The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutComprehensive Plan Coastal Management Program Interim Rep 1981LIBRARY COPY Pelee sees Tonneherawe Plan = Coastal Management Program Interim Report PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, ‘Alaska 99501 E ee PETERSBURG AND KUPREANOF COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Section I Section II Section III AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PHASE II REPORT CONTENTS BACKGROUND Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 THE SETTING Climate Planning Area Boundaries NATURAL RESOURCES AND HABITATS Chapter 3 LAND RESOURCES AND HABITATS Geology Soils Upland Habitats Timber Resources Chapter 4 MARINE RESOURCES AND HABITATS Oceanography and Productivity Shoreline Habitats Fishery Resources HUMAN RESOURCES AND INSTITUTIONS Chapter 5 HISTORY Chapter 6 POPULATION AND ECONOMY Economy Sources of Personal Income Economic Base Historical and Projected Employment Population Projected Population Chapter 7 LOCAL GOVERNMENT Organization Municipal Finance Intergovernmental Resources Expenditures Policy Considerations Chapter 8 HOUSING Www Ne 11 13 20 25 25 26 32 41 43 47 47 47 49 51 60 65 67 67 70 75 76 80 85 Chapter 9 SOCIAL SERVICES Petersburg Police Fire Protection Education Health Recreation Kupreanof Police Fire Protection Public Education Health Chapter 10 PUBLIC FACILITIES Petersburg Water System Sewage System Solid Waste Electrical Power Kupreanof Water System Sewage System Solid Waste Electrical Power Chapter 11 TRANSPORTATION Petersburg Streets and Roads Pedestrian Ways Private Boats Port Facilities Ferry Service Air Transportation Kupreanof Chapter 12 LAND AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT Existing Land Use Development Constraints Section IV ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Chapter 13 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN LOCAL PLANNING Chapter 14 PETERSBURG ISSUES AND GOALS Chapter 15 KUPREANOF ISSUES AND GOALS References Cited 91 91 93 101 102 106 108 108 110 110 111 iil 116 121 125 134 134 135 135 137 137 144 144 145 146 147 151 153 153 156 161 163 165 179 190 LIST OF PLATES In various places throughout this report, reference is made to a specific plate number. These plates refer to a series of maps under separate cover. Following is a list of the plates and the corresponding map titles. Plate I - Vegetation Plate II - Soil Slide and Drainage Hazards Plate III - Wildlife Habitats - Mammals, Birds, and Anadromous Fish Streams Plate IV - Wildlife Habitats - Fisheries and Marine Mammals Plate V- - Geology Plate VI - Transportation and Utility Networks INTRODUCTION On first coming to Petersburg and Kupreanof, a visitor might be most impressed by the differences between the two communities. The busy pace of life around Petersburg's waterfront during fishing season con- trasts sharply with the more relaxed atmosphere of Kupreanof. While the City of Petersburg provides a remarkably progressive system of services and utilities for a community its size, the residents of Kupreanof take it upon themselves to provide water, heat and, for some, electricity. In the evening, families in Petersburg can watch television programs transmitted in color by satellite from the Lower 48; at the same time families in Kupreanof are lighting their homes by kerosene lamp. In general, the residents of each city like their community the way it is. They see room for improvement — a new small boat dock, more electric capacity, other minor changes — but neither city wants to change dramatically. It would appear at first that Kupreanof and Petersburg, only a half-mile apart across Wrangell Narrows, would remain worlds apart in lifestyle. Yet the apparent differences hide many qualities they have in common. The two communities are closely tied economically. Same residents of Kupreanof work in Petersburg. Others formerly lived in Petersburg or have relatives living in Petersburg. The canneries in Petersburg buy fish from Kupreanof fishermen, and the fishermen, in turn, buy groceries and fuel from Petersburg merchants. Perhaps more important, the two cities depend on the natural resources of the region. Cammercial fishing and fish processing employ residents of both cities, but the fish and shellfish resources support a sport fishery and subsistence harvest for people from Kupreanof and Petersburg alike. Timber in the region supplies Petersburg's sawmill, and the region's abundant rainfall provides both hydroelectric power and drinking water in both cities. Any change in the productivity, quality, or availability of these resources would certainly change life in Petersburg and Kupreanof. It is inevitable that change will come about. Southeast Alaska is in a transitional period, and the regional changes will undoubtedly affect Kupreanof and Petersburg. Recognizing their mutual concerns, Petersburg and Kupreanof have cooperated on developing this Coastal Management Plan and Comprehensive Plan. This effort is designed to plan the futures of the two cities, and of the surrounding region. This Phase II Interim Report discusses the major planning issues the two cities face, presents the results of an extensive inventory and analysis of natural and community resources, and outlines the goals and objectives formulated by the citizens of of Kupreanof and Petersburg. The Phase III report, to ke produced later this year, will refine the goals and objectives into policies and specific actions to implement those policies in light of the conditions projected in the inventory and analysis. THE SETTING The cities of Petersburg, on Mitkof Island, and Kupreanof, on Kupreanof Island, lie on the shores of Wrangell Narrows, one of the many tidal channels among the hundreds of islands of southeast Alaska's Alexander Archipelago. The cities are located almost midway between Ketchikan, 100 air miles to the south, and Juneau to the north (see Figure 1 ). At the south end of Mitkof and Kupreanof Islands, Wrangell Narrows is fed by Sumer Strait, which opens to the Pacific Ocean 60 miles to the southwest. On the north and east, these islands are bounded by Frederick Sound. Across the sound is the mainland, where the rugged mountains of the Coast Range are cut by glacial valleys and covered by snow and icefields. To the southeast, the Stikine River, draining much of interior British Columbia, has deposited thousands of years of alluvial sediment and created the shallows of Dry Strait, where Frederick Sound and Sumner Strait meet. While most of the land in southeast Alaska is steep and mountainous, Petersburg is situated on more gentle topography. Mitkof Island has its mountains, but Petersburg, at the north end of the island, rises only gradually from the shoreline to elevations mostly less than 100 feet. Several small streams drain the muskeg-covered uplands, the largest of which empty into Hammer Slough in the heart of the city, and into Scow Bay to the south of town. The terrain of Kupreanof is more typical of the region. The small cam munity sits on the narrow strip of flat land squeezed between the mountains and Wrangell Narrows. Midway along Kupreanof's shoreline Petersburg Creek empties into the Narrows in a broad estuary of marshes and tideflats. CLIMATE The climate of southeast Alaska influences the shape of the landscape and the vegetation and wildlife of the region. It also affects the livelihoods and lifestyles of the local residents. Petersburg and Kupreanof have a climate similar to the surrounding region, with some local variations. The Pacific Ocean dominates the region's climate, moderating the tem- peratures and producing the moist air masses which pass through the region. Winters are usually mild, with temperatures averaging in the 30's (degrees Fahrenheit). When winter continental airmasses overpower the marine air masses, cold north and east winds blow down fram the mountains and glaciers of the mainland, and temperatures drop to the 20's or lower. In the summer, the same continental air masses bring warm clear weather, but the onshore marine airflow dominates in summer as well, holding normal summer temperatures below 60 degrees. When the marine air masses include a large, low pressure center, fierce storms tear through southeast Alaska. These are particularly common in the fall; there are usually several storms each fall with winds exceed- ing 60 miles per hour. Petersburg and Kupreanof are sheltered by mountains, however, and the strong southeast winds that sweep the region are reduced here. The region is famous for its heavy rain, but rainfall varies con- siderably with local topography and with proximity to the ocean. Ketchikan, receiving the full face of storms coming in from Dixon Entrance, averages 150 inches of precipitation annually. Skagway, on the other hand, is sheltered behind the mountains, and normally has less than 20 inches each year. Kupreanof and Petersburg lie in between, receiving about 80 inches of rain and snow annually. PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES The area covered by the resource inventory in this plan extends well beyond the city limits of Kupreanof and Petersburg. While the city limits mark the extent of local jurisdiction, the local citizens use the resources of a much larger area. They affect, and are affected by, the management of natural resources in a large area outside the city limits. Most of the land outside the city limits is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, but the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the federal Coastal Zone Management Program emphasize interagency cooperation and planning in resource management. By outlining a planning area that includes the areas of local concern and influence, this district program can facil- itate greater cooperation between the management agencies and the cities, and can assist the agencies in developing management policies that are consistent with local goals and policies. The Steering Committee for the Petersburg and Kupreanof Coastal Manage- ment Plan specified the boundaries for the planning area which take in the following areas, totalling about 985,000 acres: All of Mitkof Island; that portion of Kupreanof Island which drains into Duncan Canal and Kah Sheets Bay; the Lindenberg Peninsula; Woewodski Island; Level Islands; Wrangell Narrows; Thomas Bay and its watershed; Farragut Bay and its watershed; Le Conte Bay and its watershed; the Stikine Delta up to the upper limit of tidal influence; and the adjacent portions of Frederick Sound and Sumner Strait with their islands. The planning area boundaries are mapped in Figure 1 , following. These include the Zone of Direct Interaction and the Zone of Direct Influence, as mapped by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in Vicinity Gulf of Alaska SECTION II NATURAL RESOURCES AND HABITATS Petersburg and Kupreanof were settled in a region rich in natural re- sources, and the fortunes of the two communities have risen with the development of those resources. The planning area produces enough fish, shellfish, and timber to sustain the communities virtually forever. It has untapped mineral deposits and an abundant supply of free-flowing water. But the resources are not unlimited. Even in a million-acre area in- habited by 3,000 people, the resources must be wisely managed. Be- cause the region is still in the process of developing, it has been possible to use the resources freely. As development pressures grow, however, conflicts are inevitable, and the resources must be managed carefully. Some of the resources can be managed by the people of Petersburg and Kupreanof. Others are under the authority of the State or federal governments, and resolving resource conflicts will require cooperation among the agencies and the cities. The next two chapters give an overview of the resources of the land and of the sea. They examine the extent of the resource and the past use patterns, and they analyze the productive potential, and project future resource uses and possible conflicts. ~ LAND RESOURCES AND HABITATS The Planning Area for the Petersburg and Kupreanof Coastal Management Program includes nearly one million acres of land. The terrain varies from gentle, rolling mskeg to sheer rock cliffs, from dense old-growth forest to dazzling blue-white glaciers. The land offers resource op- portunities: timber, minerals, and developable land for community expansion. It also presents limitations: steep, unstable slopes and poor drainage limit development; conflicts arise between competing uses of limited habitats. This chapter describes the habitats and resources of the land. It in- ventories the resources, analyzes potentials and discusses the issues that Petersburg and Kupreanof will face in the management of its Planning Area. GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES The Planning Area is underlain by crystalline rocks originating some 30 to 50 million years ago. Igneous intrusive granite and related rocks cooled slowly many thousands of feet beneath the surface of the earth, and volcanic rock, cooled much faster, make up the foundation for much of southeast Alaska. In the Coast Range on the mainland igneous rock, layered with sedimentary rock, have been transformed under high pres- sure to metamorphic rock, such as slate, quartzite, schist and gneiss, some dating back as much as 400 million years old. The western half of Mitkof Island and the eastern half of the Lindenberg Peninsula are underlain by younger metamorphic rock. With the exception of a few minor areas of sedimentary rock on Kupreanof and Mitkof Islands, these rocks have in common low perm- ability to water, resulting in the poor drainage characteristics which produce muskegs and limit timber production in mich of the Planning Area. The impermeable rock also affects the runoff characteristics of the watersheds, causing the streamflow to rise rapidly after rain or snowmelt and to remain relatively low during periods of low rainfall. Within the last million years, southeast Alaska was subjected to several glacial advances and retreats, which played an important role in producing today's landscape. The most recent period of glaciation, estimated to have ended 12,000 to 13,000 years ago covered Mitkof Island and Kupreanof Island with ice about 4,000 feet thick, thicker than any point on either of the islands is high. Before retreating north and east to the mainland, the glaciers carved the deep bays and channels and the steep-sided valleys that now characterize southeast Alaska. A few glaciers remain in the Planning Area. The Le Conte and Baird Glaciers and the icefields above them in the Coast Range are only rem- nants of the great sheets of ice of 12,000 years ago, but the glaciers' mark on the landscape is seen daily by those who live in the area. The deep bays, straits and sounds provide food, livelihood and recreation. The steep-sided valleys are mostly vegetated now and covered with a thin mantle of soil, but they are subject to landslides if disturbed by man or nature. Even the settlement patterns of the region, where every community is built on the shoreline, are part of the glaciers' legacy. Before the granitic rock cooled, superheated water containing dissolved silica and other minerals flowed through cracks or veins in the rock. In some places, when the rock cooled enough, the silica settled out of the hot water and was deposited as quartz. Several metallic minerals were deposited in this way, as well. The granitic and other igneous intrusive rocks have fairly numerous, although not rich, mineral deposits. Woewodski Island contains several gold deposits, as does the mainland area around Thomas Bay. The Stikine area has gold deposits, and upstream in Canada holds deposits of high grade copper ore. Lesser amounts of lead, pyrite and other base metals are scattered throughout the area (Wolf and Heiner, 1971). The mineral deposits have prompted a great deal of mineral exploration in the Planning Area, and over 100 mining claims have been filed here. Individuals and major corporations have prospected and filed claims on the minerals in much of the National Forest land around Duncan Canal and Groundhog Basin, and on Woewodski Island, but there has only been one commercially profitable mine operating in the area. A barite mine was developed in Duncan Canal, mining and processing barite, and filling many ore ships until the deposit was no longer comercially viable. The other claims do not appear likely to be developed in the near future because the ore is not high enough quality or the deposits are not extensive enough. Some of the larger deposits might be develop- able, but at present the cost of mine development is too high compared to the value of the minerals. Geological activity has not ceased in the area. Hot springs still flow in the Stikine Valley, and suggest a possibility of tapping geothermal energy in the future. -10- SOILS The soils in the Petersburg/Kupreanof area are a product of the unique combination of geology, climate and vegetation of southeast Alaska. The area's glacial geology left it with a steep, rugged terrain, with thin soils. The cold, wet climate slows the decomposition of organic material to a point where it accumulates faster than it can be decomposed. Therefore, the soil has a relatively thick organic layer, but is poor in inorganic nutrients and minerals (these being leached out by the heavy rainfall). Glaciers covered southeast Alaska approximately 15,000 years ago, carving lakes and shaping valleys. The ice removed much of the top soil leaving a thin layer of till in some areas and only bedrock in other areas. The average depth to bedrock of the various soil types in the planning area is 3.8 feet while the average depth to groundwater is a little over one foot. Due to the high organic composition, the shallowness of the soil and the high moisture content, areas with even moderate slopes have a tendency to slide. In steep terrain the weak structure of the soil has caused slides, with large masses of soil moving downhill and exposing bedrock or glacial subsoil. Where soils are more well drained, coniferous forests have established themselves. However, due to the cold, wet climate, and the limited activity of soil bacteria, soil development has been slow. Only the shallow upper layers of soil have sufficient nutrient content to support any substantial growth of timber. If these layers are lost through natural processes or through man-caused earth moving, the disturbed site will not immediately regenerate a coniferous forest, but will revert to early successional species, such as alder. Muskeg covers much of the area around Petersburg and Kupreanof. Characterized by one or more layers of organic mucky or fibrous material, muskeg can vary in depth from a few feet to 50 feet or more. The water table in muskeg areas is frequently at the surface and rarely is more than 8 to 12 inches from the surface of the ground. Muskeg can be found in depressions, flat lands or on sloping or steep topography. In Plate II , the soils types in the study area are generalized into four classifications, based on unpublished data from the U.S. Forest Service. Based on the soils' susceptibility to mass wasting and slippage, and their drainage characteristics, the soils are classified as follows: Areas of high soil hazard or poorly drained Areas of moderate soil hazard and moderately well-drained Areas of low soil hazard and well-drained Areas which have complex soil drainage ah Hs Plate II , Soil Characteristics, shows the placement of the four classes in the landscape. Soils information is only available for part of the planning area, but most of the inhabited areas are covered in this analysis. Although this provides an overall view of soil conditions, it is generalized to the point where it cannot be relied upon for site-specific information. On-site review is necessary to verify the soils information for specific projects. The soil classes in the Petersburg area, on the north tip of Mitkof Island, are generally poor due to poor drainage. Only a few areas are naturally areas of low soil hazard and well-drained. Same parts of the urban area of Petersburg have been modified by man through filling and drainage projects and, therefore, have soils with good characteristics for development. Lands on either side of Duncan Canal have soils with high potential for mass wasting and are poorly drained. A few areas along the shoreline, which might be characterized as beach uplift, do have good soils for development activity; however, these are found in long narrow strips in the landscape and may not be of suitable size for any activity. The areas classified as having complex drainage characteristics are a combination of soils types which have a variety of soil conditions ranging from good to poor. Site studies are necessary to determine specific local conditions. -12- UPLAND HABITATS With elevations ranging from sea level to over 7,000 feet, the Planning Area has a diversity of upland habitats representing nearly every hab- itat type in southeast Alaska. Each habitat type has its own physical characteristics, influencing the growth of vegetation, which in turn provides food and cover for specific types of wildlife. This section describes these habitats, assesses their value to wildlife and discusses their management implications. The habitats are mapped in Plate III, which is bound under separate cover. Old Growth Forest The forests of southeast Alaska represent the northern extremity of a belt of coastal moist temperate coniferous forests, which extends from northern California to southeast Alaska. Commonly called rainforests, they are dominated by a few coniferous tree species which reach epic proportions in height, diameter, age, and most importantly, productiv- ity (Franklin and Dyrness, 1973). All along the coast they produce valuable timber, supporting the forest products industry. When proper- ly managed, they also provide habitat for wildlife, protection for watersheds, and recreation for people. In the Planning Area around Petersburg and Kupreanof the dominant tree species in most of the old growth forest is western hemlock. Sitka spruce is co-dominant with hemlock in some locations, but only a few stands of old growth are dominated by spruce. Western red cedar is present on wetter sites, although Frederick Sound is approximately the northern limit for the range of red cedar so it is not dominant here. Alaska yellow cedar is also present, but is less common than the hem- lock and spruce. Blueberry, red huckleberry, devil's club and salal are common shrubs, while the ground cover is usually dominated by mosses, grasses, bunch- berry dogwood, and skunk cabbage. Mosses, lichens and fungi also grow in profusion on tree trunks, rock outcroppings, and fallen logs. These epiphytes and the accompanying bacteria are important in decomposing the logs and recycling nutrients into the soil for use by new trees. At lower elevations, the old growth forests provide year-round habitat for red squirrels and deer mice, which feed on the seeds of the conif- erous trees. Among the insect-eating mammals are the dusky shrew near streambanks and the common shrew in the more well-drained forests along the shoreline and on steeper slopes. Flying squirrels inhabit the hollows of the old growth conifers, although their nocturnal habits make them inconspicuous to the observer. Mink utilize the forest near the shoreline in the winter, when they require cover after feeding on the beaches. River otter use the forests near larger streams and es- tuaries for the same purpose. -13- Old growth forests also support a diversity of birds. Among the game birds, the blue grouse is most evident, particularly in spring when the "hoots" of the males resound through the hills. Songbirds are most abundant where the forest understory is dense, such as along stream- banks. In this habitat, the birds are attracted by the cover, the berries on the shrubs and the insects. Common species are the black- capped chickadee, Oregon junco, and winter wren. Summer visitors include the yellow warbler and the orange-crowned warbler. This old growth forest, with its partially open canopy and growth of brush, is critical to