven remote cabins built by the
    Forest Service on the Yakutat Forelands. Essentially, all public lands
    in the region are open to wilderness and recreational use, with lands in
    the vicinity of Russell Fiord and the north side of Yakutat Bay being in
    either the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve or the Russell
    Fiord Wilderness Area.
    In 1979, the Alaska Division of Parks undertook an inventory of coastal
    areas in the Yakutat region with significant recreational, scenic,
    historic and wilderness values. That inventory, published as Recreation,
    Scenic and Heritage Areas of Particular Concern, Cape Suckling to Cape
    Fairweather and the Outer Kenai Coast, identified thirteen areas of
    prime recreational or related value in the region, all of which are ofI
    interest and use to local residents (see Table 9).

    Recreation at Yakutat for residents and visitors alike is strongly3
    oriented toward outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing, boating,
    hiking and beachcombing. Because of Yakutat's outstanding outdoor
    recreation assets and good air service, visitors are a significant
    contributor to demands on the region's recreation resources. For local
    residents, however, the most popular recreation activities and use areas
    are so closely allied to subsistence food gathering activities that
    these two topics can effectively be treated together.
    The close connection between recreation and subsistence activities at
    Yakutat has been noted by numerous researchers, most recently by McNearyI
    in his 1978 study titled "Local Exploitation of D-2 Lands in the Gulf of
    Alaska Region". This study documented traditional and present subsistence

                                    821

             3                                 ~~~~~~~~~~TABLE 9

                COASTAL RECREATION, SCEN'IC AND HERITAGE AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
                                           YAKUTAT REGION
        U                  ~~~~~~Area                          Major Use Value

    3        ~~Icy Bay                              Scenic, Recreation, Wildlife

             Malaspina Glacier                     Scenic, Recreation, Wildlife, Historic

    3        ~~Russell Fiord                        Scenic, Wilderness, Recreation,
              Wildlife
              Knight Island                         Archeologic, Recreation, Scenic

              Chicago Harbor                        Recreation, Scenic, Wilderness

    3        ~~Khantaak Island                      Historic, Scenic, Recreation, Wildlife

              Shipyard Cove                         Scenic, Recreation, Wildife
    I      ~ ~~Yakutat & Southern Railway Co.
               Engine No. 2                         Historic, Recreation

    I        ~~Canoe Trail                          Historic, Recreation, Scenic, Wildlife

              Yakutat Beaches                       Recreation, Historic, Scenic

              Situk River                           Recreation, Scenic, Historic, Wildlife

    3        ~~Harequin Lake-Dangerous River        Scenic, Recreation, Wildlife

             Alsek River                           Wilderness, Recreation, Scenic, Historic,
             3                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~Wildlife

    3        ~~Source:   Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks.
                        ~July 1979. Recreation, Scenic and Heritage Areas of Particular
                        Concern, Cape Suckling to Cape Fairweather and the Outer
                        Kenai Coast. Anchorage.

                                                  83

    use by Yakutat residents of the entire Gulf of Alaska region from Cape
    Suckling to Cape Fairweather.  While subsistence activities are carriedI
    on throughout the region, the areas of most intensive use were found to
    be eastern Yakutat Bay and the Yakutat Forelands west of Dangerous River,
    WI'th significant use also made of the Malaspina Forelands, eastern
    Yakutat Forelands, Disenchantment Bay and Icy Cape.  A measure of continuingI
    economic and cultural importance of subsistence food gathering at Yakutat
    can be derived from a 1975 socioeconomic survey which found that 56
    percent of Yakutat area households obtained a quarter or more of theirI
    food from subsistence activities.
    As could be expected in a fishing community, recreational boating is a
    favorite activity and is often combined with subsistence food gathering.I
    The most popular areas for recreational boating/subsistence are the
    relatively protected waters of the many bays, channels and coves formed
    by the islands and indented coastline of Monti Bay and eastern YakutatI
    Bay. These include Monti Bay (subsistence and commercial set netting,
    shellfish), Puget Cove (trolling for king and silver salmon), Redfield
    Cove (trolling for king and silver salmon, set netting, crabbing and1
    sealing) and Eleanor Cove/Chicago Harbor (trolling for king and silver
    salmon, herring eggs and sealing). The intertidal areas of the beaches
    in these areas also yield a variety of beach foods, such as clams,
    cockles, chitons and seaweeds which are collected by some residents.
    The most important subsistence activity of Yakutat residents is salmon
    fishing.  Subsistence permits allow the holder to set net for salmon forI
    home use, usually during the forty-eight hours before and after the
    commercial season opens. Most subsistence set netting is done at the
    Situk River, Monti Bay and Sawmill Cove. Sport fishing for such food
    species as steelhead, cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden is also locally
    popular, with the Situk River and Ankau Creek especially favored for
    that activity. Ophir Creek is traditionally important to older people
    who catch "redfish" (i.e. spawned-out red and coho salmon) there inI
    fall. Some residents also harvest eulachon during their run in February
    and March, with the most popular harvest spots being Situk and Lost
    Rivers and Summit Lakes.
    Among other subsistence activities, berry picking, especially for
    salmon berries, blueberries and strawberries, is an almost universal
    seasonal pastime. Hunting for harbor seals was formerly an important
    spring subsistence activity, with established sea] camps a' Disenchantment
    Bay and some residents still hunt seals, primarily in Redfield Cove,
    Eleanor Cove and Disenchantment Bay.  Among big game species, localI
    hunters take moose, bear, goat and Sitka deer, although most big game
    hunting pressure arises from visiting sportsmen. Small game is not
    abundant in the Yakutat area and apparently has not been of importanceI
    for subsistence. Waterfowl are hunted in fall in the Ankau and at other
    staging areas across the Yakutat Forelands. Limited quantities of gull,
    tern and kittiwake eggs are collected around Yakutat Bay and at Icy Bay
    and are considered a traditional treat by older Natives.

                                     84

               With daily jet service to both Anchorage and Juneau, Yakutat receives
               many tourists, most of whom come to take advantage of this area's
               expectional hunting and fishing opportunities. This area offers probably
               the best stream sport fishing in Southeast Alaska and is the only place
               in the region where king salmon can be taken in fresh water. Sportsmen
     I        ~ ~~here can fish for steelhead, all five salmon species, cutthroat trout,
               Dolly Varden char, northern pike, rainbow trout and grayling although
               the main sport fishing effort is for steelhead and red and king salmon.
               In recent years, due to growing visitor use, the take of steelhead and
               stream sport salmon fishing has been limited to two fish per day of each
               variety.

               The Situk River is especially popular as it is large and slow moving
               enough to permit float type fishing trips. Tawah Creek, Lost River and
               Ankau Slough are all accessible by road and are popular with fishermen
    I        ~ ~~while other excellent sport fishing streams include the Italio, Akwe and
               Don Rivers although the latter are currently accessible only by light
               aircraft. The Yakutat area also offers good recreational salt water
               fishing opportunities especially for king and silver salmon.
               In addition to its excellent sport fishing, Yakutat is one of Southeast
               Alaska's premier hunting areas. Moose, brown bear, black bear (including
               the blue color phase or glacier bear), deer, goat and wolves make up the
               main big game species, while marine mammals, waterfowl and small fur
               bearing animals are also numerous. However, moose and bear are the
               species receiving the most attention from hunters.
               Moose migrated to the Yakutat Forelands from the Interior during the
    I        ~ ~~1930's and became established on the west side of Yakutat Bay in the
               1950's. Their numbers increased rapidly and soon attracted the attention
               of hunters. In 1969, a peak of 514 hunters took 324 moose but the
               number of hunters and animals taken then dropped dramatically until 1974
    I        ~ ~~when the Yakutat Forelands were closed to moose hunting.  The herd
               around the fringes of the Malaspina Glacier, on the other hand, remained
               well stocked and limited hunting continued in that area. In 1978, moose
               hunting on the Yakutat Forelands was permitted for the first time since
               1974 but the quota of 25 moose each for the Forelands and the west side
                 ofYakutat Bay was only a fraction of the number taken in previous
    *          ~~~years.

               The decline of moose populations in the Yakutat area is reflected in a
               sharp decrease in the use of Forest Service cabins here, most of which
               were located for moose hunters. The total number of visitor days at
               these cabins declined slightly more than 50 percent between 1970 (8,972
               visitor days) and 1977 (4,454 visitor days).
               Yakutat is a favorite area for guided trophy hunting by non-residents of
               black and brown bear, plus the blue color phase of black bear, glacier
    3          ~~~bear.  Some mountain goats are also taken.  According to the Southeastern
               Office of the Division of Game, about 20 black bear, the same number of
               brown bears and one or two glacier bears are taken each year. Goat
               hunting has shown some increase in this area, with between 20 and 30
               taken in 1978.
                                                 85

    Although hunting and fishing remain the Yakutat area's primary attraction
    for tourists, the spectacular scenery of this area also attracts other
    groups.  There are around twenty peaks of over 11,000 feet above seaI
    level in the nearby St. Elias and Fairweather Ranges which attract
    experienced mountain climbers each year. In addition, the Forest Service
    maintains about 20 miles of hiking trails in the Yakutat area althoughI
    most are not accessible by road, while the area also attracts its share
    of photography buffs and beachcombers.

    The impact on Yakutat's economy from tourism is primarily felt through1
    the use of guide services, air charter and boat rental operations and
    lodge facilities, plus some purchasing of goods and services within the
    community.  Visitors stay at one of two lodges in the road-connectedI
    area or at one of the eleven Forest Service cabins in the larger area.
    In the future, it is expected that the wish of local residents to
    participate in the traditional variety of subsistence activities willI
    remain fairly constant. Some change may be experienced in sport hunting
    patterns with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands
    Conservation Act, since this will prohibit sport hunting within both theI
    Wrangell-St. Elias and Glacier Bay National Parks, and a modest increase
    in recreational visits to the Yakutat region is likely, with some added
    pressure on the local fish and wildlife populations.  Otherwise, theI
    general level of outdoor recreation activities can be expected to grow
    in step with local population and economic growth. Only if major oil
    and gas development -is based at Yakutat are major new recreational
    demands likely to arise.

                           II.  ENERGY.FACILITIES

    The future demand for major coastal energy facilities in the Yakutat
    area will depend on three factors:  further oil and gas lease sales;I
    discovery of commercial reserves of oil and/or gas; and a decision to
    use onshore storage and loading systems to transport fuel products.
    While the speculative nature of oil and gas exploration in frontierI
    regions makes it uncertain whether Yakutat will ultimately have to deal
    with large scale oil and gas development, the stakes for the community
    are high and the possibility can therefore not be ignored.
    The Gulf of Alaska region has many superficial oil seeps and has long
    been regarded as a potential oil and gas province. In fact, Alaska's
    first oil production took place from the Katalla field between YakutatI
    and Cordova where oil was discovered in 1902 and about 154,000 barrels
    of oil were produced over a thirty year period. Between 1957 and 1960,
    both the federal and State governments issued onshore oil and gas leases
    in the Yakutat area and four exploratory wells were drilled near town,
    with some resulting non-commercial shows of oil or gas. Later, between
    1960 and 1967, the State held six sales of nearshore tracts in State
    waters in the Northern Gulf of Alaska, including two sales in Yakutat
    Bay. However, none of these early leasing and exploratory activities in

                                    86

    H         ~~~the Yakutat area resulted in commercially significant finds of oil or
              gas.
    I         ~~~Within the past decade, urgent national energy demands have made it
              economically and politically attractive to explore the oil and gas
              potential of the outer continental shelf (OCS) sector of the Gulf of
    I        ~ ~~Alaska, while the technical advances of the offshore industries have
              made such activities feasible. There has already been one major federal
              OCS lease-sale in the northern Gulf of Alaska and a second is planned in
    3         ~~~October 1980 for the eastern Gulf of Alaska.
              Modern offshore oil and gas development in a remote and environmentally
              hostile frontier province such as the Gulf of Alaska is a technically
    I        ~ ~~sophisticated and capital intensive industry, involving the outlay of
              billions of dollars. It usually also involves the construction of major
              onshore industrial facilities to provide support for offshore operations
    I        ~ ~~and-to transport oil and gas products.  As a result of interest in oil
              and gas development in the Gulf of Alaska region, the prospect of
              offshore oil and gas development in the vicinity of Yakutat has become a
              major consideration in the City's recent community planning activities
              and in the development of its coastal managment program.
              Offshore oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Alaska sector near the
    I        ~ ~~Yakutat area has already significantly shaped the planning strategy for
              coastal management at Yakutat. Before the Northeast Gulf of Alaska OCS
              Lease Sale #39 of April 1975, the Gulf of Alaska was considered by the
    1        ~ ~~U.S. Geological Survey and by the oil and gas industry to be a frontier
              petrol~eum province of exceptional potential . The U.S. Geological Survey's
              pre-sale estimates for the tracts then proposed for leasing ranged from
              100 million to 2.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil and from 300
              billion to 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. At the sale, industry
              invested $572,000,000 for exploration rights on 76 tracts.

    3         ~~~The optimistic expectations shared for Sale #39 by industry and the U.S.
              Geological Survey were dispelled by actual exploration. During the
              three years following the sale, 11 offshore exploratory wells were
              drillfed between Icy Bay and Kayak Island. All were dry holes. No
              further exploration efforts are currently planned by any of the lease
              holders and, in the absence of further exploration, the leases will
    3         ~~~expire in May 1981.

              During the period of exploration activity associated with Sale #39, the
              ports of Yakutat and Seward were used as shoreside bases of operations
    I        ~ ~~to provide logistic support to the semi-submersible drilling rigs.  The
               principal support facility at-Yakutat was the newly built marine service
              base jointly operated by Shell and ARCO. The service base is made up of
              a 120 foot concrete surfaced finger pier with four dolphins for
              simultaneous mooring of up to four barges or two 200 foot supply boats;
              a 75 ton crane; 8,300 square feet of covered storage; on-site power
              generation, water supply, sewage treatment plant, bilge water treatment
    I        ~ ~~plant and incinerator.  Because of its excellent facilities and convenient
              location, Yakutat's airport also was used as a transfer point for light
               supplies and for personnel en route to and from the offshore rigs in its
    I        ~ ~~sector.

             3                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~87

    Although OCS Sale #39 did not result in oil or gas discoveries, speculative
    interest in other untested areas of the Gulf of Alaska remains. The
    U.S. Department of the Interior has scheduled a second frontier sale inI
    this region, the Eastern Gulf of Alaska OCS Sale #55, for October 1980
    (see Figure 16 at the back of this report). The proposed sale area
    described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement initially includedI
    350 offshore tracts totaling 1,957,242 acres southeast of Yakutat.
    However, in the Notice of Sale, the proposed lease area was reduced to
    211 tracts, totaling 1,201,262 acres. These tracts are directly offshore
    from the Yakutat Forelands at a distance of 15 to 60 miles and, for the
    most part, in water depths of between 200 to 600 feet. The proposed
    lease tracts are 25 to 75 miles distance from the City of Yakutat.3

    The eventual outcome of oil and gas exploration in frontier areas is
    highly unpredictable, as shown by the costly and disappointing results
    of Sale #39.  By the same token, specific onshore industrial facility3
    requirements and other community impacts are difficult to predict and to
    plan for until commercial finds are made and development options become
    clear. For this reason, the hypothetical method of scenario building is
    frequently used to illustrate possible development outcomes and is used
    here to investigate the scale of development and the types of OCS-
    related facilities which could be demanded as a result of Sale #55.3

    The U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management and other parties
    have published several widely varying estimates of the range of oil and
    gas production which might result from Sale #55.  However, for presentI
    purposes, exact estimates of possible production levels are not as
    important as identification of the types and approximate scale of local
    marine facilities and activities which may be demanded and which should
    be considered in the district coastal management plan.
    There are three general types of OCS marine facilities which offshore
    development could require in the Yakutat area.  These are offshoreI
    service bases, oil terminals and LNIG terminals. For this analysis, the
    low, mean and high resource estimates originally developed for Sale #55
    by the U.S. Geological Survey have been used to illustrate possible
    future demands for OCS energy facilities at Yakutat. These estimates
    were used for various studies conducted under the Bureau of Land
    Management's Socioeconomic Studies Program to assess the transportation,
    socioeconomic and sociocultural impacts of Sale #55 on Yakutat.  (TheI
    resource estimates later used by the Bureau of Land Management in its
    final environmental impact statement were more modest).g
    The Bureau of Land Management's low estimate of recoverable oil and gas
    discoveries for Sale #55 is below the threshhold volume required for
    profitable production. It is, therefore, equivalent, to an exploration
    only scenario.  Such a scenario would be very similar to the unsuccessfulI
    Sale #39 as far as activity levels and facility requirements at Yakutat
    are concerned. The marine service base would be reactivated during
    exploration, but no new port or other facilities would need to beI
    constructed.

                                     883

                The estimate of recoverable resources for the mean scenario (500 million
                barrels of oil, 3.75 trillion cubic feet of gas~-and high scenario (1.35
                billion barrels of oil and 9.3 trillion cubic feet of gas) differ greatly
                in scale but are very similar in the types of new onshore facilities
                they could promote. For each of these scenarios, it is assumed that
                expansion and intensified use of the existing marine service base on
                Monti Bay would take place and construction in the sale region of a
                major onshore oil terminal and an LNG liquefaction plant and terminal to
    I         ~ ~~transship oil and natural gas production would be required.  Table 10
                shows the relative scale of possible oil and gas terminal facilities at
                Yakutat compared with similar existing or proposed facilities elsewhere
                in Alaska.
                In a study done under the Bureau of Land Management's Socioeconomic
                Studies Program, Northern Gulf of Alaska Transportation Systems Impact
                Analysis, Eakland and Associates analyzed possible regional transportation
                impacts of Sale #55 (see Tables 11 and 12). That study estimated
                approximate marine shipping activity levels and marine facilities which
                the mean and high scenarios would require.
                Under the mean scenario, the study projected that:

                     1.   Service base traffic would peak at about 3,200 supply boat
                          visits annually, which would require a dock capacity of 5
                          berths or some expansion of the existing facility.
                     2.   Construction of an onshore oil terminal with capacity to
                          handle up to 250,000 barrels per day. This terminal would
                          require an estimated 88 oil tanker visits annually at peak
      I                 ~ ~~~~~production.
                     3.   Construction of a natural gas liquefaction plant and terminal
                          with a peak capacity of I billion cubic feet per day, requiring
                          up to 122 LNG ship visits annually.

                For the high scenario, the corresponding peak estimates were used:

     I               ~~~~1.   A total of 5,600 supply boat visits annually, requiring 8
                          berths.
                     2.   An oil terminal of 750,000 barrels per day throughput capacity,
      I                 ~ ~~~~~generating up to 286 tanker visits per year.
                     3.   An LNG plant and terminal with 2 billion cubic feet daily
                          throughput capacity requiring up to 237 LNG ship visits
                          annually.

        3                         ~~~~~~~~III.  TRANSPORT ATION AND UTILITIES

                The need for marine transportation improvements and utilities in Yakutat's
    I         ~ ~~coastal zone will largely be governed by the pattern of future economic
                development here. If the city's economic growth is limited to gradual
                expansion of traditional economic activities, its need for marine
    3           ~~~transportation facilities will remain limited in scale, focusing mainly

                                                  89

                                   TABLE 10

                            COMPARISON OF CAPACITY
                      MARINE OIL TERMINALS AND LNG PLANTS

            Marine Oil Terminals                     Daily Capacity

    Valdez Terminal                                  1,500,000 barrels

    Drift River (Cook Inlet)                           250,000 barrels

    Yakutat Mean Scenario, Sale #55                    250,000 barrels

    Yakutat High Scenario, Sale #55                    700,000 barrels

      Natural Gas Liquefaction Plants

    Phillips (North Kenai)                         174 million cubic feet

    Pacific Alaska LNG (North Kenai proposed)    400 million cubic feet

    Yakutat Mean Scenario, Sale #55              1,000 million cubic feet

    Yakutat High Scenario, Sale #55              2,000 million cubic feet

    Sources:  Dames and Moore.
              International Petroleum Encyclopedia 1980.

                                       90

                                     TABLE II

                            ESTIMATED VISITS PER YEAR
                    SUPPLY BOATS, OIL TANKERS AND LNG TANKERS
                             MEAN AND HIGH SCENARIOS
                                 YAKUTAT, ALASKA

    Year           Mean Scenario                        High Scenario
           Supply    Oil           LNG       Supply    Oil             LNG
            Boats  Tankers a!  Ships b/    Boats  Tankers a!  Terminals b/

    1981      432                                432
    1982      432                                720
    1983      720                                864
    1984      720                              1,008
    1985      720                                864
    1986      576                              1,008
    1987      768                              1,620
    1988    1,908                              2,208                     50
    1989    2,628                     50      4,200                      50
    1990    2,784        15           60       5,220      58            105
    1991    3,168       43           106       5,616    124             169
    1992    1,776       81           122       5,424    200             216
    1993      816       88           120       4,560    260             230
    1994       336      74           115       2,400    286             237
    1995       336      53           103         720    283             236
    1996       336      40            96         720    264             229
    1997      336       30            91         720    230             219
    1998       336      22            87         720    191             211
    1999       336       16           84         720    192             205
    2000       336       12           81.        720    134             200

    a/   Assumes average tanker fleet size of 120,000 dead weight tons (DWT).
    b_/   Assumes average LNG vessel capacity of 130,000 cubic meters,
         comparable to vessels used in Cook Inlet.