maintaining the populations of songbirds. Bald eagles, an endangered species elsewhere in the United States, are fairly common here, nesting in old growth trees near the beaches, and feeding on fish from the estuaries nearby. Over 100 eagle nests have been inventoried in the trees along the shoreline in the Planning Area (Plate III). Other large predatory birds, including the red-tailed hawk, sparrow hawk, short-eared owl and snowy owl, are present, but are considerably less abundant than the eagles. The osprey is not common in the region, but two osprey nesting sites are known in the area (Plate III). The value of the old growth forests to Sitka blacktailed deer is par- ticularly significant, and has been documented by a great deal of research recently. During the warmer months, when their food is plen- tiful, deer can utilize most habitats from the alpine meadows to the beachgrass along the shoreline. In the winter, however, scarce food supplies, especially when accompanied by heavy snowfall, force the deer into elevations below 500 feet. Even at these elevations, the food supply is variable, and shortages of winter browse lead to mortalities which control the deer population (Klein and Olson, 1960). Although open clearcuts and muskegs have plenty of browse plants, they can be buried by winter snow. Young, even-aged forests provide shelter from the snow, but do not produce sufficient browse to maintain deer popula- tions. Mature, old growth forests, however, provide both an abundance of browse (largely huckleberry and blueberry) and protection from snow, and appear to be critical to deer survival in the winter (Bloom, 1978). The areas of highest value as deer wintering range are mapped in Plate III ). These include the old growth forests along the shoreline of Duncan Canal, parts of Wrangell Narrows, and the south shoreline of Mitkof Island, as well as several of the smaller islands in Sumer Strait. The extent of this deer wintering range appears to be directly related to deer abundance. Because old growth forests take over 200 years to develop, timber man- agement policies which harvest timber on a 100-year rotation cycle will prevent the development of old growth, and thus involve a long term reduction of this habitat and of the wildlife which depend on it. The U.S. Forest Service has recognized the high habitat value of old growth forests. On Mitkof Island alone, to support the annual harvest of approximately 400 deer, the Forest Service estimates a total population -14- of 2,000 deer is needed (a population level that will take some time to reach after the heavy deer losses in the severe winters of the 1970's). The Forest Service's 1981 Mitkof Island Management Area Analysis and Direction proposes retaining at least 8,300 acres of deer winter habitat on Mitkof Island, along with additional habitat retained for other wildlife or recreation or other reasons. Because of the high timber value, the State has selected 7,970 acres of deer winter range habitat on Mitkof Island, almost half of which is north of Falls Creek. In that area, about 2,800 State-owned acres remain uncut, along with 1,510 acres managed by the Forest Service. Future land management decisions in this area by the State, the City of Petersburg, and the Forest Service will likely affect the level of deer population that can be sustained. Second-Growth Forest As a habitat type, second-growth forests include all forest stands of less than 150 years in age. Although most of the forested land in the Planning Area is vegetated by old growth, hemlock and spruce usually grow back quickly following logging, fire or other clearing. Unless large amounts of decomposing logs impede them, the new trees can be established within a few years, and are large enough to shade out the competing brush species within 15 to 20 years (Harris and Farr, 1974). With no large overstory trees to shade them out, the young trees grow much faster and more vigorously than do old growth trees, but because these even-aged stands grow at more or less the same rate, they main- tain a dense closed-in canopy. There may be virtually no understory, either of shrubs or of tree seedlings, for 150 or more years. Species diversity among the plants is thus very low, and may be limited to little more than the hemlock and spruce. With a sparse understory, the second-growth forest produces little forage for deer. Since the amount of deer winter feeding range is critical to maintaining deer populations in southeast Alaska, logging old growth forests in the Planning Area and converting them to young growth forests can be expected to reduce deer populations. The second-growth forest is also less valuable than the old growth forest in supporting blue grouse and cavity-nesting wildlife such as flying squirrels. Smaller birds and mammals do live in the second-growth forest, however. Deer mice and red squirrels inhabit second-growth forests. Songbirds such as ruby-crowned kinglets, Townsend's warblers, black-capped warblers and winter wrens may be found in this habitat in the warmer months. -15- As a resource, then, the second-growth forest presents mixed values. From a standpoint of timber production, it is faster growing than is an old growth forest. As wildlife habitat, however, it appears to be less valuable than the old growth forest. Muskegs Southeast Alaska's abundant rainfall, combined with the Planning Area's impermeable bedrock, have produced extensive poorly drained areas. Unable to support forest growth, these muskegs are vegetated with grasses, sedges, mosses and shrubs. Where trees do take root, they are usually stunted. The muskegs are mapped in Plate I as open sedge and grass muskeg and as scrub miskeg. The open muskeg is dominated by sedges or sphagnum moss. Some areas, with the water table at or above the surface, are vegetated almost en- tirely by sedges. In others, sphagnum moss forms large red-brown hum- mocks topped by shrubs such as Labrador tea, bog rosemary, swamp laurel and cranberry. In the scrub muskeg, the sphagnum moss, sedges and shrubs are accom- panied by lodgepole pine, with stunted, low-growing hemlock and cedar. This habitat is transitional between the open muskeg, and the shaded, closed forest which may grow nearby. It may represent an area with a rising water table, in which the forest is gradually being overtaken by muskeg, or it may be slowly building up enough organic material above the water table that trees can begin to grow. The miskeg supports an abundance of small wildlife as well as several game species. The long-tailed meadow mouse burrows among the herba- ceous vegetation and low shrubs, eating succulent plants. The dusky shrew feeds on insects in the muskeg. In the summer, minks use the muskeg as one area in which to feed m aquatic animals and even on the mice. The sedges and some of the shrubs provide summer forage for deer, but the snows cover this food in winter, when the deer critically need food. Wolves, too, use the muskeg, preying on the deer and on the small mammals. Birds are limited in muskeg by the shortage of cover. Only a few spe- cies reside here throughout the year: the greater yellowlegs, northern shrike, Oregon junco, Lincoln's sparrow, pine sisken and pine grosbeak, the latter two probably attracted by the seeds of the stunted pines and other coniferous trees. In the summer, violet-green swallows arrive in the muskeg where they feed on the abundant flying insects. Sparrow hawks probably feed on mice in the muskeg. Ravens and crows are also common in the muskeg. Canada geese and trumpeter swans utilize the small shallow miskeg lakes during their migrations. Both species feed heavily on the sedges and other aquatic vegetation, and the geese nest in the sedges as well. Blue grouse are also found in muskeg. -16- Human use of the muskeg habitat is also very limited. The poor drain- age and structural characteristics of the muskeg soils require expensive use of structural fill before roads or buildings can be con- structed. On the other hand, in some areas muskegs are the only land flat enough to allow building, and the filling and other engineering measures are a necessary part of a project. With the extensive areas of muskeg in the Planning Area, and its relatively low resource values, it is unlikely to be the subject of intense resource use conflicts. Broadleaf Forest Although southeast Alaska is dominated by coniferous forests and muskeg, broadleaf trees are prominent in specific areas. Alder colo- nizes rapidly in cleared or slide areas, and alder, willow and cotton- wood grow in river and stream valleys. These valleys are frequently subject to flooding, accompanied by shifting stream channels and erod- ing streambanks. If the river floods frequently, spruce and hemlock are unable to take root. The broadleaf trees, being rapid colonizers, can adapt to this unstable situation and create a habitat of special value to moose. The willows and other broadleaf trees grow tender shoots on which the moose feed. The most extensive broadleaf forest habitat, and the most valuable moose habitat in the area, is found in the Stikine Delta. Other broad- leaf habitats have developed at Thomas Bay, and other bays in which a major stream has created a floodplain. The most valuable moose habitat is shown in Plate III. Brush and Other Early Successional Habitats When an old growth forest is logged or cleared by fire, blowdown or slides, the site begins a long, slow process of plant succession to return to a forest habitat. Shaded by trees for hundreds of years, the soil is suddenly exposed to sunlight, warming the humus and allowing more rapid decomposition of the humus into nutrients. Brush species which were relegated to the understory of the forest take advantage of the sunlight to grow and spread, dominating the site for several years before young trees overtop them. Blueberry, huckleberry and salmonberry are often the dominant vegeta- tion in these open habitats. Where the humus layer has been completely removed, such as in a slide zone or on an abandoned logging road, red alder can usually colonize the site, enriching the soil with nitrogen to allow the later growth of hemlock or spruce. -17- The berry bushes provide food for a diversity of wildlife species. The most noticeable, when they are present, are black bears on Mitkof and Kupreanof Islands along with brown bears on the mainland. Deer browse on the shrubs, but, as in the muskegs, this food source is buried under snow in the winter, when they need it the most. The dusky shrew prob- ably inhabits these brushy areas where it feeds on insects. Another common small mammal, the deer mouse, is present here as well. Its seed-eating habits may be important in determining how rapidly hemlock and spruce can begin to move into these cleared areas. Among the song- birds, the winter wren and black-capped warbler are common in the brushy habitat, with the Swainson's thrush and orange-crowned warbler fairly common. Since the brushy habitat is usually replaced in a short time by young growth forest, it is not often of great concern in resource management issues. Rather it is often the result of an earlier management deci- sion, and provides only some short-term diversity to the habitats of the Planning Area. Alpine, Glacier and Exposed Rock Habitats In the elevations above 1,500 feet, the climate is harsher, stunting the growth of vegetation and slowing the development of soils. These habitats are most widespread in the mainland portion of the Planning Area, where the mountains reach above 7,000 feet and are covered with extensive snow- and icefields. The glaciers flowing aut of the moun- tains bring the alpine climate with them, and the habitats near glaciers, even near sea level, resemble the higher elevation alpine habitats. Although much of the alpine habitat appears to be barren rock from a distance, a closer inspection reveals a colonization by particularly hardy plants. Mosses and lichens grow on some of the rock, with heather, mountain hemlock, and occasional herbaceous plants inhabiting cracks in the rock. These areas have no value for commercial timber production. Where soil has developed over the bare rock, it is often poorly drained. The slowly decomposing vegetation gradually accumlates into peat. In this habitat, the cold temperatures slow the decomposition of vegetation, and result in thin, poorly developed soil. The soil structure, drainage and steep slopes all combine to make alpine meadows unsuitable sites for construction of buildings or roads. The vegeta- tion is limited to low shrubs, such as the heathers and blueberry, club mosses, and herbaceous species such as Nootka lupine, deer cabbage, sedges and grasses. -18- The areas recently glaciated or covered with glacial outwash are better drained than the alpine habitats underlain by impermeable bedrock, but the soil is poorly developed, low in nutrients and humus, so vegetation is sparse, often only patches of dryas and scattered Sitka alders. While the low alpine plants provide cover for only the smaller mammals, the herbaceous vegetation and shrubs produce food for deer in the summer. Wolves also use the alpine habitat occasionally. Mountain goats rely on this habitat almost exclusively. Their range in the Planning Area is limited to the habitat above approximately 1,500 feet and below the glaciers from above Farragut Bay to above the Stikine Delta (Plate III). In the winter, birds using the alpine meadows are limited to the rock ptarmigan. During warmer weather, this habitat also supports rufous hummingbirds, ravens, robins, and golden-crowned sparrows. The forest just below the alpine meadows is an especially critical habitat for wildlife using the meadows. Of the two major elements of any wildlife habitat, food and cover, the alpine meadow provides only food; its low-growing plants are not suitable as cover for any but the smallest animals. While larger animals feed in the open meadow, they retreat into the nearby forests for cover. This forest adjacent to the alpine meadows, similar to other forests in vegetation, plays a greater role than the others as wildlife habitat, by providing this important cover. Because of their remoteness, harsh climate and steep slopes, the alpine and glacier habitats have little potential for development for human use. With the possible exception of mineral extraction, the most likely uses these habitats will see in the future are hiking, rock-climbing, and goat hunting. -19- TIMBER RESOURCES The Petersburg-Kupreanof Coastal Planning Area, nearly a million acres in land area, is well endowed with commercially harvestable timber. In spite of the bare rock and glaciers on the mainland, the muskegs at low elevations and the poor soils at high elevations, the Planning Area has approximately 222,000 acres of commercial forest land, with about 5.3 billion board feet of timber (Table 1 ) or about 17% of the timber in southeast Alaska. The greatest volume of timber, 2.5 billion board feet, is located on the Kupreanof Island portion of the Planning Area. Mitkof Island has 1.3 billion board feet, and the remainder of the Planning Area has 1.5 billion board feet. Not all of this timber is likely to be harvested, however. About one-third, or 1.7 billion board feet, is on land which presents con- straints to logging. Steep terrain and unstable soils require the use of non-standard logging technology to harvest. In some areas the timber is scattered, and the cost of road construction exceeds the value of the timber in today's market. Other areas, such as near salmon spawning streams, have valuable timber but require special mea- sures to protect the stream habitat. Several areas have been set aside in wilderness or other protected status. About 460,000 acres are protected, including the Stikine - LeConte Wilderness, the Boundary Spires Wilderness, and the Petersburg Creek Wilderness. The watersheds of Farragut Bay and Duncan Saltchuck have also been designated by the Forest Service to remain roadless. Although these land withdrawals amount to 46% of the land in the Planning Area, they include only 13% of the commercial forest land, and only 15% of the commercial timber volume. Of the timber which can be harvested by standard methods, 3.1 billion board feet, or 86% of the volume in the Planning Area, remains avail- able for harvest. The Forest Service manages this timber on a sus- tained yield basis, with a rotation cycle of between 80 and 120 years. With this rotation cycle, there should be between 26 and 39 million board feet available for harvest each year. Commercial timber harvesting in the Planning Area, as with the rest of southeast Alaska, was minimal until the 1950's. In 1951 the Forest Service signed a 50-year timber sale contract with the Ketchikan Pulp Campany, and in 1956, they made another 50-year sale to Alaska Lumber and Pulp, a Japanese-owned firm with a pulpmill in Sitka and a sawmill in Wrangell. Neither of these two large sales included timber in the Planning Area. In the 1970's a long term timber sale was made to Pacific Northern Timber (PNT). The PNT sale included timber on Mitkof Island, as well as areas near Wrangell. Several large areas were -20- TABLE 1 COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND AND TIMBER RESOURCES IN PETERSBURG - KUPREANOF PLANNING AREA‘ (ALL LANDS) Land mass Normal operating Non-standard! operating Other land Total land acres volume > acres volume acres acres Mitkof Island 34,893 906,520 15,429 379,857 56, 303 106,625 Kupreanof Is. 73,876 1,780,899 - 30,908 746,814 205,581 310, 365 Mainland 25,598 607,820 23,553 530,355 489,920 539,051 Other islands? 14,915 281,069 2,547 61,492 11, 906 29, 368 Totals: 149,282 3,576,308 72,437 1,718,518 763,710 985,449 COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND AND TIMBER RESOURCES IN PETERSBURG - KUPREANOF PLANNING AREA (IN LANDS ALLOCATED FOR TIMBER HARVEST AND DEVELOPMENT) Land mass Normal operating Non-standard operating Other land Total land acres volume acres volume acres acres Mitkof Island 34,893 906,520 15,429 379,857 56, 303 106,625 Kupreanof Is. 61,482 1,482,558 26,976 646,349 171,947 260, 404 “‘fainland 21,095 406, 243 14,583 322,038 95,420 131,098 Other islands 14,915 281,069 2,547 61,492 11, 906 29, 368 Totals: 132,385 3,076,390 59,535 1,409, 736 335,576 527,495 % available for harvest: 89% 86% 82% 823 4us 543 % withdrawn from devel. : 11% 14% 18% 18% 56% 463 Source: U.S. Forest Service unpublished data NOTES ¥. "Non-standard" refers to areas which, because of high habitat or recreational values, should only be logged with special technology, or to areas with timber that is not accessible using current technology at current market values. "Other islands" includes Woewodski Island and several smaller islands in Sumner Strait near the Stikine Flats. For this analysis, data for land draining into Wrangel! Narrows north of Blind Stough has been allocated evenly between Mitkof Island and Kupreanof Island. Includes only National Forest land. No data are available or state and private land, but they comprise only a small portion of the planning area. "Volume" is calculated in thousands of board feet (mbf). -21- logged on Mitkof Island, most notably on the east side of the island, but PNT was unable to fulfill the terms of the contract which called for it to build a major manufacturing plant in the area, and the timber sale was cancelled. The last PNT logging on Mitkof Island was con- cluded in 1981, and the sale will officially end in 1982. State and Native land selections and wilderness withdrawals elsewhere in southeast Alaska have removed enough timber from the Forest Service's inventory that additional harvesting pressure will be placed on the Planning Area in order to fulfill contractual requirements. In this context, the Forest Service continues to make short-term timber sales in the Planning Area. In the 1980's, logging is scheduled for the Cabin Creek area and the south end of Mitkof Island, the north end of the Lindenberg Peninsula, the Bohemia area and the east side of Duncan Canal on Kupreanof Island. In the 10-year period from 1982 through 1991, the Forest Service plans to harvest about 100,700 acres. The average annual cut will be about 29 million board feet, about the level that the area can produce on a sustained yield basis. The har- vest will include nearly half the commercial forest land in the Plan- ning Area, or over three-quarters the land suitable for normal operat- ing and allocated for timber harvest and development (Table 1 ), which suggests that the Forest Service will have to rely, in the 1990's, on smaller scales in this area, with non-standard logging methods. The State, through its Department of Natural Resources (DNR) also owns timber in the Planning Area. In many cases, State lands were selected for their high timber value and accessibility for harvest. Noteworthy among these lands are 7,970 acres on Mitkof Island (of which 1,870 acres have already been cut), and several square miles south of Petersburg Creek and at the south end of the Lindenberg Peninsula on Kupreanof Island. The State has not inventoried its timber as thoroughly as has the Forest Service, so no estimates of timber volume are available. Further uncertainties in this timber supply arise from the State's land disposal program. DNR may choose to sell some of the timber before subdividing the land into lots, or it may sell the timber with the in- dividual lots. The State is already administering one large timber sale near Haines, and does not appear to be devoting a great deal of attention to the timber near Kupreanof or Petersburg. In terms of available timber, then, the 3.1 billion board feet of readily harvestable timber on National Forest land is the most reliable supply. As noted above, the Forest Service's rotation policy should allow an annual cut of 26 to 39 million board feet per year. In south- east Alaska as a whole, 90.5% of the growing stock is classified as sawtimber (Hutchinson and LaBau , 1975). If this figure is applied to the Planning Area, there should be about 23.2 to 34.8 million board feet of sawtimber available for harvest annually. -22- This volume should be sufficient to supply Peterburg's local sawmill with all the logs it can process in the foreseeable future. In the past several years, Mitkof Lumber averaged 10 million board feet of product annually. In 1981, the mill sawed a local record of 15 million board feet. Some of the timber harvested in the Planning Area is proc- essed in Wrangell and elsewhere, so even though there is a sufficient volume of timber in the Planning Area, Mitkof Lumber has purchased logs from as far away as the west coast of Prince of Wales Island. The annual fluctuations in the volume of logs sawn in Petersburg depends both on supply and demand. The logs supplied to the mill vary considerably in quality. Larger logs can usually be processed into cants or boards more efficiently; thus the same amount of manpower and mill capacity can produce a greater volume of product from larger logs than from smaller logs. The international lumber market influences local production as well. The current low demand for lumber in Japan and in the domestic housing market has closed some sawmills and logging operations in southeast Alaska, and Mitkof Lumber could certainly ex- pand its production if demand increased. (Indeed, the company has plans for expansion which could nearly double the mill's production in a two- to three-year period. The plans are currently being held in abeyance, pending more favorable financing and market conditions. ) In addition to the mill's capacity for producing cants and boards, Mitkof Lumber has been investigating the feasibility of using wood waste for fuel. The two most likely possibilities are pressing chips and sawdust into pellets which can be sold locally as heating fuel, and gasification of the wood waste to produce a fuel which can be burned in engines like diesel fuel, to power the mill itself or for sale to other parties. The use of local timber for firewood should not be neglected. Although electric heat and fuel oil are available, an extraordinary number of people in Petersburg choose to heat their homes with wood. In Kupreanof there is little alternative to wood heat. As additional