    Source:   Peter Eakland and Associates, Inc.

                                         91

                                    TABLE 12

               LOGISTICS REQUIREMENTS FOR YAKUTAT-BASED DRILLING
                            MEAN AND HIGH SCENARIOS

                                  Mean Scenario

    Year    Yakutat Shelf Tonnage (Short Tons)                 Inbound
             Drill     Dry      Fuel      Drill      Dry Goods         Fuel
             Pipe     Bulk                Water       Barges a/      Tankers b/

       1     2,749    7,8i2   13,884    21,696           2              3
       2     3,207    9,114   16,198    25,312           3              3
       3     5,498   15,624   27,768    43,392           4              6
       4     5,498   15,624   27,768    43,392           4               6
       5     5,498   15,624   27,768    43,392           4              6
       6     4,124   11,718   20,825    32,544           3               5
       7     4,124   11,718   20,825    32,544           3              5
       8     4,672   12,268   21,804    35,356           3               5
       9     9-824   19,478   34,618    63,080           5              7
      10    18,426   32,478   57,722   110,894           9             12
      11    28,866   49,096   87,255   170,360          13              18
      12    19,924   33,927   60,297   117,725           9              13
      13     6,555   11,001   19,551    38,171           3              4

                                  High Scenario

    Year    Yakutat Shelf Tonnage (Short Tons)                 Inbound
             Drill     Dry      Fuel      Drill     Dry Goods          Fuel
             Pipe     Bulk                Water       Barges a/      Tankers b/

       1     2,749    7,812   13,884    21,696           2              3
       2     5,498   15,624   27,768    43,392           4              6
       3     6,415   18,228   32,396    50,624           5              7
       4     7,331   20,832   37,024    57,865           5              8
       5     6,415   18,228   32,396    50,624           5              7
       6     5,498   15,624   27,768    43,392           4              6
       7     5,130   13,570   24,118    38,972           4               5
       8     8,897   20,054   35,642    61,472           5               8
       9    17,957   34,356   61,060   112,902           9             13
      10    31,478   54,710   97,234   188,038          15             20U
      11    42,236   72,022  128,002   249,914          20             26
      12    47,381   80,822  143,642   280,450          22             29
      13    39,475   67,390  119,770   233,842          18             24
      14    18,760   31,728   56,389   110,092           9             12
      15     2,760    4,632    8,232    16,072           2             2

    a/  Dry goods barges = (Drill pipe tonnage + Dry bulk tonnage)/(6,000/barge).
    b/  Fuel tankers = (Fuel Tonnage)/(5,000 tons/tanker).

    Source:   Peter Eakland and Associates, 1979.

                                        92

               on maintenance or expansion of existing facilities. On the other hand,
     I       ~ ~major developments in the oil and gas, ground-Fish or wood products
               industries would require the construction of new marine transportation
               facilities and the designation of some new utility corridors. As the
               latter are likely to be specially designed, single purpose transportation
     I       ~ ~~facilities dedicated to speci-fic industrial uses rather than being open
               to general use, they are treated in connection with those individual
    I         ~~~industries.
               Yakutat is exclusively dependent upon water and air transportation for
               the shipment of freight to and from the community. Thus, the reliability
               and cost of marine shipping services are critical factors in local
               living standards and in the economic health of the local fishing and
               seafood processing industry which is greatly affected by t~he shipping
               costs for its products. At present, Yakutat's public cargo dock and
    I        ~ ~~cargo handling facilities are in a poor state of repair and are inadequate
               for local shipping requirements. Port redevelopment is essential to the
    3         ~~~town's economic vitality.
               In order to estimate the future demand for port capacity at Yakutat, a
               forecast of future general cargo and bulk fuel commerce was prepared.
               Recognizing the uncertain development of new industries, four separate
               projections were prepared to reflect different economic assumptions.
               Thus, there are separate projections -for a base case level of economic
               development, for a mean and a high OCS scenario and for a bottomfish
    I        ~ ~~development case (see Table 13).  The projections -include only general
               cargo which might be delivered over a public dock and bulk fuels for
               delivery to the petroleum dock. They specifically exclude heavy industrial
    3         ~~~equipment and cargoes which would be delivered directly to docks associated
               with new industrial facilities.
               These commerce projections were compared with the cargo handling capacity
    I        ~ ~~of a new crane-equipped general cargo dock, such as the City is seeking
               to build at Ocean Cape, and with the bulk fuel handling capacity of the
               petroleum dock, estimated in a 19/79 Corps of Engineers report at between
    I        ~ ~~97,000 and 203,000 tons of fuels annually.  The comparison indicated
               that the proposed new dock facility and the existing petroleum dock
               would have adequate capacity to handle projected general cargo and bulk
               fuel shipments in any of the scenarios.
               The City's capital improvements program proposes eventual extension of
               the cold storage dock to provi-de a loading float and sheet pile wave
    I        ~ ~~break.  This, plus expansion of the adjacent upland storage area, would
               provide added fish handling capacity and protection against swells which
               sometimes interfere with docking and unloading activities at the cold
               storage site.
               The City's small boat harbor at Shipyard Cove is scheduled for expansion.
               The official moorage capacity of the harbor is 50 boats, but as many as
               25 more beats can be accommodated through "double-parking". Boat stalls
               vary in length from 17 to 41 feet. The demand for moorage space is well
    3          ~~~above capacity, as there are usually 90 to 100 vessels vying for space

                                                 193

                                         TABLE 13

                     FORECAST OF GENERAL CARGO AND BULK FUEL TONNAGE
                                      YAKUTAT, ALASKA
                                        1980 - 2000

                                                                             Bottomfish
    Year                                  OCS Cases                               Case
               Base Case            Mean Case            Hiah Case        General    Bulk
           General    Bulk      General    Bulk      General    Bulk        Cargo      Fuel
            Cargo     Fuel       Cargo      Fuel      Cargo      Fuel

    1980    1,800    10,000      1,800    10,000       1,800    10,000      1,800    10,000

    1985    2,000    11,000      2,400    13,000       3,800    21,000      2,300    13,000

    1990    2,300    13,000      6,500    36,000    10.200    57,000        3,600    20,000

    1995    2,700    15,000      6,700    37,000    10,500    58,000        5,000    28,000

    2000    2,900    16,000      6,900    38,000    10,900    61,000        5,900    33,000

    Source:   Alaska Consultants, Inc.

                                              94

              in the summer salmon season, with potential for even more demand by
    I       ~ ~transient vessels if space were available.  The 1978 capital improvements
              program recommended that 60 more stalls be added-to the boat harbor as
              soon as possible, mainly to meet current demands. The State Division of
              Harbor Design and Construction now has under design a project which will
              about double the moorage capacity, but this will barely take care of
              short term needs. Over the longer run, the demand for moorage'space can
              be expected to grow in pace with population growth. Furthermore, if
    I       ~ ~Yakutat fishermen upgrade the local fishing fleet and if new processing
              plants draw more transient traffic to Yakutat, additional capacity for
              larger vessels will be needed.
              It is not anticipated that there will be a demand for major utility
              corridors for community purposes at Yakutat. However, new industrial
              development in the oil and gas or timber industry may require overland
              transportation corridors in or near the coastal zone for pipeline routes
              to transport oil or natural gas production to terminal facilities or to
              truck logs from the eastern Yakutat Forelands if that area is opened to
              timber harvesting.

         5                       ~~~~~~~IV.  FISHING AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING

              The commercial fishing and fish processing industry has been Yakutat's
              major economic activity since the turn of the century. The primary
              species of commercial value harvested locally is salmon, supplemented by
              halibut and crab. All of the local commercial catch is landed at Yakutat
    I       ~ ~and some additional landings are made by the offshore fleet active in
              the Gulf of Alaska. However, much of the region's diverse fishery
              resources are harvested and processed offshore or delivered to other
              ports for processing. Thus, there is opportunity for Yakutat to strengthen
              the fisheries sector of its economy through fuller participation in the
              harvesting and processing of the region's fishery resources. The City is
              now actively pursuing means to strengthen and expand its role in the
              region's fisheries.

    *         ~~A.  TRADITIONAL FISHERIES

              The Yakutat fisheries management area extends from Cape Suckling to Cape
    I        ~ ~~Fairweather (see Figure 16 at the back of this report).  Yakutat is the
              only community within this fisheries area but a large share of the fish
              harvested here is either not caught by locally based fishermen or is not
    I        ~ ~~processed at Yakutat, or both.  The fishing effort by Yakutat fishermen
              is almost exclusively centered around salm on with most shellfish and
              halibut taken by boats from outside the Yakutat area.
              There are more than twenty major salmon stream systems in the Yakutat
              region with about nine systems supporting a commercial set gill net
    3         ~~~fishery on a regular basis.  These are the Akwe, Alsek, Dangerous, East-

            1                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~95

    Dohn, Italio, Kaliakh-Tsiu, Lost, Situk and Yahtse Rivers. It is on
    these river systems as well as Manby Shore and inside Yakutat Bay that
    most effort by local set net fishermen is concentrated.

    Unlike the traditional set gill net salmon fishery pursued by many
    Yakutat residents, the troll fishery in this area is relatively new.
    There are two distinct troll fleets, one fishing the "inside" and the
    other fishing the "outside" waters. The inside troll fishery has
    developed during the past ten or so years and is primarily a locally
    based hand troll fleet made up of skiffs and pleasure boats, most of
    which do not venture outside Yakutat Bay.

    By contrast, most of the offshore power trollers are more than 80 feet
    long with the smallest being in the 40 to 50 foot range. The offshore
    troll fishery has grown in importance in Southeast Alaska during the
    past fifteen or so years as many of the earlier trolling grounds in the
    region became less productive and large boats began fishing the outside
    waters, first off Baranof and Chichagof Islands and, more recently, the
    Fairweather grounds north of Cape Spencer. According to the Alaska
    Department of Fish and Game (1975), as much as 75 percent of the total
    Southeast Alaska troll catch now comes from these offshore areas, with
    about 30 percent of the total coming from the Fairweather grounds.
    However, most vessels engaged in the power troller salmon fishery offshore
    from Yakutat land their catches elsewhere, primarily at Pelican but
    sometimes as far away as Seattle.

    Halibut is a minor element in Yakutat's fisheries industry.  This is an
    international fishery, with catch levels and the length of the fishing
    season regulated by the International Pacific Halibut Commission.
    According to the Commission, a total of 1,391,000 pounds of halibut was
    landed at miscellaneous Central Alaska ports in 1977. This designation
    included Yakutat, Cordova and several other ports. According to the
    Alaska Department of Fish and Game, little halibut is landed locally.
    Information provided by local processors, indicates that approximately
    228,000 pounds of halibut were landed at Yakutat in 1973, 155,000 pounds
    in 1974 and 128,000 pounds in 1975. Although no statistics are available,
    the amount of halibut processed at Yakutat since the May 1977 cold
    storage plant fire has probably decreased further.

    Shellfish is an important part of Yakutat's fish processing industry
    although little is taken by locally based fishermen, According to the
    Alaska Department of Fish and Game, slightly more than half of the crab
    caught in the Yakutat fisheries area is usually processed at Yakutat.
    The area has sizable Dungeness and tanner crab pot fisheries, a scallop
    dredge fishery and a minor shrimp pot fishery. In addition, some king
    crab are occasionally taken in Yakutat Bay.

    According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Dungeness crab are
    fished off the coast of the Yakutat area by vessels in the 35 to 55 foot
    range.  Fishing gets underway in June and usually ends in August or
    September when bad weather conditions discourage most fishermen.
    However, some small catches are recorded through to the end of the
    season in February.

                                     96

              Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel in Petersburg indicated
    I      ~ ~that a total of 1,887,767 pounds of Dungeness crab were caught in the
              Ya~kutat fisheries area during the 1977-78 season. Petersburg Fish and
              Game personnel further reported that most Dungeness crab landed in
              Yakutat in 1978 was whole cooked and flown to California.
              The Dungeness crab fishery originated on the West Coast and that area
    3        ~~remains its principal market.  Thus, Alaska catches tend to fluctuate in
              relation to the size of the West Coast catch. Between 1960 and 1973,
              catches in the area north and west of Cape Spencer-generally increased,
              with these increases being primarily due to corresponding increases in
    I       ~ ~effort.  In 1973, the catch reached a record high of 3,086,022 pounds
              but then fell in successive years through the 1976-77 season when a
              total catch of only 542,726 pounds was recorded. However, these decline
              in the catch were primarily due to exceptionally good Dungeness catches
              on the West Coast rather than to any decline in the resource off Yakutat.
             Tanner crab is a very important but a relatively new fishery in the
              Yakutat area. Except for 708 pounds taken in 1968, commercial exploitation
              of this species did not get underway here until 1972 when 15,493 pounds
              was taken. The catch rose rapidly during the following two years,
    I       ~ ~peaking at 3,087,512 pounds in 1974.  Since 1974, catch levels for this
              species have fallen, with a total of 998,646 pounds recorded for the
              1978 season. However, at least part of this apparent decline is believed
    I       ~ ~to be due to the imposition of a minimum legal size limit of 5.3 inches
              for male tanner crabs in 1976. According to Alaska Department of Fish
              and Game personnel in Petersburg, tanner crab processed at Yakutat in
              1978 were mostly whole cooked and flown out of the area. However, some
              were taken in live tank vessels to Cordova for processing.
              The tanner crab fishery in the Yakutat area operates primarily in offshore
    I       ~ ~waters between 30 and 110 fathoms in depth.  Vessels are large, most of
              them in the 110 foot class. The season opens at the beginning of
              September and extends through the middle of May although bad weather
    3        ~~often limits fishing effort during the winter months.  Tanner crab has
              proven to be a very important addition to Yakuat's fishing and fish
              processing industry and has served to extend the fishing season through
              the winter months. The outlook for this fishery appears good and promises
              to continue to be of considerable importance in Yakutat's economic well

              Scallops have been commercially-exploited in the Yakutat area only
              during the past ton years. This had traditionally been an East Coast
              fishery but a decline in the national catch in 1966 coupled with promising
              results of exploratory scallop fishing in Alaska attracted several East
              Coast vessels to this State. However, the Alaska scallop fishery has
              not lived up to initial expectations.
              IThe only areas in the Gulf of Alaska region which support significant
              numbers of weathervane scallops are near Yakutat and Kodiak, with the
              latter being the most productive. According to the Alaska Department of
    I       ~ ~Fish and Game, major beds in the Yakutat area occur 20 to 40 miles

                                                197

    offshore between Cape St. Elias and Cape Fairweather in depths rangin g
    from 34 to 56 fathoms or deeper.  Vessels which engaged in this fisheryI
    were generally in the 90 to 100 foot class, while dredges were usually
    12 to 14 feet wide. The scallops were shucked on board ship and the
    meats washed, packed and iced down in the hold. Almost all deliveries
    were made to Kodiak.
    The first year for which commercial scallop catches were recorded in the
    Yakutat fisheries area, 1968, was the most productive to date.  In thatI
    year, a total of 903,468 pounds of shucked meats were caught here.
    Catches remained high in 1969 but then fell off dramatically to 22.726
    pounds in 1970.  Although catches then rose gradually through 1974, theyI
    have since fallen off again, with only 22,000 pounds recorded in 1977
    and none in subsequent years. Scallops remain a fishery with a higher
    potential for exploitation under better market conditions and the
    successful introduction of mechanical shucking equipment.  In the short
    term, however, no significant activity is foreseen.

    No commercial stocks of red or brown king crab occur in Yakutat Bay.3
    Little is known about king crab stocks in the Yakutat area but their
    commercial potential is believed to be minor.  At least five species of
    shrimp are found in Yakutat Bay but they have attracted little commercial
    interest. Periodic efforts by vessels using beam trawl gear and shrimp
    pots have not proven very successful and it is assumed that most shrimp
    taken here in the future will continue to be for subsistence purposes.3

    According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, other fish species
    are present in the Yakutat area but relatively little is known about
    them.  Immature herring are found on the east side of Yakutat BayI
    during the summer months and usually attract a large number of small
    king salmon feeders to the area. However, little information is available
    as to the economic potential of a local herring fishery. In addition,
    there are large razor clam populations in the Yakutat area but they
    remain essentially unexploited except by a few local residents.
    Until May 13, 1977, there were two seafood processing plants in theI
    community, Yakutat Cold Storage and Western Seafoods. The Yakutat Cold
    Storage was owned by the City of Yakutat and leased to the Yakutat
    Fisherman's Cooperative which froze salmon, halibut and crab.  However,I
    except for the ice house and dock, this plant was destroyed by fireizgn
    May 1977. A second processor, Western Seafoods, is located in the -old
    Ocean Cape cannery and normally processes salmon, Dungeness crab, tanner
    crab and minor amounts of halibut.  Close to 25 persons were employed inI
    fish processing on an average annual year-round basis in Yakutat in
    1977, plus almost 40 in fishing. Nearly all of these people are local
    residents.
    The April 1977 fire which destroyed the Yakutat cold storage plant has
    brought some changes to the Yakutat area's salmon fishery.  During the
    1978 and 1979 seasons, salmon was purchased by both the Yakutat Fisherman's
    Cooperative and Western Seafoods and in 1978 by two other buyers. Much
    of the fish bought by the Cooperative was processed at the Western3

                                     98I

              Seafoods plant and most salmon purchased by the two local plants was
              frozen and flown out of the area. One other buyer flew salmon directly
              out of Yakutat while the fourth shipped his fish to Juneau.

    I        ~~B.  FUTURE PROSPECTS

              The City of Yakutat has made development of a modern, diversified seafood
              processing industry its highest priority for local economic development.
              However, four major factors presently limit the economic benefit Yakutat
              can derive from its fisheries. These are:
                   1.   Lack of modern, diversified processing plant capacity.
                   2.   Poor marine shipping services, mainly due to poor docking
       I               ~ ~~~~facilities and low shipping volumes.
                   3.   Inadequate fleet moorage and marine services for local and
                        transient fishing vessels.
                   4.   Small vessel size and limited range of the local fishing
                        fleet.
              The Ocean Cape Site Development Feasibility Study undertaken for the
    I       ~ ~City in 1980 estimated that Yakutat could ultimately support a
              substantially higher level of seafood processing than it currently does
              if fulT advantage was taken of the community's location in relation to
    I       ~ ~the offshore fishery resources in its sector of the Gulf of Alaska.
              That study compared the current annual delivery of 3,000,000 pounds of
              fish and shellfish at Yakutat for local processing with a long term
              potential of 14,250,000 pounds annually. The long term estimate assumed
    I       ~ ~utilization of now unexploited species, mainly black cod, increased
              landings by the non-local fleet engaged in the offshore harvest of
              traditional species, and capture of part of the Gulf of Alaska's
              bottomfish harvest for local processing, as well as continued processing
              of the traditional local catch.
              A two phase process of development of the local fisheries is foreseen by
    I       ~ ~~the City:

                   1.   The first phase would involve reconstruction through private
                        investment of a processing plant at the City cold storage
                        site. This facility would concentrate primarily on processing
                        traditional high value species (salmon, crab and halibut) to
      I               ~ ~~~~meet the processing requirements of local commercial fishermen,
                        supplemented by landings from'the offshore fleet.
                   2.   Phase two envisions the development through private investment
                        of a moderate volume processing plant which, in addition to
                        traditional species, would rely heavily upon deliveries of
                        bottomfish species from the deepwater fisheries to Yakutat for
      I                 ~~~~~processing.
              Successful redevelopment of Yakutat's fisheries industry is closely
              linked to transportation and boat harbor improvements which are discussed
              in greater detail in the preceding transportation and utilities section

            1                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~99

                    V.  TIMBER HARVESTING AND PROCESSING3

    Commercial use of timber products in the Yakutat area dates back to 1888
    when the Swedish Free Mission built a small sawmill in the community.3
    Since that time, sporadic logging activities have taken place. However,
    while the Yakutat area has timber resources capable of supporting a
    sizable wood products industry, development of these resources is
    currently at a very low level. To date, only a minor amount of the
    commercial timber in the Yakutat area has been logged. For many years,
    most of the timber resources of the Yakutat area were placed in limbo
    due to the U.S. Forest Service's 1965 contested (and subsequently lapsed)I
    long term St. Regis Paper Company timber sale, which included up to
    50,000,000 board feet annually from the old Yakutat Working Circle. The
    later moratorium on independent timber sales during the period of NativeI
    land selections, and the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation and Tongass
    Land Management Plan processes prolonged the period of low timber harvest
    activity.�
    Commercial logging in the Yakutat area ceased after the only locally
    based logging operation shut down in 1978 and shipped its logging equipment
    out of the area.  This operator had previously harvested and truckedI
    timber to Sawmill Cove where it was sorted into pulp logs and saw timber
    to be barged to the Sitka pulp mill or to sawmills in Wrangell and
    Haines.3
    Almost all commercial timber in the Yakutat area is within the Tongass
    National Forest, with comparatively minor (although commercially
    significant) amounts being in State ownership or having been selected byI
    the Yak-Tat Kwaan and, tentatively, also by the Sealaska Corporation
    under terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.g
    Using figures supplied in 1977 by Tongass National Forest Service personnel
    in Juneau, there are currently about 754,500 acres of National Forest
    land in the Yakutat area, although only 213,700 acres were classed as
    commercial forest land.  Excluding hardwoods, the Forest Service hasI
    calculated that these forest lands were capable of yielding a total of
    4,199 million board feet of timber. Of this volume, about 78 percent is
    Sitka spruce, 14 percent is western hemlock and the remaining 8 percentI
    is mainly mountain hemlock or black cottonwood. The Forest Service no
    longer calculates sustained timber yields from specific areas within the
    Tongass National Forest.  However, using relationships between volumeI
    and sustained yield developed by the Forest Service in its 1961 inventory
    in this area, Forest Service lands in the Yakutat area should be capable
    of yielding between 71,000,000 and 72,000,000 board feet -of timber per
    year using a 120 year rotation.
    However, much of these timber resources are located in roadless areas
    with very high recreational, habitat and scenic values and were placedI
    in LUD I or LUD II classifications under the Tongass Land M~'anagement
    Plan. Such classifications preclude timber harvesting. That plan also
    placed about 91,000 acres of prime timber lands in LUD III or LUD IV3

                                    1001

    classifications which allow timber harvest.  The Forest Service currently
    has only one timber sale planned for the Yakutat Forelands area. This
    sale, scheduled for 1985, is approximately 15 million board feet in
    size, and will be located in Management Area C-53, specifically in T28S,
    R35E, to the north of the Dangerous River Highway and west of the Antlen
    River.

    Local objections to timber development in the area east of Dangerous
    River have been strong. Major concerns focus on possible damage to fish
    and wildlife habitat and extension of'the forest road system into this
    roadless area. Thus, while timber harvesting is deemed to be compatible
    with LUD III and LUD IV designations, it is not presently clear which
    areas and what volumes of timber might eventually be made available for
    harvest by the Forest Service.
    State selections between Icy Bay and Cape Suckling total 331,805 acres,
    of which an estimated 125,000 acres are of commercial forest quality.  A
    1963 U.S. Forest Service timber inventory estimated that these lands
    then held approximately 2,036 million board feet of timber. The State
    held a major timber sale in the eastern part of this area in 1969 and
    plans another sale of about 49 million board feet in October 1980.

    Under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Yak-Tat
    Kwaan, Inc. was entitled to select 23,040 acres of land in the immediate
    vicinity of Yakutat. According to figures supplied by the Kwaan, the
    lands selected include 19,430 acres of commercial forest with a total
    timber volume of approximately 521.4 million board feet. These timber
    lands are planned to be managed on a sustained yield basis, with most to
    be clear-cut except on the Phipps Peninsula.

    Despite the problems and uncertainties presently facing the wood products
    industry in the Yakutatiarea, significant growth in this industry is
    possible over the next twenty years, provided that market conditions are
    strong.  It is anticipated that the Forest Service will periodically
    hold independent sales at a level which will sustain a small logging
    operation at close to peak levels of activity and that smaller sales by
    Native corporations and the State, possibly supplemented by additional
    Forest Service sales, could support a second logging operation or an
    enlarged single operation.

    The timber resources of the area alone are not capable of supporting a
    large sawmill. A high proportion of the timber stands are of pulp
    rather than sawlog quality and it is presently more economic to barge
    logs out of the area to mills elsewhere in Southeast Alaska than to
    retain sawlogs in Yakutat for processing and have additional sawlogs
    barged in. However, this could change in the future. In addition,
    other companies operating in the northern Gulf of Alaska area may find
    it desirable to transport their sawlogs to Yakutat.  The operations of
    the Southcentral Timber Development Company at Icy Bay are a case in
    point. The State sold 200,000,000 board feet of timber there in 1969
    and has scheduled another sale in October 1980.  At the present time,
    logs are barged 350 miles from Icy Bay to the company's mill at Jakolof
    Bay, near Seldovia. Transporting these logs to a small mill at Yakutat
    would appear to be a more logical alternative if agreements could be
    worked out with other timber operators.

                                    101

                    VI.  MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING�

    Large scale mineral development is an industry with potential for adverse
    effects on coastal lands and waters.  However, the prospects for mineralI
    development in the Yakutat region appear remote through the forseeable
    future.3
    According to a recent U.S. Forest Service resource assessment:

       "Analysis of samples from the (Yakutat) region disclose numerous3
        small anomalous concentrations of many metals, but none that
        apnear to have any immediate economic significance. The best-
        appearing potential resource for several metals is probably the
        sands of the present beaches and the elevated beach terracesI
        on the Yakutat foreland, but these deposits need additional
        exploration work in the economic evaluation. Past mineral
        production has been insignificant." a/
    In view of this negative appraisal, large scale mineral development has
    been discounted as an activity of potential concern to the Yakutat
    district coastal management program.

                          VII.  FUTURE POPULA TIONI

    Many dramatic coastal management choices at Yakutat stem directly from3
    economic development projects and the need to site, design and operate
    associated industrial facilities and utilities in a manner compatible
    with the protection of coastal values. Perhaps less obvious are the
    pressures on coastal resources which may accumulate over time due to
    population growth and the accompanying need to use more land for added
    housing, community facilities and private businesses. Such growth can
    be to the detriment of coastal habitats, environmental quality,I
    conservation of fish and wildlife populations and can result in overuse
    or loss of natural areas traditionally enjoyed for their recreational,
    subsistence and historic values. For these reasons, a forecast of
    Yakutat's future population growth potential and of the demands this
    growth is likely to place upon the coastal zone is an essential part of
    the district coastal management program.�

    The development of population projections for -the Yakutat district
    coastal management program is complicated by the location of district
    boundaries and by the speculative nature of future development projectsI
    in the Yakutat area, particularly of the oil and gas and groundfish
    industries.3

    a!   Source:  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska
        Region.  April 1978.  Minerals Task Force Working Report.  Juneau.I

                                   1021

              Not all residents of the Yakutat area live within the district's boundaries.
              However, as a practical matter, the City is the center of the Yakutat
    I        ~ ~~region and virtually all area residents make use of the City's resources
              and of the recreational and economic assets of the larger region. For
              these reasons, the population of the entire road-connected area rather
              than of just the City provides the best measure of possible future
              demands on the coastal resources of the district and the adjacent area.
              Therefore, a single population forecast has been prepared for the area
    3         ~~~as a whole.
              Yakutat's economic and population growth can, in part, be estimated from
              an analysis of present and foreseeable future trends in the comimunity's
    I        ~ ~~traditional economic base.  The base case economic and population forecast
              assumes a continuation of recent economic patterns and trends at Yakutat
              through the year 2000, with growth arising primarily from fuller use of
              the renewable natural resources of the lands and waters of the immediate
              Yakutat area (see Table 14). Specifically, significant additional
              employment in the fishing and seafood processing industries is assumed,
              based on new processing plant capacity and added landings of traditional
    I        ~ ~~species and some bottomfish at Yakutat for processing.  A modest level
              of added employment in government is foreseen, as is creation of some
              new employment in the wood products industry. Also assumed is a steady
    I        ~ ~~expansion of the local trade and services sectors, stimulated in part by
              an increased level of visits to Yakutat for outdoor recreational activities
              such as sport fishing and hunting., For an explanation of the detailed
              economic analysis upon which the base case population forecast was
              derived, reference is made to Alaska Socioeconomic Studies Program:
              Northern Gulf of Alaska - Petroleum Development Scenarios, Local
              Socioeconomic Impacts, October 1979, prepared by Alaska Consultants,
              Inc. for the U.S. Bureau of Land Managment, Alaska Outer Continental

    3         ~~~Under the base case premises, the Yakutat area's population is forecast
              to grow from about 600 residents in 1980 to 750 by 1990, reaching an
              estimated 950 residents by the year 2000. This base case population
              forecast does not take account of the potential effect on Yakutat's
              economy and population of development in two non-traditional industries,
              oil and gas development and high volume groundfish harvesting and
              processing. As of 1980, the future course of these industries at Yakutat
    I        ~ ~~remains speculative, but if the most optimistic estimates of their
              development potential were realized, the community's population could
               increase many times over the next two decades. It is premature to state
              except in general and qualified terms, when or on what scale these
               industries might develop or what level of population growth they might
              engender. However, within these limits, separate estimates have been
               prepared of the population which could be added in the Yakutat area if
    I        ~ ~~certain hypothetical cases or scenarios about oil and gas development
              and groundfish development occur. Two cases corresponding to the mean
              and high scenarios for Sale #55 were prepared for oil and gas development.
    I        ~ ~~A single scenario for groundfish development was also prepared.  The
              main value of these hypothetical scenarios is to compare the potential
               growth implications of these industries with how Yakutat might grow if
    3         ~~~its traditional livelihood patterns prevailed.

            3                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~103

                                  TABLE 14

                      POPULATION FORECAST, YAKUTAT AREA
               BASE CASE, GROUNDFISH SCENARIO AND OCS SCENARIOS
                                 1980 - 2000

                            Groundfish      Mean OCS          High OCS
             Base Case       Scenario        Scenario          Scenario
    Year      Forecast         Increment       Increment a/ Increment b/
    1980         600               --              --.

    1985         650               350             175              600

    1990         750               575           1,400            2,675

    1995         900               975          1,300             2,650

    2000         950             1,050           1,375            2,750

    a/ The mean scenario does not include the temporary construction
        workforce expected to be housed in camp facilities during the
         second half of the 1980's. This workforce is estimated to peak
         at about 1,100 workers.
    b/   The high scenario does not account for the temporary construction
        workforce expected to be housed in camp facilities. This workforce
         is estimated to peak at about 3,600 workers in the middle years of
         the decade.

    Source:   Alaska Consultants, Inc.

                                      104

    The population forecast for the groundfish scenario assumes the addition
    of a labor intensive processing plant and related facilities at Yakutat
    with a capacity to process from 10,000 to 15,000 tons of groundfish
    annually.  This forecast was updated from an analysis presented in the
    Capital Improvements and Services Program prepared by Alaska Consultants,
    Inc. for the City of Yakutat in September 1978.  With the establishment
    of a groundfish processing plant of this scale in the near future,
    Yakutat's population is estimated to grow by an added 575 residents over
    the base forecast by 1990 and another 500 residents by the year 2000.

    The two OCS senario population forecasts presented for the federal OCS
    Sale #55 were drawn from Northern Gulf of Alaska Petroleum Development
    Scenarios, Local Socioeconomic Impacts.  The scenarios correspond with a
    mean find and a high case find, respectively. No population forecasts
    for exploration only or low find cases are included since they would
    have only minor and temporary effects on local population trends.
    However, it should be noted that the U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau
    of Land Management consider these two OCS scenarios encompass the most
    likely outcome for Sale #55.

    Each production scenario contributes a share of new resident population
    associated with the installation and operation of the various OCS
    industrial facilities predicated at Yakutat. Under the mean find OCS
    scenario, the Yakutat area's population climbs steeply in the latter
    part of the 1980's during the busiest period of offshore oil and gas
    field development and onshore facility construction. Thereafter,
    population growth stabilizes as the intensive but short term development
    phase yields to the production phase.

    The mean oil and gas scenario would add about 1,300 new permanent residents
    to the Yakutat area, more than doubling the base case population forecast.
    This does not include a temporary construction workforce assumed to be
    housed in temporary camp facilities during the second half of the 1980's.
    This temporary workforce is estimated to peak at about 1,100 workers.

    The high find OCS scenario envisions the most striking changes in Yakutat's
    future population. The pattern of growth generally resembles the mean
    find scenario, that is, rapid population growth accelerating to a peak
    toward the end of the first decade and leveling off thereafter. However
    the scale of growth is much greater.

    Under the premises of the high find case, Yakuat's population is estimated
    to grow by an additional 600 residents by 1985 due to oil and gas
    development. By 1990, the oil and gas-related permanent population is
    estimated to reach nearly 2,700 residents and remain at that level
    through the rest of the century. This permanent population growth does
    not include temporary construction workers assumed to be housed in camp
    facilities outside town and estimated to peak at about 3,600 by the mid-
    1980's.

                                     105

    I

    I

    I

                                         u                                               Mu...   A.
                                         CuyC4C..          '-t
                                 -c         .-  /'M..    L'C4C 4  4<*C/Q 4t[4//Q   44C                                              .-.        Cu
                                             V. VCPCM M 4tu uv rMMu.r�MCuCFHu4Mu4MuV              Yr%44t44427i ..4C4i�
          .4 -   Cu.  4CC  CC.u  C   .uuCu.Muu.4ICu, -                 C   p%'uCu ff4uS$htu Mu   t14$Cu         CmUZCUtflu  tuF9.u Mu'        ty4u4
                         ,ug4l u' ?u 4Muui fu&uuu4C u-' t,                                                                                      '44.4..- M/Mu .CC '4 4
                    4 qu4Cu. * �Muuk�Cm4tuI7t                                kf4t4A'MuA '4'{&#   lTtkMuMu t$i4vuu <4 Y ut
    & t't4'A'C t4CC ,4                                                '4v m�    ..Mum1ki D4SMMu14n Cm. / 4uC 4yMuAIrtVCC4nuC'4 V.
         Cu'...   ..4ut'uV.4 Mu. t44C    4�uCR.4tC4 Mukut-   IC           u#?4<ru;uC@  I$4$N)h .C ut4utSV.u 4uMu.uuY4Cul'C"C  4>44'
                                                p... >uuCt.u..CE

                                                  4.-C ..ut4'u C' b 4>444 4 ...4C'44<C'.'.uA A
                        'm'.'..     'u. u 4put\u.   uutuI""4'P''u  Ctu,' A.  4>44   4           C       . ''    444  44-Cr      ',C       C' 4 Mu-u-.
          .,u.  'C444< CCAC' Vuu4tu- 44  KI'          n4tW�Mu .'tl4>.' 44> >?    rwAi4AtmiA-4IC C' 410 V.                     44444. u4444  ..44.u4  tu'1u-.r4.' 4
                                                 '44  u-44441u49441 3M V 4"41' ,   C4AVTht V.u C 4,  4<t4r4u4#u- u- 1   444pV
                                                                  'C4 C.2  fuMu44u-tC'44uu4 44414 CCMCC  u-Cm'tl' 44  "ThtCt4 '4>44. uu.'u-'fN"'f'u4  Cr  u- ..4..
                                     441.'C 4f.uuC4...,.&u u-.u- 44.
                                      �4" 44 '.1    4 4444 u-4414414C1 u-.4                                                         r4g$ ..444-ut u-44444CC'  C.
                        *uu-.  u-  .4 uC Mu      u-r2AfMCmu   u-u-C 4441t .t9fr#�   Mu441A44uAMuiCiP41                     XMu�1V4L11 '44
                                   44>4 ,uS 4�'       �.Mu4uMu414 -..siCm41P'                                    444 +'CC44OCC 4 .tu.iC4C...u.44+u    4i

                        -' 144144  .4uuA.A'444'44"4 '44CC                                             CVIC'44C4;Jku-CCuCgu-4C4.                        '4441

                                                                                                                                            I uuCu-,                    .   .  .
                            u-2'uu;'   44   .444441fl                                     'h4 ug'ou-44gff'4>4v< "to'                  u-44CC. .CC4Ak.44'u4u
                          '44444' 'b' 444 44<14$4tMnu44uA42�>                             4Vt 4'44'4'4" ,.C442$'C44 t'4Cu-             44444 4444 444441�                 4   .4" '4.'
                          44'4  2:   '44444' '.4y  .u444C.CC4Cu4.  14u-4uu-4>u- .              u-'Th.C�u-44'fr''"C"u-4*
                 4,4>444              144-Muu4144144444u.C144'44V.t Cuuur4'44u4  4444 .443..44u u4414.u44 CC tu-44C, ''41'1t' 'u-C 44'yj 4.474u-  4434444  -  'C   CCC' 44    'u-u'.
                         '4.44.-u ..uC4'3441'44u-'4Cu-uC 44 444444W.Cu4Cu-u-u4uC4C44'.4'4S1444'44434Mu34.4U41444'*'C44u-'  "' u444.C4 4..4444444J4,44u-444334 44444.u-444444u'  ' '4'C'
                                            u-'Cu-41CC44    C"'u4u4"'441' u-A' 4.  44  4-44"' '4'u-44uC..44u-Mu'ur   ..4C4C'44uC 444444>44 444 '4C' '4 "<C'
    I      - .           .  44 Cu,, 4>'  4  C-C/u C'44C41C.4uu-4u-4 u-4.' u '42'uC4C4'444t44C{C   '.3444'u4" '4 '"4C4C444'44-4 "Cul44  '.444.4414444-  4

    I

                                                                    C             4444-
    I                                            4              uuu    4-  .u    u- '44u-444                u-C

                                                                                                                                                                                 Chapter 5

    I

    I                                                                                                                 GOALS AND ISSUES

    I

    I

    I

                                           GOALS AND ISSUES

                    6 AAC 85.020. NEEDS, OBJECTIVES, AND GOALS. Each district
                    ~program must include a statement of the district's overall
                    coastal management needs, objectives, or goals, or the
                    district's comprehensive land and resource use plan. (Eff.
     3              ~~~~7/18/78, Reg. 67)

                                                   Authority: AS 44.19.893
                                                               AS 46.40.030
                                                               AS 46.40.040
               The goals and issues for the coastal management plan-have been drawn
    U         ~ ~~from the City's basic planning documents, supplemented by discussions
               with City officials. These coastal management goals are an update and,
                to some degree, a refinement of the City's standing planning policies.
               However, the review of existing planning documents indicates that, even
                in light of new circumstances, the basic thrust of -the City's earlier
               development policies remains sound and is also generally consistent with
               the requirements of the Alaska Coastal Management Act and related
               regulations.
               The City's goals for management of the area's coastal lands and waters
               can be summarized in the following broad terms:
                     1.   Limited overall community economic and population growth, with
                          priority given to traditional economic activities.
     I             ~ ~~~2.   Protection of the subsistence and commercial fishery resources
                          and recreational values of Monti Bay, Yakutat Bay and the
                          Yakutat Forelands.
                     I3.   Development of a modern diversified seafood processing industry.
                    4.   Promotion of efficient, economic marine transportation services.
                     5.   Reservation of the central Monti Bay waterfront for traditional
                          uses.
                     6.   Containment of OCS-related facilities to a designated industrial
                          district on southern Monti Bay, with a separate self-contained
                          residential camp for OCS workforce personnel.
                     I7.   Small boat harbor expansion with public utilities and related
                          marine services and recreational facilities.
                     8.   Management of public lands in Yakutat region with priority
                          Igiven to traditional uses and conservation of fish and wildlife
                          values.

                                                  107

                                                t<r.r.t  s<  1' Sr
      U
                      S                rSr                                       )A .rr5W' A' rSr. .                                          '.
       -                .'                   rSr, r.'51r'1S5             ,r5.5r5rF,.   5  r  r,4SF.rFr'rsrFA.r<

                                                                rr'>.'    '0                   .4'

                            .4 --r-, rSr Srssrr  &IS' rrr5' sS' 'r59.O
                 :i222  Sr < rTrr WSYS4S  r5 5                                                                                                   . -. -

                                                                                        'M'445j
                                                                     r      Sr'r.,5 '0 rr

                                     5- StrS   rWtSi5 ,                  fl4 >,r r5 'sf 1#A'$i   f�  55. Sr'S
                                 5r CrSArS  >5-'  ,rS-5555A5'r     55Srr'4S>S'rrr.'- r. kSr.r.
                                                                              rrT 'S5'r4S5'5'"'   'W
                      Sr rSr  5,..r'5'55-i,C, ''vs"  r'  m  S r5'.sr4'.'
     3                  rrr-                                          r55S '>rSr,5'                    s.S,,     sr5'rrrr. -  S rA5

                                                                '0, s r5'S'j5'r,5A Ar -sr,>5 S
                        'r.'1"                                      .'r'..'5'>  '.4..5rASjrA  Zr1
                                                 S5Fr5 5Ss5s '550                                                            '>5 Sr>

                                                                       r-'s >rd..F I . " rOSA C'  ,.� ''r'' At
     3     r                        ,Si',I4rS-'rr            r'4'55>     .r545-.5..  'r . S's
                                                                            I 5.r';.'5 .4 .5, rrt r''> S '545  V''9''
                                                      -. 5 '.5., 55..> 5,  '555''    "rI4r'5sSSr5s>rSr  5..prt 54'.'r'4 5
                    F''F'' ".. A-'.. ...>                                                                  .5 .r.5,rrrS5'SrS'>5 .5
                                                                             555
                              '5 rj5<A   Sr"545Sr'r' rSrr' L.5'  '  rV5t
                          5,    ,.SrS5,S'55.15r544555r5", >5    5*.5-5 .5              '5O455I145545r5 "45 5 'r5Sr555,SSr.%s '..,  '>.5'5'Ir55
    4.. . r. r' 45, '>55." rv's5'r5r>I>r.s,,
            '55555'S>  ,rs'rISV' r4' '>25555454454'54545455' 5'555  . Srs45'j                         ..r'5  '55445 5555 545> '-'s,> A 5,55' 5 *'  5. 5.,55,. 5.,, 55..
          .5.55  *>  5555'S555555y r5rr.  .5 55  5.sr+55,'0s'44sSs  5r5'5P                                 r5455   5's-Sr4rStSr,  . 5s5
                                         'Irs'.> j.rS4  55r5rSr.S5Srr..'''r'r..4' 5.  5  >5,
     3                                    45,>. .t'{,S.' >ly>., A.> ' , A' <'''""''rS'S,. 5'.>    '> Ar'
                                                                                                         rlrjArS  r.
                                      'Srrr'r-5' t.,&          'w'5,"5,                       r.'-r.<'S,   - 'A5,5X , ...    "r'rrr'V
                              ,rrr.4'  .5,5. .r.w,,..5r.rrSi�'r4r'.r<rr.  p<-,r   *                  .                         .