timber sales open up more roads on Mitkof Island, there will be more areas open for firewood cutting by local residents. Although firewood cutting will not make an appreciable impact on total timber supply, it should be addressed in local, state and Forest Service policies to ensure that it is continuously available to local residents. In the long term, if market conditions improve or new technology is developed, the timber which is not now economical to harvest may become economical. These developments could increase the timber supply in the Planning Area by up to 46%, or 1.4 billion board feet, with no changes in land use designations. Sawmill technology is changing rapidly, al- lowing more efficient use of a given volume of timber. In perhaps 60 to 80 years, the timber harvested will be from second growth forest. Although these younger trees will be more productive in terms of volume increase per year, they will certainly be smaller than the old growth trees now harvested, and will require considerable changes in both har- vesting and processing methods. -23- If all 192,000 acres of available commercial forest land in the Planning Area are harvested, however, it would make profound changes in the visual character of the area as well as in its habitat values. Some of this land would have to be retained in old growth forest to protect deer wintering range, salmon spawning habitat and recreation areas, so it is unlikely, under present policies, that the Planning Area will actually have 5.5 billion board feet harvested in one rota-— tion cycle. Nevertheless, there will probably continue to be a suf- ficient supply for the sawmill in Petersburg and for local firewood use. -24- MARINE RESOURCES AND HABITATS Petersburg and Kupreanof are located on the shores of some of the most productive waters in the world. The region's characteristic geologic history, climate, oceanographic and biological ‘conditions combine to make the inside waters of the northwest coast of North America a highly productive, self-sustaining system that is exceptional among the world's marine ecosystems. The system retains nutrients where they can be used most efficiently, and produces prodigious quantities of food for fish, shellfish, waterfowl, marine animals and humans. This chap- ter reviews the processes that contribute to the production of marine resources, analyzes the characteristics of those resources, and dis- cusses their use and management. OCEANOGRAPHY AND PRODUCTIVITY Where rivers and streams enter the marine environment, they form an estuary. An estuary is a semi-enclosed body of water, strongly af- fected by tidal action, having a free connection with the open sea, in which seawater is measurably diluted by freshwater derived from upland runoff. The planning area has several readily definable estuaries, most notably the Stikine River, but Wrangell Narrows, Frederick Sound, Duncan Canal, and all the inside waters in southeast Alaska can be con- sidered estuarine. They are partially isolated from the open sea and are diluted by freshwater runoff. Most important, they tend to be more productive than does the open ocean. The freshwater lakes and streams in the region, draining impermeable bedrock, generally tend to be poor in nutrients, as do the surface waters of the open ocean. The big reservoirs of nutrients are in deep ocean water, but at those depths there is no sunlight, so the nutrients cannot be used by the phytoplankton which convert sunlight, water, carbon dioxide and inorganic nutrients into food. In the estuaries, where freshwater is flowing out from the uplands, the water tends to develop layers, with the less dense freshwater in a layer above the more dense seawater. Close to the stream mouths this layering is more apparent; towards the ocean the layers mix more. The most visible example of estuarine circulation in the Planning Area is the plume of freshwater from the Stikine River. In Dry Strait, nearly all the water is murky from the Stikine's sediment; in the eastern part of Sumner Strait the muddy water has been diluted somewhat by the sea- water below; at the mouth of Sumner Strait the waves and tidal action have almost completely mixed the freshwater and the saltwater. This pattern is repeated at a smaller and less visible scale at the mouth of Petersburg Creek, Blind Slough and numerous other estuaries in the Planning Area. Ru The lower salinity water flows out of the estuary at the surface. Since the outflow is at the surface, inflowing water mist enter the es- tuary at depth. In the warmer months, this inflow-at-depth coincides with a coastwide process of upwelling in which deep, nutrient-rich, oceanic water is carried to the shore, and provides nutrients to the estuary. When it enters the estuary, the nutrient-rich water passes over a shal- low sill, or a constriction, which causes the deep water to mix with the surface water. The nutrients then become available for use by phytoplankton, which convert it to food for fish, shellfish and other marine organisms. When they leave the estuary, the nutrients are in- corporated into living organisms (young salmon, for example) which con- tribute to the productivity of the offshore waters. SHORELINE HABITATS The advances and retreats of the glaciers in southeast Alaska have left the area with hundreds of miles of intricately carved shoreline. In the areas exposed to southeast winds and waves, the shoreline is com posed of steep, hard rock cliffs. The protected bays and sloughs are lined with broad, soft tideflats. Most of the shoreline, however, is between these two extremes, composed of a mixture of sand, gravel, cob- bles and boulders. Each habitat type has its own physical and biolog- ical characteristics. Some produce clams and mussels, others are valuable feeding grounds for fish or waterfowl. This section examines the shoreline habitats of the Petersburg - Kupreanof Planning Area in terms of their general physical and biological characteristics, and discusses some of their implications for coastal resource management. Rocky Shores In exposed waters, particularly on the shorelines exposed to southeast winds, storm waves pound the beaches, scouring away any sand, gravel or other sediment. Solid bedrock remains, and develops a community of plants and animals adapted to the hard, solid surfaces. Most of these organisms have the ability to attach themselves to the rock, to with- stand the action of both waves and predators. They distribute themselves in vertical zones on the rock according to their tolerance of, and adaptation to, the exposure and inundation by the tides. (Figure 2 shows the distribution of representative plants and animals on the rocky shore.) -26- FIGURE 2 Rocky Shore Near the high tide line barnacles attach themselves to the rock. Not permanently attached, but clinging tightly, are small snails, the periwinkles and limpets. Larger snails, such as the wrinkled purple snail, appear farther down on the rocks, where tidal coverage is greater and exposure to air is reduced. These are joined by chitons, or gumboots, which have a power- ful foot for cling to the rock, and by mussels, which produce strong threads with which to attach themselves to the rock. Algae is also prominent in the mid-tide levels, with rockweed the most abundant at this level. The lower intertidal zone of rocky shores is populated by many species which are also found in deeper water, and is a partial indicator of the nearshore subtidal marine life. Most apparent here is the lush growth of algae. Several species of large brown kelp live here, attached to the rock with holdfasts, rootlike structures at the base of the plant. Not so impressive in size, but nonetheless important in the functioning of the marine ecosystem, are the smaller brown and red algae which grow in the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal zones. Starfish are common on the lower rocky intertidal and shallow subtidal bottom. At high water they migrate to the high tide levels to feed on barnacles and mussels. Octopuses inhabit the crevices in the rocks, -27- crawling and swimming in search of crabs or other shellfish. Rockfish, sculpins, greenling and other bottomfish are abundant among the rocks just below the low tide line. The most prominent example of rocky shores in the Planning Area is the shoreline at the base of Horn Cliffs, across Frederick Sound from Petersburg. Less spectacular, but more easily accessible rocky shores can be seen where the Mitkof Highway runs along Sumner Strait. Mixed-sediment Shores Most of the shoreline in the Planning Area is composed of a mixture of sand, gravel and cobbles. The proportion of these materials on a beach varies with exposure to wave action. Protected shorelines are made up of fine materials, such as sand and gravel. Shorelines exposed to more wave action have a greater proportion of boulders and cobbles, since the waves wash away the finer sediments. Where calm water lets sand and mud settle out, it allows organic detritus to accumlate. This decomposing plant and animal material collects in the sediments, and is a food source for many marine animals. The spaces between the particles are important habitat for many animals, which burrow to protect themselves from predators, and from exposure to air at low tide. While these mixed-sediment beaches my not appear on the surface to be as well-populated as a rocky shore, the hidden burrowers often form diverse and productive communities. Clams are abundant in gravel and cobbles. Littlenecks are found in a few feet above zero tide level, butter clams somewhat lower, horse clams at the minus tide levels, and geoducks at the extreme low inter- tidal and in the subtidal zone. Dungeness crabs, red rock crabs, and small purple shore crabs frequent these shores, moving about to feed on detritus at high tide, then bur- rowing in the sediment or under boulders at low tide. Other small animals burrowing into mixed-sediment beaches and consuming detritus include small crustaceans, polychaete worms and small clams. These animals are often fed upon by bottomfish and by some species of water- fowl, such as scoters. Among the seaweeds and brown rockweed, sea lettuce are common in the midtide levels. Brown and red algae, generally smaller than the kelps of the rocky shores, grow at lower tide levels. (Figure 3) -~28- LESS EXPOSED Great Blue Heron Periwinkles bs okt N \Amphipod beach- hopper) Ve, Polychaete Worms Macoma Clam TIDAL MARSH | | iMIXED FINE 1 EELGRASS BED ( (GRAVEL, SAND, MUD) ° Figure 3 _ MORE EXPOSED yy) AZ i FRAO 7 Canada Goose Herring Starry im Flounder ai 22 i s 7 Wie i i) ") NW ae ittleneck SUEY) Pi a ane Dungeness aaah Cockles MIXED COARSE (BOULDER, COBBLE, GRAVEL) Mixed Sediment Shores Tideflats and Eelgrass Beds Along the most protected shoreline, fine sand and silt settles out into tideflats. The largest tideflats in southeast Alaska are located in the Planning Area on the Stikine Delta and Koknuk Flats, which, even though they are not as sheltered as some areas, receive massive amounts of alluvial sediment from the Stikine River. Much smaller tideflats can be seen in Kupreanof in the estuary of Petersburg Creek, and in Petersburg in Hammer Slough. The tideflats support a community of animals adapted for burrowing in the soft sediment. Some, such as the polychaete worms, continually tunnel through the mud in search of food. Other animals are more mobile: the amphipods, or "sand-fleas", burrow into the sediment at low tide, but swim through the water at high tide. When they emerge from the sediment, the mdflat dwellers are fed upon by small fish. Several studies in recent years have found that juvenile pink and chum salmon use small tideflat crustaceans as a major food source (Conley, 1977; Healey, 1979; Simenstad and Kinney, 1978; Smith, 1977). Flounders use the bays of Duncan Canal, Blind Slough and the Petersburg Creek estuary as a nursery habitat, and it is likely that they too feed on the tideflat organisms. Shorebirds are also common, feeding upon the small crustaceans of the tideflats. Some tideflats are vegetated with eelgrass, a marine grass which per- forms a number of valuable functions in the estuarine environment. The eelgrass plants reduce the force of the waves with their blades, and stabilize loose sediment with their roots and rhizomes. The sheltered environment they create resembles an underwater meadow, and provides a habitat for a diversity of organisms. The eelgrass itself has a very high rate of biological productivity. Its annual production of organic matter is higher, in fact, than that of many cultivated crops which re- quire extensive inputs of energy and nutrients. While some of that productivity is contributed to the rest of marine environment through grazing by small invertebrates, much is used in a fragmented or par- tially decomposed form, as organic detritus. The eelgrass blades also provide a surface for attachment for many small animals and plants. Migrating waterfowl, particularly geese, feed heavily on eelgrass. Dungeness crabs use eelgrass beds as a nur- sery area, and shrimp and other crustaceans are abundant. The eelgrass is also important as a spawning substrate for herring. -30- Tidal Marshes Occupying the upper intertidal zone, tidal marshes represent a transi- tion between the estuarine environment and the uplands. The vegeta- tion, originated in the uplands, is adapted for tidal inundation. Wildlife from the uplands feed in the tidal marches at low tide. Marine animals use the marshes at high tide. Most tidal marches in southeast Alaska are small fringes of Lyngbye sedge, tufted hairgrass and beach ryegrass at the upper edges of pro- tected beaches. In the planning area around Petersburg and Kupreanof, however, tidal marshes are much more extensive. Nearest to the two commnities are the marshes in the Petersburg Creek estuary, which sup- ports a remarkable abundance and diversity of waterfowl considering its proximity to the cities. Further south, the tidal marshes in Blind Slough cover some 2,000 acres, and provide one of the most valuable winter habitats for waterfowl in the region. Trumpeter swans, in par- ticular, use Blind Slough as a feeding area. Other tidal marshes can be found at the head of Duncan Canal and in Frederick Sound north of Le Conte Bay. Smaller marshes have developed in the fine sediment at the mouth of many of the streams in the area. By far the most extensive tidal marshes in the study area, and in southeast Alaska as a whole, are found on the Stikine Flats. Here, in the fine sediment deposited in the river delta, small hardy-spike rushes take root and collect additional sediment around them. As the tidal flats build up to a higher elevation, they are inundated less frequently, for a shorter duration, and by less saline water. The flats then become more hospitable for other marsh plants, such as Lyngbye sedge, Pacific silverweed, Arctic rush and tall bulrush. One study of the vegetation of the Stikine Flats (del Moral and Watson, 1978) identified eleven major plant commnities in low marshes, high marshes, scrub thickets and coniferous forest. The study concluded that the various marsh communities appear to be advancing gradually out across the tideflats, but the scrub thickets of alder and willow, kand the hemlock and spruce forests did not encroach on the marshes. Besides the well-documented value to waterfowl, tidal marshes are im- portant to other wildlife as well. Deer feed on the sedges in the marshes, and mink feed on the invertebrates which live in the tidal sloughs. Bear and eagles feed on spawned-out salmon carcasses which wash down into the tidal marshes. The marsh also provides a valuable transitional habitat for pink and chum salmon fry which feed on small crustaceans in the sloughs winding through the marsh (Smith, 1977; Congleton, 1979). Tidal marshes are often viewed with an eye o their real estate value more than on their habitat value. In a region where deep bays and channels abut steep mountains, tidal marshes represent a major portion of the flat land. Plans for ports or other waterfront development are frequently sited in tidal marshes, and present conflicts for the public and private interests involved in resource use and management. =31- FISHERY RESOURCES Since the founding of Petersburg in 1897, fishing and fish processing have been the mainstay of the community's economy. The small cannery founded by Peter Buschmann has grown into Petersburg Fisheries, Inc., one of southeast Alaska's largest seafood processors. PFI and four other Petersburg processors now pack fish and shellfish caught from Dixon Entrance to the Bering Sea, and with an average of 32.2 million pounds landed annually (1977-1980), Petersburg ranks fifth among all Alaska ports. Although Petersburg is a regional fish processing center, local harvest and production are important as well. While the large company-owned seiners and packers travel hundreds of miles to supply Petersburg's canneries with fish, local trollers and gillnetters harvest the re- sources of nearby waters. Subsistence and sport fishing are also common for residents of Kupreanof and Petersburg. Salmon makes up the greatest share of the fishery, both in pounds landed and in dollar value, but shellfish, herring and bottomfish are important to the industry as well. This section discusses the fishery resource in terms of the size and value of the harvests, the needs of the resource, and prospects for the future of each fishery. The discussion refers to the catch in several areas, which for clarity wll be defined here: Southeast Alaska: all marine and estuarine waters south of Yakutat and north of Dixon Entrance. Petersburg Management Area: the area managed by ADF&G from Petersburg, extending south to Wrangell, west to Chatham Strait and north to Frederick Sound. Petersburg - Kupreanof Coastal Planning Area: (or "the Planning Area") the area defined on page 4 as the area of local concern, ex- tending roughly from Sumner Strait north to Cape Fanshaw, east to the Stikine River and west to Duncan Canal. Salmon In many southeast Alaskan cities, the term "fishing season" applies to salmon season only. In the region as a whole, where over two-thirds of the seafood landed and three-quarters of the ex-vessel value is at- tributable to salmon, commnities come alive with the opening of salmon season. Canneries open, boats arrive and jobs are plentiful during salmon season. In the fall, the activity dies down again and the towns are once again quiet. -32- Petersburg's seafood industry is much more diverse, with salmon ac-— counting for less than half the pounds caught in the Petersburg Management Area. Nonetheless, salmon contributes a larger share than any other fishery. In the Petersburg - Kupreanof Coastal Planning Area alone, the salmon harvests since 1969 have averaged nearly a half mil- lion pounds annually (Table 2 ). ‘The Petersburg Management Area has averaged over 8 million pounds per year (1975-81) with a value to the fishermen of well over 5 million dollars per year. TABLE 2 STUDY AREA FISHERY DATA YEAR KING = RED COHO = =PINK «= CHUN TOTAL 1969 478946 128588 50799 951730 © 23337 733400 1970 34399 101769 159318 130541 206425 634452 1971 51256 118934 126379 91076 41928 429573 1972 123932 340474 304898 132063 229591 1130958 1973 137325. 153714 45319 42789 «91457 470604 1974 140506 18271 138669 17276 20587 335309 1975 295231044 10 63 30640 1976 20356 131 89528 3042 «= 1677 «114734 1977 16882 341094 137712 70161 40805 606654 1978 4853 952 292835 7879 9717 316236 1979 676 «14498-30293 «55347 14157 114971 1980 7U48 95506 ~§ 24568 «= 32318 = 69672 229212 AVERAGES 87317 109581 127302 52853 462451 428895 Locally, the main salmon fishing areas are the Districts 106 and 108 gillnet areas in Sumer Strait and near the Stikine Delta. In addition to the local catch, the Planning Area contributes a great deal to the gillnet, troll and seine fisheries in outside waters and elsewhere west and south of Petersburg. The Stikine River System is one of the largest salmon producers in southeast Alaska, and is par- ticularly noteworthy for its production of king salmon, which do not spawn in the smaller streams, and for the large sockeye runs which originate in lakes upstream in Canada. Other portions of the Planning Area are not fished commercially, but have productive streams which contribute to the fisheries farther autside. Maintaining this local production requires the right combination of physical, chemical and biological conditions in all the habitats om which the salmon rely, from the upper reaches of spawning streams to the Gulf of Alaska. The habitats which can best be protected by local and interagency measures, however, are the streams and estuaries. All species of salmon require clean stream gravel and cold, oxygen-rich water for spawning and egg incubation. Coho salmon are reared in the streams for a year or more before migrating to sea; kings remain in the -33- river systems for eight months or more; and sockeye rear in lakes for about two years. Thus the quality of the water and stream gravel mst be protected throughout the year. Stream habitats can be degraded by poor logging, mining and road building practices. If streambanks are cleared, sunlight can warm the water above acceptable levels in summer, and winter freezes are more likely to kill incubating eggs. Mass soil movement can introduce fine sediment into streambeds, clogging other- wise clean gravel. Logging practices in southeast Alaska have been refined in the past 10 to 20 years, and the U.S. Forest Service now in- cludes fishery biologists and water resource specialists in the teams which plan timber sales. Logging and other development on state and private land is less closely regulated and certainly has the potential to destroy stream habitat. The estuaries, too, are important for salmon production. Pink and chum salmon usually swim downstream to saltwater shortly after emerging from the stream gravel. In the estuarine wetlands and tideflats they feed on small crustaceans until they are large enough to move into open water. If they cannot find such shallow estuarine habitat, the pink and chum fry may be exposed to predators in open water before they are large enough to evade the predators. Since there appears to be a very close relationship between the size of a juvenile salmon and its chances of survival, ensuring adequate survival requires that these valuable feeding grounds be protected. Activities such as dredging, filling and bulkheading eliminate shallow water habitats. Where these habitats are limiting to salmon production, reducing their extent has the effect of reducing the salmon production. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has installed several salmon en- hancement facilities in the planning area (Plate IV). By far the largest is the Crystal Lake Hatchery, constructed in 1972 near the head of Blind Slough. This hatchery has the capacity to produce 2 million coho, 900,000 chum, and 100,000 chinook salmon smolts, as well as 48,000 steelhead trout. In addition to this facility which produces its own salmon runs, there are facilities to enhance the strength of natural runs. A fish ladder provides passage for pink, chum and coho around Falls Creek, south of Petersburg. There was a fish passage installed at Kah Sheets Creek, but it has washed out and no replace- ments are planned. Additional fish passages are proposed for Portage Creek and Skogs Creek. Long-term trends in the salmon fishery are difficult to predict from either a biological or an economic point of view. While supply of and demand for salmon influence its price, changes in the price are not likely to affect production or harvest, since the fisheries are managed for an optimum escapement goal, which does not vary with the price of salmon. Over the past two decades, salmon prices have con- sistently remained high enough to ensure that commercial harvest quotas were fully utilized. =342 Nor do physical or biological conditions point toward any long-term trends. The benefits of a high escapement can he negated by a hard freeze killing the eggs in the streams, or by poor ocean survival of the young fish. A poor escapement can be balanced out by favorable climatic conditions, or a good food supply in the estuary for young fish. Overall, the best that can be hoped for is to meet the escape- ment goal each year, supplement natural production with hatchery fish where appropriate, and encourage survival of eggs and fry in the habitats which are amenable to such management activities. Herring A relatively small herring food and bait fishery is conducted each year in the Planning Area. Averaging slightly over 400,000 pounds per year, with an ex-vessel value of approximately $50,000, this fishery has shown a gradual decline in harvest level in the past decade, due to de- creasing stock size. (Table 3) These herring spawn on beaches and shallow subtidal vegetation in Wrangell Narrows, and thus depend on the continued presence of the spawning vegetation (kelp, eelgrass and other marine plants) and an adequate water quality on and around the spawning area for egg and larval survival. Considerably larger herring stocks support food and bait fisheries around Chichagof Island, gillnet roe fisheries at Kah Shakes south of Ketchikan and in Seymour Canal on Admiralty Island, and seine roe fisheries at Sitka and in Lynn Canal. There is therefore no great pressure for a major herring fishery around Petersburg and Kupreanof, and unless the local herring stock grows dramatically, it is unlikely TABLE 3 STUDY AREA FISHERY DATA OTHER FISH HERRING SMELT D VARDEN STEELHD TOTAL 100466 2161 102627 415850 11948 1045 428843 54000 443411390 443 100174 1136058 94781 554 = 1604 1232997 1576280 318198 519 1894997 212396 =: 92883 496 305775 159635 124938 59 284632 73444329492 166 764101 327684 © 15832 136 343652 59317 1470 TUL 61698 39300 3 393 84100 62 94162 408294 = 81565 972 619 470249 -35- to support a larger fishery. Since there has been little attention paid in Alaska to artificially enhancing the herring resource, the prospects for increasing the stock depend on limiting the harvest and protecting the spawning habitat along the shores of Wrangell Narrows. Shellfish Over half the shellfish harvested in southeast Alaska are taken in the Petersburg management area. Like the area around it, the Planning Area is also important in the region's shellfish industry, accounting for 12.5% of the total southeast Alaska shellfish harvest (Table 4). The local catch is dominated by shrimp, which make up 70% of the harvest. Tanner, Dungeness and king crab together make up 30%, with squid and octopus contributing only a minor amount. The crab and shrimp fisheries are dominated by about 10 boats from Petersburg and Wrangell, and the beam trawl requirement for shrimp fishing tends to discourage non-local fishermen, who are not familiar with the bottom topography in the shrimping grounds of Duncan Canal, Wrangell Narrows and Frederick Sound. TABLE 4 PLANNING AREA HARVEST DATA SHELLFISH YEAR SQUID OCTOPUS KINGCRB DNGNESS TANNER SHRIMP = TOTAL 1969 79823 297920 151750 757860 1287353 1970 9237 148914 176174 540716 875041 1971 18218 75030 61788 605335 750371 1972 55345 54186 120755 540721 771007 1973 32038 «= 37243 «106108 499073 674462 1974 12502 84718 61976 801615 960811 1975 22847 28204 «=68406 559048 478505 1976 19949 29617 145927 396376 = 591869 1977 19948 23767 242100 789922 1075737 1978 353. (30784 «= 79479151783 553242 815641 1979 52 16905 110056 158870 572598 858481 1980 260 43632-78701 255879 622802 1001274 AVE. . 52 307 30102-87320 141793 603276 962546 Hardshell clams, such as littlenecks, butter clams and geoducks, are present in the study area in concentrations suitable for either com mercial hand-digging or hydraulic harvesting. In the 1940's the clam fishery was a thriving industry in southeast Alaska, and Alaska Glacier Seafoods in Petersburg was a leader in clam packaging. The clam -36- fishery has had difficult times in southeast Alaska, however. Because of several outbreaks of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), the state and federal governments have adopted strict sampling and inspection guidelines for certification of shellfish beds — guidelines which have effectively prevented commercial clam harvesting in southeast Alaska. Since 1978, there has been a renewed interest in developing a clam fishery in Alaska. Diver surveys have located subtidal geoducks in harvestable concentrations in southeast Alaska, and large seafood com- panies have funded surveys of subtidal clams further north. The state has responded with efforts to streamline the certification procedures. Among other changes, it may soon ke possible to certify batches of clams with a test of the clam meat rather than use a lengthy 18-month program of sampling to certify shellfish beds for harvesting. If a commercial clam fishery should develop in southeast Alaska, it is likely that at least one of Petersburg's seafood processors would be able to take advantage of the new fishery. Processing and shipping facilities might require upgrading, but if these and the certification problems can be solved, a clam fishery might provide additional income to the fishermen, processors and cannery workers of Petersburg and Kupreanof . Bottomfish In the late 1970's state and federal agencies, as well as several pri- vate organizations, began promoting bottomfish as the next exploitable fishery resource. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act, passed by Congress in 1976, gave regional councils and the U.S. Department of Commerce the authority to manage fisheries 200 miles offshore, and pre- sented possibilities for U.S. fishermen to tap resources that had not been utilized or were fished only by other nations. The underutilized species include mostly bottomfish, and the greatest bottomfish concen- trations are in Alaska. Bottomfish include many otherwise unrelated species which inhabit waters near the sea bottom. Among the families represented are the flatfish (flounder, sole, and halibut), the cod (Pacific cod, tomcod, pollock, hake and blackcod), and the scorpionfish (rockfish, red snap- per, and Pacific ocean perch). These species vary greatly in their life histories, their habitat requirements, and their commercial value. Their classification as bottomfish reflects only their bottom-dwelling habits and, more recently, the fact that they are not members of the heavily exploited salmon family. Although they are currently being publicized as a new resource, bottom-— fish have been exploited commercially in the Gulf of Alaska for over 50 years. In the 1920's longlining for halibut began in the Gulf, and -37- other species were taken only as incidentals in this and the shrimp trawl fishery. When the factory ships of Japan, Korea, the U.S.S.R. and Poland entered the fishery in the 1960's all the groundfish species except halibut were still in relatively abundant, virgin states. Since that time it has become apparent that bottomfish cannot be re- garded as an unlimited resource, but must be carefully managed. The three species which have been fished extensively — halibut, blackcod and Pacific ocean perch — have undergone serious declines in popula- tion. Many other species remain in an essentially virgin state, but their condition may be more an indicator of their relatively low market value (and hence lack of incentive to commercially harvest) than of careful management. The groundfish resource clearly presents limita- tions as well as opportunities. Economically, the bottomfish bonanza has yet to develop. U.S. fisher- men cannot compete with the large foreign factory ships, which often employ low-cost labor and take advantage of government subsidies in their own nations. Several U.S. companies, including a few Alaskan Native corporations, have formed joint ventures with the Russians, Koreans, Japanese, or Poles, contracting with U.S. fishermen to deliver to foreign floating processors. But a major bottomfishery with the structure of the Alaska salmon, shrimp or crab fisheries with onshore processing has not yet proved economically feasible. Efforts continue, however, to encourage more Alaskans to catch or process bottomfish. These efforts will require a great deal of innovation, ingenuity, and financing to succeed. Alternatively, some fishermen may turn to bot- tomfish if more lucrative fisheries fail; poor results in the 1981 Bering Sea king crab fishery have inspired a number of crabbers to take up trawling. Locally, the bottomfisheries have developed slowly, but steadily (Table 5 ). Dominated by starry flounder, the bottomfish catch in the plan- ning area has increased from 57,000 pounds in 1973 to 1.7 million pounds in 1980, with an average of 400,000 pounds per year, and an ex-vessel value of over $200,000 per year. Even the flounder fishery, which concentrates in Sumner Strait, has to be managed closely. After two consecutive years of good harvest, the stock has apparently de- clined, and the harvest level is being reduced. For the species which are truly underutilized, developing the bottom- fishery depends, in the Planning Area as it does statewide, on econom- ics. While processors in Petersburg already have the necessary cold storage facilities and processing lines, the fishery is in need of ajl- ditional markets for flounder, sole, rockfish and cod fillets. For several years Petersburg Fisheries, Inc. was able to process pollock caught in Frederick Sound. PFI was operating with a price guarantee from the State, however, and when the price guarantee expired, the existing markets were not sufficient to support the operation, and it was discontinued. -38- TABLE 5 STUDY AREA FISHERY DATA : PLANNING AREA HARVEST DATA BOTTOMFISH YEAR PAC COD POLLOCK BLAKCOD ROCKFISH LNGCOD FL&SOLE OTHERS TOTAL 1969 0 1970 0 1971 0 1972 284 284 1973 1401 113 268 55597 37379 1974 46 700 li 49343 50100 1975 0 1976 961 91 1977 703 94926 8728 334712 80 439149 1978 142 77047 723 1120246 40544 1239986 1979 3940 119564 25703 149207 1980 1664832 10548 1675380 AVG. 1300 85987 M3 2605 {1 477894 = 19219 301037 Bottomfish prices increased greatly during the 1970's, propelled by three major factors. The first was substitution by consumers of fish as a cheaper alternative to beef, in response to a temporary increase in the price of beef. Second, increasing population and per capita consumption of fish has improved demand for bottomfish somewhat rela- tive to beef. Third, worldwide supply has not increased sufficiently to keep up with demand; several important stocks, particularly North Atlantic cod, are severely depressed in size, prompting buyers to search for new markets (Scott, 1980; Stokes, 1979). More recently, however, beef prices have continued to fall relative to inflation, bringing bottomfish prices down. While the long-term trend for increasing bottomfish prices remains unchanged, it now appears that it will be at least a year until beef (and therefore bottomfish) prices begin to turn up again and the long-term trend reasserts itself. Should the markets develop, it is likely that local fishermen would take advantage of them and local packers would process and sell the products. In the long term, of course, even a fishery for underutilized species depends on physical and biological factors. Most of the bottomfish feed on benthic (bottom-dwelling) invertebrates or on smaller fish. Ensuring the continued production of bottomfish in the Planning Area will require that benthic habitats and water quality be maintained. Because of their feeding habits, bottomfish are particularly suscep- tible to accumulating toxic wastes in their meat, as has been found in Puget Sound, so it is essential that discharges of heavy metals, -39- petroleum hydrocarbons, and other industrial chemicals be treated. The _ flounders fished in Sumer Strait use protected bays as spawning and nursery areas. To sustain the flounder fishery, it will be necessary to protect these habitats, which include Blind Slough, parts of Duncan Canal, and the Petersburg Creek estuary. -40- SECTION III HUMAN RESOURCES AND INSTITUTIONS The natural resources of the area attracted people who value the area both for its economic opportunities and for its quality of life. They established Petersburg and Kupreanof not just as sites to support fishing or logging activities but as permanent communities in which to live and raise families. The cities have developed amenities and ser- vices around the particular needs of their people. In the years to come, both cities will be faced with providing for a changing population. The nature and extent of the services will depend on the growth of the population, the services offered present- ly, and the preferences of the citizens. The next eight chapters focus on the people of the two communities, and on the institutions which serve them. After a look at the historic setting, the report analyzes population and economic trends, and then discusses the facilities and institutions which support the two cities. It projects changes likely to affect the communities, point out the needs they will face, and describes options for meeting those needs. -41- HISTORY Separated by one-half mile of the Wrangell Narrows, Petersburg and Kupreanof share a common cultural heritage and history. The general area may have been visited by man as early as 10,000 years ago. It was probably settled by Tlingit Indians between 500 and 600 years ago. The many archeological sites of petroglyphs and small camps which have been located along the coastlines of Mitkof and Kupreanof Islands are mute reminders of these steps of man long ago. These archeological sites have been found along the northern shorelines and those coastlines facing Wrangell Narrows. The precise locations are kept confidential to avoid vandalism by souvenir hunters. Like much of the rest of Alaska, the Kupreanof-Mitkof area was opened to western civilization by Russian explorers. Records of the two islands were first published in 1848 on the Russian Hydrography Department's Chart 1396 as Os(trov) Kupreyanova and Os(Mitkova) (Orth, 1967). PETERSBURG Petersburg is located on Mitkof Island, named for a Russian Captain. Although the Russians explored the region, there are no records of any permanent Russian settlement being established near the northern mouth of the Wrangell Narrows. Petersburg was first settled by non-natives on a year-round basis in 1886, when a Norwegian immigrant named Peter Buschmann arrived with his wife and eight children to take up year-round residence. They were drawn to Alaska by its rapidly growing salmon canning industry. The northern end of Wrangell Narrows, with its abundance of good timber and the rich, nearby salmon grounds at the mouth of Petersburg Creek, provided an ideal site for a permanent settlement. Other Scandinavian settlers quickly followed, and by 1897 there were five families living in "Peter's Burg". Often, the men of the family would come up alone, just to work and send money home. Many soon decided to settle here and bring their families up. These industrious settlers worked hard under Buschmann's guidance, and by the end of 1897 had built a sawmill, boat docks, a cannery, and a packing house. Timber from the sawmill was also used to build sturdy homes, a school, and other buildings. Unlike many other Alaskan cities, Petersburg was never a tent town. The year 1910 was a landmark in Petersburg's history. In spite of the temporary setback to local commerce caused by the burning of Brevan's Saloon and the Hogue and Tveten Store, Petersburg was officially incorporated as a city, with an elected city council. In its first -43- decade as an incorporated city, Petersburg enacted a substantial number of ordinances and established basic community facilities. Taxes were levied, building and traffic regulations were established and the com- munity built its first jail, fire hall, electric power system, tele- phone lines, water system, hospital facilities and a permanent school. As the Petersburg Creek salmon runs were fished more and more heavily, and declined in size, fishermen had to range farther from town for their harvests. The expanded fishing grounds provided the support for one of the largest fishing fleets in Alaska, with over 300 fishing boats moored in Petersburg by 1981. The catch has also diversified beyond salmon and herring to include shrimp, halibut, blackcod and flounder. The cold storage and cannery facilities along the Petersburg waterfront have expanded to support the fishing industry. The town's industrial base also includes timber processing. From a small sawmill built to provide lumber for the early Norwegian settlers, Petersburg's timber industry has grown to the present Mitkof Lumber Company, with a large mill and modern sorting and processing facil- ities. Petersburg has developed steadily fram these promising beginnings Its population has increased from about 1300 in 1940 to 2800 in 1980. The Norwegians who originally started the town have been joined by people of Swedish, Native American and other European and Asian cultural heritages. Between 1911 and 1913, the first major community buildings were erected. The town's first church was founded by Presbyterians and built in 1911, and the first Lutheran Church established two years later in 1913. In 1912, the Sons of Norway Lodge building was con- structed, providing the first large, sheltered area for community activities such as public meetings, festivals, basketball games, and live theater. In 1960 the City of Petersburg adopted a Hame Rule Charter. Under this charter, the City adopted the city-manager form of government with a full-time city manager responsible for day-to-day administration and implementing the wishes of the Mayor and City Council. In 1965, the city administration completed the first comprehensive plan for Petersburg to help guide growth in a desirable manner. This report is part of a process to update that report and respond to the City's changing needs. The period since World War II has seen the replacement or modernizing of all original public and community-oriented facilities. Dirt roads and boardwalks of past years have been upgraded to gravel or shot-rock and the downtown area has paved sidewalks. The State Highway has also been paved. The City has upgraded the old wocd stave pipes, constructed a water treatment plant, a sewage treatment plant, and made reservoir, water storage facility, and sewage collection system improvements. -44- Cammunity facility improvements made since World War II include the new high school gymnasium and classroom addition, the Scow Bay Fire Hall, the Tent City facility, the high school shop addition, and a hospital wing addition. Community facilities currently planned include a new hospital wing and an adult education auditorium and classrooms at the high school. Historic Sites The only local site designated on the National Register of Historic Places is the Sons of Norway Hall on the northern side of the mouth of Hammer Slough. The site was first identified in the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. The Sons of Norway Hall was constructed in 1912 by community residents who volunteered their labor. Over the years, it has served as the meeting site for visiting dignitaries and community festivals and events. It is the building most associated with the history of Petersburg since 1912. The U.S. Forest Service has inventoried archaeological sites in the Tongass National Forest. Many of these sites lie on Mitkof and Kupreanof Islands. These sites are largely associated with Indian settlements and markings. The locations have been kept confidential to protect the sites from being damaged or destroyed. KUPREANOF The history of Kupreanof is tied closely to that of Petersburg. Before incorporation as a city, Kupreanof was referred to as West Petersburg. The first permanent residents in the West Petersburg area were probably homesteaders. By 1902, there were at least two homesteads in West Petersburg. By 1911, the Knutsen brothers had established a sawmill and factory to produce barrels for salted herring and salmon. Kupreanof developed rapidly during the period 1915 to 1925 based on an expanding Alaskan fur industry. Kupreanof and Petersburg became the center of fur farming in southeast Alaska. It is estimated fram population and other fur farm records that Kupreanof's development reached its peak during the mid 1940's and early 1950's. At that time, there were approximately 60 fur farms in the area, including a government-funded experimental fur farm south of Petersburg. However, by 1960 the fur trade had diminished and the population of Kupreanof decreased fram 60 in 1950 to 26 residents. In 1975, the City of Kupreanof incorporated as a Second Class City. This action was taken to prevent annexation by the City of Petersburg and to establish a legal entity which was sensitive to the wishes of Kupreanof's residents. -45- Kupreanof's administrations have taken a very strong environmental stand. Motorized land vehicles have been banned, except under special permit, a very low rate of population influx has been encouraged and development in the coastal zone has been discouraged. Kupreanof's natural beauty and abundance of game and fish has always been its greatest resource. Petersburg residents recognized this and would often take their skiffs across the Narrows to harvest wild berries, hunt game and catch fish. The residents of Kupreanof have always appreciated this resource and have come to view it as a trust to be passed on to future generations. The closing sentence of Kupreanof's "Statement of Philosophy" sum marizes the City administration's stand: "The City of Kupreanof is in the beginning of an ongoing process to preserve our land, open space, scenic vistas, wildlife, and our lifestyle in general not only for the present generation but for generations to came." -46- POPULATION AND BCONOMY ECONOMY Petersburg's and Kupreanof's economy is based on the renewable resources of the region - fish, timber and more recently, government and tourism. Like many resource-dependent economies, the area's economy is highly sensitive to erratic markets and resource abundance, and is hampered by their remote location and high costs in efforts to diversify their economic base. Despite these problems, Petersburg and Kupreanof have achieved greater econamic and social stability than many similar Alaskan communities. Economic growth has taken place steadily, without the booms and busts often associated with resource-dependent communities. This chapter explores the econanmy of Petersburg and Kupreanof, analyzing the sources of the communities' income and their economic base. Strengths, weaknesses and econamic potentials are analyzed, and economic and population projections are developed to serve as the basis for service needs examined later in this document. SOURCE OF PERSONAL INCOME While no historical information is available for the Petersburg and Kupreanof area alone, Federal data do provide revealing insights into the area through totals for the Petersburg and Wrangell Census Division. Table 6 presents this data. Over the period 1959 through 1978, total personal incame in the Petersburg-Wrangell Census Division grew at a compounded annual rate of over 10 percent. This rate is about one quarter larger than the national average, and only slightly less than the State and Southeastern regional average. The larger urban areas of the region increased at a faster rate than Wrangell-Petersburg, while most areas of similar or smaller population grew at a smaller rate. (The Prince of Wales Census Division, with only one-fifth of the population, grew at a faster rate due to greatly increased logging activities. ) Over the same period, Petersburg and Kupreanof have also enjoyed a relatively stable economy, due primarily to the stable mature of its commercial fishing, fish processing and governmental sectors. Comparison of growth rates over different periods indicates that income growth has been more consistent than in most other comparable areas of the state. While the booms of the Wrangell-Petersburg Census Division have not been as pronounced, the recessions have not been as severe either. A major reason for this difference is that forest products do not play quite as large a role here as in most other areas of Southeast Alaska, and there has been no major petroleum development as there has been elsewhere in Alaska. -A7= -87- TABLE 6 TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME AND RATE OF GROWIH FOR WRANGELL-PETERSBURG CENSUS DIVISION AND OTHER AREAS OF ALASKA, 1959 - 1978 WRANGELL-PETERSBURG . SOUTHEAST ALASKA: ANGOON HAINES JUNEAU KETCHIKAN QUTER KETCHIKAN PRINCE OF WALES SITKA SKAGWAY-YAKUTAT TOTAL OTHER SOUTHEASTERN TOTAL ALL SOUTHEASTERN QTHER ALASKAN: ANCHORAGE FAIRBANKS TOTAL STATE OF ALASKA UNITED STATES: URBAN AREAS NON-URBAN AREAS TOTAL UNITED STATES NOTES: TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME (000,000'S OF $) 1959 1965 1969 1975 1978 9 14 19 43 39 ‘ 1 i 3 4 2 4 5 12 13 2 35 71 172 245 21 2 3 95 13 3 3 5 12 15 3 4 8 15 23 12 18 26 66 88 4 5 8 17 22 86 136 192 435 605 242 386 586 1578 2128 98 157 200 665 655 303880 © 425897) 591117 WA 1338519 7h136 = 106125 147116 NA 371097 380016 = 532022 «738233 1246501 1709616 $ LESS THAN 1. AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE OF GROWTH (2) 1959- —1969-1959-1975- 1969 1978 1978 1978 _ 2TT 18.62 10.50 11.12 6.54 «21.21 13.25 10.06 8.08 = 10.35 9.15 2.70 9.15 13.70 14.28 12.52 7.72 13.54 = 10.44 12.70 6.36 = 13.86 9.85 7.72 12.06 11.75 1191 15.31 7.83 14.46 10.92 10.08 7.81 12.51 10.01 8.97 8.43 13.62 10.86 11.68 8.36 «13.60 = 10.81 11.62 9.25 15.40 12.12 10.48 7.39 14.07 10.50 -0.50 6.88 951 8.12 NA 6.81 = 10.83 8.69 WA PERCENT OF US AVERAGE PER CAPITA INCOME 1959 1978 100 131 u 56 4 % 137 167 {13 167 83 139 WN 90 92 150 98 " 138 131 116 159 it 106 2 82 100 100 Per capita income figures indicate that the Wrangell-Petersburg Census Division is not as prosperous as other, larger areas of Alaska, but is considerably more prosperous than most other smaller areas, and is much more so than the national average. While the division's average per capita income just equalled the national average in 1959, it was one-third larger by 1978. Several other equal or smaller-sized divisions in Southeast Alaska were considerably lower, although averages for Juneau, Ketchikan, Outer Ketchikan, and Sitka were larger in the latter year. Though not as large as the statewide average in either year, the Wrangell-Petersburg average narrowed fram 12 to only 5 percent less. ECONOMIC BASE Another aspect of the communities' economies which is of interest and importance in projecting future population and employment is the sources of the economies' support or economic base. An economic hase analysis allocates the area's employment into two major categories. Employment created by exports (sales to custamers outside of the study area, or revenues received fram outside of the study area) constitute the communities' economic base. Examples include sales of products by fish processors to overseas customers, grant revenues received by local government and non-profit agencies from the state and Federal govern- ments, and sales by local merchants to tourists and other visitors. Basic employment is considered the source of the study area's economy since it supports other, secondary (or non-basic) employment. Earnings of export-oriented workers and proprietors are used in part to support most services, retail trade, transportation, communications, and local government employment, for example. Dividing the area's employment into export and secondary categories is useful for projecting future employment. If a certain number of export-based jobs might be created by a proposed project (such as a harbor expansion), the number of secondary jobs created can be roughly estimated simply by observing that secondary employment will continue to represent about the same ratio of total employment, and multiplying the basic employment increase by the current ratio of secondary to basic employment. Expressed in a formula, the relationships are: New Secondary Increase in Basic Existing Secondary Employment Employment Due = Employment Due xX Existing Basic Employment to Project A to Project A Total Increase in Employment Due = Increase in + Induced Increase to Project A Basic Employment in Secondary Employment -49- Table 7 on the following page classifies Petersburg and Kupreanof's average annual employment for 1979 through 1981 into basic and second- ary categories. The categories are further divided into personal and business and governmental organizations. Major basic categories include visitors fram other southeast Alaskan communities, visitors from all other areas, state and Federal governmental agencies and all other organizations. Secondary categories include seasonal residents, year round residents, and major categories of local employment (can- mercial fishing, trade, etc.). Reading down the columns, the figures indicate the number of full time jobs the group listed in the colum title supports in each row. For example, visitors from other southeast Alaskan communities currently support about 1.3 fish processing jobs, less than one tenth of a print- ing and publishing job, 2.2 jobs in transportation, communications and public utilities, and the like. In total, other southeastern visitors support an estimated 26.5 of the study area's 1575 full time jobs. Reading across the rows, the figures indicate the sources of support for each row's employment. For example, slightly over one full time job in finance, insurance, and real estate is supported by personal purchases of visitors, along with about 2-1/4 jobs supported by non-local businesses and governmental agencies. The remaining 10-3/4 jobs in finance, insurance and real estate are considered secondary as they are supported by local residents and organizations. Altogether, about 837 of the study area's 1575 jobs are considered nominally basic, or directly dependent on sales to outside of the study area. However , another 310 fishing jobs should also be counted as basic, since the jobs are supported by sales to local fish processors, who in turn sell almost their entire output to buyers outside of the study area. If the basic and secondary employment totals are adjusted to consider fishing employment as basic employment, the study area's ratio of basic to secondary employment is roughly 1.00 to 0.41. Al- though this ratio is low compared with that for larger urban areas such as Juneau or Ketchikan, it indicates a well-developed economy since it is high for communities the size of Petersburg and Kupreanof. The largest single source of support for the local economy is, of course, the commercial fishing and fish processing industry. The industry directly provides an annual average of about 650 jobs, and indirectly supports another 266 positions, accounting for about 58 percent of the cammunities' employment. The next most important source of support is the Federal government. Federal agencies have accounted for about 177 full time, year round positions during 1979-1981, indirectly supporting another 73 full time jobs. The majority of the employment was provided by the U.S. Forest Service. State and local government employment has been the third most important source of employment, directly accounting for another 54 positions. Employment and spending fram all three levels of govern- ment combined supports about 34 percent of the communities' combined employment. -50- Another 135 of the 405 total jobs in the transportation, cammunications and public utilities, wholesale and retail trade, finance, insurance and real estate, and services categories were supported by sales to individuals and organizations based outside of the study area. Another 42 direct full time jobs were provided by logging and sawmilling activities, which indirectly support another 17 jobs. Table 7 also illuminates the importance of other groups in Petersburg and Kupreanof's economy. Reading down the columns, the figures indi- cate how much employment is directly supported by different categories of customers. The first three columns summarize purchases by tourists and other temporary visitors (excluding seasonal residents); approx- imately 48 full time jobs are accounted for by these categories. Employment directly supported by state and Federal agencies is divided among two separate columns each, depending on the location of the or- ganization. Cambining the column totals for each category, the Federal government directly supports about 226 jobs, while the State of Alaska supports about 150 jobs. Seasonal residents directly support 70 positions. HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT Over the more than three quarters of a century since its settlement, the Petersburg and Kupreanof area has grown slowly but steadily. Limitations in important resources have been overcome by more intensive utilization and by development new resources. Other economic growth has come from developing the economy to offer a greater range of services to recycle local dollars, and by developing newer, less resource-dependent "industries" such as tourism and government employment. Table 8 presents trends in employment and payrolls in the Wrangell-—Petersburg Census Division during the past decade and a half (state data is not available for Petersburg and Kupreanof separately). During that 15-year period, manufacturing employment grew at an annual average rate of nearly six percent. (Manufacturing employment here primarily consists of fish processing, logging, sawmills, and a few fishermen.) Most of the growth occurred in 1980, which was a banner year for salmon fishing. Logging employment may have also bolstered this total. If 1980 was amitted, the growth rate would be a more moderate 1.3 percent; moreover, much of this growth can probably be traced to wood products processing in Wrangell. It is difficult to tell whether the employment levels achieved in 1980 can te fully maintained, but chances appear good that much of the gain can ke. -51- -ZS- 10-4 1517 os 09 wo 70-89 " n Ss ng CONTRACT CONST Coma. FSM FISH PROCESSING LOGGING & SAMRTLLS PRINT & PUBLISH STONE, CLAY & 6S, Toads, COW & UTIL. TRAE Fim, 1S 8 EST SERVICES FEDERAL SOVERWENT STATE GOVERNMENT (LOCA, GOVERMENT 1979-1961 (V6 ENPLOVRENT ECONOMIC BASE FOR PETERSBURG AND KUPREANOF [ERPLOYNENT BASED OM SALES 10 OR REVEMIE FRON OUTSIDE OF THE PETERSBURG & KUPREAMOF STUBY AREA (BASIC OR EXPORT ENPLOVRENT) BUSINESS & GOVERNMENTAL (AL ZAT KS orm ic OTHER «ALL TOTAL “FEDERM STATE ALL TOT SE Ak OTHER wON-BUS GOVT GOVT OTHER BuSKGOV 0 oon on ° 6 0 nn W 1 ‘ 3 rc ° a a a o ° ° ° 0 0 2 ‘4 son se 46 2 6 os ou non B 1 e ' 2 2 3 8 5 1 nr er oom mom ° 2 ° TABLE 7 ENPLOVMENT BASED ON SALES TO OR REVENUE FROM WITHIN PETERSBURG AMD KUPREAMOF STUDY AREA (SECONDARY OR NONBASIC ENPLOYNENT) Tene OR YEAR TOTAL » 1 2 0 0 1 0 38 ws 1 ‘ sob wEec-euete Zivecs 1 3 ‘ 1 ' ° 3:4 1 IMG CONT COMM'L FISH LOGGING SAWMILLS OTMER TRANSP TRADE FIM, IMS SER- FEDERM STATE LOCK OVER SM EST VICES GOVT 1 a we 2 ' ° @ 1 3 ” ° o ‘ e e 8 0 ° a | Fs -¢S- HINING CONTRACT CONST HANUFACTURING TRANS, COM, UTIL TRADE FIN, INS, RL EST SERVICES FEDERAL GOVT STATE & LOC GOVT MISC & UNCLAS TTL NONAG EMPLOY TTL CIV EMPLOY TTL LABOR FORCE TTL UNEMPLOYMENT 1 UNEMPLOYMENT TOTAL ANNUAL PAYROLL (000’S) MINING CONTRACT CONST MANUFACTURING TRANS, COM, UTIL TRADE FIN, INS, RL EST SERVICES FEDERAL GOVT STATE & LOC GOVT NISC & UNCLAS TOTAL TABLE 8 EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS IN WRANGELL-PETERSBURG CENSUS AREA 1966 - 1980 ANNUAL PERCENT 1966-1967) 19681969) 1970, 19711972, 1973 1974 197519781977) 1978 = 1979 = 1980) GROWTH 0 0 ' ' 15 15 15 13 16 18 15 13 8 23 30 3S St 119 9 61 34 81 112 128 124 146 121 119 14 162 10.75 618 670 690 618 §58 TSS 671 694 470 477 il 696 720 735) «1473 5..96 198 198 176 214 273 239 324 202 243 270 233 222 207 222 165 -1.21 175 183 202 200 209 244 261 200 292 302 276 298 302 wh M8 4.06 17 ’ 24 24 23 25 26 26 28 32 27 28 26 25 26 (2.87 70 rk 86 114 120 128 134 136 154 158 145 135 167 170 191 6.92 145 {71 184 130 120 122 it 130 144 151 1b 147 185 199 228 = 3.06 218 283 286 261 262 291 322 345 378 4il 389 4il 506 493 4645.16 ANNUAL PERCENT 1980 GROWTH 10606 12398 14968 14909 17434 18093 21502 24298 «27519-29457 «31748 «T3483 38182 43215 95096 11.1 NOTE: SOURCE: Excludes most fishing employment Alaska Department of Labor, various years. * Totals not reported due to legal disclosure restrictions. Forest Products Present market conditions notwithstanding, logging employment will probably continue to ke significant in the study area over the next decade or more, as the U.S. Forest Service concentrates its efforts to meet long-term contractual obligations in this area to compensate for native and wilderness withdrawals fram elsewhere in its land hase. Over the long term, however, the Japanese housing market (the primary customer for Alaskan wood products) will probably remain constant or diminish slightly (Ueda and Darr, 1980). This weakness, and the pronounced preference for round logs rather than cants (U.S. Forest Service logs must be processed into cants prior to export), introduce some uncertainty into the strength of demands over this period, however. The high projection for logging and wood processing in Petersburg and Kupreanof would envison high levels, and possible further processing into dimensional lumber, assuming favorable Japanese and other Asian market conditions. (If dimensional lumber processing for export markets becomes feasible in Alaska, Petersburg and Kupreanof's favor- able power and timber supply, and location, would make the area a competitive location.) The low projection anticipates declining markets for U.S. Forest Service timber, accompanied by slowly declining logging and sawmill employment. The intermediate, or most probable, projection incorporates some increases in activity through the next decade, followed by a period of flat or slightly diminishing employ- ment. Figure 4 and Table 9 summarize these and other projections. Fishing and Fish Processing The other major components of manufacturing are fishing and fish processing employment. The salmon fishery is clearly the mainstay of this industry, but shrimp, crab, herring and halibut also make im- portant contributions. Salmon harvests grew to a peak about World War II, but declined for the next three decades primarily due to over- fishing by both domestic and foreign fleets. Institution of limited entry in Alaska's salmon fisheries followed the 1973 passage of the Alaska limited entry law, and foreign fishing has been sharply reduced under the auspices of the Federal Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. As a result of these two actions and more conservative management by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, salmon runs have sharply rebounded in a number of fisheries, notably Bristol Bay, Prince William Sound, and Southern Southeast Alaska. While salmon runs have not been quite as strong in the "inside" fisheries near Petersburg and Kupreanof, fishermen holding southeastern limited entry salmon permits are free to fish in the more lucrative districts and have generally participated in the successes of the past few years. -54- Figure 4 PROJECTED STUDY AREA EMPLOYMENT THROUGH 2010 (in full time jobs) 2400 High j¢®@ 2200. _| e @ 2000 | e@ = 1800 nl 2 e@ 1600 -_ ° e 1400 1200 1000 TAI Lee) Ppt) FETIP ILIEELEI IPT TTI ld 1980 1990 2000 201( 1979-1981 Avg. -55- LOW PROJECTION 1979-81 ENPLYNT 10-14 MINING ul 15-17 COWTRACT CONST 37 19 CONN’L FISHING 388 20 FISH PROCESSING 260 7A LOGGING & SAWMILLS ag 27 PRINT & PUBLISH 2 32 STONE, CLAY & &LS 2 40-49 TRANS, COM & UTIL iil 50-59 TRADE 186 40-69 FIN, INS & RL EST “4 70-89 SERVICES ” 91 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT = 177 92 STATE GOVERNMENT 32 93 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 180 1576 INTERMEDIATE PROJECTION 1979-81 ENPLYAT MINING iW CONTRACT CONST 5 COMN’L FISHING 388 FISH PROCESSING 260 LOGGING & SAWMILLS 8 PRINT & PUBLISH 2 STONE, CLAY & 6LS 2 TRANS, COM & UTIL Mi TRADE 186 FIN, INS & RL EST 4 SERVICES or FEDERAL GOVERNMENT = 177 STATE. GOVERNMENT 32 LOCAL. GOVERNMENT 180 1574 HIGH PROJECTION 1979-81 ENPLYNT 1-14 MINING ul 15-17 CONTRACT CONST 37 19 COWN’L FISHING 388 20 FISH PROCESSING 260 74 LOGGING & SAWMILLS 3 27 PRINT & PUBLISH 2 32 STONE, CLAY & 6LS 2 40-49 TRANS, COM & UTIL Mt 50-59 TRADE 186 60-69 FIN, INS & AL EST “ 70-89 SERVICES 4 91 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT = 177 92 STATE GOVERNMENT 52 93 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 180 1576 source: Pacific Rim Planners, TABLE 9 PROJECTED STUDY AREA EMPLOYMENT 1980 - 2010 1985 1990 1993 2000 2005 2010 BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECON- TOTAL DARY ‘DARY DARY DARY DARY DARY i 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 qo 3 5 0 5 5 q 5 0 3S 3 0 4 4 0 4 “4 0 M4 u Q Phy 4 0 u i 70 2 m2 3S 2 M7 360 2 362 3S 2 37 350 2 352 M5 2 Mu 33 i 260 250 s Bs 245 5 250 240 5 245 235 5 240 230 5 a ” 1 a” ” 1 a ” 1 a 0 1 a ” 1 orf 40 1 a 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 o 1 1 0 1 1 o 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 38 110 3 0 110 4 v7 it 3S uv 112 So uv My a 7 re 3 156 181 a 14 182 2 IS 185 % 1s 190 a) 1s 194 40 153 is 2 u 13 3 u 4 4 iu 15 5 u 16 6 bt 7 7 il 60 % % of % 100 8 % 104 n % 108 Tb % 112 Cy % 160 o 160 160 0 160 160 0 160 160 0 160 160 0 160 160 0 i s 0 3S % 0 % 38 0 38 60 0 60 60 0 60 60 0 80 s 175 70 4 164 0 " 154 0 4 134 60 " 154 0 4 q 1105 421 15261095. M7 «15121087 414 1501 1089 M5 (1508 1089 MS 1508 1085 M3 1498 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECOM- TOTM BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECON TOTAL BASIC SECOM- TOTAL DARY DARY DARY DARY DARY DARY 15 0 15 15 0 15 3 0 3 » 0 w 3s 0 3 40 0 4 7 vu a) 10 60 ” 10 62 2 10 65 3 10 6b 1 10 68 je 390 2 392 34 2 3% 400 = 402 410 2 M2 NO ¥ M2 420 2 422 260 5S 25 270 35 7S (tO 5 25 6 2% (300 6 306 S10 6 St 43 1 oo 50 1 a 50 1 St 0 i is 50 1 a 50 1 H 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 2 . 4 60 114 36 83 4g 60 66 126 64 68132 65 oF 1% 66 1 17 2 163 189 » 170200 3200177 2097 3% «183219 0 187 227 “4 192 2% 12 iw B 13 12 3 4 12 2% 15 13 3B 16 13 a 17 13 q 0 BS) 78 “4 40 cy 48 a 89 32 43 bc] 56 ao 100 60 45 10 170 ° 170 180 0 180 190 0 190 190 0 190 190 0 190 190 0 is 4 9 u 56 0 % 3B 0 38 60 0 60 60 0 60 60 9 60 82 100 182 4 104 188 86 108 194 88 112 200 88 4 202 88 117 205 1155 44015951205, 459° 1bb4 1257 47917361301 49S 179% «1326 5051831 134L 31818) SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECOK- TOTAL BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC SECON- TOTAL BASIC DARY DARY DARY DARY DARY 20 0 20 3 0 3 3 9 3 40 0 0 0 0 50 60 0 60 7 60 67 12 of 1b “4 69 83 2» 4 4 3 y 104 2 co) 16 3% 2 398 404 2 406 420 2 422 0 3 3 460 3 463 500 3 x 270 5 275 280 6 28 25 6 301 no 6 we 320 7 327 3B 7 v be) 1 i] 60 1 1 0 1 1 80 1 81 ” 1 n 100 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 4 4 1 3 S 1 é 6 1 y 2 2 4 3 2 i 5 2 7 5 2 7 6 2 a 7 2 ‘ 60 63 123 65 ‘7 132 2 tS 445 76 8 14 88 4 172 65 air 28 169 197 3 182 218 “ 196 240 32 210 262 60 226 286 70 239 uw 13 12 3 15 13 a 17 4 uM » 4 u a 16 40 2B W 4 “ 9 83 % a2 8 4 Me 110 1 9 125 0 3 143 100 % Ie 172 9 172 188 0 188 196 0 19% 1% 0 196 200 0 200 200 0 200 36 9 % 60 0 40 bb 9 66 70 0 70 Tb 0 16 80 0 . 82 104 186 % Md 197 0 120 210 8 128 226 106 138 4 2 146 u 1201 457) 16581292 4920 (17861391 530. «19211487 366-2053 1600 609) = 22091695 OS 2h Inc. estimates -56- It appears that the upswing in salmon runs is a lasting phenomenon. If the limited entry program remains as it is presently structured, how- ever, the only significant growth which might come from salmon fishing employment would be in small commercial vessels (hand trollers), and from permits purchased fram residents of other communities. Processing employment could be expected to grow as plants hire additional workers to process a larger pack, and as more intensive techniques are em- ployed. Lower power costs and greater power reliability and supply might well encourage more fresh and frozen processing. Potential for expansion is also apparent in several other fisheries. Crab and shrimp, for example, are not fully harvested in southeast Alaska (Earl Combs, Inc., 1979), and mollusks (such as horse clams, butter clams, littleneck clams and geoducks) are not exploited com- mercially. Same effort has been devoted to harvesting bottomfish, but low prices and difficult fishing conditions are the major obstacles. Herring and halibut are currently fully harvested, and there is little evidence to suggest that these fisheries could be expanded. These fisheries could provide the impetus for further growth of Petersburg's and Kupreanof's fishing industry, but barring major changes in markets, prices and technology, the industry will grow only slowly and sporadically, if at all. Bottamfishing, for example, will likely be feasible only in combination with offshore, foreign-based processing vessels (Stokes, 1979). Clams could be commercially har- vested, but equipment needs to be adapted and licensing procedures developed. Shrimp and crab fleets could increase their harvests, but only if prices improve sufficiently to encourage them to employ more expensive and far-ranging techniques. Thus, the high range forecast anticipates continually improving salmon harvests, and issuance of additional limited entry permits, more in- tensive salmon processing, and favorable market, technological and regulatory conditions. The low range forecast expects no growth in current activities, with some decline in salmon harvests. The inter- mediate, or most probable, forecast anticipates slow, steady growth in all of these activities. Mining The only active mining operation in the study has been the barite mine operated in Duncan Canal. The mine currently is not operating, and is not likely to reopen. There are other mineral deposits in the study area, and a number of large and small mining firms have filed and are exploring claims on federal lands. Many of the claims involve strategic minerals currently imported from Third World nations. Much of the exploration centers on identifying and assaying strategic mineral deposits. Further develop- ment probably would not take place unless the supply was severely -57- disrupted. No commercial quantities of oil or gas are known to occur in the study area, and the volcanic and metamorphic rock formations make oil or gas deposits highly unlikely here. The low forecast assumes that only exploration continues during the next two decades. The high forecast assumes exploration and cam- mercial operation of two small mines or one medium size mine in the study area by 1990. The intermediate forecast envisions operation of a single, small mine and further, more intensive exploration of other deposits. Contract Construction The fastest growing employment category in the Wrangell-Petersburg Census Division during the past decade and a half was contract con- struction. The growth has been erratic, but is recently intense with the rise in State capital expenditures over the past few years. Projects ranging fram the Tyee Lake hydroelectric project, Petersburg port expansion, and road, utility and housing construction are underway or planned for the near future, so contract construction should remain strong for some time to came. After the next few years, contract construction's future is less cer- tain. The high projection assumes that State spending levels remain high, and that private construction improves following expansion of "basic" industries (fishing, wood products, tourism). The low projec- tion assumes that real (adjusted for inflation) State capital expen- ditures fall, and that private construction remains at about the present level. The intermediate, or most probable, projection en- visions only slight declines in real State capital expenditures, and moderate increases in private spending on construction. Government All three major categories of government - Federal, state and local - showed large increases in employment in the Wrangell-Petersburg Census Division in the last decade and a half. The increase was concentrated in Petersburg and Kupreanof, where large U.S. Forest Service and Alaska Department of Fish and Game offices were established. The prospects for government employment in Petersburg and Kupreanof depend on agency organizational and budget decisions. The area and its amenities will continue to be the most desirable mid-southeastern loca- tion for both the U.S. Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, so it is likely that the area will continue to serve as a regional or district office for each. Funding levels for each agency will decide how the offices are staffed. Although recent Federal budget cuts have reduced staffing at USFS offices in Petersburg, the agency will face greater staffing needs over the next decade or more -58- if logging activity shifts to the Stikine District to compensate for Native and wilderness withdrawals. Likewise, Alaska Department of Fish and Game will face continued staffing requirements to oversee com mercial, recreational and subsistence fishing and hunting. Consequently, the high range forecast for government employment envisions increasing levels to support and regulate local fishing, logging and transportation industries. The low range forecast antici- pates declines due to budget cuts and agency reorganizations. The intermediate forecast assumes a stable to slightly increasing level of government employment. Other Activities This category includes the transportation, communications, and public utilities; trade; finance; insurance and real estate; services; and other manufacturing sectors. While these sectors are typically con- sidered primarily secondary (depending on basic, or exporting, activities), these also have an important exporting aspect of their own in that they also generate sales to visitors, transient fishermen and other non-local organizations. The high range forecast for other activities presumes continued rapid growth in sales to visitors, coupled with strong local demand and ex- panded goods and services (keeping more money circulating in the local economy). The low forecast presumes slow growth in the visitor trade, with weak local demand and few new services. The intermediate forecast assumes moderate growth in the visitor trade, and local demand, and some new services. -59- POPULATION The City of Petersburg has grown fairly steadily throughout the last half century, while Kupreanof's population is only slowly recovering from a dramatic dip during the 1950's. Petersburg's rate of growth has averaged somewhat more than the national average rate of growth during this time, but it has been much less than other faster growing regions of the state. Table 10 summarizes population figures for Kupreanof, Petersburg, other Alaskan cities and boroughs, the state and the nation during the period 1939 to 1980. During that 41-year period, Kupreanof's population first rose, then declined dramatically during the 1950's, reaching a low of 26 in 1960. Over the two decades since then, Kupreanof has nearly doubled in size to a total of 47 in 1980, nearly matching its previous high. Petersburg, by contrast, has shown fairly steady growth over the 41-year period. With the exception of a small decline between 1950 and 1960, Petersburg's average annual growth rate has remained fairly stable at about 2% increase per year. The long-term average annual growth rate of 1.85% is somewhat less than most other large communities in southeast Alaska, but the growth has been much more stable. Table licompares historical rates of population change for Petersburg, Kupreanof and other areas. Petersburg's average annual growth rate of 1.85% is greater than Wrangell's, but less than the other large communities in southeast Alaska (Haines, Juneau, Ketchikan and Sitka). Since many of the small communities of the region did not grow appreciably during the period, the regional average growth rate for the last four decades is slightly less than Petersburg's, nearly 1.85%. This rate was much less than those experienced by the faster growing commmities of southcentral and interior Alaska. Anchorage, for example, has grown at an average of 10% per year during the last four decades. The Fairbanks and Kenai boroughs have averaged 6.9% and 4.7%, respectively. Because of the relatively large size of Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Kenai in comparison with the rest of the state, the statewide average growth rate for the past four decades has been considerably higher than southeast Alaska's, averaging about 4.25% growth each year. National population growth, by contrast, has been declining from a fairly rapid 2% annual growth during the 1940's to slightly over 1% during the last decade. Figure 5 graphically portrays historical and projected population growth rates for Petersburg, Kupreanof and other areas for the past four decades. Both Petersburg and Kupreanof have a fairly low proportion of Natives among their population. As of 1970, the latest year for which figures are available, oly 6% of Kupreanof's population was Alaskan Native or Indian. Petersburg's was only slightly higher, at 13%. Both figures are below the statewide and regional averages, and are even below comparable figures for other southeastern communities. (Table 12) -60- WRN-PBG CEN DIV: KUPREANOF PETERSBURG KAKE WRANGELL TOTAL WRN-PBG CEN DIV OTHER SOUTHEAST: ANGOON CRAIG HAINES (BOROUGH) HOONAH JUNEAU (CITY AND BOROUGH) KETCHIKAN (CITY) KETCHIKAN (BOROUGH) METLAKATLA SITKA (CITY AND BOROUGH) SITKA (CITY) SKABWAY OTHER ALASKAN: ANCHORAGE FAIRBANKS KENAI (BOROUGH) MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH TOTAL STATE OF ALASKA TOTAL USA (X 1,000) TABLE 10 TOTAL POPULATION IN PETERSBURG AND KUPREANOF AS COMPARED WITH TOTALS FOR OTHER ALASKAN AND US TOTALS 1939 TO 1980 CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE 1937-1950 1960-1970) :1980 1939-80 1950-80 1960-80 1970-80 ) (2) (2) (2) SSeSesassessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssszssssssssszs=2= 30 60 26 % 47-600 21.67 80.77 30.56 1323 1619 = 1502, 2280 = 2800 «111.64 72.95 86.42 22.81 419 378 455 448 547 30.55 «45.48 = 20.22 22.10 1162) 1263) 1315) 20292184 87.95 72.92 66.08 7.44 107 87 22 % 86 -19.63 -1.15 290.91 138.89 306134053520 4829 5664 85.04 «66.34 «70.80 = 17.29 342 419 395 400 469) 713 11.93 18.73 17.25 505 374 273 272 522. «3.37 (39.57) 91.21 9.91 454 354 624 = 1504 = 1685) 271.15 204.15 170.03 12.03 716 363 486 748 677 -5.45 20.25. -1.31 0 -9.49 7929-7949) 7839-13556 «19483 145.72 145.10 148,54 43.72 4695 S305 648369947248 54.38) 34.63 11.80 © 3.43 4806 S5B1 = 7367) 1004111347 136.10 103.31 54.02 13.01 674 817 798 = 1050 989 «46.74 21.05 23.93 -5.81 339545505139 6109) 7769 128.84 70.75 51.18 27.17 634 758 659 4675 769 21.29 1.45 16,69 13,93 25241 28203 «29159 42565 «53613 112.40 90.10 83.86 25.96 S495 11254 44237 126385 174431 4890.87 1449.95 294.31 38.02 MAS S771 15736 = 45864 «53799 1461.65 832.23 241.88 17.30 3870 5005. 9053) 16586 = 25072 544.52 400.94 176.95 51.16 2066 = S445 2320 650917816 762.34 466.49 647.93 173.71 72524 128643 226000 302361 400331 452.00 211.20 77.14 32.40 131669 151326 179323 203302 226504 72.03 49.68 26.31 11.41 SSssssssssssssssssssssssa SHSTsssssasssssssssssssssssssssssaesasssesssssssssssssssssssssss=s22=22 -61- TABLE 11 COMPARISON OF HISTORICAL RATES OF POPULATION CHANGE PETERSBURG, KUPREANOF AND OTHER AREAS 1939 TO 1980 1939-30 1950-60 1960-70 1970-80 1939-80 KUPREANOF 1.67 -8.02 PETERSBURG 1.85 -.75 WRANGELL +76 0.40 HAINES BOROUGH 1.83 1.20 JUNEAU BOROUGH +02 14 KETCHIKAN BOROUGH 1.37 2.82 SITKA BOROUGH 2.70 = 1,22 TOTAL SOUTHEAST ALASKA 1.01 33 ANCHORAGE 11.22) 14.67) 1 FAIRBANKS 4.80 10.55 1 KENAT BOROUGH 2.31 6.11 3.31 4,26 4.43 9.20 5.62 3.14 1.74 3.86 1.07 1.29 6.24 TOTAL STATE OF ALASKA 5.35 5.80 2.95 TOTAL USA 1.27) 1.71 1.26 62- 2.70 2.08 74 1.14 3.69 1.23 2.43 2.33 3.27 1.61 4.22 2.85 1.09 -15 1.85 1.55 3.25 2.22 2.12 2.04 1.85 10.01 6.93 4.65 4.25 1.33 TABLE 12 SELECTED POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR PETERSBURG & KUPREANOF COMPARED WITH AVERAGES FOR OTHER COMMUNITIES, THE STATE AND THE NATION 1970 PERCENT PERCENT MEDIAN PERCENT NATIVE MALE ABE 65 YR + WRANGELL-PETERSBURG --~~~-~~---~~~~-—---===--====——— CENSUS DIVISION: KUPREANOF 6 36 2 5.6 PETERSBURG 13 3226.2 5.8 KAKE W 3219.2 6.9 WRANGELL 21 5224.8 4.5 TOTAL FOR DIVISION OTHER SOUTHEAST: ANGOON 4 Si 16.6 6.2 CRAIG : 38 5225.3 7.8 HAINES (BOROUGH) 18 45 24 4.2 HOONAH 72 5218.8 6 JUNEAU (CITY AND BOROUGH) 15 a 26 3.8 KETCHIKAN (CITY) 18 5225.5 5.4 NETLAKATLA 82 35 (20.7 4.5 SITKA (CITY AND BOROUGH) 24 5324.8 5.9 SKAGWAY 7 4 (25.3 5.2 OTHER ALASKAN: ANCHORAGE 3 52. (23.9 2 FAIRBANKS 6 5225.1 2.4 TOTAL STATE OF ALASKA {7 3422.6 2.3 TOTAL USA * 49 28 9.8 -63- 400,000 74 300,000 4 State of Alaska 200,000 + 2400 — e Petersburg 2000 — 1600 — —, @ 1200 4 A 200 + 100 Kupreanof a CRY 9 EE © © POPULATION CHANGES - 1930 to 1980 PETERSBURG, KUPREANOF AND THE STATE OF ALASKA FIGURE 5 The proportion of males to females in both Kupreanof and Petersburg is similar to the rest of the state, but the median age is much higher - 26.0 and 26.2 as compared to the statewide average of 22.6 years. This observation of a relatively higher age among residents is further supported by the communities' higher percentage of persons age 65 years or older. Each community has twice the fraction of its population represented by older persons than the statewide average. This higher proportion of older persons in the population, as well as the higher median age, indicates that the communities are relatively stable. Median age and the percentage of population of older persons is much lower in the relatively fast growing communities. PROJECTED POPULATION For the next three decades, Petersburg's population is likely to grow fairly slowly, at about one% per year (intermediate projection). This lower rate is projected due to the fact that additional fish and forest harvesting opportunities are limited, while governmental employment may be at or near its peak. Offsetting these factors might be increasing tourism trade, new mining and port activities, more intensive processing of locally harvested forest products (particularly if market or trade conditions change), and a growing population of retired persons. Table 13 presents population projections for Petersburg and Kupreanof. The low range scenario presumes that few or no increases occur in the area's economy, and that little growth occurs in total population. Corresponding to the low range econamic projection, chances are probably about 1 in 20 that actual population will be less than projections. The intermediate projections (like the intermediate econamic projections) may be considered most likely from the standpoint that changes are about equal that actual growth will be higher or lower. Most public service projections are based on the _ intermediate population projection scenario. The high scenario assumes that most "possible" development actually occurs; chances of actual population equalling or exceeding it are about 1 in 20. It corresponds to the high economic development scenario, and is considered a practical upper limit for public service contingency plans. -65- TABLE 13 ACTUAL AND PROJECTED POPULATION FOR THE STUDY AREA PETERSBURG POPULATION 1373 (ACTUAL) 1323 (ACTUAL) 1619 (ACTUAL) 1502 (ACTUAL) 2280 (ACTUAL) 2800 (ACTUAL) KUPREANOF POPULATION COMBINED POPULATION 1679 (ACTUAL) 1528 (ACTUAL) 2316 (ACTUAL) 2847 (ACTUAL) HIGH HIGH 1939 1950 1960 1970 1980 INTER- Low MEDIATE (PROJECTED) 1985 2871 2943 1990 2943 3093 1995 3018 3251 2000 3094 M417 2005 v72 3591 2010 3252 3774 Source: 3091 3413 3768 4ibt 4594 5072 50 (ACTUAL) 60 (ACTUAL) 26 (ACTUAL) 3 (ACTUAL) 47 (ACTUAL) INTER- LOW MEDIATE HIGH (PROJECTED) 48 49 34 49 3 63 30 33 3 51 55 85 52 37 98 33 60 M14 -66- INTER- LOW MEDIATE (PROJECTED) 2n19 2992 2992 3144 3067 3304 3145 3472 3224 3648 3305 3834 3146 3476 3842 4246 4692 5186 U.S. Bureau of the Census and Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. estimates. LOCAL GOVERNMENT Communities organize local government agencies to carry out a wide variety of purposes, generally including pramotion of public health, safety and welfare. The last category has become particularly impor- tant in recent years as cities and other local public agencies have expanded their role to include a wide variety of important activities and services which begin to overlap those traditionally provided by private enterprise. The overlap between public and private purposes has been particularly strong in Petersburg and Kupreanof, as elsewhere in Alaska, where private concerns have often been unable or unwilling to provide ser- vices deemed desirable by the communities. As a result, the City of Petersburg has come to provide a much wider range of services than is often provided by similar-sized towns. The City of Kupreanof is al- ready considering providing a comparatively wide range of services. This expanded role makes it important that the organization and finan- cial structure of the two cities be examined. The analyses in this chapter provide a rough baseline for anticipating future conditions, and will serve as the basis for policies and actions to be developed in this plan. ORGANIZATION Petersburg and Kupreanof have established separate municipal govern- ments. As Alaskan municipalities, each is subject to State law; however, the organizational forms chosen are treated differently. Under State law, each city has specific legal rights and responsi- bilities. Within the framework allowed them by State law, the cities have chosen distinctly different forms of government. Petersburg's government is extensive in its scope, providing a very wide range of services and assuming a great number of responsibilities. Kupreanof, on the other hand, has chosen a much more limited range of services and responsibilities, preferring to allow individuals to provide many ser- vices typically provided by cities. This section describes the organization of Petersburg and Kupreanof's municipal governments, setting the stage for the discussion of municipal finances later in this chapter. =67= PETERSBURG Organized under Alaskan law as a Hane Rule municipality, the City of Petersburg is authorized to assume a wide range of powers and duties. It has all legislative powers not prohibited by State law or its own charter. Petersburg is entitled to assume planning, platting and zoning powers as well as provide for a variety of services. Petersburg has a charter, originally adopted on May 23, 1972 which qualifies the City for Home Rule status. The charter serves as a sort of constitution, spelling out which powers may be assumed and which services provided. The City of Petersburg is organized as a Council-Manager form of government. Legislative powers are vested in a six-member council elected at large. Two are elected each year for three-year terms. The mayor is elected at large for two-year terms. The Council is respon- sible for organizing governmental functions, delegating powers, and appointing a manager. The City's charter spells out the separation of powers between the Council, the Mayor and the Manager: Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council, the Mayor and its other members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager; and neither the Council, the Mayor nor any other City officer may give orders on administrative matters to any subordinate of the City Manager either publicly or privately. (City of Petersburg Charter, Sec. 4.8). The Mayor presides at Council meetings, and is recognized as the head of Petersburg's city government for all ceremonial purposes. The Mayor appoints the members of all committees provided for by ordinance and Council, but has no veto power over legislation passed by Council (Section 6.5). The City Manager is the chief administrative officer of the City, and is responsible for appointing, suspending or removing all department heads and administrative officers. Other duties include preparation of the annual budget and capital improvement program, financial reports, and suggest actions which the Council should take with regard to the affairs of the City. Both the proposed and approved budgets must be balanced; that is, appropriations (projected expenditures) must not exceed expected revenues plus unappropriated funds remaining fram the previous fiscal year (Sections 10.4 and 11.2). The City's charter authorizes elected and appointed officials to levy taxes and special assessments, condemn property inside or outside of corporate limits, and issue bonds subject to the approval of a majority of persons voting at any regular or special election. The City's general obligation debt may not, however, exceed 30 percent of the total assessed value of all real and personal property in the city. -68- This restriction does not apply to revenue bonds (debt which is to ke repaid only from the revenues of the facility constructed) nor to special assessment debt (for which only the assessments fram properties benefitted may be used (Sections 14.1 and 14.2). The charter authorizes the City to organize publicly owned utilities and enterprises, such as the electrical utility. The City may also participate in intergovernmental organizations, such as the Thomas Bay Power Authority, owned jointly and equally by the Cities of Petersburg and Wrangell. KUPREANOF The City of Kupreanof was incorporated in 1975 as a second class city. This action preserved Kupreanof's independence from Petersburg, but brought with it new responsibilities and limitations. Unlike Petersburg, Kupreanof may not organize its own schools, and is much more limited in the powers it may assume and the taxes it may levy. As a second class city, Kupreanof's powers are much more limited than Petersburg's. It may only exercise powers granted to it by the State, rather than assuming all powers not expressly denied. For example, Kupreanof's taxation powers are much more restricted by State law. Kupreanof has a Council-Mayor form of government. The Mayor acts as the responsible administrator, and exercises the following powers: (1) Appoint city employees and administrative offices, and delegate supervisory responsibilities; (2) Supervise enforcement of city law; (3) Prepare the annual budget and capital improvement program for the Council; (4) Execute the adopted budget and capital improvement program; (5) Make monthly financial reports to the Council on city finances and operations; (6) Report to the Council at the end of each fiscal year on the finances and administrative activities of the city; (7) Prepare and make available for public distribution an annual report on city affairs; (8) Serve as city personnel officer (AS 29.23.290) Unlike a first class city, however, the Mayor is elected from among the Council for a term equal in length to a councilman's term (AS 29.23.250). As a member of the Council, the Mayor may wote on all Matters brought before the Council (AS 29.23.260). Kupreanof's Mayor has no veto powers (AS 29.23.270). -69- Kupreanof has chosen to assume planning, platting and zoning powers, and is considering providing a number of other services, including water supply, transportation and electric power distribution. The next sections of this chapter discuss the financial aspects of Kupreanof and Petersburg's city governments. MUNICIPAL FINANCE This section examines the most recent trends in Petersburg and Kupreanof's municipal finance. The trends provide a rough baseline for measuring the changes in local public budgets. At the end of this section some policy considerations are suggested for the comprehensive plan. PETERSBURG Revenues Local government officials look to two primary sources to generate revenue to meet budget obligations: revenues extracted from "local sources" in the form of taxes and charges plus miscellaneous forms of income; and dollars received from the state and federal governments. Tables 14 and 15 summarize Petersburg's historical revenues by source and fund balance by fund type. Local Resources Property Taxes The property tax is one of the oldest and also one of the most con- troversial ways of raising local government revenue. Nationally, it has been one of the main supports of such local government services as police and fire protection and education. It has been argued that the property tax is unduly regressive and in- equitable. The assessment ratio (the ratio of the assessed value of property to its market value) often varies with the value, age and type of property, thus resulting in a tax that often violates equal tax treatment principles. Improved property is generally taxed at higher rates than unimproved property, urban property at higher rates than rural property, and commercial property at higher rates than residential property. To offset these perceived negative characteristics, the State of Alaska has exempted elderly persons from real property taxes and reimburses local governments for the revenues lost by the operation of the =70= LOCAL RESOURCES PROPERTY TAXES PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TXS AUTONOBILE TAXES LICENSES & PERMITS FINES & FORFEITURES USES OF PROPERTY SALES TAXES STREET & SEWER ASSHNTS CHARGES FOR SERVICES GARBAGE COLLECTION HARBOR REVENUE ELECTRIC UTILITY REV WATER UTILITY REVENUE WASTEWATER UTILITY REV PORT REVENUE OTHER CHARGES INTEREST, NT ELSHHR SHN MISC INCOME SALE OF BONDS & NOTES SUBTOTAL LOCAL RESRCS INTERGOVTL RESOURCES STATE GOVERNMENT BUS LICENSE & FISH TAX SHARED REVENUES DEBT RTRMNT (CH 249) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER NISC ASSTNC SUBTOTAL STATE GOVT FEDERAL GOVT REV SHARING & ANTIRCSN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER MISC ASSISTANCE SUBTOTAL TOTAL REVENUES 1975 ACTUAL 327223 25000 3949 574 41501 321022 11565 37135 50995 823196 102525 9819 32473 488 30104 7200 2024969 45809 117563 78556 346971 3200 392099 30375 2162073 2192448 4809516 TABLE 14 CITY OF PETERSBURG HISTORICAL REVENUES BY SOURCE 1975 - 1976 1977 ACTUAL ACTUAL 385428 «= 380918 29500 = 30000 3368 3312 1007 1445 4734512131 574419 = 635150 16265 2467 59838 =| 49524 38523. 49123 993225 979954 165876 248280 42430 100128 34904 46628 4525 6296 5493 28445 340000010400 5902346 2584221 92817 = 72478 143517 16000 66909 = 66659 532555 119402 1749519992 853293 444531 57862 104941 2944785 = (313457 7 23716 3002647 442114 9758286 3470866 =—7i= 1982 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL EST 437564 465430 = 702725) 4637459 =—:202289 30000 = 30000-33000» 35640-35640 7 32635 22665) 26135-25000 7487 6802 6964 = 11055 7600 1181 921 315 4650 3700 89240 81537 49720 18063 46000 625777 705295 «953311 =—-911123 920000 - 20961 = 15098 = 24338 = 20000 6129264127 75876 = 80653 = 80000 62985 69753. 