     I

    I

                                                                                             .Ar554.IrA5.S.5  'r'   r 1r5

                                                                               rg.'5. ''5>5'r..-'      555'        A
                                           'Irs       '>,s..55   ,r55  S '.5'ss5Ar'5 .55.,s55r555,Ar''r'                                "'
      -'Sr ., Sr'..55r-I-s,, 55'r''.-  455,14-,r" 'S5r'SSri'r.s.5  5',. 'r5rS-r >5"sA"'-"55'S"s'-r "r45 5r55>'S>'I55"s5rC             5r'-555  1r
                                                                  "           55555',55S5,s5"'4545-s45'> 515'-',s S
                                                                                                                                                     Chapter 6

    I

    I  COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

    I

    I

    I ,i.r'I                                               -                    S$r5,'.S'                            r',
                                          F        '5'                            r.5*''                           555iI'.'r.  55.    .4
                                                                                                          '05 -.
                                            '5'   5"                       -'   I>        'rIS S.>                 '4'rs.rr,: .  .. 5. ',5  .

                                      COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

           3                             ~~~~~~~~~I.  INTRODUCTION

              The Alaska Coastal Management Act and its regulations set out specific
              standards for the location and management of uses subject to the district
              coastal management program and some general management guidelines. This
              chapter explains how the City of Yakutat's district coastal management
              plan for the coastal lands and waters of the district and its environs
    I       ~ ~satisfies these standards.  It addresses in separate subsections each of
              the use or management standards set out in law or regulation, explaining
              how the district plan and management guidelines meet the standard in
    3       ~ ~light of the coastal resource inventory (Chapter III), the forecast of
              future use demands (Chapter IV) and the City's coastal management goals
              (Chapter V).

    I        ~~For each use or management standard, the appropriate legislative or
              regulatory guideline is cited at the start of the subsection. Figure 17
              illustrates the general plan for land and water uses as well as certain
    5       ~ ~specific use sites which are incorporated into the district coastal
              management plan. It also shows proposed areas for siting of each of the
              subject uses occurring within the district or its environs. Figure 18
    I       ~ ~indicates present zoning in the City of Yakutat.
              The inventory of coastal resources and the analysis of future demands on
              coastal resources documented the vital connections between Yakutat and
    I       ~ ~the entire coastal region between Cape Fairweather and Cape Suckling.
             An effective coastal management program for the district must recognize
              and address these connections. For this reason, the City's coastal
    I       ~ ~management goals and its district plan take a geographically comprehensive
              approach to coastal resources, especially fishery resources. Likewise,
              the district implementation program stresses the need to build a permanent
              general process for coordinated coastal resource management within its
              geographic sphere of influence, supplemented by special management
              arrangements as needed to address important localized resource management
    3        ~~~issues.

         3                        ~~~~~~~II.  RECREATION AND SUBSISTENCE

                   6 AAC 80.060. RECREATION. Districts shall designate areas for
                   recreational use. Criteria for designation of areas of recreational
                   use are
                   (a) (1) the area receives significant use by perso ns engaging in
                   recreational pursuits or is a major tourist destination; or

                                                 109

             (2) the area has potential for high quality recreational
        use because of physical, biological, or cultural features.3

        (b) Districts and state agencies shall give high priority
        to maintaining and, where appropriate, increasing public access
        to coastal water. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67)
                                     Authority: AS 44.19.893
                                                AS 45.40.0403

        6 AAC 80.120.  SUBSISTENCE.  (a)  Districts and state agenciesI
        shall recognize and assure opportunities for subsistence usage
        of coastal areas and resources.3

        (b) Districts shall identify areas in which subsistence is
        the dominant use of coastal resources.

        (c) Districts may, after consultation with appropriate state
        agencies, Native corporations, and any other persons or groups,,
        designate areas identified under (b) of this section as
        subsistence zones in which subsistence uses-~and activitiesI
        have priority over all nonsubsistence uses and activities.

        (d)  Before a potentially conflicting use or activity may be3
        authorized within areas designated under (c) of this section,
        a study of the possible adverse impacts of the proposed
        potentially conflicting use or activity upon subsistence
        usage must be conducted and appropriate safeguards to assure
        subsistence usage must be provided.

        (e)  Districts sharing migratory fish and game resources must3
        submit compatible plans for habitat management. (Eff. 7/18/78,
        Reg. 67)

                                     Authority:  AS 44.19.8933
                                                AS 46.40.040

    As the natural resources, geographic areas and use patterns of importanceI
    to the recreational and subsistence elements of the coastal management
    plan are very closely related, they are treated together.

    The district plan identifies a number of suitable areas to be reserved
    for future recreational use. These areas provide for a variety of
    water-oriented recreational activities and also provide numerous points
    of public access to coastal beaches and waters. Shipyard Cove is a
    convenient and naturally well suited location for moorage and ramp
    facilities for recreational boating and is planned to continue in that
    use, to be managed as part of a multiple-use area meriting specialI
    attention.

                                    110

                              Figure                           1                           eieta                                                                      iN
                                                                                            ~~ *Xt\                  W]  ~~~~Commercial/ Waterfont! Residential                                                                                 -     4*             44
                      Proposed~~~L.II                               C     o    sa L     a     n                     Commercial                                                                                  K4/
                                       and Water Use P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lan1IIII General Industrial                                                                                                 Shi      4*
                                                                                       4.                                                                                                                            ?O
                     Note: All marine waters are classifie Sallsa~arbr
                          aconservation zone.   Co sevtinAra4
                                                                                                                                                                                                   1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. -e                                     4 4         44**44

                                                                                                  444444444  ...            ~OCS Marine Servic&Base Site and                          ~.J4                                  ~.,                    4444444

                                Tins rojet wa suported, in part, by Fed-             44444444n4re
                           erall Coastal Zone Management Program tin-*4444Ae0_
                      a   plementation Funds (R.L. 92-583, Sec. 306)                        446                     Poeta EnryFaiiyt
                          granted to the State of Alaska by the Office                  4444                 i       Potential PipeJine Corridor                                                                                               \ ~   4
                           ofaCoastal Zone Management, National Oce-
               0fi- h. E-    anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. S u s   t     e     c
                                                                                                                                                              k                                                                 44  44444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ isV~~~4    44     A 444444

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  4444444    4444    4444  444~~~~~~~~~~~4k44e4~~~~ . ~414 4  4L~4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ..  44�t444~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ ~ ~ ~ L

              444444~~~4'

                                                                                                                                                       Prpsdand Doc Epnsion Poesn ln                                              y v4

    3   ~     ~~~~ 4447 -                                                                                                                                                                                             4i4 4       X414  444444444I
                                                             4.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                       *_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~4t~g 4 4,444

                                                       -41~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                              p    o     s    e    d           4            <4)*44*~~                  4*  C:.dUity Dock an
                                                                                                                ,1 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ h   P rocssin  Plant  44      4
                                                                    4 *444  4444*44444444444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4441  I~~~~~4444k444444  4444    4   4        4  44   4   4  4 444444  4s'  :?:hN.  *4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1Q

             444444 4   44 4                         A 444
         *  444**4A~~~~q~,,.4ct.4    4444        A4444l

                                                                          4  * 41'E~~~~~~~~44 414 444 4444 * 14 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F4~~~.4~~~~7' 44~~~~~4444  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~   4 *444444                                                               1971; Alaska Consultants Inc~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L       4  4~4  A
                           4444444                   4 4444
                                                 444444 Ak 44"~T44.444444444444  ..-.... 444444444*44444                                                                                                                                         976

                                                         I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~k~444

                           Figure 18                                               ..'~a~    oprI  odr

     I    ~OffcialZoning Map                                                                                                                                                    <Q

                    RResidential
    fl ~CWVR Commercial/ Waterfront/ Residential
                  C Commercial
                    IIndustrial
     I          ~~~~~~H Holding

                                                                                                                                  -k    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~                                          A~~~~~~~~~t
                                                                                                                                                                                         H~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

                                           .>  H~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

          7   -          07

                                                                                                                        granted to the State of Alaska by the Office                                               City of Yeakutat
                                                                                                                                               of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce-    ~~~~~~~~~~~~Sources: Alaska State Housing Authority,
                                                                                                                    PI -I-  Department of Commerce.                                                                      1971; Alaska Consultants, Inc.,

               There are certain habitats within the district which possess biological
               resources of exceptional value for joint recreational and subsistence
    I        ~ ~~use.  These habitats have been identified and proposed for classification
               and management as areas meriting special attention to conserve them
               against adverse use or development in the future. They are Ankau Lagoon,
    3          ~~~Ophir Creek and the Shipyard Cove area.
               In view of the local importance of the nearshore and coastal waters of
               Monti Bay and Puget Cove for a mixture of subsistence and recreational
    I        ~ ~~activities, the district plan proposes that marine waters within the
               City be managed as a conservation zone to protect the productivity of
               the habitat. The primary use in this conservation zone shall be
    I         ~ ~~subsistence and other uses shall be permitted only under management
               guidelines which seek to avoid or minimize interference with the
               continuance of traditional subsistence uses. Consistent with this
               management policy, the district plan also identifies potential sites for
               new coastal development such as energy facilities, pipeline landfalls
               and corridors, and wood products industries to minimize potential use
               conflicts with areas of special value for recreational and subsistence
    I         ~ ~~use activities.  In particular, the district plan provides that new
               industrial development be located-at or near already developed areas on
               Monti Bay or Sawmill Cove and be excluded from eastern and upper Yakutat
    I         ~ ~~Bay and away from the biologically valuable streams, estuaries and
               uplands of the Yakutat Forelands.
               Because of the critical importance of the natural resources of Yakutat
    I         ~ ~~Bay and the Yakutat Forelands to Yakutat residents for subsistence and
               recreational use (as well as their economic value to the commercial
               fisheries), the district plan proposes a broad regional management
    I         ~ ~~policy which assigns first priority to conservation of the fish and
               wildlife habitats and populations of the Yakutat coastal region for
               established and traditional subsistence, recreational and commercial
               uses. Planning and management mechanisms to implement this broad coastal
               management policy are included in the following chapter of this report.

          I                              ~~~~~~~~~III.  ENERGY FACILITIES

                    6 AAC 80.070, ENERGY FACILITIES, is amended to read:
                    (a) Sites suitable for the development of major energy
                    facilities must be identified by districts and the state in
     3               ~~~~cooperation with districts.
                    (b) The siting and approval of major energy facilities by
                    districts and state agencies must be based, to the extent
                    feasible and prudent, on the following standards:.
                          (1) site facilities so as to minimize adverse
                    environmental and social effects while satisfying industrial
                    requirements;

            I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

        (2) site facilities so as to be compatible with existing
    and subsequent adjacent uses and projected community needs;I
        (3) consolidate facilities;
        (4) consider the concurrent use, of facilities for public
    or economic reasons;

        (5) cooperate with landowners, developers, and federalI
    agencies in the development of facilities;

        (6) select sites with sufficient acreage to allow forI
    reasonable expansion of facilities;
        (7) site facilities where existing infrastructure,3
    including roads, docks, and airstrips, is capable of satisfying
    industrial requirements;
        (8) select harbors and shipping routes with leastI
    exposure to reefs, shoals, drift ice, and other obstructions;

        (9) encourage the use of vessel traffic control and3
    collision avoidance systems;

        (10) select sites where development will require minimal3
    site clearing, dredging and construction in productive habitats;
        (11) site facilities so as to minimize the probability,
    along shipping routes, of spills or other forms of contamination
    which would affect fishing grounds, spawning grounds, and other
    biologically productive or vulnerable habitats, including marine
    mammal rookeries and hauling out grounds and waterfowl nestingI

        (12) site facilities so that the design and construction
    of those facilities and support infrastructures in coastal areasU
    of Alaska will allow for the free passage and movement of fish and
    wildlife with due consideration for historic migratory patterns
    and so that areas of particular scenic, recreational,U
    environmental, or cultural value will be protected;

        (13) site facilities in areas of least biological
    productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and where effluents
    and spills can be controlled or contained;
        (14) site facilities where winds and air currents disperseU
    airborne emissions which cannot be captured before escape into
    the atmosphere;3
        (15) select sites in areas which are designated for
    industrial purposes and where industrial traffic is minimized
    through population centers; andI

                               1161

                         (16) select sites where vessel movements will not result in
      3            ~~~overcrowded harbors or interfere with fishing operations and equipment.
                   (c) Districts shall consider that the uses authorized by the
                   issuance of state and federal leases for mineral and petroleum
      I          ~ ~~resource extraction are uses of state concern.  (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg.
                   67, as amended).
                                                  Authority: AS 44.19.893
                                                              AS 46.40.040

                   The Alaska Coastal Policy Council and the legislature has approved
                   the following definition in 6 AAC 80.900 for major energy facilities
      I           ~ ~~~which are likely to locate in, or which may significantly affect,
                   the coastal area:
                        "1major energy facility" means a development of more than local
                        concern carried out in, or in close proximity to, the coastal
                        area, which meets one or more of the following criteria:

       I                ~~~~~(a) a facility required to support energy operations for
                        exploration or production purposes;
       3                ~~~~~(b) a facility used to produce, convert, process, or
                        store energy resources or marketable products;
                         (c) a facility used to transfer, transport, import, or
      I               ~ ~~~~export energy resources or marketable products;
      3                 ~~~~~(d) a facility used for in-state energy use;
                         (e) a facility used primarily for the manufacture,
                        production, or assembly of equipment, machinery, products,
                        or devices which are involved in any activity described in

                   Major energy facilities include marine service bases and storage
                   depots, pipelines and rights-of-way, drilling rigs and platforms,
                   petroleum or coal separation, treatment, or storage facilities,
                   liquid natural gas plants and terminals, oil terminals and other
     I           ~ ~~~port development the transfer of energy products, petrochemical
                   plants, refineries and associated facilities, hydroelectric projects,
                   other electric generating plants, transmission lines, uranium
                   enrichment or nuclear fuel processing facilities, and geothermal
                   facilities.
              Under federal and state coastal management legislation, major coastal
    I        ~ ~~energy facilities are designated as uses of national interest or uses of
              state concern. The district coastal management program must consider
            future demand for suitable sites for coastal dependent energy facilities

                                                 117

    in its vicinity. By law, the district program cannot "arbitrarily or
    unreasonably restrict or exclude" the location of major energy facilities3
    in its jurisdiction.
    The major coastal energy facilities of concern to the Yakutat district
    program are various industrial and related facilities associated with
    the exploration and possible production of oil and natural gas resources.
    Aside from possible oil and gas resources, there may be some potential
    for hydropower development associated with the Ankau, lakes in theU
    Mission tract and the Alsek River although this potential is presently
    highly speculative. However, there are no other loc'al energy resources
    such as coal which have a potential to affect Yakutat's coastal zone.3
    Because of its location, sheltered harbor and existing transportation
    services, the Yakutat area will be the primary center of support for
    exploration and, if commercial reserves are discovered, for developmentI
    and production activities resulting from OCS Sale #55.
    There are three general support functions which must be provided from
    shore to offshore oil and gas operations. These are marine and air
    logistic support for offshore operations, export of produced crude oil
    and natural gas and support for personnel engaged in oil and gas related
    industrial activities.  Table 15 identifies these support functions andI
    the onshore facilities normally required to provide for them.

    Of these OCS support facilities, three are coastal dependent.  These are3
    marine service bases, crude oil terminals and LNG plants and terminals.
    The functions of air logistic support and personnel support, though
    essential for offshore operations, do not need coastal sites for their
    operation and can be located some distance inland.
    Prior to passage of the Alaska Coastal Management Act, the City of
    Yakutat developed, adopted and forcefully implemented clear local planningI
    policies toward siting of OCS-related energy facilities in the Yakutat
    area. Although these planning policies were developed in advance of
    the Coastal Management Act, review indicates that they were adoptedI
    based on criteria solidly in conformance with the energy facility siting
    standards adopted under the Act.

    The broad rationale for the City's ori ginal energy facility sitingI
    policies was to accommodate recognized national and state interests in
    the extraction of potential oil and gas reserves in the region according
    to a plan which prevented adiverse socioeconomic impacts upon the YakutatI
    community and adverse environmental impacts on the coastal resources
    upon which local residents heavily rely for their livelihood and lifestyle.
    To achieve these ends, the City's land use plan and other policy documentsI
    identified and reserved specific sites on Monti Bay for future use by
    OCS-related coastal industrial facilities (see Figure 17). The proposed
    sites were rated as feasible and suitable for OCS-related uses for theI
    following reasons:

                                      118

                                              TABLE *15
        I                  ~~~~~ONSHORE SUPPORT FUNCTIONS AND FACILITIES
                                     OCS OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS

                     Support Function                      Onshore Support Facility
    3       ~~Logistic Support:
              .Marine logistic support (storage           Marine service base/port
               and transfer of drill supplies and          industrial park
               equipment, offshore industrial
               services, pipecoating, administrative
               services, etc.)
    3         ~~Air logistic offshore support             Airport and heliport, air
               (transfer of offshore personnel            cargo facility, airport
               and storage and transfer of light          industrial park
               cargo for offshore use)

             Product Export:
    I       ~ ~~Crude oil                                 Crude oil terminal, etc.

               Natural gas                                LNG plant and terminal, etc.

             Personnel Support:
               Transient crews                            Transient quarters, temporary
                                                         construction camp
    3         ~~~Permanent onsite workforce                Permanent camp facilities

             Source:   Alaska Consultants, Inc.

                                                3119

         1.   Adequate acreage for initial construction and later expansion
             of anticipated OCS facilities,.U
        2.   Consolidation of OCS-related facilities avoided proliferation
             and dispersion of coastal industrial uses.
        3.   Good access to a sheltered harbor of adequate depth and size
             with immediate shipping access to and from the Gulf of Alaska.
        4.   Suitable soil conditions.
        5.   Relatively low habitat value, with no anadromous streams.
        6.   Exclusion of heavy industrial facilities and marine trafficI
             from Yakutat Bay and the Alsek River corridor.
        7.   Containment of new industrial development on vacant tracts
             near but safely separated from developed areas of town byI
        8.   Compatibility with the city comprehensive development plan and
             development plans of major landowners.
    The State subsequently performed its own evaluation of seventeen harbor
    locations in the Northern and Western Gulf of Alaska potentially suitable
    for siting of OCS-related onshore industrial facilities.  Its findings,I
    published as Planning for Offshore Oil Development: Gulf of Alaska
    Handbook, support the City's siting policies.
    Eight potential harbor sites in the Northern Gulf of Alaska, including
    two in the Yakutat region (Monti Bay and Icy Bay) were systematically
    evaluated for development suitability according to an extensive set of
    engineering, environmental and socioeconomic criteria.  Of these, MontiI
    Bay was ranked first as a potential site for a marine service base, oil
    terminal and LNG terminal (see Figure 19). Two potential problems
    associated with Monti Bay were pipeline routes across active fault areas
    and tanker shipping routes through productive fishing grounds. However,
    these problems are common to all coastal locations in the Northern Gulf
    of Alaska and do not specifically downgrade Monti Bay in comparison to3
    other sites in the region.
    While sites identified on Monti Bay are generally suitable for construction
    and operation of major energy facilities, their development and use
    would require special attention to solve some unavoidable coastal
    management problems. These include socioeconomic impacts on the community,
    conflicts with traditional local uses of the coastal zone, maintenance
    of air and water quality, habitat disruption, seismic hazards, harm to
    scenic coastal views, marine traffic management and public safety. Some
    of these potential problems relate to the design and operation of the
    facilities themselves, some to site features, and others to managementU
    of offshore oil and gas-related activities.

    Some of the noted problems, particularly those relating to technical3
    aspects of facility design and operation, are the exclusive or concurrent
    statutory responsibility of federal and state regulatory agencies.
    Where federal and state agencies have jurisdiction, the City's coastal3
    management program supports adherence to best management practices
    consistent with the City's own siting policies for coastal energy
    facilities to mitigate potential adverse impacts on air and water quality,3

                                      120

            FIGURE 19

                             |  Monti Bay
            OCS Facility Site Suitability Analysis

                                                      Yakutat Corporate Boundary

    I                                  :                                                  $tQ4 : h

                                                             I/ a  //                                           \,

         |'  KEY SITKA DEER WINTERING HABITAT

          *           STELLER SEA LION ROOKElRY

         , ry   SALMON SPAWNING STREAM

         .,----- ROAD wx
                          3E                                                             ,     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This proect was suppo rted, in part, by Fed-
                                   Oi ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o:                                 *_%X ~~~~~~  eral Coastal Zone Management Program Ir-
                     T T URNING BASIN, SUPPLY  BOAT                                                  plementation Funds (P.L 92-583, Sec. 306)
                                                                                                granted to the State of Alaska by the Office
                                                                                   fi '"-  o    of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce-
            [t    \                                                                                     .......anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
            I;    I  TURNING  BASIN, OIL TANKER                                                       D .epartment of Commer.e.