100738 = 111395 110000 1106331 1329708 1800487 2061728 2414450 235866 © 246365 © 268306 «= 237413 = 285000 195015 140408 179593 186665 200000 - 6000 10866 = 17541 = 17500 87453-73479) AS1451 = 215807 143900 5736 714115639 49504 = 50000 7012 6110 46498253288) = 15000 910000 7 7 106000 1300000 3862939 3286672 4855136 4788457 5876059 75577 140416 «173865 = 242533 240000 16959 189664 218371 B47111 1030111 64873 272194 = 268712 328823 «394269 965000 25000 - 359723 6897834 22522 «20711 «= 28887 =: 160345 =: 104000 1297568 648185 689837 1938535 8666214 201177 126553 105904 §=— 100632 143750 498000 7 122738 * 80713 59021-62047 7627 7 7 758198 188600 236267 100632 224463 5918705 4123457 5781242 6827624 14766736 TABLE is REVISED (UNAUDITED) BUDGET ESTIMATES FUND NAME: GENERAL FUND SALES TAX FUND : FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING CHAFTER 249 TRUST FUNDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS HARBOR ENTERPRISE FUND FORT ENTERPRISE FUND ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND WATER UTILITY FUND WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND 1981 AND CASH & INVSTMTS 6/30/81 79STAS 488724 267352 49748 300000 73685 4724 250987 Kx GO617 KK L7S752KK CITY OF PETERSBURG 1982 REVENUE CURRENT ESTIMATE BUDGET FY 81/82 FY 81/82 2746267 2244112 940000 861000 168693 193635 394269 301769 6237659% 6162659% 1199000 125300 17733 17733 2414450 2414450 285000 316500 1194165% 300800 CASH & INVSTMTS 6/30/82 1297901 567724 1810 142248 375000 38385 4724 ZSO9B7 KK 2ILL7 KK LO661 17K * INCLUDES GRANT FUNDS WHICH ARE UNLIKELY TO BE FULLY RECEIVED OR EXFENI *x INCLUDES RESTRICTED ASSETS IN BOND REDEMPTION AND RESERVE ACCOUNTS. -72- exemption. State legislators have also made substantial increases in state assistance levels to reduce the share of total local revenues raised by the property tax. The City of Petersburg further exempts personal property in homes, motor vehicles, business inventory, boats and vessels. As a result of these developments, Petersburg's reliance on the property tax has been diminished fram a high of $702,725 in 1980 toa low of $202,269 in 1982. Trends reflecting the City's total assessed value, tax rate and property tax receipts are shown in Table 16 . TABLE 16 CITY OF PETERSBURG PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS AND RECEIPTS 1975-1982 Year Assessed Valuation Mill Levy Receipts 1975 $ 18,908,690 17 $ 327,223 1976 21,557,806 18 385,428 1977 30,827,010 12 380,918 1978 31,170, 450 14 437,564 1979 38,505,238 12 465,430 1980 55,978,810 14* 702,725 1981 62,034,684 12* 637,459 1982 75,196,109 3* 202, 269 *Areas of the City annexed after 1979 have been taxed at a millage rate 50% less than the rate in effect for the rest of the City. Sales Tax A sales tax is essentially a tax on consumption. The tax is computed as a percentage of the value of a transaction levied on purchasers who buy at retail. Since the tax is intended to be passed on to consumers by the retailer, sales for resale are usually not taxed. Among the 26 states where local governments actually use the local sales tax, the rate ranges from 0.25 percent to 1.0 percent in every state except Alaska, where the local rate can go as high as 5.0 percent. Alaska does not have a state sales tax. Although there is considerable diversity in state sales tax bases, all have certain exclusions of goods purchased for business rather than personal use, as well as exemptions of specific consumption of goods and services. About one third of the states exempt food purchased for -73- home consumption; more than half exempt prescription drugs; and several exempt clothing. A sales tax is relatively regressive in comparison to an income tax be- cause lower income families consume a larger proportion of their cur- rent income. Sales taxes are relatively efficient, however, because they are broad based, elastic and do not affect relative commodity prices when linked to a use tax.* They are also an efficient method of extracting revenue from non-residents who use local facilities and services. * BR local sales tax is often accompanied by a "use tax" levied on goods bought outside the jurisdiction and used inside it. The use tax is intended to deter residents of a City from making purchases in outside areas where there are no sales taxes or taxes with lower rates. The use tax is employed by 19 of the 26 states with local sales taxes. A 5.0 percent consumers tax has been in effect in Petersburg since before 1975. The City does NOT impose a use tax. The sales tax is levied on all retail sales made and on services performed within the City. Prescription drugs, city utilities, and sales for consumption outside the City (if delivered by common carrier by air or water) are exempt. Elderly persons are also exempt from the sales tax. Sales tax revenues are currently dedicated by ordinance to paying the City's general debt, public works capital expenditures, and the con- struction, operation and maintenance of school facilities. Charges for Services User charges have been a growing source of revenue for Petersburg and other local governments over the past two decades. The extent of this growth in comparison to that of other local revenue sources is shown in Table 17. TABLE 17 LOCAL RESOURCES* Type 1975 1981 Increase Property Taxes $ 327,223 $ 637,459 94, 8% Sales Taxes 521,022 911,123 74.9% User Charges 1,391,858 3,770,539 170.9% Other Income 110,022 294,011 167.2% $ 2,350,125 $ 5,613,132 138.8% *Excludes sale of bonds and notes. -74- The employment of user charges can subdue many of the objections raised against the property tax, sales tax, and other forms of government taxation. User charges perform functions attributable to a pricing system, That is, they can ration the supply by allocating the service to those who demand it the most. User charges may vary with the amount of service used. The consumer of the services can avoid some (or all) of the charge by reducing consumption of the good or service. User charges provide information on the desirability of increasing the supply of a service; they also provide the funds for expansion of that service. Petersburg uses charges for services for all of its enterprise activities -- electricity, water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, the small boat harbors, the port facility and the hospital. In addition, the City has charges for a variety of other services such as garbage collection, building inspection, ambulance, police and public works services. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RESOURCES By 1975, financial assistance obtained fram federal and state govern- ments reached 39 percent of total general revenue of local governments in the United States. In the same year, the City of Petersburg re- ceived 62.7 percent of its budget fram these sources. Table 18 shows some trends with regard to federal and state aid to the City of Petersburg. TABLE 18 REVENUE SOURCES 1975 1981 Change Local Resources $ 2,350,125 $ 5,613,132 138.8% Sale of Bonds and Notes 7,200 271,000 97.3% State Aid 1,708,609 4,217,946 146.9% Federal Aid 2,254,254 238,224 —-89.4% $ 6,320,188 $10,340,302 63.6% Most U.S. cities are relying heavily on aid fram higher levels of government. Petersburg's utilization of this assistance has been most- ly related to education, social services and large capital projects such as wastewater collection and treatment systems, the port facility, elderly housing and the senior center. -75- The trends, however, show a growing dependence on intergovernmental resources for general operation and maintenance expenses. For example: A) Federal Revenue Sharing Funds have been exclusively used for the operation of the Police Department and Library; B) The City reduced its property tax rate in 1982 in direct proportion to the increased financial assistance received fram the State of Alaska; C) Eighty-four (84) percent of the School District budget was financed by federal and state aid in 1981; D) Eight (8) percent of the hospital's operation budget was financed by a $77,570 State Revenue Sharing appropriation. This aid will increase in 1982 to $250,000. The outlook indicates that federal aid will decrease while state assistance will increase. Alaska's growing revenue from oil and mineral resources will play a larger role in the financing of local governments, especially in bringing community facilities up to stan- dards that the rest of the states take for granted. EXPENDITURES Expenditures of cities are tricky to interpret. Cities vary greatly in the scope of service functions they render. There are differences because states confer different fiscal responsibilities on local governments. Some states, for example, assign local governments responsibilities for social services (education, health and welfare), while others regard such services as state responsibilities. Many cities in the "lower 48" are responsible for airports and highways, but in Alaska the state is responsible for these categories of expenditure. Even within a state, responsibilities across cities may be incomparable due to differences in classification, local charters and local initiatives. Electric power, for example, my be a municipal function or it may be provided by a rural electric cooperative, a private utility or even the state (Alaska Power Authority). Still other problems abound in interpreting city expenditures. Productivity varies from city to city, as does the impact of inflation and transportation on service cost. A dollar spent in Petersburg may not buy the same quality and quantity of services it purchases in Ketchikan. A more basic question is what does a higher or lower ex- penditure mean. Does it mean greater demand? Need? Preference? Does it mean higher cost? =76— In summary, only common functions permit meaningful comparisons across cities. Nevertheless, the trends over time and the comparison across functions and jurisdictions do roughly approximate the expenditure obligations local governments are facing. The objective of this presentation is to facilitate analysis of Petersburg trends and to compare how Petersburg shares or deviates fran the mational experience. Tables 20 and 21 show information on the changing components of Petersburg spending. Table 19 compares Petersburg spending to national trends showing the percent share of municipal budgets for selected categories of expenditure. TABLE 19 PERCENT SHARE OF MUNICIPAL BUDGET Petersburg Expenses 1975 1981 U.S. Average* Urban Services 4.1 5.2 21.1 Police 2.9 4.1 11.5 Fire 0.5 0.7 6.2 Sanitation 0.7 0.5 3.4 Social Services 30.1 43.2 27.6 Education 22.9 31.6 13.6 Health and Hospital 6.9 9.6 5.8 Library oul 0.4 12 Infrastructure 58.2 38.7 19.4 Overhead 2.9 5.6 6.4 Debt Service 3.2 5.3 4, 7** * Source: "National Summary of Functional Distribution of Municipal Governments' Expenditure by Major Category of Expense, 1976-77", The Municipal Year Book, 1980, page 187. ** Interest only (Excludes payments on principal). It may be surprising for some to note that SOCIAL SERVICE expenditures account for the largeset category of local government spending in Petersburg (43.2 percent of all spending in 1981). The largest single Sy TABLE 20 CITY OF PETERSBURG EXPENDITURES Urban Services Police $ Fire Sanitation Social Services Education Health & Hospital Community Services Library Infrastructure Public Works Electricity Water Wastewater Harbors Port Overhead Administration Payroll Benefits Public Buildings General Debt Service Other TOTALS 1,284,183 $5,591,264 1975 AND 1981 1975 1981 167,584 $ 389,444 25,180 61,917 38,775 42,494 2,990,369 387,746 906 , 923 11,699 181,856 4,983 41,958 449,310 991,487 673,612 1,878,846 119,839 316,500 1,978,466 349,793 34,033 98,196 7 17,733 67,404 198,356 55,624 271,724 39,713 92,873 177,097 498 , 636 76,016 114,887 $9,443,092 -78- Percent 132 146 10 133 134 1,454 724 121 179 164 (-82) 189 194 389 134 182 51 69 HIST EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND: TABLE 21 CITY OF PETERSBURG HISTORICAL EXPENDITURES BY SOURCE 1975 = 1982 (FISCAL YEAR ENDED) 1975 1976 1977 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL 1978 ACTUAL MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL 16023 12431-16388 MUNICIPAL FACILITIES 31226 = 3040548537 ADMINISTRATION 67404 = 77878 «= 63836 ASSESSOR 13263 1706 2151 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 33758 «= 41470-39288 ELECTION EXPENSES PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS HEALTH & HOSPITAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 1245 1437 1478 15705 55382 93641 17000 7557 1044 167584 141566 209860 252967 25180 «= 30829 1661 30998 228120 191850 289062 += 172882 50613-70741 = 23159 9243 11699-14544 88947): 158413 LIBRARY 4983 5132 705717985 UTILITIES 8487 10954 = 16096)» :15701 PAYROLL TAXES & BENEFITS 55624 80507 113659 = 172788 SANITATION 38775 40531 = 39675 45709 OTHER EXPENSES 985 40812 = 60551 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND 734970 808153 975854 1157566 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: GENERAL DEBT SERVICE 177097 136654 = 355293355708 SCHOOL APPROPRIATION 123100 133100 231371 231371 CAPITAL OUTLAY 221190 2493708 1354913 49468 ADMINISTRATION : 7022 4794 6123 OTHER EXPENSES 10741-13825 1952 22000 ENTERPRISE FUNDS: ELECTRIC POWER SUBTOTAL SPECIAL REV FUNDS 532128 2784309 1948323 664670 673612 761813 836136 1159442 WATER SUPPLY & DISTRIB 119837 170063 207225 WASTEWATER COLL & TREAT 1978466 2984647 2035740 SMALL BOAT HARBORS PORT OF PETERSBURG 303335291 32260 198794 148059 49985 102011 28352 1275953 SUBTOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 2805950 4053825 3139713 2832233 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS 4093048 7646287 6063890 4654469 -79- 1979 ACTUAL 19090 61481 103633 32713 28718 2404 374776 238933 9318 1535904 17040 15000 198634 56004 99776 1413624 428302 284371 155384 3630 871687 1317293 217821 180158 87326 74898 1877496 4162807 1980 ACTUAL 18801 79029 182553 7500 36332 3900 341967 37740 572836 9272 124549 25089 11232 213349 7429 7324 1698802 413242 352000 369370 11438 154681 1300731 1777774 S4LL16 276782 102108 139887 2637667 5637200 1981 ACTUAL 19504 78189 196912 30000 43151 2152 389444 61917 589554 90000 181856 41053 14684 271724 42494 20080 2062714 498635 392000 401933 11444 1304012 1878846 295729 349793 98196 25604 2648168 1982 BUDGET 19200 63000 226100 15000 55500 2600 406637 91554 654910 75000 133823 $1072 20000 317210 71426 31080 2244112 396255 392000 3907004 9945 4705204 2414450 316500 300800 125300 17733 3174783 6014894 10124099 category of this expense is EDUCATION which has increased fram a 22.9 percent share in 1975 to a 31.6 percent share in 1981. The increased spending for education in Petersburg deviates from the national trends. Nationally, education's share has begun to diminish as enrollments decline. The second largest category of public spending in Petersburg has been allocated to infrastructure. PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES accounted for 38.7 percent of all spending in 1981. (The ELECTRIC UTILITY repre— sented a 19.9 percent share.) Petersburg spends more than other U.S. local governments on infrastructure . This may be due to recent state assistance for capital improvements. In addition, most other local governments are not responsible for electric power. Expenses for URBAN SERVICES (POLICE, FIRE AND SANITATION) in Petersburg account for a smaller share of municipal spending than the U.S. average. Expenses for OVERHEAD and DEBT SERVICE, although increasing, are also lower than the national average. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The purpose of this financial analysis is to help diagnose trends of revenue and expenditure so that local officials may anticipate and cure financial problems before troubled fiscal conditions develop. Petersburg and most other Alaska municipalities are currently exper- iencing quantitative manifestations of growth as measured by people, jobs, income and other characteristics. Most of this growth, however, is heavily dependent upon Alaska's oil revenue, which accounts for 90 percent of all state receipts. Growth, however, is NOT always positive: - It may bid up land prices to inflationary levels; - It may strain local budgets for mssive investments in the City's infrastructure; - It may create expectations of higher service levels and growth in public employment and payrolls; - It may translate into increased pollution and other social problems; and - It may wantonly consume land and other scarce resources such as wildlife, fisheries and energy. The "boom or bust" syndrome is well documented in Alaska's history. The eras of growth and decline have been directly related to resource -80- development -- gold, fishing, oil and natural gas. Although the current economic outlook is favorable, Petersburg officials should consider goals and objectives that may buffer the community against negative external economic forces. One bad season for fishing, an earthquake or other natural disaster, and continued decline in the timber market are examples of external forces which could adversely affect the community's economic well being in a significant way. Following are some suggestions for policy consideration relating to municipal finance. 1. Modern budgeting, accounting and audit systems should be given a high priority to facilitate the assessment of economic circum- stances, fiscal forecasts and early warning systems. 2. Financial performance criteria should be adopted by the local governing boards (City Council, School Board, Hospital Board) for the ongoing management of Petersburg public finances. The following are some examples: A. Debt should not be used for current expenses. B. Each utility should maintain revenues which support the full (direct and indirect) cost of the utility. The adequacy of the revenue system should be reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis. C. An emergency reserve should be maintained at a level at least equal to 10 percent of the total locally generated revenue for the current year. D. The net (non self-supporting) general obligation debt of Petersburg should not exceed 8 percent of the taxable property of the City. E. The total General Obligation Debt of the City should not exceed three times the total annual locally generated, non enterprise operating revenue. F. Annual general obligation debt service (payments for principal and interest) should not exceed 20 percent of the total locally generated, non enterprise operating revenue. G. Operating expenditures should be estimated and provided for PRIOR to undertaking any capital improvement. 3. A five year capital improvement program should be established. It should be integrated with the City's comprehensive plan, reviewed and revised annually as a part of the budget process. -8l1- 4. Strong consideration should be given to reversing the City's growing dependence upon intergovernmental resources for general operation and maintenance expenses. 5. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a "use tax" to be levied on goods bought outside the City. Relative commodity prices are being adversely affected by the current operation of the sales tax. 6. All areas of the City should be taxed at the same rate. 7. The General Fund should reimburse the Utility Funds for revenue lost by the operation of "discounts" for the elderly. 8. Legislative authority should be given for authorizing the use of sales tax funds for general operation and maintenance expenses. 9. Since the existing wastewater treatment facility is not likely to be utilized for wastewater purposes, the debt service for the facility should NOT be charged to the utility. KUPREANOF Since its incorporation, the City of Kupreanof has chosen to avoid many of the expenses and commitments associated with providing the full range of public services to its residents (as does the City of Petersburg). Kupreanof has chosen not to levy either sales or property taxes, and has relied on a variety of small revenue sources (user charges, fees, donations and intergovernmental grants) to fund a limited variety of public services. Between 1978 and 1980, about half of Kupreanof's revenues were derived fran intergovernmental grants. In 1981, the City received its first large grant of nearly $30,000 under the State municipal assistance grants program. The majority of the City's revenues, typically from 40 to 90 percent, are used to pay for general government functions. This administrative burden has ranged fram $400 to slightly over $2,000 per year. The remainder of the revenues were used to support parks, recreation and library services (10 to 20 percent of expenditures), assemblance of a contingency fund, and for public works and services (10 to 15 percent of expenditures). Table 22 summarizes Kupreanof's past revenues and expenditures. As Kupreanof's financial resources grow, several issues need to ke ad- dressed. Perhaps foremost among these is the question of the types of services which the City will choose to provide. If the City chooses to invest in public facilities, its future operating revenue requirements will increase. Taxes, service charges or other revenue sources must be found to support the operating and maintenance costs. -82- TABLE 22 ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REVENUES Own Source Taxes Enterprise Revenues & Service Charges Donations Other Total Own Source Intergovernmental Federal State Total Intergov't. TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES General Government Parks, Rec. & Library Fire, Solid Waste & Other Public Works Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURE CITY OF KUPREANOF 1977 520 388 908 908 366 366 -83- 1978 243 580 823 753 753 1576 1476 1476 1979 350 988 1338 1547 2885 2270 275 350 1015 3910 1980 90 1685 1775 154 475 629 2404 957 684 360 2001 1981 254 752 1322 2328 147 29959 30106 32434 1776 50 300 2126 A second issue is the question of how the resources are to bk al- located. Equity of allocation must ke addressed. Finally, the City must determine the ultimate level of quality of services it will provide its residents, consider the future costs and develop a revenue system which apportions the costs fairly and provides adequate reserves for repairs and emergencies. These issues will be dealt with as Kupreanof's capital improvements and financial plan is developed in the coming months. ~84- HOUSING Housing supply and demand for the Cities of Petersburg and Kupreanof is discussed here separately by city. The existing housing supply is evaluated with respect to the total number of units, type of units, vacancy rates, occupancy rate, and location of units. Housing demand is evaluated with respect to the number of seasonal and year-round units needed. PETERSBURG Total Units The most accurate count of total housing units in Petersburg is for 1980. In 1980, year-round and seasonal housing units totalled 1,182. Accurate total housing data is not available for earlier years because no accurate data on seasonal housing is available. Seasonal housing counts for 1980 have been provided by the Petersburg Planning Department. Table 23 compares total year-round housing unit counts for 1960, 1970 and 1980 to illustrate the growth in Petersburg's housing during this period. Between 1960 and 1980, the year-round housing stock more than doubled, with an increase of 545 units. Of this 545-unit increase, 196 units (36%) were constructed between 1960 and 1970 while 349 units (64%) were constructed betwen 1970 and 1980. ‘Thus, the rate of housing develop- ment has been accelerating during the last decade. Types of Units There are three basic types of housing units in Petersburg: single family, multi-family, and temporary housing for seasonal workers. These types of housing are discussed separately below and summarized in Table 23 . Single family housing units include traditional frame-built houses and mobile homes. In the urban area, the number of single family units has increased fran 440 in 1970 to 593 in 1980, an increase of 35%. Overall, the number of single-family units has increased by 254 units between 1970 and 1980. Ninety of these units were in the newly annexed areas. The proportion of single-family units in city's year-round housing stock has increased fram 62.8% to 66% during this period. -85- TABLE 23 CITY OF PETERSBURG HOUSING CHARACTERISTICcsl Year Characteristic 1960 19702 Total Units N/A NYA Seasonal Units WA WA Year-Round Units 510 706 Single Family N/A 440 Multi-Family NWA 191 Mobile Homes or Trailers NWA 70 Owner Occupied 314 385 Renter Occupied 167 240 Vacant (%) 7(1. 4%) 76(9.2%) Lacking Plumbing 46 45 Persons Per Occupied 2.99 3.62 Housing Unit Notes: 1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1960, 1970, and 1980. 2. Petersburg and Scow Bay, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Selected 1970 Census Data for Alaska Communities. 3. Includes units for sale (9), units for rent (2), and units vacant for other reasons (36). Does not include units held for occasional use(5). 