                  TURNrJING  B1ASIN,  IJNG CARRIER >Source: Alaska Department of Community and Regional
              /     TURNING  BASIN,  LNG  CARRIER                                            Affairs, 1978.
                                                                                 No Scale Provided

              public safety, traditional uses of coastal waters and lands, and habitat
    I        ~ ~~productivity.
               In addition to its specific siting policies, the City also supports a
    I        ~ ~~number of other coastal management guidelines to guide development of
              coastal energy facilities. These measures include:
                   1.   Consolidation of housing for transient, temporary and on-site
      I                ~ ~~~~workers for all OCS-related activities in a single enclave.
                        The enclave should be designed to provide a full range of
                         facilities and services of excellent quality to meet all the
      I                ~ ~~~~basic needs of the OCS-related workforce.  These facilities
                         and services should include housing, utilities, health and
                        .social services, recreation and other essential needs. This
      3                 ~~~~~guideline is intended to minimize disruptive social impacts
                         upon the traditional community and to prevent strains on
                         existing but limited community facilities, and services as a
                         result of OCS development. Planned, consolidated development
      I                ~ ~~~~of facilities for OCS workers away from the coastline will
                         also reduce cumulative land use impacts and other adverse
                         environmental impacts of OCS development on coastal resources.
                   2.   Adoption of a policy of local hire and non-resident workforce
                         rotation, such as is practiced at Prudhoe Bay, Drift River and
                        the offshore platforms, to limit the scale of permanent
                         population growth impacts at Yakutat resulting from OCS
                        development.
                   3.   Set-back of crude oil and LNG storage and processing facilities
                        from the coastline with visual screens and buffer zones to
      I                ~ ~~~~minimize safety hazards and damage to coastal views.
                   4.   Protection of the habitat, subsistence recreational and cultural
                         resources of the Ankau Lagoon area from possible impairment
      I                ~ ~~~~stemming from noise pollution, water quality deterioration,
                         intensified human use or damage to scenic resources.
                   5.   Prohibition of helicopter traffic over town, over waterfowl
                         habitat or over other habitats sensitive to disruption by loud
                        noise levels.
                   6.   Completion of a program of studies and specific plans needed
                        to develop mitigating measures for best management of coastal
      I                ~ ~~~~energy facility development.  Priority study topics include
                        marine pollution effects, oil spill trajectories, oil spill
                        containment and clean-up plans, a detailed inventory of coastal
      3                 ~~~~~habitats and populations, a catalog of commercial and subsistence
                        use areas on Monti Bay and detailed community impact analyses
                        of energy facility development.
                   7.   Location and construction management of pipeline landfalls and
      I                ~ ~~~~overland pipeline routes to avoid conflicts with sensitive
                        estuaries and other prime coastal habitat across the Yakutat
                        Forelands and especially the Ankau Lagoon system and Situk
      I                ~ ~~~~River estuary.
                   8.   Exploration, development and production activities for any
                        State leases of nearshore and onshore tracts will share use
     3                 ~~~~~of established support facilities for workers, transportation

            3                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~123

             services and product export, with a minimum of coastal road
             construction.  This policy will minimize'any added environmentalI
             and community impacts.

                      IV.  TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES

        6 AAC 80.080.  TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES.  (a)  TransportationI
        and utility routes and facilities in the coastal area must be
        sited, designed, and constructed so as to be compatible with
        district programs.
         (b) Transportation and utility routes and facilities must
        be sited inland from beaches and shorelines unless the route
        or facility is water-dependent or no feasible and prudent
        inland alternative exists to meet the public need for the
        route or facility.  (Eff. 7/18/78", Reg. 67, as amended).3

                                     Authority: AS 44.19.893
                                                 AS 46.40.040
        DEFINITION: "transportation and utility routes and
        facilities" include power transmission lines, mineral
        slurry lines, oil and gas pipelines, land and marine
        corridors, railways, highways, roadways, air terminals,
        water and sewage transfer, and facilities required to
        operate and maintain the route or facility.3

    The forecast of future coastal use demands identified a potential need
    for three types of new coastal transportation Facilities and utility
    routes at Yakutat. These were dock facilities at the Ocean Cape tract
    and at the cold storage plant site; small boat harbor expansion; and oil
    and gas pipeline landfalls and corridors.

    The sites proposed in the district plan for improved dock facilitiesI
    were recommended for traditional industrial/commercial use in the 1976
    Land Use Plan and are currently zoned as Commercial-Residential-Waterfront.
    The planned improved or rebuilt dock facilities represent a continuationI
    of established uses at each site. Both projects were proposed in the
    City's 1978 Capital Improvements and Services Program.

    The City has given top priority to reconstructing the decayed Ocean CapeI
    dock and warehouse to improve shipping services to the community and to
    meet the needs of the local fish processing industry. The City developed
    and submitted a proposal to the State Legislature in January 1980 forI
    rebuilding the Ocean Cape dock and warehouse facilities to serve the
    long term general cargo shipment and storage needs of the local community,
    the local and offshore fish processing industry, and the oil and gasI
    industry. The City's proposal presented the following multi-phase
    program, accompanied by an estimated budget and schedule:

                                     1241

     *              ~~~~Phase 1:  Site feasibility and study and preliminary engineering.
                     Phase 2:  Design and engineering of the entire project.
     3              ~~~~Phase 3:  Construction of the dock and warehouse facility.
                     Phase 4:  Construction and improvements to open storage and
       *                      ~~~~~~~staging areas as well as road and access improvements.
                     Phase 5:  Site modifications to the processing facility to permit
       *                      ~~~~~~~renovation or reconstruction of a modernized plant.
                     Phase 6:  Renovation or reconstruction of the processing plant
                               utilizing private industry investment.
    U          ~~~Of these phases, the first (site feasibility and preliminary engineering)
                is completed and the- second (project design) is underway. The feasibility
                study was completed in May 1980 and concluded that economic conditions
    U         ~ ~~are highly favorable for private development of a second seafood processing
                plant to diversify Yakutat's economic base, if modern general cargo dock
                and marine shipping services were available. It also reported that the
    I          ~~~Ocean Cape tract was well suited for a general cargo dock and related
                facilities. The City received a direct grant of $1.3 million from the
                1980 Legislature to initiate pre-construction studies for the Ocean Cape
                dock project and defray part of the ultimate construction cost. In
    I         ~~~addition, the November 1980 general election will include a State general
                obligation bond referendum of $51,347,000 for port and harbor improvements
                projects, including $3,000,000 to be applied to the Ocean Cape project.
    I         ~ ~~If the referendum is approved, Yakutat will be able to proceed with
                immediate construction of the proposed Ocean Cape dock and warehouse
                project. a/

    I          ~~~As of August 1980, the City was near concluding negotiations for
                reconstruction of the cold storage processing plant but had not formulated
                specific plans for expa nsion of the at tached dock.
                Also pending is a project by the Alaska Division of Waters and Harbors
                to double the mooring capacity of the small boat harbor at Shipyard
    U         ~ ~~Cove.  The urgent need for this project was established in the City's
                Capital Improvements and Services Program and has been confirmed by the
                Yakutat Fisheries Study, the Ocean Cape Site Development Feasibility
                Study and the State's Community Planning and Development for the Bottomfish
                Industry: Phase One Report. The Shipyard Cove site is proposed in the
                district program to be part of a multiple use Area Meriting Special
                Attention (AMSA) because of its unique suitability for small boat harbor
                development in the Yakutat area. The harbor expansion project is discussed
                in greater detail in Chapter 7 of this report.

    U          ~~~a/   The November, 1980 general election approved the referenced
                     referendum.

                                                   125

    If sufficient commercial reserves of oil or natural gas are discovered
    in lease sale area #55 to justify construction of a crude oil or LNG
    terminal on Monti Bay, it will be necessary to establish a pipeline
    landfall si-te and a pipeline corridor to transport production from
    offshore tracts to the terminal facilities. It is critical to avoid
    pipeline construction activities across the many sensitive estuaries andI
    anadromous stream habitats on the Yakutat Forelands, near Ankau Lagoon
    or across the entrance to Monti Bay. Therefore, the City recommends
    that any pipeline landfall sites be confined to the coastal sectionU
    between Lost River and Summit Lake. From this landfall the pipeline
    would run overland, via existing roads wherever possible (e.g. RAL
    Highway and Airport Road), to the area shown in Figure 17 as eligible for
    storage and transshipment facilities.  This routing will avoid the mostI
    sensitive habitats and require a minimum of overland pipelaying and road
    construction activities near the coastal zone.
    The district plan does not anticipate any new highways or roadways or
    major power transmission lines along the coastline. The site designated
    for major energy facilities use, the only new major coastal development
    forecast, has inland access for road and utilities services.
    Finally, the Coast Guard does not consider that there is any immediate
    need to establish marine transportation corridors in this area.  If theI
    need arises in the future, the proposed district program does not in any
    way preclude their establishnient.3

                     V. FISHING AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING

        6 AAC 80.090. FISH AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING. Districts shall'
        identify and may designate areas of the coast suitable for the
        location or development of facilities related to commercial fishingI
        and seafood processing. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67).
                                     Authority:  AS 44.19.8933
                                                 AS 46.40.040
    Through a series of recently completed feasibility studies, the City of
    Yakutat has identified specific facility and site needs to accomplish
    its long term goal of redeveloping the local commercial fishing and fish
    processing industry. The City's program anticipates a two phase process
    of development:
        1.   Phase One involves reconstruction through private investment
             of a processing plant at the City cold storage site. This
             plant would concentrate primarily on processing of traditionalU
             high value species (salmon, crab, halibut) caught by locally
             based commercial fishermen, supplemented by landings from the
             offshore fleet.  As of August 1980, the City was close toI
             concluding negotiations with the Yak-Tat Kwaan to sublease the
             City cold storage site to the Kwaan for construction of a new
             processing plant to be operational by the 1981 season.I

                                  1261

                      2.   Phase Two envisions the construction through private investment
       3                  ~~~~~of a moderate volume processing plant on the Ocean Cape tract
                           which, as well as traditional species, would rely heavily upon
                           deliveries of groundfish from the deepwater fisheries for
       3                  ~~~~~~processing at Yakutat.

                The City already controls the two sites identified for processing plant
                development. It leases the cold storage site from the Evangelical
    I         ~ ~~Covenant Church (and is seeking to obtain full ownership) and is owner
                of the Ocean Cape tract. Both si'tes are currently used for fish deliveries
                and limited processing operations. Their continued use is in conformance
                with the recommendations of recent feasibility studies and of the 1976
                Land Use Plan, which proposed that the developed section of Yakutat's
                central waterfront be reserved for traditional industrial and commercial
                use. This site use is also compatible with the current zoning
                classification.
                When fully developed, the two sites can accommodate processing plant
                capacity for the full 14,250,000 pounds annually of fish and shellfish
                potential estimated in the Ocean Cape Site Development Feasibility Study
                to be available for processing at Yakutat. This estimate includes a
                limited volume (6,000,000 pounds annually) of bottomfish. Some general
                estimates of the bottomfish resources in the Gulf of Alaska (e.g., those
                by Combs, Inc.) have projected a much higher potential for bottomfish
                processing at Yakutat. However, these higher estimates were not
    I         ~ ~~substantiated by the Ocean Cape Site Development Feasibility Study
                which found that the most profitable option for a Yakutat plant was a
                mixed operation using salmon, crab, halibut, black cod and bottomfish,
    3           ~~~and that a high volume bottomfish plant could not profitably compete
                with large catcher/processor vessels.
                Furthermore, the City of Yakutat has taken the position that the economic
                and population implications of full fledged entry into large scale
                bottomfish processing at Yakutat are not compatible with the basic goals
                of limited growth and maintenance of the small town quality of life
    I         ~ ~~prized by Yakutat residents.  Therefore, the district plan contemplates
                limited development of local bottomfish processing capability, sufficient
                to maintain efficient year-round use of plant capacity. The district
                plan also makes provision for the development of cold storage and
                transshipment capability at Yakutat to service offshore bottomfish
                floating processors in the northeast Gulf of Alaska region.

    I           ~~~Other essential support elements in the City's fisheries industrial
                development program include reconstruction of the Ocean Cape dock, small
                boat harbor expansion, upgrading of water and power utilities and expanded
                fleet services. These are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this
                report, as are potential environmental problems such as disposal of
                larger volumes of processing wastes.

    I           ~~~Over the long run, the paramount issue facing the fishing industry at
                Yakutat will be protection of coastal habitats throughout the region
                from abuse as a direct or indirect result of oil and gas development

            3                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~127

    and/or timber harvesting. Protection of the region's fish and shellfish
    populations from over-exploitation by commercial, recreational and
    subsistence consumers is also of critical importance.
    It must be emphasized that the fishing industry and the fishermen are
    based at Yakutat but the fish and shellfish are not. Local understanding
    of the near total dependency of Yakutat's livelihood and identity on
    protection of the high quality of the region's coastal environment has
    prompted the City to take the position that the overriding resource
    management goal for the Yakutat region's coastal zone should be protectionU
    of fish and shellfish habitat productivity. Other elements of this
    plan, especially those dealing-with energy development and timber
    harvesting and processing, also reflect this coastal management goal.

                    VI.  TIMBER HARVESTING AND PROCESSING3

        6 AAC 80.100. TIMBER HARVEST AND PROCESSING, is amended to read:

         (a) Commercial timber harvest activities in the coastal area
        must be conducted to as to meet the following standards:

             (1) the location of facilities and the layout of logging
        systems must be sited so as to minimize adverse environmental
        impacts;3

             (2) free passage and movement of fish in coastal water
        must be assured; and

             (3) timber harvest and timber management activities must
        be planned so as to protect streambanks and shorelines, prevent
        adverse impacts on fish resources and habitats, and minimize
        adverse impacts on wildlife resources and habitats.
        (b) Commercial timber transport, storage, and processing in the
        coastal area must be conducted so as to meet the followingI

             (1) onshore storage of logs must be encouraged where3
        compatible with the objectives of the Alaska Coastal Management
        Program;
             (2) sites for in-water dumping and storage of logs mustI
        be selected and these activities conducted so as to minimize
        adverse effects on the marine ecosystem, minimize conflicts
        with recreational uses and activities, be safe from storms,I
        and not constitute a hazard to navigation;

             (3) roads for log transport and harvest area access must
        be planned, designed, and constructed so as to minimize mass
        wasting, erosion, sedimentation, and interference with

                                     128

     H             ~~~~drainage, and must be adequately maintained until they are
                   returned to their pre-road natural drainage patterns (put-to-
                   bed); and
                         (4) stream crossings, including bridges and culverts, must be
                   kept to a minimum number, designed to withstand seasonal high water
     I            ~ ~~~and flooding, and must provide for free passage and movement of
                   fish. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67, as amended).
                                                  Authority: AS 44.19.893
                                                              AS 46.40.040
              The forests of the Yakutat region have high economic value both as
              habitat and as a source of timber. After its 1975 inventory, the U.S.
              Forest Service estimated that the Yakutat area of the Tongass National
              Forest includes 213,700 acres of commercial forest land, with a harvest
              potential of 4,200,000 thousand board feet. The Department of Natural
              Resources estimates that there are 125,000 acres of commercial forest on
              State selected lands in the Icy Bay area.
              A major part of the commercial forest lands and access routes to them
              coincide with prime habitat for wildlife and anadromous fish. The
              function of these coastal uplands and the streams which cross them as
    I        ~ ~~sustaining habitat for the region's commercial fisheries and wildlife
              was described in the habitat section of the coastal resource inventory.
              Thus, there is high potential for conflict between timber harvesting and
    3         ~~~protection of other resources.
              The management of forest lands throughout the entire region is a matter
              of concern to Yakutat residents because of their reliance on river
    I        ~ ~~fisheries of the Yakutat Forelands and along the coast up to Icy Bay,
              plus their traditional use of eastern Yakutat Bay for subsistence food
              gathering and recreation purposes. The City's general policy toward
    I        ~ ~~timber harvesting is that the coastal lands of the Yakutat region should
              be managed primarily for their proven long term productive value as fish
              and wildlife habitat, with priority for established and traditional
              uses.
              The district plan classifies timber harvesting as a permissible land
              use, with the condition that it be demonstrated that adverse effects on
    I        ~ ~~fish and wildlife habitat and populations will not result and that
              interference with established uses will not occur. The plan proposes
              that appropriate regulatory powers of City, State and federal authorities
    I        ~ ~~be uniformly exercised throughout the region in a manner consistent with
              this condition. Furthermore, the district plan proposes that State or
              federal timber sales in the region be approved only after a thorough
              resource inventory and analysis is completed and a detailed timber
              harvest management plan is adopted which protects fish and wildlife.
              habitat and populations.
              Provision is also made in the coastal plan for a site at Sawmill Cove
              for onshore storage, processing and export of wood products. Rough sea
              conditions in the Gulf of Alaska necessitate that logs or wood products
    I        ~ ~~be shipped from Yakutat by barge.

                                                  129

                     VII. MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING

        6 AAC 80.110. MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING. (a) Mining
        and mineral processing in the coastal area must be regulated,.
        designed, and conducted so as to be compatible with theI
        standards contained in this chapter, adjacent uses and
        activities, statewide and national needs, and district
        programs.3
        (b) Sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters,
        intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits, when there
        is no feasible and prudent alternative to coastalI
        extraction which will meet the public need for the sand
        or gravel. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67, as amended).

                                     Authority: AS 44.19.893
                                                AS 46.40.040
    There are no known hard rock mineral resources of commercial interest inI
    the Yakutat region. Thus, it is not anticipated that there will be any
    demand for sites or facilities in the Yakutat area to support hard rock
    mining activities and no provision has been made for them.
    However, there will be demand for sand, gravel-and fill materials for
    local construction uses, Yakutat is fortunate in that there is a plentiful3
    supply of gravel, sand and fill materials in the vicinity of town.
    Since ample supplies are available in upland areas, the City proposes a
    planning guideline prohibiting commercial extraction of sand, gravel or
    fill materials (as well as other commercial mining) from tidelands orI
    from upland areas within view of coastal waters. Otherwise, this
    extractive industry is governed by existing City zoning ordinances which
    set detailed performance standards regulating the location, design,I
    operation and restoration of sites used for commercial excavation of
    earth and building materials.

    Except for federal OCS development outside the State of Alaska'sU
    jurisdiction, the mining activity of greatest local concern is prospective
    oil and gas drilling on State-owned submerged and onshore tracts. The
    State's most recent (January 1980) Five Year Leasing Program tentativelyI
    proposed an exempt acreage sale in the eastern Gulf of Alaska in mid-
    1984. The State has not yet defined a specific area of sale interest in
    the coast,1al arc between Icy Bay and Cross Sound, but the proposed leaseI
    tracts would have to be drawn from State-held submerged tracts within
    the three mile limit or from the limited upland acreage owned by the
    State close to Yakutat. Under Department of Natural Resources regulations,
    an exempt acreage sale is not regarded as a major action and would notI
    automatically require a full-fledged assessment of possible social,
    economic and environmental effects as part of the State's sale planning
    process.

                                      1301

               In view of the potential effects of nearshore and onshore oil and gas
               lease activity in the Yakutat area upon the City and upon coastal habitats
              and fish and wildlife populations, the City opposes any State oil and
               gas leasing activity in the Yakutat region before a joint assessment of
               possible social, economic and environmental impacts has been completed. Such an
    I       ~ ~assessment 'would be needed to ensure that a sale and its possible impacts
              would be fully consistent with the City's district coastal management
               program and the State's own coastal management program and policies.
    I       ~ ~The City believes that a thorough pre-sale assessment is essential to
               plan for State oil and gas development in a way that is compatible with
               local coastal management objectives and to achieve close coordination of
              federal and State oil and gas development activities in the Yakutat
               region.

          I                          ~~~~~~~~VIII.  COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

                    6 AAC 80.040. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT. (a) In planning for and
                   approving development in coastal areas, districts and state
                    agencies shall give, in the following order, priority to

       I                 ~~~~~(1) water-dependent uses and activities;
       1                 ~~~~~(2) water-related uses and activities; and
                         (3) uses and activities which are neither water-
                    dependent nor water-related for which there is no feasible
                    and prudent inland alternative to meet the public need for
                    the use or activity.
                    (b) The placement of structures and the discharge of
     I            ~ ~~~dredged or fill material into coastal water must, at a
                    minimum, comply with Parts 320-323, Title 33, Code of
                    Federal Regulations (Vol. 42 of the Federal Register, pp.
     I            ~ ~~~37133-47 (July 19, 1977)).  (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67).
                                                  Authori'ty: AS 44.19.893
                3                                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AS 46.40.040
              This standard sets priorities for allocating coastal lands and waters.
              among competing uses and activities. It also requires that coastal
    I        ~ ~~construction activii~tes comply with pertinent federal regulations
              governing coastal dredging and filling.
              The City's district management plan either reserves suitable sites at
    I        ~ ~~Yakutat for each water-dependent or water-related use or activity which
               is foreseen to be demanded or has identified suitable and feasible
    5         ~~~alternative sites within the region.
              The coastal management plan (see Figure 17) makes specific provision for
               the following major water-dependent or water-related uses and activities:

                                                  131

        1.   Two fish and seafood processing plants with related dock
             facilities.
        2.   General cargo dock.I
        3.   Small boat harbor expansion and related marine services.
        4.   OCS facilities (marine service base and LNG and crude oil
             terminals).I
        5.   Pipeline landfall.
        6.   Log storage, processing and export.
        7.   Petroleum products dock.
        8.   Public recreation.I
        9.   Coastal habitats and traditional subsistence uses.

    The district plan seeks to conserve traditional coastal land and waterI
    use patterns. It specifically excludes any new and not coastal-dependent
    types of uses from the waterfront, except to accommodate a specific use
    of national interest and State concern, i.e. sites for major coastal
    energy facilities. It also directs facilities proposed for expansion or
    reconstruction (e.g. small boat harbor expansion, cold storage plant
    reconstruction and dock improvement, Ocean Cape dock and processing
    plant reconstruction) to sites where these are established, compatibleI
    and traditional types of uses.

    Of particular local concern is protection from adverse use of coastal
    habitats important to the conservation of-marine resources and of areas
    traditionally used for commercial fishing and subsistence food gathering
    activities. Therefore, the City's coastal plan sets a policy that
    habitat protection and traditional use are the overriding management
    objectives for tidelands and nearshore waters, except where unavoidable
    conflicts with a particular overriding use of national interest or State
    concern, such as coastal energy facility development, necessitatesI

    With respect to regulation of the placement of marine structures and
    coastal dredge and fill operations, enforcement of such regulations as
    an element of the district coastal management program is the statutory
    responsibility of federal and State government agencies.

                       IX. GEOPHYSICAL HAZARD AREAS

        6 AAC 80.050. GEOPHYSICAL HAZARD AREAS. (a) Districts and
        state agencies shall identify known geophysical hazard areas
        and areas of high development potential in which there is a
        substantial possibility that geophysical hazards may occur.
         (b   Development in areas identified under (a) of thisI
        section may not be approved by the appropriate state or
        local authority until siting, design, and construction
        measures for minimizing property damage and protectingI
        against loss of life have been provided .  (Eff. 7/18/78,
               Reg. 67).              Authority:  AS 44.19.8931
                                                AS 46.40.040
                                    1321

              The Yakutat region is located within seismic risk zone 3, liable to
             -experience major earthquakes in the range of 6.0 to 8.8 on the Richter
     I      ~ ~scale.  Since 1893, there have been five great earthquakes near Yakutat
              registering between 7.0 and 8.6 on the Richter Scale, plus many smaller
              earthquakes. The Yakutat region has been designated as an area of
     I      ~ ~particular concern for geologic reasons by the Alaska Division of
              Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
              The Yakutat area's seismic history and the engineering implications of
     I      ~ ~this history are thoroughly described in the recent U.S. Geological
              Survey report, Reconnaissance Engineering Geology of the Yakutat Area,
              Alaska, With Emphasis on Evaluation of Earthquake and Other Geologic
              Hazards. This report broadly summarizes the possible effects of
              earthquake activity on geologic materials in the Yakutat area (see Table
              16 and Figure 20) and the hazards posed by earthquake-related sea waves
              or tsunamis.
              Surficial soils within the City of Yakutat are mainly made up of moraine
              materials which have relatively low susceptibility to damage from ground
              shaking, liquefaction, ground fractures and compaction and related
              subsidence. However, steeply sloped moraine deposits may be prone to
              landsliding and improvements built along the shore may be vulnerable to
    I      ~ ~damage as a result of tectonic uplift or subsidence.  The southeast
              corner of town is made up of outwash deposits which are considered safe
              from earthquake-related hazards. In developed areas of town, where
              construction and roadbuilding activities have altered the landscape, the
              susceptibility to earthquake damages is rated similar to moraine materials,
              except that areas of poorly compacted or over-steepened fill may be
              increasingly prone to failure from groundshaking or landslides.
              Figure 21 illustrates changes which have taken place in the immediate
              Yakutat area as a result of previous earthquakes. Significant changes
    I       ~ ~in the Monti Bay area have been a. slight submergence of the beach line
              west of Ankau Creek; ground fractures along the same beach and in the
              vicinity north and west of Bayview Drive; submarine landslides and beach
              slumping at the southern end of Khantaak Island about two miles opposite
              the Ocean Cape site; and alteration of shoreline and intertidal channels
              at the entrance to Monti Bay. Previous earthquakes caused little
              structural damage in the Yakutat area except for the 1958 earthquake
             which damaged a steel frame hangar and a runway at the airport.
              On the basis of available data, it is difficult to reach definitive
    I       ~ ~conclusions about specific local damages which earthquake activity could
              cause along the Monti Bay shoreline and adjacent uplands. No specific
              earthquake-related damage to structures has thus far been observed along
              the central sections of the Monti Bay coast although this does not mean
              that such damage will not occur in the future. However, Monti Bay is
              well shielded against seismic sea waves, another natural hazard common
              to active earthquake regions. The Bay is also sheltered by offshore
    I       ~ ~islands against waves which could be generated by massive icefalls in
              upper Yakutat Bay or Disenchantment Bay.

                                                 133

                 m~~~ ~ ~ ' MG m    -m  -                                                                                                            M

                                                                               TABLE 16
                                                            POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY ON
                                                           GEOLOGIC MATERIALS MAPPED IN THE YAKUTAT AREA
                                                                                                  Ground Fracturing
    Mapped Geologic- Sudden Tectonic   Sudden Tectonic                                               and Water and         Compaction and
     -Materials      -    Uplift            Subsidence      Ground Shaking       Liquefaction       Slurry Fountains    Related Subsidence   _Landsliding

    Artificial fill   Promotion of        Flooding of        High to           Low; may respond   Low to moderate;       Low to high; high    High along margins
                      better drainage;  margins of some   moderate,           to liquefaction    may be affected by   where overlies (at   of fills; might be
                      less accessi-      deposits near      especially        of underlying       fracturing of         shallow depth)        involved in move-
                      bility by boat    near tidewater    around periph-   deposits               underlying material  saturated silty        ment of underlying
                      of some fills                         ery of upper                                                sand or if fill is   deposits
                                                            part of fill if                                             not compacted to
                                                            poorly compacted                                            optimum density
                                                            during emplacement                                          during emplacement
                                                            and if water table
                                                            very high

    Young beach       Along gentle        Increased wave    Moderate to        Low to moderate    Low                    Low to moderate;      Low; locally very
    deposits           slopes,            erosion of         severe, depend-                                             probably higher       high where newly
                      enlargement of    deposits,           ing upon stage                                              where newly           deposited
                      deposits           especially         of tide and                                                 deposited; however,
                                         during storms      degree of                                                   such deposits even
                                                            saturation                                                  more subject to
                                                                                                                       submar'ine landsl id-
                                                                                                                       i ng
    Coarse-grained    Probably none       Probably none      Probably none    Low to moderate    Probably none           Low                   Low
    outwash deposits
    End and ground    Disruption of       Disruption of      Relatively low   Very low; locally  Low                     Generally low         Probably moderate
    moraine deposits  some shore          some shore         to moderate       moderate where                                                  to high, especially
                      facilities         facilities and                       deposits are                                                    in steep-sloped
                                         increased wave                       saturated.-and                                                  areas of the deposits
                                         erosion of many                      have a large
                                         deposits                             content of fine
                                                                              sand

    Source:   U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.  1979.  Reconnaissance Engineering Geology of the Yakutat Area, With Emphasis on
              Evaluation of Earthquake and Other Geologic Hazards, by Lynn A. Yehle.  Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.  (Geological
              Survey Professional Paper 1074).

              Figure 20                                        .'::                                                          oj

                                 *                                  V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
                                                                                                                          PN ~   ~     ~      "
                                                                                          '~~~~~~a                             ,~~~~~~~~~ Al  ',~~~~.........
                                                             QjO~ ~~~~~~~~~~o                                           .

                                                                                                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~.,.. . ..... .:

              GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC UNITS

                              YAKUTAT AREA                                  ~*>,

                     ARTIFICIAL  FILL                                     -**                                                        ,,i.
                     ORGANIC DEPOSITS saei ie
                  *.EOLIAN SAND DEPOSITS                                          M.:~:                                             :~.*:       .
                     BEACH  DEPOSITS                                                                                                      .**

                     DELTWA-ESH1U       DEPOSITS                                     This project was supported, in part, by Fed-

                                   Liii                                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~eral Coastal Zone Management Program Im-
                      OUTER YAKUTAT BAY MORAINE COMPLEX                               plementation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306)
                                                                                                granted to the State of Alaska by the Office
                                                                                                 of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce.
                                                                                    o~~i    c  anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
    Source: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 75-529,1975. ~~    Ig " Department of Commerce.

           Figure 21

                                                                       1J,~~~~

                ~~~~~~~~~~ZIA~

                                 ~~~~~~~~~~YAKUTA ARA

             EARTHQUAKEXRLTENSV CHANGE i OFGRTO

                 Of SHORELINE and of INTERTIDAL CHANNELS
                 SLIGHT UPLIFT
                 SLIGHT  SUBMERGENCE7

              GROUND  FRACTURES

              LARGE SUBMARINE  LANDSLIDES                        an                      /
                 MOST  SEVERE JOSTLING of CONCRETE SLABS                                     T        c  a   uprei  at  yFd
                 COMPRISING   AIRPORT   RUNWAY           "    i         r j c             a        u p rei    at  yFd
                                                                              e al Coastal Zone Management Programn Im-
             *   SAND EJECTIED  from CRATERS                                                 plernentation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306)
                                                                              ganted to thne State of Alaska by the Offce
              ASLUMPING  of BEACH                                                             of Coastal Zone Managemenrt, National Oce-
                                                                              anic and Atmospheric Administration. U.S.
    o Su roe: U.S. G eolIog IceI S urvey Op en-Frile  Rep ort 75-529, 1975.0prnetOComce

              The Bureau of Land Management's final environmental impact statement for
              Sale 55 identified a potential offshore submarine slide area of about
              four miles by ten miles in area straddling the three mile limit line
              parallel to the Yakutat beach between the Arnkhlin River and Yakutat
              airport.
              For purposes of coastal management planning, four broad conclusions
              about geophysical hazards at Yakutat can be reached. First, the region
    I       ~ ~has a generally high potential for severe damage to coastal structures
              resulting from earthquake-induced subsidence or uplift and seismic
              shaking and caution is therefore needed in the siting and engineering
    I       ~ ~design of coastal improvements to minimize these hazards.  Second, the
              central Monti Bay shoreline and associated marine and upland structures
              have thus far withstood major earthquakes without serious damage. On
              the basis of this limited history and correlative geologic data, the
              head of Monti Bay appears less hazard prone than other sections of the
              City's coast. Third, under certain conditions, tsunamis could cause
              damage to low-lying structures along M~onti Bay, especially in the
    U        ~~vicinity of the Old Village.  The U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey warns
              that coastal lands open to the ocean and less than 50 feet above sea
              level should be considered susceptible to tsunami damage.

              Finally, in view of the extreme seismic hazards of the region, it is
              critical that any offshore production platforms, submarine pipelines and
              large shore facilities which may be needed for offshore oil and gas
              development not be installed before questions of seismic hazards can be
              fully researched and satisfactorily resolved. In this regard, certain
              recommendations for further research and additional studies proposed by
              the U.S. Geological Survey are wor th mentioning.
                  "1.   Additional geologic mapping and field study of the Yakutat
                        Iregion, utilizing current aerial photographs and updated
                        topographic maps and nautical charts, should be performed,
                        including collection of data on the distribution and physical
                        properties of geologic materials and the plotting of data
                        concerning joints and faults. Such work might lead to discovery
                        of economic mineral deposits, a better understanding of geologic
                        structure of potential gas- and oil-bearing areas, the locating
                        Iof generalized zones of potentially unstable slopes and zones
                        of geologic materials subject to liquefaction, and the
                        identifying of areas most suitable for construction.

                   I2.   In order to help indicate the possible location of future
                        large earthquakes, the type of movement along known faults and
                        inferred faults in the region should be determined. To
                        Iaccomplish this work, and to delineate any unknown active
                        faults, records of earthquake events detected by seismological
                        instruments in the region will have to be analyzed for a
                        Iperiod of at least a few years.  Also important are measurements
                        of the slow, very small vertical changes in ground levels in
                        the region; these measurements assist in determining the rate
                        of rebound of land following glacial retreat and may provide
                        an indication of possible future earthquakes.

                                                 139

        3.   Offshore geophysical studies should be continued and expanded.
             These studies should help determine the configuration of theI
             sea floor, the nature of faults, and their relationship to the
             stability of geologic materials on the sea floor. Such work
             might result in the location of potential submarine landslides
             that could be triggered by movement along the faults.
        4.   Because of the potential for extensive wave damage in the
             Yakutat area, there should be a study of the natural oscillation
             periods of basins enclosing or related to large bodies of
             water in the region, to assist in prediction of possible wave
             heights. Basin areas include Yakutat Bay, adjoining fiords,
             and the Continental Shelf and associated sea-floor valleys of
             the Gulf of Alaska near Yakutat. In conjunction with the
             study, a probability analysis of tsunami frequency should be
             undertaken ...
        5.   Stability of steep subaerial slopes, especially along upper
             Yakutat Bay and adjoining fiords, should be analyzed toI
             determine the areas of greatest probability of landslides and
             any associated high waves. Although initial detection of the
             most unstable slopes should be accomplished during area]
             geologic mapping, a separate analysis of slopes would permitI
             a more thorough evaluation of those factors considered most
             responsible for the instability.

        6.   The advance and retreat of glaciers in the region should be
             monitored because of the potential for (a) large local waves
             from massive breakage of ice and from breakout of glacier-
             dammed lakes; and (b) blockage of navigation by glacier advances
             or greatly increased calving of tidal glaciers."1 a/

                                X. HABITATS

    All productive marine, aquatic and terrestrial habitats in the Yakutat
    district and region have been identified in the inventory of coastal
    resources. As these habitats are used for commercial, subsistence or
    recreational purposes (and often for all three purposes), appropriate
    use and management guidelines have been discussed in previous subsections
    of this chapter.

    a/   Source:  U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.1
         1979. Reconnaissance Engineering Geology of the Yakutat Area,
        With Emphasis on Evaluation of Earthquake and Other Geologic
        Hazards, by Lynn A. Yehle. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government
         Printing Office. (Geological Survey Professional Paper 1074).

                                      140I

               In summary, the significant coastal habitats identifed within the
              district have been proposed for management as areas meriting special
              attention. The coastal habitats within the lIarger Yakutat region are
              proposed to be managed primarily for the protection of their fish and
    I        ~ ~wildlife populations and for traditional types of commercial, subsistence
              and recreational uses. Non-traditional uses may be permitted, provided
              they do not adversely affect habitat values or established uses.

                                  XI. AIR, LAND AND WATER QUALITY

                    6 AAC 80.140. AIR, LAND, AND WATER QUALITY. Notwithstanding
                   any other provision of this chapter, the statutes pertaining
     I            ~ ~~~to and the regulations and procedures of the Alaska Department
                   of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection
                   of air, land, and water quality are incorporated into the
                   Alaska coastal management program and, as administered by
                   that agency, constitute the components of the coastal management
                   program with respect to those purposes. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67).

            I                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~Authority:  AS 44.19.893
                                                              AS 46.40.040
              Yakutat presently experiences no major problems in maintaining high
              standards of air, land or water quality. This is largely due to the
              absence of any uses and activities which might be significant sources of
              pollutants.
              The City recognizes the superseding statutory authority of the Alaska
              Department of Environmental Conservation to protect air, land and water
    I        ~ ~~quality within the coastal zone.  However, as part of its coastal planning
              program, the City has sought to identify potential threats to air, land
              and water quality and to define siting policies and management guidelines
              to dispell them,-as follows:

                    1.   Ankau Lagoon.  This highly valued estuary is vulnerable to
                         marine pollutants and nearby construction activities and has
      I.               ~ ~~~been designated as an Area Meriting Special Attention.  The
                         City has placed the part of the Ankau within its boundaries in
                         a conservation zone and will seek compatible management of the
                         larger part of the Ankau Lagoon System.
                   2.   Ophir Creek Corridor.  This andromous stream has been designated
                         as an Area Meriting Special Attention. The section within the
                         City is proposed for protection as a conservation zone. In
                         addition, the City will seek to develop a suitable cooperative
                         management plan with adjacent landowners for the remainder of
                         the Ophir Creek corridor to maintain its water quality.
                   3.   Discharge of processing waters.  Discharge of ground fish and
                         shlfs   atsdrcl   noMniByhsntbeproblem at present levels of operation, largely due to the

                                                  I141

         strong tidal flush. However, the Ocean Cape Site Development
        Feasibility Study estimated that, at peak operating levels,
         the proposed processing plant would generate an average of
        500,000 pounds of low-grade ground fish waste per month.
        Environmentally sound disposal of processing wastes will be a
        requirement for new processing plant design and its operationsI
        will be monitored to assure compliance with required standards.
    4.   Sewage treatment outfall.  Sanitary treatment plant effluent
         is presently discharged through a submarine outfall into Monti
        Bay, with no apparent problems. The City regularly collects
         effluent samples for testing, as required, and will continue
         this practice.
    5.   Coastal energy facilities.  There are a host of potential
        environmental quality problems associated with the constructionI
        and operation of major coastal energy facilities. Most important
        among these are chronic and catastrophic oil spills, ballast
        water treatment discharge, vapor emissions at crude oil terminals,
         LNG plant thermal pollution, noise, damage to the natural
         landscape, dredging and filling of tidelands for marine
         facilities, and environmental problems associated with rapid
         population growth.  Minimizing these potential problems was aI
         consideration in the City's choice of sites for future
         development of OCS facilities and for an OCS residential
        enclave.  The designated industrial site on Monti Bay willI
         limit the penetration of marine pollutants into greater
         Yakutat Bay. In addition, the site is downwind from the
         community and well buffered by forest cover from settled
        areas.  A preliminary review of submarine topography indicatesI
         that a minimum of disturbance for construction of terminal
         docking facilities will be necessary. A consolidated residential
         enclave for the OCS-.related workforce will prevent environmentalI
         stress and deterioration of municipal facilities and services.
    6.   Boat harbor pollution.  Chronic low level spills of fuels and
         oils is a widespread housekeeping problem at small boat
         harbors, including that of Yakutat.. The City harbormaster
         plans to install a collection tank for disposal of waste oil
         at the boat harbor.
    7.   Marine oil pollution.  Out of concern for a possible catastrophic
         oil spill from Valdez tanker traffic, offshore drilling, or atI
         Yakutat, the City promoted and is participating in a
         demonstration study sponsored by the Department of Environmental
         Conservation. The study will develop a demonstration program
         for prevention, control and clean-up of catastrophic and
         chronic hydrocarbon spills in the Yakutat region and is scheduled
         for completion in early 1981.
    8.   Log storage.  Waterfront log storage has been designated a
         prohibited use within the City's present boundaries. Sawmill

                                 142

                         Cove, the area recommended for log storage and export, has
      I                ~ ~~~~been used for that purpose in the past and, although salmon
                         are reported to feed on herring here, it is not an especially
                         productive intertidal habitat according to local Alaska
                         Department of Fish and Game personnel. Furthermore, Sawmill
                         Cove is adaptable to onshore log storage and is reserved for
                         this purpose in the Yak-Tat Kwaan's Land Use Plan.
                    9.   Solid waste disposal.  The City's sanitary landfill site,
                         about 1.5 miles out Forest Highway 10, is dry, well drained,
                         away from developed areas and has been approved for this use
                         by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. The
                         site has adequate capacity for the foreseeable future, and the
                         City is arranging to have it fenced to counteract a local bear
                         problem.
                    10. Extractive industries. To protect tidelands and coastal
                         landscapes, the City will take measures to prohibit the
      I                ~ ~~~~commercial removal of materials from tidelands and beaches and
                         from upland sites within view of the coastline. The City's
                         zoning ordinance regulates the location and operation of
                         extractive industries in the district.

                       XII. HIS TORIC, PREHISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

              As a result of its relatively recent glaciation, no historic resources
    I        ~ ~~of great antiquity have been discovered in the Yakutat region.  The
               inventory of historic, prehistoric and archaeological resources identified
               twenty-five traditional camps and settlement sites in the Yakutat coastal
              area. Of these, only the most recent site, the "Old Village" dating
              from 1899, is actually within the district.
              Beyond the district, there is a site between the Ankau Lagoon and the
    I        ~ ~~ocean beach, which is thought to be the location of the Russian post
               "Nova Rossiysk". This site is located on State lands and was placed on
              the National Register of Historic Places in 1972.
              Most of the remaining traditional camps and settlement sites identified
               in the coastal resource inventory of the Yakutat area are scattered
              along the shores of Monti or Yakutat Bay (many are on lands selected by
    I        ~ ~~the Yak-Tat Kwaan or Sealaska Corporation), or along the rivers and
              estuaries of the western Yakutat Forelands on State or federal lands.
              The primary management policy proposed in the district plan for these
    I        ~ ~~areas emphasizes traditional uses which are compatible with the
              preservation of the resource values of these historic and cultural
              sites.

                                                  143

             XIII.  USES OF NATIONAL INTEREST AND STATE CONCERN3

             (6) "uses of state concern" means those land and water
        uses which would significantly affect the long-term publicI
        interest; these uses, subject to council definition of their
        extent, include:
             (A) uses of national interest, including the use of
        resources for the siting of ports and major facilities which
        contribute to meeting national energy needs, construction
        and maintenance of navigational facilities and systems,
        resource development of federal land, and national defenseI
        and related security facilities that are dependent upon
        coastal locations;
             (B) uses of more than local concern, including those
        land and water uses which confer significant environmental,
        social, cultural, or economic benefits or burdens beyond
        a single coastal resource district;
             (C) the siting of major energy facilities or large-U
        scale industrial or commercial development activities which
        are dependent on a coastal location and which, because of
        their magnitude or the magnitude of their effect on theI
        economy of the state or the surrounding area, are
        reasonably likely to present issues of more than local
        significance;
             (D) facilities serving statewide or interregional
        transportation and communication needs; and
             (E uses in areas established as state parks or
        recreational areas under AS 41.20 or as state gameI
        refuges, game sanctuaries or critical habitat areas
        under AS 16.20. (4 ch 84 SLA 1977)
    The Yakutat district coastal management program does not "arbitrarily or
    unreasonably restrict or exclude" any uses of national interest or State
    concern, i.e. major energy development, resource development of federal
    lands, national defense facilities, regional transportation and
    communications facilities, or critical habitats. Specifically, the
    district program provides for all of these uses at Yakutat or at suitable
    alternative sites in the region in the following manner:
         1.   National interest.  The national interest in coastal development
             sites to meet national energy needs and for resource development
             of federal lands is accommodated in sections of the district
             plan dealing with energy facilities and timber harvesting and
             processing. As there are no known proposals for national
             defense or security facilities in the City of Yakutat or itsI
             region, no specific provision has been made for these uses in
              the district program.
         2.   Uses of more than local concern.  Since Yakutat is more than
              150 miles from the nearest coastal management district, its
              district program will not affect that of any other district.

                                      144

                  3.   Energy facilities siting.  The energy facilities element of
                       the district plan provides for future energy facility sites
                       projected to be demanded within the district. The economic
                       analysis of uses subject to the coastal management program
                       does not foresee any other major new industrial or commercial
                       development dependent on use of Yakutat's coastal zone.
                  4.   Inter-regional transportation.  The State of Alaska's most
     3                ~~~~~recent Southeastern Alaska Transportation Plan (June 1980) did
                       not propose any air, marine or highway transportation system
                       improvements of regional importance at Yakutat. The former
                       Department of Highways once considered the possible construction
     I              ~ ~~~~of an international highway from Yakutat to the Haines Highway
                       via an extension of Forest Highway 10 across the Yakutat
                       Forelands to and up the Alsek River corridor. That plan has
     I              ~ ~~~~since been discarded.  Furthermore, construction of a highway
                       traversing the St. Elias Range to the Haines Highway appears
                       to be prohibitively expensive with few balancing economic
                       benefits. In summary, an overland transportation link to
                       Yakutat remains a very speculative proposition which is not
                       supported by Yakutat area residents and it has therefore been
                       disregarded as a practical consideration for the district
                       coastal management program.
                       The future installation of regional communications facilities
                       is not likely to be a major land use in the district or to
                       present conflicts which cannot be satisfactorily resolved
                       within the district coastal management process.
    I            ~~~~5.   Critical habitat.  The district plan specifically protects as
                       conservation areas or as areas meriting special attention all
                       cataloged anadromous fish streams within the district. There
                       are no state parks or recreational areas or state game refuges
                       or sanctuaries in the district.

      U                     ~~~~~~XIV.  AREAS MERITING SPECIAL ATTENTION

    1            ~~~~Sec. 46.40.210.  DEFINITIONS'.  In this chapter, unless the
                  context otherwise requires,
                  (1) "1area which merits special attention" means 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
    I.          ~ ~~general public, should be identified for current or future
                  planning, protection, or acquisition; these areas, subject to
                  council definition of criteria for their identification,
                  include:

                                               145

             (A) areas of unique, scarce, fragile or vulnerable
        natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance,I
        or scenic importance;
             (B) areas of high natural productivity or essential
        habitat for living resources;I
             (C) areas of substantial recreational value or
        opportuni ty;
             (D) areas where development of facilities is dependent
        upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters;
             (E) areas of unique geologic or topographic significance
        which are susceptible to industrial or commercial
        devel opment;
             (F) areas of significant hazard due to storms, slides,
        floods, erosion or settlement; and
             (G) areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenishI
        coastal land or resources, including coastal flood plains,
        aquifer recharge areas, beaches and offshore sand deposits;

        6 AAC 80.160.1
        (b) In addition to the categories contained in AS 46.40.210(1),
        areas which merit special attention may include the following:u

             (1) areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food
        gathering, and foraging;
             (2) areas with special scientific values or opportunities,I
        including those where ongoing research projects could be
        jeopardized by development or conflicting uses and activities;
        and
             (3) potential estuarine or marine sanctuaries.1
    The Alaska Coastal Management Act requires district programs to identify
    as "areas meriting special attention" (AMSA's) those areas possessing
    unique or exceptional values which could be depreciated by future use or
    development.  The Yakutat district plan proposes three areas wholly orU
    partly within the city's boundaries for classification and management as
    AMSA's. These are the Shipyard Cove area, the Ophir Creek corridor and
    the Ankau Lagoon system (see Figure 17).  In addition, the district planI
    proposes that two larger ecosystems within the region, eastern and upper
    Yakutat Bay and the eastern Yakutat Forelands, be studied and evaluated
    for possible designation as areas meriting special attention as part of
    a new cooperative regional coastal management program effort.

                                    146I

    I~

           I �

               -  4   ~~~~~~~~~~~p ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~  -in ~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~ ~ ~ ~   ~~~~~   ~~~~~i~~~~~--;i*,i .~t

                                                                 Chapter 7

                                COASTAL IMA NAGEMILE NT

                    PROGRAM IM PLE MENTAT ION
            I                                ~  ~   PP -~ .   .

           -~    ~P'~  P-'  4p~-  ~~            ~,p~ .~-PP

                              COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

                    6 AAC 85.100. IMPLEMENTATION. Each district program must
                    include a description of the methods and authority which will
      I           ~ ~~be used to implement the district program.  Methods and authority
                   must be adequate to insure program implementation, and any
                    additional methods or authority which are required must be
                    specified. Methods and authority include land and water use
                    plans, municipal 'Ordinances and resolutions, (including shoreline,
                    zoning, and subdivision ordinances and building codes), state
                    and federal statutes and regulations, capital improvement programs,
      U           ~ ~~~the purchase, sale, lease, or exchange of coastal land and water
                    resources, cooperative agreements, tax exemptions for nondevelopment
                    rights, memoranda of understanding, and coordinated project or
                    permit review procedures. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67)
                                                  Authority:  AS 44.19.893
                                                              AS 46.40.030
                                                              AS 46.40.040
              As set out in State law, implementation of the Alaska Coastal Management
    I       ~ ~Program is designed to rely, at each level of government, upon the
              coordinated exercise of existing statutory authorities and regulatory
              powers rather than upon the authorization of new governing powers and
    I       ~ ~structures.  The City's district program recognizes that the State and
              federal governments possess diverse and important powers for management
              of coastal resources, protection of the quality of the coastal environment
              and regulation of activities and facilities proposed for coastal areas.
    I       ~ ~The City regards the exercise of these related State and federal powers
              as an integral and supportive tool for implementation of its district
              program. The Alaska Coastal Land and Water Use Guide, published by the
              Alaska Office of Coastal Management, catalogs existing federal and State
              authorities and regulations pertinent to coastal management.

              Over the past decade, community development planning and plan
    I       ~ ~implementation have been major concerns of the City of Yakutat.  As a
              result, the City's basic planning policy documents are current and
              essential administrative tools and machinery for plan implementation are
    I        ~ ~already in place and in operation.  For this reason, implementation of
              Yakutat's district coastal management program builds upon existing
              planning policies and ongoing management activities, supplemented by
    I        ~ ~~some new measures specifically designed to enhance the City's coastal
              management capabilities and effectiveness.
              The City of Yakutat was incorporated in 1948 and is now a first class
    I        ~ ~~municipality under Alaska law.  In 1979, the City opted to change over
              from a mayor-council-to a council-manager form of government. The
              council consists of six elected members and a mayor elected at large,
    I        ~ ~~while day to day City affairs are administered by a professional city
              manager. Other City administrative staff include a financ~e officer, a
              public works director, a city clerk and, as of August 1980, a full time

                                                 147

    planner.  The planner, partly funded by a joint grant from the AlaskaU
    Department of Community and Regional Affairs and the Bottomfish Coordinator
    of the Office of the Governor, is primarily concerned with coastal
    management and fisheries and OCS development planning.

    As a first class city in the unorganized borough, the City of Yakutat
    can exercise all the powers allowed a municipality of its class. The
    City has, in fact, assumed a wide range of powers, as providedI
    for by Chapter 48 of Title 29 of the Alaska Statues. It has assumed
    responsibility for most public facilities and services authorized under
    AS 29.48.030, as well as those mandated by Chapter 43 of Title 29 for
    cities outside boroughs.
    The City's first comprehensive plan was prepared in 1971 and was thoroughly
    revised in 1976 to account for the new issue of possible large scale OCSI
    oil and gas development. In 1978, the City developed and adopted and is
    now carrying out a long range capital improvements program. This program
    addresses the basic needs of present community residents, supplementedI
    by a schedule of contingency projects and services in case major
    development in the the oil and gas or bottomfish industries occurs. The
    City also administers a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to
    ensure that development conforms with the Yakutat comprehensive plan.
    Community economic betterment has been a central objective of the City's
    planning efforts.  Toward this end, the City has sponsored numerousI
    economic planning and development programs to improve the community's
    position in the conventional fisheries, including preparation and periodic
    updating of an Overall Economic Development Program (OEDP).  The City'sI
    OEDP has stressed projects to improve local fish processing capacity and
    marine shipping services and the City has committed substantial financial
    resources to fund feasibility and engineering studies and to build
    needed capital improvements.
    The Yakutat Planning and Zoning Commission is active, conducting its
    business at its regularly scheduled monthly meeting.  This CommissionI
    also functions as the platting board. An Overall Economic Development
    Program Committee Supervises drafting of the OEDP and generally advises
    the City Council on economic development issues and policies. There is
    also a Parks and Recreation Committee which assists in formulating
    recommendations for recreational programs and improvements.
    To fund its planning activities, the City has relied partly on localI
    funds, but mostly on matching grants-in-aid obtained through a variety
    of State and federal agencies and programs. These include the Department
    of Community and Regional Affairs, the Department of Commerce and EconomicI
    Development, the Bottomfish Coordinator of the Office of the Governor,
    the Economic Development Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    the HUD 701 program and the Coastal Zone Management Program. It is
    expected that the City will rely primarily upon grant funds available
    through Section 306 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act for
    ongoing implementation of its district management program.3

                                     1483

            In addition to its basic administrative, staffing and budgetary framework,
            there are a number of specific measures the City of Yakutat will pursue
            to strengthen its coastal management capabilities. These include:
                 1.   Zoning ordinance revision.  The existing zoning ordinance
    I               ~ ~~~~includes four districts:  residential, commercial-residential-
                      waterfront, industrial and holding. However, the "holding"
                      district status must be reaffirmed annually by the City
                      council or it lapses. This district includes some lands
                      recommended for conservation reserve or recreational use by
                      the 1976 land use plan, as well as other undeveloped lands for
                      which no long-term use has yet been determined. The City
    I               ~ ~~~~plans to consider a revision of its zoning ordinance early in
                      1981 which would add a "conservation" district to provide
                      permanent protection, with appropriate management guidelines,
    I               ~ ~~~~for areas where the highest and best use is determined to be
                      for subsistence, recreation, conservation and habitat purposes.
                 2.   Public land acquisition.  In order to ensure that lands needed
                      for community expansion, major public facilities and recreation
                      will be available in the future, the City is pursuing a careful
                      program of public land acquisition. Public ownership of
    I               ~ ~~~~select tracts will assist implementation of key elements in
                      the district plan, including the recreation element and the
                      proposed areas meriting special attention. The City's land
    I               ~ ~~~~selections under the Municipal Land Entitlement Act of 1978
                      have-emphasized recreational and conservation values and
                      future residential development needs. Final transfer of the
                      selected lands will enable the City to manage them in conformance
    I               ~ ~~~~with the district plan.  The City will seek transfer of State
                      tidelands to municipal ownership. Since a large part of the
                      district's tidelands are already owned by the City and since
    I                ~ ~~~~State tidelands must be managed consistent with the district
                      program, unified municipal ownership of all tidelands will
                      simplify the task of their management.
                 3.   Municipal tidelands management.  Development of policies and
                      administrative procedures for coordinated management of City
                      tidelands will be a crucial element for future coastal
    I                ~ ~~~~development at Yakutat.  The City will consider the adoption
                      of an ordinance setting out municipal policies governing
                      management of its tidelands which will be consistent with and
    I                ~ ~~~~supportive of the other features of the district management
                      program.
                 4.   Capital'Improvements Program.  Apart from regulatory measures,
    I                ~ ~~~~attainment of district goals for improved use and management
                      of its coastal resources will involve actions to upgrade
                      certain public facilities. The City's current Capital
    I                ~ ~~~~Improvements and Services Program includes several projects
                      which are considered to be important elements in the district

          *                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~149

             coastal management program. These include reconstruction of
              the Ocean Cape dock, cold storage plant reconstruction and
             dock expansion, park development, small boat harbor expansion,1
             public utilities extension to the small boat harbor, residential
             land development and land restoration. While the City's
             capital improvements program can be amended annually to reflect1
             current needs, it is sound practice to undertake a comprehensive
             review of long term capital project needs every five years or
             so, and the City plans a major update of its capital
             improvements program in 1983.
         5.   Special studies.  The sections of the district plan concerning
             energy facilities and geologic hazards identified a number ofI
             key topics on which further information is needed before sound
             decisions about the best management of oil and gas development
             can be made.  District approval of major energy facilityI
             developments in accord with the district plan should be
             conditioned upon satisfactory completion of a program of
             special studies to provide the data needed for locational and
             management decisions about oil and gas development.
         6.   State oil and gas leases.  Prior to a final decision by the
             State on its proposed leasing of submerged lands near YakutatU
             for oil and gas development, the City will seek preparation of
             a joint assessment with the State of possible social, economic
             and environmental impacts upon the community to ensure thatI
             the lease sale'will be consistent with the district coastal
             management program.

        7.   Coastal management program funding.  It is anticipated thatI
             the City will depend primarily upon grant funds available
             through Section 306 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act
             to support staff and planning activities for ongoingU
             implementation of its district management program.
        8.   Areas meriting special attention.  Three areas were proposed3
             for management as areas meriting special attention in the
             coastal district plan.

                   I. YAKUTAT CORE AREA PLANNING PROGRAM

    Due to pending major federal land allocation decisions, State landI
    disposition programs and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, a new
    pattern of mixed private and public land ownership and use is evolving
    in the Yakutat core area (i.e. the area accessible by road around Yakutat,
    plus all of Yakutat Bay and its coastal fringe). The major landowners
    in this core area are the Yak-Tat Kwaan, the City of Yakutat, the State
    of Alaska, the U.S. Fore~st Service, the National Park Service on theI
    north shore of Yakutat Bay and, possibly, the Sealaska Corporation.

                                      1503

              'he new land ownership pattern will make available lands which have long
    ~~~I     been needed for community and private use in the local area and will
              clarify the permanent management statu-s of federal public lands around
              Yakutat. Some important problems remain to be worked out.

              Ideally, land ownership patterns should be consistent with overall goals
              for management of the area's renewable resources (mainly fish and wildlife
    I      ~ ~and forest lands), for conservation of traditional community use areas,
              and for resource and facility development essential to support community
              expansion and fisheries, oil and gas, timber and other economic activities.
              However, some lands best suited for private ownership because of their
              development potential or commercial resource values appear likely to be
              retained in public ownership, even after other coastal lands with high
              community use or amenity values (such as the Ankau uplands and much of
    I       ~ ~the coastline of eastern Yakutat Bay and the islands offshore Yakutat)
              have been transferred to private ownership. This mixed pattern of land
              tenure has some potential to promote conflict between private and community
    1       ~ ~interests in resource management in the core area.
              Fortunately, the situation also offers opportunities to rationalize land
              ownership patterns through mutually beneficial negotiations to develop
              cooperative land management agreements and, possibly, to exchange land
              and development rights. Such agreements or exchanges would aim at a
              management scheme or land ownership pattern better suited to both
    I       ~ ~community and private objectives than the status quo, such as was
              successfully achieved in the three-way land exchange between the Yak-Tat
              Kwaan, the City and the State to assemble a privately owned tract for
              development as an OCS marine service base.
              Among specific resource issues which might be included on an agenda for
              cooperative planning and management for some or all of the core area
              resource managers are:
                   1.   Timber harvest management plan for optimum economic benefits
      I               ~ ~~~~consistent with environmental protection in the core area.
                   2.   Cooperative management agreement for the proposed Ophir Creek
                        AMSA.
                   3.   Cooperative management agreement for the proposed Ankau
                        Lagoon system AMSA.
                   4.   Implementation of the energy facilities siting element of the
                        district plan.
    I              5~~~~. Site selection and development planning for an OCS residential
                        enclave.
                   6.   Oil and gas pipeline landfall site and corridor planning.
    I            ~ ~~~7.   Selection and transfer to the City of Yakutat of 1,280 acres
                        for municipal expansion purposes by the Yak-Tat Kwaan under
                        section 14 (c)(3) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
                   8.   Protective management of the marine and shoreline resources of
                        Monti Bay, Yakutat Bay and the Yakutat Islands group for
                        traditional community uses.

                                                151

        9.   Management of coastal uplands and tidelands of eastern Yakutat
             Bay for compatibility with the long term management goals for
             the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve and theI
             Russell Fiord Wilderness Area.

    Over the years, many different parties have shown concern for the3
    management of particular resources and limited sites within the Yakutat
    core area. In connection with the implementation of this coastal
    management plan, the City of Yakutat proposes to take the initiative to
    promote a comprehensive cooperative resource planning program for the
    entire core area. All major resource owners and managers in the area
    would participate in this program with the goal of developing a consistent
    and coordinated set of management agreements which will better serve theI
    shared interests of all concerned.

          II.  YAKUTAT FORELANDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL PLANNING PROGRAM

    The Tongass Land Management Plan has classified its management areas (C-I
    57 (part), C-58 arnd C-59) between Dangerous River and the Alsek River
    for LUD 11 (roadless area) or LUD III (multiple use) management. The
    area as a whole is closed to *new entry or timber harvest until DecemberU
    1980, when this closure will lapse and the LUD III area (C-58) will
    become open to timber harvesting. The Forest Service reports that it
    has no specific plans to initiate logging within the next two to three3
    years although that action is under consideration for the long ru~n.
    During development of the Tongass Land Management Plan, the City of
    Yakutat, area residents and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game have
    consistently stated their shared concerns about opening of this sector
    of the Yakutat Forelands to a new intensive land use -- timber harvesting.
    Local residents and State biolgists have emphasized their position thatI
    the primary management objective for this portion of the Yakutat Forelands
    should be protection of existing and traditional uses of the area and
    that timber harvesting should not proceed at the expense of these
    established resource values and uses.
    It is a significant management aspect of the Yakutat Forelands that it
    does not easily lend itself to uniform classification in large tractsI
    for multiple use management, such as is proposed in the Tongass Land
    Management Plan. Resource features which are vulnerable to degradation
    by timber harvesting or intensive use are scattered throughout the area.I
    In particular, the critical spawning and rearing areas of anadromous
    streams are widespread across an extensive network of streams and small
    tributaries. The location and seasonal use patterns of these streams
    and tributaries is not well known at this time. Because of the drainage
    pattern across the Forelands, any road system developed to support
    timber harvesting and log transport will necessarily traverse many
    productive steams, multiplying the likelihood of habitat damage throughI
    drainage interference, stream sedimentation and loss of water quality.

                                   152I

               Other resource features of high economic, scientific, habitat, recreational
               and scenic value are scattered throughout this part of the Yakutat
               .Forelands. Examples include the estuaries formed by the Dangerous,
                Italio, Akwe and Alsek Rivers; Harlequin Lake; prime wildlife habitat
               for moose, goat and bear; and Italio and Akwe Lakes.
               The possibility of poorly conceived timber harvesting activities, together
               with the intensified use which would follow increased accessibility,
    I        ~ ~~raises basic policy issues for Yakutat residents.  Local concern about
               timber harvesting on the Yakutat Forelands has been made acute by first
               hand observation of the damaging effects of poor logging practices on
               federal and State lands in the immediate vicinity of town. Large blocks
               of timber have been clearcut, with serious impairment of stream habitat
               and water-quality, scenic values and windfall problems. Forest
               regeneration has generally been Very slow, so that timber harvesting
               here often appears to be more of a one-time extractive industry than a
               truly renewable crop resource.

    3          ~~~Local residents have also noted that the timber industry is not an
               established or traditional industry at Yakutat and that it has not and
               would not provide employment for local residents. For the most part,
               they are opposed to timber development which appears to offer few benefits
               and many potential costs to the community. Nevertheless, the expressed
               goals of the City and area residents toward management of the Yakutat
               Forelands have been positive, stressing the need for protection of
               productive habitat and traditional economic and subsistence uses rather
               than an outright prohibition of logging.

    3          ~~~As a positive course of action, the City intends to nominate the Ahrnklin,
               Dangerous, Italio, Akwe and Lost Rivers, together with their tributaries,
               as Areas Meriting Special Attention, with the recommendation that they
               be managed primarily to conserve their exceptional habitat values for
               fish and wildlife populations. Timber harvesting will be a secondary
               management objective, allowed where such use is feasible without impairment
    3          ~~~of pri-mary resource values.

               Furthermore, the City proposes a Yakutat Forelands Intergovernmental
               Planning Program, with participation by the City of Yakutat, the U.S.
               Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The objectives
               of the proposed Program are fourfold:
                    1.   Complete a comprehensive resource inventory of critical
      I                 ~ ~~~~~habitats., fish and wildlife populations, and other coastal
                         resources of the Yakutat Forelands.
                    2.   Define timber cut areas which can be harvested without harm to
      5                  ~~~~~~primary resource values.
                    3.   Develop detailed, site specific guidelines for road routing
                         and construction, timber harvest practices, rehabilitation,
                         etc., for timber management.
                    4.   Identify field resources needed to ensure full compliance of
                         field operations with the timber harvest plan.

                                                   153

                   Ill. AREAS MERITING SPECIAL ATTENTION

    A. SHIPYARD COVE AMSA

    1. Basis for Designation

    The area lying south of Shipyard Cove is proposed for designation as an
    area meriting special attention because of its diverse recreational and

    2.  MapI

    See Figure 17.1

    3. Description
    The proposed Shipyard Cove AMSA area is an excellent and accessible3
    example of the habitat diversity of the Yakutat area. Formed by a
    glacial moraine, the upland terrain is rolling and heavily forested and
    broken by numerous pothole lakes. The coastline affords spectacular
    views of Mt. St. Elias and the St. Elias Range and of the offshore
    islands. Eagles cruise the coastline, while harbor seals and,
    occasionally, sea lions and sea otters can be seen from shore. The
    protected nearshore waters are locally popular for crabbing and salmonU
    trolling. The lagoon is a spawning and rearing area for coho and Dolly
    Varden and supports a subsistence salmon harvest. Wildlife including
    moose, brown and black bear, deer and furbearers are present. Local
    Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel consider that conditions in
    the upland lakes are favorable for a stocking program which might
    provide a prime local sport fishing area.

    4. Existing Ownership and Management

    Nearly all of the coastal lands are owned by the State or the City of3
    Yakutat. All of the State lands have been selected by the City as part
    of its municipal entitlement and it is expected that they will be
    transferred to municipal ownership. Most of the upland area is publicly
    owned, with some privately held tracts, including part of the MissionI
    tract. Most of the tidelands (part of them already leased) remain in
    State ownership, except for a section owned by the City (see Figure 11).3
    The entire area is within the City's jurisdiction and is currently
    proposed in the land use plan for public and conservation uses. The
    existing zoning ordinance classifies the area as a holding district,
    which allows the continuation of existing uses or their expansion with
    the approval of the planning commission. No new uses are permitted.
    The classification as a holding district must be renewed annually.
    Adjacent areas to the proposed AMSA are in private ownership but areI
    undeveloped or in residential use.

                                  154I

    1         ~~~5.  Use Conflicts
               There are no significant existing use conflicts within the area. Potential
               conflicts would include the development or intensive use of sensitive
              tidelands, aquatic or upland habitats which might have adverse effects
               on their habitat and recreational values.

    1         ~~~6.  Proposed Management Scheme

               It is proposed that a mixed use pattern be fostered for this AMSA with
               Shipyard Cove itself developed for small boat harbor and related marine
               uses, developed park and recreational facilities on the adjacent peninsula,
               and management of remaining areas as a conservation area for non-
               intensive recreational and subsistence uses. This management scheme is
              Iwithin the scope of the City's present authorities, supplemented by the
               management authorities of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The
               Department of Fish and Game is currently examining the feasibility of a
               stocking program to improve the productivity of some of the freshwater
               lakes within the area for sport fishing, an activity which would be
               highly compatible with the proposed management scheme.

               B. OPHIR CREEK CORRIDOR AMSA

                 1.Basis for Designation
                 TeOphir Creek corridor is a prime spawning and rearing area for red
                 adcoho salmon and is also and an important wildlife habitat.  It is
               noteworthy for its subsistence and recreational use values and for its
               scientific interest.

               2. Map

               See Figure 17.
               3. Description

               IOphir Creek is a highly productive anadromous stream which supports an
               important subsistence and commercial fishery. Because it is fed by
               groundwater, it seldom freezes in winter, making for favorable survival
               conditions. However, it appears that streamflow has been unfavorably
               affected by changes in the groundwater regime, perhaps as a result of
    m         ~~~glacial rebound or earthquakes, making stream protection even more
        ~~    critical.

    4.  Existing Ownership and Management3
    Within the City, lands in the Ophir Creek corridor are privately owned
    or are owned by the City or the State, with most of the State land
    bordering the Creek having been selected by the City as part of its3
    municipal entitlement. Outside the City, land ownership and management
    responsibility is divided between the State and U.S. Forest Service.
    Existing uses are few, the most prominent being subsistence salmon
    harvest and recreation. The corridor crosses the Airport Highway and
    runs parallel to the Coast Guard Road for about three miles. Some of
    the State lands and a private tract in the drainage have been logged.
    5.  Use ConflictsI
    Because of its characteristic low water flows, especially in dry summers,
    the Ophir Creek habitat is extremely vulnerable to any use or activity
    which could impair water flow and water quality in spawning and rearing
    areas. Thus, any intensive use such as housing, road development or
    logging poses use conflicts. While the stream itself is the most sensitive
    component of this ecosystem, any downstream use which adversely affected
    the estuary and lakes through which the salmon pass on their way upstreamI
    could harm salmon productivity.

    6.  Proposed Management Scheme3
    This AMSA is proposed for management as a conservation district, closed
    to all development within a 300 foot corridor. Subsistence and sport
    fishing and similar non-intensive uses will be allowed.  Furthermore,I
    any development within a 500 foot corridor should be stringently regulated
    to prevent erosion due to road building or site preparation. Connection
    to the municipal water and sewer systesm should be made mandatory toU
    prevent drawdown of groundwater supplies or water quality deterioration.
    This management scheme can be implemented by coordinated public management3
    of City, State and federal land in the corridor and through City exercise
    of its zoning and platting authorities over private lands. In view of
    the shared management responsibilities for this area between the City of
    Yakutat, the Alaska Departments of Fish and Game and Natural ResourcesI
    and the U.S. Forest Service, it is recommended that the City pursue with
    those public agencies the development of a cooperative agreement to
    attain compatible overall management of this area.

    C.  ANKAU LAGOON SYSTEM AMSA3

    1.  Basis for Designation3
    The Ankau is a productive habitat for a diverse range of marine, waterfowl
    and wildlife species and locally popular for a variety of recreational
    and subsistence uses. It is an area which has traditional importance to
                                   1563

               Yakutat Tlingits and includes the site of the New Russia post which is
    I        ~ ~~recorded on the National Register of Historic Places.

    5         ~~~2.  Map

               See Figure 17.

    5         ~~~3.  Description

               The Ankau Lagoon system is a complex estuary of interconnected lagoons
               and salt chucks. The estuary and related wetlands are a highly productive
               habitat for waterfowl, salmon and Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout.
    5         ~~~4.  Existing Ownership and Management

               Nearly all of the Ankau uplands are owned by the Yak-Tat Kwaan, with a
               small portion covered by Native allotments or in State ownership. Only
               the northeastern corner of the Ankau is within the City's boundaries and
               directly subject to municipal jurisdiction. The Yak-Tat Kwaan's land
               use plan classifies the Ankau for subsistence use and for sustained
              yield timber management, with selective cutting limited to diseased and
              deadfall trees. The Kwaan's land use plan also places restrictions on
               public use of this area.

    5         ~~~5.  Use Conflicts

               There are no present use conflicts within the area and none are anticipated
               as long as current use patterns and management status prevails. Potential
               use conflicts would include overuse due to increased recreational visits,
               development activities which might have adverse effects upon the Ankau's
               complex ecosystem, or heavy industrial development upon adjacent lands
              without adequate precautions to protect the environmental integrity of
               the Ankau Lagoon system.

    5         ~~~6.  Proposed Management Scheme

               The sensitive land areas of the Ankau are mostly outside the City's
               boundaries and in private ownership. Therefore, it is proposed that the
               City explore with the Yak-Tat Kwaan and the Alaska Department of Fish
               and Game the possibilities for development of a cooperative management
               agreement which will seek to conserve the habitat, subsistence,

               recreational and cultural values of the Ankau.

                                                  157

                                                       2:;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t

           tv"~ ~ ~ ~ j>~''a,.a.                    $aaja.
                                                                                                        a                   .             P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O

    77~ ~ ~~~~   ~..a                                                *, .'-'.4

                                                                                                             Sa~~~r'aat'   45-  -'.....a ,-   a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PA

                                                                          4..  a-..                   44'4a'74'a&  4a~Ia;:n

                                                                      *     4lnd ; a4.aP.    41  , 4.4   .a
                                                                                                                                -r   " VO ~   5'a44
                                                                       aaa4t4$5  5 .4...aa.%$.$h ca ~'.ater.

                                                                                   k~r.4~44B                                                  I     B    L     I    OG5""4R"sAPHYV44   ~>j{

                                                                                                '..

                                  BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Alaska Consultants, Inc. May 1979. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies
         Program, Northern and Western Gulf of Alaska, Local Socioeconomic
         Baseline. Anchorage. (Technical Report No. 32).

         October 1979.  Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, Northern
         Gulf of Alaska, Petroleum Development Scenarios, Local Socioeconomic
         Impacts. (Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS
         Office).  Anchorage.  (Technical Report No. 33).

    _____September 1978. City of Yakutat Capital Improvements and Services
         Program.  (Prepared for the City of Yakutat).  Anchorage.

         December 1976.  City of Yakutat Comprehensive Development Plan.
         (Prepared for the City of Yakutat).  Anchorage.

         July 1976.  Marine Service Bases for Offshore Oil Development.
         (Prepared for the Department of Community and Regional Affairs).
         Anchorage.

         March 1975.  Socio-Economic Survey of the Yakutat Area.  (Prepared
         for the City of Yakutat). Anchorage.

    Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Community
         Planning. July 1979. Alaska Coastal Management Program, District
         Program Guidebook Series. Anchorage. (5 volumes).

         November 1979.  Community Planning and Development for the Bottomfish
         Industry, Phase One Report.  Juneau.

         December 1974.  Natural Resources of the Yakutat Area.  (unpublished).

         1978. Planning for Offshore Oil Development: Gulf of Alaska OCS
         Handbook.  Juneau.

    Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1975. A Fish and Wildlife Inventory
         of the Northern Gulf of Alaska.  Juneau.

         Alaska Catch and Production:  Commercial Fisheries Statistics.
         Juneau.  (Annual Publication).
         1978. Alaska's Fisheries Atlas. Juneau. (2 volumes).

         1973.  Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat, Volume I.  Anchorage.

         1978.  Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat, Volume II.  Anchorage.

                                        159

    Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game.  1976.  AlaskaI
        Wildlife Management Plans, Southeastern Alaska. Juneau.

    Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Marin e and Coastal Habitat Management.I
        July 1978. Assessment of the Potential Effects of Outer Continental
        Shelf Oil Development on Marine Fish and Wildlife Resources of the
        Northern Gulf of Alaska and Recommendations for Tract Nominations
        for Future Lease Sale. Anchorage.
    Alaska Department of Highways. December 1976. Transportation Impacts of
        Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development in the NorthernI
        Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak Areas: Synopsis. Juneau.

    Alaska Department of Natural Resources.  January 1980.  State Five-Year3
        Leasing Program, Juneau.

    Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and
        Geophysical Surveys.  October 1977.  Areas of Particular Concern
        for Geologic Reasons in the Alaska Coastal Zone, by S. Finley, J.
        Riehle and K. Emmel.  Anchorage.3

      ___February 1978.  Geology and Geologic Constraints of the Coastal
        Zone from Valdez Arm to Yakutat, Alaska, by J. Riehle, S. Finley
         and K. Emmel.  Anchorage.I
    ____June 1974. Mineral Resources of Alaska and the Impact of Federal
         Land Policies on their Availability: Oil and Gas, by Robert M.
        Klein, William M. Lyle, Patrick L. Dobey and Kristina M. O'Connor.
        Anchorage. (Alaska Open File Report 50).

    Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks.  August 1974.1
        Planning Statement, Yakutat State Historic Site, by William S.
        Hanable. Anchorage.
    _____July 1979. Recreation, Scenic and Heritage Areas of Particular
         Concern, Cape Suckling to Cape Fairweather and the Outer Kenai
        Coast, by Kathryn A. Troll.  Anchorage.3

    Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Planning and
        Programming, Southeastern Region. June 1980. Southeastern Alaska
        Transportation Plan. Juneau.
    Alaska Office of the Governor. June 1979. State of Alaska Program for
        Development of the Bottomfish Industry. Juneau.

    Alaska Office the Governor, Office of Coastal Management. September
        1979. Alaska Coastal Land and Water Use Guide, Volume I. Juneau.

      ___June 1980.  Special Areas in the Alaska Coastal Zone:  Abstracts of
        Proposals.  Juneau.g
      ___May 1979.  State of Alaska Coastal Management Program and Final
        Environmental Impact Statement. Juneau.

                                      1603

    Alaska State Housing Authority.  September 1971.  Yakutat, Alaska:
         Comprehensive Development Plan. Anchorage.

    Arthur D. Little, Inc.  November 1978.  The Development of a Bottomfish
         Industry: Strategies for the State of Alaska, A Report to the
         Office of the Governor. San Francisco. (2 volumes).

    CH2M Hill. May 1980. Ocean Cape Site Development Feasibility Study.
         (Prepared for the City of Yakutat). Anchorage.

         January 1980.  Water and Sewerage System Review.  (Prepared for the
         City of Yakutat).  Anchorage.

    _____May 1979.  Yakutat Fisheries Study:  Cold Storage Reconstruction,
         Fisheries Inventory, and Production. (Prepared in association with
         Dr. George M. Pigott for the City of Yakutat). Anchorage.

    Dames and Moore. August 1979. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program,
         Monitoring Petroleum Activities in the Gulf of Alaska and Lower
         Cook Inlet Between April 1975 and June 1978. (Prepared for the
         Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Office. Anchorage. (Technical
        ~Report No. 17).

         March 1979.  Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, Northern
         Gulf of Alaska Petroleum Development Scenarios.  (Prepared for the
         Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Office). Anchorage. (Technical
         Report No. 29).

    de Laguna, Frederica. 1979. Under Mount Saint Elias: the History and
         Culture of the Yakutat Tlingit. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian
         Institution Press. (3 volumes).

    de Laguna, Frederica, et al. 1964. Archeology of the Yakutat Bay Area,
         Alaska, by Frederica de Laguna, Francis A. Riddell, Donald F.
         McGeein, Kenneth S. Lane and J. Arthur Freed, with a chapter by
         Carolyn Osborne. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution.
         (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 192).

    Deconsult. January 1979. State of Alaska: Community Planning for
         Bottomfish Development, Phase I.  Copenhagen, Denmark.

    Frederic R. Harris, Inc., Development Planning. March 1979. Southcentral
         Region of Alaska Deep-Draft Navigation Stage I Economic and
         Transportation Studies, Phase I Report. (Prepared for the Department
         of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers). Long Beach, Calif.

    New England River Basins Commission. November 1976. Onshore Facilities
         Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Development:  Factbook.  (Prepared
         for Resource and Land Investigations Program, U.S. Geological
         Survey, Department of the Interior). Boston.

                                         161

         March 1976.  Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas
         Development: Methodologies for OCS-Related Facilities Planning.
         (Prepared for Resource and Land Investigations Program, U.S.
         Geological Survey, Department of the Interior). Boston.

    Peter Eakland and Associates. May 1980. Northern Gulf of Alaska
         Petroleum Development Scenarios, Transportation Systems Impacts.
         (Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska OCS Office).
         Anchorage. (Technical Report No. 31).

    United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.  1961.  A Plan
         of Management for the Yakutat Working Circle, North Tongass
         National Forest, Plan Period FY 1962-71, by John E. Weisgerber and
         Bernard A. Coster. Juneau.

         Alaska Region Regional Plan - Work Plan.  March 1980.  Juneau.

         June 1978.  Alaska Supplement to the Draft Environmental Statement,
         Roadless Area Review and Evaluation. Juneau.

         June 1978.  Draft Environmental Statement, Roadless Area Review and
         Evaluation. Juneau.

         June 1978.  Draft Environmental Statement, Tongass Land Management
         Plan. Juneau.

         January 1975.  Draft Environmental Statement:  Tongass National
         Forest Land Use Plan.  (Prepared in accordance with Section 102(2)(C)
         of Public Law 91-190. Juneau.

    _____August 1980.  Draft Environmental Statement, Withdrawal Request
         under FLPMA Section 204(c) for National Lands in Alaska. Washington,
         D.C.

    _____August 1976.  Draft Tongass National Forest Guide.  Juneau.

         n.d.  Forest Inventory Statistics for the Yakutat Area of Alaska,
         1967.  Juneau.  (Forest Survey Report No. 7).

         n.d.  Recreation Facilities, Tongass National Forest, Yakutat
         Vicinity. Juneau.

         1970. Soil Management Report for the Yakutat Forelands Based on
         Reconnaissance Soil Survey.  Juneau.

         January 1979.  Summary - Final Environmental Impact Statement,
         Roadless Area Review and Evaluation.  Juneau.

         March 1979.  Tongass Land Management Plan, Final Environmental
         Impact Statement, Two Parts. Juneau.

                                         162

         April 1978.  Tongass Land Management Plan, Mineral Task Force
         Working Report. Juneau.

    United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
         November 1978. Soils of the City of Yakutat, by Douglas J.
         VanPatten. Palmer.

    United States Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers.
         May 1979. Southcentral Region of Alaska, Deep-Draft Navigation
         Reconnaissance Report. Anchorage.

    United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1971-72.
         1970 Census of Population: Alaska. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government
         Printing Office. (4 volumes).

    United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
         Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office. March 1980. Final
         Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Outer Continental Shelf
         Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Eastern Gulf of Alaska. Anchorage. (2
         volumes).

         June 1975.  Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Outer
         Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Northern Gulf of Alaska.
         Anchorage. (4 volumes).

    _____May 1980. Notice of Sale, Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale No. 55.
         Anchorage.

    United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1969.
         Effects of the Earthquake of March 27, 1964 on Various Communities,
         by George Plafker, Reuben Kachadoorian, Edwin B. Eckel and Lawrence
         R. Mayo. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.
         (Geological Survey Professional Paper 542-G).

         1975. Geological Estimates of Undiscovered Recoverable Oil and Gas
         Resources in the United States. (Prepared for the Federal Energy
         Administration by Betty M. Miller, Harry L. Thomsen, Gordon L.
         Dolton, Anny B. Coury, Thomas A. Hendricks, Frances E. Lennartz,
         Richard B. Powers, Edward G. Sable and Katharine L. Varnes).
         Reston, Virginia, Geological Survey. (Geological Survey Circular
         725).

         1972. Marine Geology of Yakutat Bay, Alaska, by F. F. Wright.
         Published in Geological Survey Research 1972, Chapter B. Washington,
         D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office. (pages B9-B15). (Geological
         Survey Professional Paper 800-B).

         1979. Reconnaissance Engineering Geology of the Yakutat Area,
         Alaska, With Emphasis on Evaluation of Earthquake and Other Geologic
         Hazards, by Lynn A. Yehle. U.S. Government Printing Office.
         Washington, D.C. (Geological Survey Professional Paper
         1074).

                                         163

        1957.  Reconnaissance Geology of the Malaspina District, Alaska, byI
        George Plafker and Don J. Miller. Washington, D.C., Geological
        Survey.  (Oil and Gas Investigations Map OM 189).

    United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alaska
        Planning Group. December 1973. Final Environmental Impact Statement,
        Proposed Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. Anchorage.

    United States Department Of the Interior, National Park Service. August
        1972. Wilderness Recommendations, Glacier Bay National Monument.
        Anchorage.
    United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
        Alaska Region.  October 1975.  Alaskan Region Ten-Year Plan,I
        FY 1977-FY 1986. Anchorage.

    United States Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in
        Alaska.  October 1968.  Alaska Natives and the Land.  Washington,I
        D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.

    University of Alaska, Anthropology and Historic Preservation, CooperativeU
        Park Studies Unit. December 1978. Local Exploitation of D-2 Lands
        in the Gulf of Alaska Region, by Stephen A. McNeary. Fairbanks.

    University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.
        January 1980. Alaska Coastal Bibliography and Index, Region H,
        Northern Southeast Alaska.  Anchorage.3

        1974. Alaska Regional Profiles: Southeast Region, sponsored by
        the State of Alaska, Office of the Governor in cooperation with the
        Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission of Alaska.I
        Anchorage.

    University of Alaska, Institute of Water Resources. April 1978.
        Environmental Atlas of Alaska, by Philip R. Johnson and Charles W.I
        Hartman. Fairbanks. Second Edition.

    University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research.  AprilI
        1980. Prospects for a Bottomfish Industry in Alaska, by Michael J.
        Scott.  Anchorage.I

    Wilsey & Ham, Inc., and McGaughan & Johnson. June 1973. Land Resources
        of Southeast Alaska Native Villages. (Prepared for Sealaska
        Corporation).  Renton, Washington.I

    Yakutat, City of. May 1979. Overall Economic Development Plan Update.
        Yakutat.1

                                     1641