4. N/A = No data available. -86- 1980 1182 127 1055 694 204 157 655 324 71(6.7%)3 2.85 Multi-family units include structures with two or more attached units, but do not include hotel rooms. Census figures show that the number of multi-family units in the urban area has increased fram 191 in 1970 to 204 in 1980. This increase of 6.8% is much lower than the 65.8% in- crease in single-family housing stock during this period. No significant historic data are available for seasonal housing units. There are currently approximately 127 seasonal housing units in Petersburg (Table 23). Vacancy Rate The vacancy rate is important to identify the number of year-round units available to meet housing demand. It is also important to deter- mine the opportunity for choice between rental and purchase options. The overall vacancy rate for year-round Petersburg housing units in 1980 was 6.7%, or 71 units. These 71 units included 9 units held for sale, 26 units held for rent and 26 units which were vacant for other reasons. It did not include 5 units held for occasional use, since those units would not be part of the available housing stock, nor did it include seasonal housing units. The 1980 vacancy rate of 6.7% is lower than the very high 9.2% rate of 1970, but is higher than the 1.4% rate of 1960. This vacancy rate is relatively high for a town the size of Petersburg. A vacancy rate between 2% and 5% is considered to be preferable by the Federal Housing Administration. A constant vacancy rate means that population growth and housing con- struction have kept pace with each other. It should also be noted that the census is taken on April 1, before most seasonal workers have ar- rived and taken up residence. The 6.7% vacancy rate for year-round housing units would probably be lowered to some extent by seasonal workers looking for housing. Occupancy Rate The 1980 housing occupancy rate for Petersburg's year-round units is 2.65 persons per unit. This 1980 occupancy rate is much lower than the 1960 and 1970 occupancy rates. This lower rate may reflect a maturing of families in which children grow up and move out on their own. This explanation of lower occupancy rates is confirmed by an examination of the population by age groups. -87- Demand The demand for year-round and seasonal housing is projected in Table 24. The estimated demand for year-round units is based on the population projections (see Population), existing occupancy rates, and an assumed minimum desirable vacancy rate of two percent. The demand for seasonal housing has been projected based on seasonal workforce projections. Year-round housing projections do not discriminate between single family and multi-family units because household preferences are difficult to predict. Thus, the year-round housing need will be equal to total projected population divided by the 1980 occupancy rate (2.85 persons per unit), plus two percent to allow for a two percent vacancy rate. This projected housing need is shown in Table 24 below. TABLE 24 HOUSING NEED PROJECTIONS FOR CITY OF PETERSBURG Housing Need (Number of Units)! Low Intermediate High Year Scenario Scenario Scenario 1985 988 1,012 1,063 1990 1,012 1,063 1,174 1995 1,038 1,118 1,296 2000 1,064 1,175 1,431 Note: 1. Projected Population (Table 13 , page 66 ) divided by the 1980 occupancy rate of 2.65 persons per unit; plus a 2.0% vacancy rate. -88- The 1985 housing need projection ranges from a low of 988 units to a high of 1,063 year-round units. The 1,055 year-round units listed in the 1980 Census would be only nine units short of meeting housing needs under the low demand scenario for 2000 and eight units short of the 1985 high demand projection. The need for year-round housing would range from eight units under the 1985 high demand projection to 376 units in the year 2000 under: the high demand projection. KUPREANOF There are no data on housing for Kupreanof prior to 1980 because it did not become a city until 1975. In 1980, the Bureau of the Census re- corded a total of 21 single family housing units in Kupreanof. Present statutes allow one single family residence every 2-1/2 acres with the exception of two small areas designated as multiple family dwelling areas. These areas allow 20 single family units per 2-1/2 acres, though currently there are no multi-family units in the city. Mobile homes are not permitted within the corporate boundaries. The vacancy rate for Kupreanof is reported to be zero (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1981). The average occupancy rate for Kupreanof (persons per occupied unit) is estimated to be 2.24 persons per unit. These figures do not take into account seasonal housing (i.e., homes which are useable only during the summer). The housing needs for Kupreanof are projected using the estimated 1980 occupancy rate of 2.24 persons per house, and an assumed vacancy rate of zero. With this housing use pattern applied to the projected population, the total number of housing units projected is shown in Table 25, below. TABLE 25 HOUSING NEED PROJECTIONS CITY OF KUPREANOF Housing Need (Number of Units)1 Low Intermediate High Year Scenario Scenario Scenario 1985 21 21 24 1990 21 22 28 1995 22 23 32 2000 22 24 37 Note: 1. Projected Population (see Table 13, page 66) divided by the 1980 occupancy rate of 2.24 persons per unit; plus a zero vacancy rate. -89- The population projections are based on historic development trends and projected economic development (see Population and Economy). The existing 21 units should be sufficient to house the projected increase in population through the year 1990 under a low-growth scenario. It would be three units short of the 1985 housing need under the high-growth scenario. In the year 2000, one additional unit would be required for the low demand growth projection while three more units would be needed for the intermediate growth projection and 16 more units would be needed under the high-growth scenario. These figures are only of theoretical interest, however, because the population of Kupreanof is not likely to increase appreciably without a corresponding increase in the number of homes. As additional land in Kupreanof becomes available through private or State land sales, individuals have the opportunity to build homes and move to Kupreanof. It is unlikely that they would move to Kupreanof and create a housing need. -90- SOCIAL SERVICES The quality of life in a community is enhanced by services the city provides to meet local needs. Services such as police and fire protec- tion support the security of the entire community. Other services such as public education and alcoholism counseling are targeted at specific groups, but have the effect of benefitting the entire community. This chapter describes the services provided to the two cities, analyzes their performance and results, and discusses options for the future of these services. PETERSBURG POLICE Police services in Petersburg are provided by the Petersburg Police Department, and the Alaska Department of Public Safety. The U.S. Forest Service also has enforcement officers concerned with activities on National Forest lands. The Alaska Department of Public Safety stations one State Trooper on Mitkof Island. His duties include enforcing State laws on Mitkof Island outside the city limits and on National Forest lands. The Forest Service cooperates with the State in law enforcement and has one special agent and 11 to 12 enforcement officers to patrol the Wrangell-Petersburg area. The City of Petersburg is served by the Petersburg Police Department. The department is staffed by seven full-time and two part-tim of- ficers. This complement includes a police chief, captain, and sargent. The eight full-time equivalent officers provide a ratio of 375 persons per officer, considerably lower than the recommended national ratio of 500 persons per officer. There are also six dispatchers and other office staff. The police department is located in the city's Municipal Building. The station houses three jail cells capable of holding twelve people, the communications center, and a computer tied into state and federal in- formation networks. The department has at its disposal three marked police cars, one unmarked car, and one truck. The department has three shifts with two patrols in the morning and evening shifts and one during the midnight shift. Patrols are concentrated in the Petersburg urban area. The crime rates for 1980 in Petersburg are compared with the crime rates in Wrangell, Ketchikan and with statewide rates in Table 26. In general, Petersburg has an overall crim rate similar to the State of Alaska and is much lower than comparable and nearby southeast Alaskan cities. The largest difference in crime rates is in assaults. The State average is 50 percent higher than Petersburg's while the rates in -9l1- Robbery Assault Burglary Larceny/Theft Motor Vehicle Theft TOTAL Population Base TABLE 1980 SELECTED CRIME STATISTICS (crimes per thousand persons) Petersburg Wrangell 0.357 0.714 6. 786 14.643 40.000 6.071 68.571 2,800 -92- 26 0.920 19.779 18.399 56.118 6.900 102.116 2,174 Ketchikan 0 1.094 0.328 27.681 19.037 68.600 6.127 122.867 9,140 Statewide 0.097 0.655 0.900 9.949 14.008 37.394 6.265 69. 268 400,142 Wrangell and Ketchikan are 190 percent and 420 percent higher, respec- tively. Other significant differences are in the categories of burglary and theft where Petersburg rates are similar to the State's, but much lower than those of Wrangell or Ketchikan. Petersburg crime statistics for July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1981 have been shown in Table 27 . Over this two-year period, there has been a 224 percent increase in thefts; and a 125 percent increase in alcohol related crimes. Furthermore, although intoxification is not a crine, the recorded incidence of intoxicated persons increased 128 percent from 36 to 82. In contrast to these increases, violent crimes (assault and battery and assault with a deadly weapon) have decreased by 27 per- cent and burglary has decreased by 33 percent over the same period. The large increase in certain crime categories is primarily due to a much greater emphasis by the Police Department on prosecuting the ac- cused parties in each incident and encouraging victims to file com plaints. Petersburg is considered by its police chief to be a relatively safe city. Areas on Mitkof Island outside Petersburg are patrolled by the Alaska Department of Public Safety. A single state trooper is assigned to this area. FIRE PROTECTION Fire protection includes preventive maintenance in individual struc- tures, the alarm system, and the fire-fighting capability. Petersburg has all three elements, which are discussed separately below. Fire Prevention Fire prevention in individual structures is generally implemented through building codes. The City of Petersburg implements a system of fire prevention in individual structures by requiring compliance with the Petersburg Fire Code and the 1979 Uniform Fire Code and inspections by the Fire Chief and building inspector. Fire Alarm System The fire alarm system in Petersburg makes use of fire alarm boxes along the harbor area and the downtown area. Residential areas rely primar- ily on the telephone system to alert the fire department about fires. =93= TABLE 27 SELECTED CRIME STATISTICS FOR PETERSBURG Crime Category Number of Incidents July 1 to June 30 1979 1980 1981 Prowler Calls 20 33 32 Assault NA 2 13 Assault & Battery 13 10 7 Assault with a Dangerous Weapon 2 3 4 Theft 145 220 470 Drug Cases (all) NMA 5. 4 Adult Arrests 60 100 165 Juvenile Arrests 25 40 45 Intoxicated Persons 24 32 53 Disorderly Persons 36 52 82 Bar Disturbances 31 45 72 Juvenile Disturbances 87 98 108 Domestic Disturbances 40 22 62 Death Investigation 1 6 1 Burglary not in a Dwelling 25 32 25 Burglary in a Dwelling 17 11 3 TOTAL SELECTED CRIMES 525 711 1,145 -94- Most communities in the Lower 48 states are phasing out the use of fire alarm boxes in favor of an emergency telephone system (the "911" system). This is to minimize false alarms and vandalism and to efficiently use the in-place telephone system already connected to almost every house. An exception to applying this general trend in Petersburg might he harbor areas which are far from any telephone. Alarm boxes might be programmed for such areas. Fire fighting service in Petersburg is provided by the Petersburg Volunteer Fire Department (PVFD). The PVFD is based in two stations. The main station with the administrative offices and the majority of equipment is located in the Municipal Building at the intersection of Main Street and H Street. The Scow Bay substation, housing a pump truck and tanker truck, is located at the three mile marker of Mitkof Highway. The equipment located at each station is shown in Table 28 below. TABLE 28 PETERSBURG FIRE DEPARTMENT MAJOR EQUIPMENT Main Station Model Year Capabilities 3 Pump Trucks 1964 1,000 gpm with 500 gallon tank 1968 1,250 gpm with 500 gallon tank 1975 1,250 gpm with 750 gallon tank 2 Ambulances 1980 Emergency medical equipment 1 Rescue Van Rescue equipment, spare air tanks, etc. Scow Bay Substation 1 Pump Truck 1980 1,500 gpm with 2,000 gallon tank 1 Tank Truck with 3,500 gallon tank All units can be used in the urban area, while the pump and tank trucks at the Scow Bay substation are especially used in areas which do not have fire hydrants. Waterlines with fire hydrants end at approximately the one-mile post on Mitkof Highway. -95- The Petersburg Fire Department is. staffed by one full-time chief/instructor and 37 volunteers. There are 13 emergency medical technicians in this group. Operating all these vehicles would require approximately 18 volunteers. The PVFD meets for training four times per month. The fire chief is certified to conduct a Firefighter One training program. Response time within the urban area (the old city boundaries) is less than two minutes. Response time from the Scow Bay station to the nine-mile post is approximately six minutes. Although outside its area of responsibility, the PVFD will travel south to the end of Mitkof Highway. Response time to the Crystal Lake Fish Hatchery would be approximately 15 minutes. The demand for fire fighting services is reflected in the number of fire calls. Fire calls between 1978 and 1980 increased fran 33 to 74 per year. Much of this increase is attributable to minor woodstove related fires, which increased fram 1 to 19 during this period. There has not been a major harbor fire in the past few years. Fire fighting services in Petersburg have been evaluated by the Insurance Services Office (ISO), a private organization which rates the fire protection level of communities across the nation for insurance campanies. The ISO evaluated the Petersburg fire protection system in 1975 and in 1980. The 1980 evaluation was for lands outside the urban area, The ISO rating is based on the total alarm, fire fighting capability and property at risk picture. On a rating scale from 1 (best) to 10 (worst), Petersburg has an insurance rating of 6 for residential and commercial areas within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant, an 8 for residential areas beyond 1,000 feet, and a 9 for commercial and industrial areas beyond 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant. This compares with a 6 in Wrangell and a 3 in Anchorage for areas within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant (see Table 29). -96- TABLE 29 ISO FIRE INSURANCE RATINGS FOR SELECTED ALASKAN CITIES Residential Canmercial/Industrial City Rating Rating Petersburg Areas within 1,000 feet 6 6 of hydrant Other areas 8 9 Kupreanof 10 10 Wrangell Areas within 1,000 feet 6 6 of hydrant Other areas 9 9 Anchorage Areas within 1,000 feet 3 3 of hydrant Other areas 9 9 The best that areas beyond 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant can be rated is generally 9. However, Petersburg has a special 8 rating for residen- tial areas beyond 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant because of its recently purchased pumper and tanker trucks at the Scow Bay substation. This special 8 rating cannot ke applied to commercial and industrial properties. The ISO most recently evaluated the Petersburg fire system in 1975. The findings of this evaluation may be largely out of date; however, it represents the latest data available. The rating system assigned a number of deficiency points for various standards which were not met. At 3,000 points, the Petersburg Volunteer Fire Department would drop to a level of 7 protection while at 2,500 points, the PVFD would rise toa level 5. Major deficiency points were assessed for having only one line fram the city reservoir feeding the entire water system, having a wolunteer instead of paid staff, lack of fire fighter training, and overall inability to cope with a very large fire. These deficiencies accounted for 844 out of 2,715 points or 31 percent of all deficiency points. The major deficiency areas are shown in Table 30 . -97- TABLE 30 MAJOR PVFD DEFICIENCY AREAS IN 1975 Deficiency points were assessed for the following reasons: Water System 2,500 gpm at 3rd and Kiseno Street 2,000 gpm at 3rd and Dolphin Street Water delivery restricted by 14" line fran reservoir (6,500 gpm within 1,000 of PFI requirement not met; only 4,500 gpm supply available) Only one 14" line from reservoir (if broken, city is without water). Lines not adequately looped and gridded Subtotal: Fire Department Only 3 pumpers instead of 4 No standardized maintenance program (pump tests, etc.) Volunteer instead of paid staff Deficient training Ability to handle large fires (i.e., based on the above factors as well as others, ISO concludes that the PFD would not be able to cope with a very large fire. Subtotal of Major Deficiencies Other Minor Deficiencies: GRAND TOTAL: -98- Point met (0) met (0) 63 94 40 197 51 59 308 218 224 860 1,658 2,715 Many of the ISO deficiency areas have either been met or substantially improved since 1975. For instance, the PVFD now has four pumper trucks instead of three and has a paid fire chief to conduct training. However, it still lacks an outside training area for equipment practice. Harbor Fire Fighting Harbor fire fighting is currently handled in the same way that land fires are fought, with a hose run fram the nearest hydrant. There is no provision for fighting boat fires which cannot be brought within the reach of the land-based units. Needs Overall, the PVFD is well equipped and staffed for a city of this size. According to the PVFD chief, the essential short-term need is for an in-town training area where the fire fighters could practice. This training area need only be a vacant parcel of land with a couple of burn pits. A three-story frame structure at the site would also be useful, but not essential. The department has a long-term need for a new location for the Main Station. The Main Station is now located at the busiest intersection in town, has no parking apron, lacks adequate space for equipment storage, and has only one access door for trucks. When there is an alarm, the volunteers create considerable confusion as they try.to find parking and divert or stop intersection traffic. The ISO and the Petersburg Fire Chief have identified five major needs to improve fire protection in Petersburg. The degree to which each of these needs is pursued should be based on an analysis of the costs and benefits of each action. A second, 14-inch water line fram the city's reservoir should be in- stalled. This line would supply water to the city's water system if the existing line were to break. This need is discussed in more detail in the Public Facilities section. The existing water lines should be adequately looped and gridded. This would prevent sections of the city fram being without water if a single line breaks. A standardized equipment maintenance program is also needed. This program would ensure properly operating equipment. Increased volunteer training and establishment of an equipment practice site were the primary needs identified by the PVFD Fire Chief. Meeting these needs would require an equipment practice site with one or two burn holes. Fire fighters could practice with their equipment and further ensure swift and effective action against fires. -99- The City might also consider relocating the PVFD main station to another central location which has parking and easy egress for fire fighting trucks. Finally, capabilities need to be increased to fight ship and boat fires and waterfront fires. Options The following options are a partial list of the ways in which the above needs could be fulfilled. The City could budget for water line improvements over a number of years and require that all newly developed areas ke assessed a fee to cover water line improvements in their area. The City Council could grant a use permit for the PVFD to conduct training on a vacant parcel of City-owned land. A standardized equipment maintenance program could be started with trained volunteers. A new public safety building for the fire and police departments could be built with city funds. What State and federal funds are available would be used, and with as much work as possible to be done during the fishing off-season to reduce unemployment. The City could establish agreements with the owners of local boats to help carry fire fighters and water lines out to burning boats. The City could also purchase portable water pumps to be carried on boats for water-based fire fighting. -100- EDUCATION The education system in the Petersburg-Kupreanof area is concentrated in the City of Petersburg. It is composed of the Petersburg Public School System and the Adult Education Program of the University of Alaska Extension System. Public School System The local public school system includes the Petersburg Elementary School and the Petersburg High School. They are located adjacent to each other in the western portion of town. Students from Kupreanof commute to Petersburg daily by a school boat. There are approximately six students fran Kupreanof in the Petersburg school system. Students from Scow Bay are bussed to Petersburg. The Petersburg Elementary School is located at the intersection of D Street and 5th Street. The elementary school houses grades kinder- garten through 7th, has 17 classrooms, administrative offices, and a library with multi-purpose room. The elementary school held 377 students as of September 1, 1981, with an estimated 19 to 22 students per classroom. The elementary school is estimated to be operating at or near capacity. However, no facility expansion is planned and future student demand is expected to be met by the existing facility.1l Petersburg High School is located at the intersection of Second Street and C Street and houses grades eight to twelve. It has 20 classrooms, a library, gymnasium, auditorium, industrial arts shop, and various of- fices. The high school served 214 students as of September 1, 1981, at a student-per-classroom ratio of approximately 10 to 1. The school's present student population is well within the facility's capacity with a slightly increased enrollment projected for the next few years. Local school officials are planning renovation of the old high school building and construction of a new cultural arts building. This reno- vation would provide additional classrooms for teaching business and science. The type and number of facilities in the new cultural arts building have not yet been determined. Adult Education/University of Alaska System Adult education and University of Alaska extension classes are held at Petersburg High School during evenings and weekends. There are 1. Donald W. Schultz, Superintendent, Petersburg School Dist., Interview November 30, 1981. -101- sufficent classrooms to accommodate the present and anticipated space demand Community interest courses are taught primarily by local residents. These classes include arts and crafts, local history, and various other subjects. Public interest and University of Alaska extension courses are based at the University's Juneau and Sitka campuses. They are taught by a com bination of certified local residents and visiting instructors. HEALTH Health services in the Petersburg-Kupreanof area are provided through the Petersburg General Hospital and two alcoholism/substance abuse programs: Petersburg Alcoholism/Substance Abuse Program and the Petersburg Youth Program. There are no health care facilities in Kupreanof. Petersburg General Hospital The Petersburg General Hospital is a basic care facility with both acute and long-term care capabilities. There are 13 acute care beds with two of these beds for critical care service. There are five private (one bed per room) and four semi-private (two beds per room) rooms. The occupancy rate of the acute care beds is extremely low, at 3.5 percent of capacity. The long-term care facility has 12 beds in two private and five semi-private roams. The occupancy rate for long-term care beds is high, at 87 percent, with 10 or 11 of the 12 beds usually occupied. Additional services offered by the Petersburg General Hospital include psychiatry, coronary intensive care, minor and emergency surgery, respiratory therapy, a 24-hour emergency room, diagnostic radiology and ultrasound, and physical therapy. A review of health care needs conducted for the City of Petersburg analyzed and compared the health care delivery system and community health care demand (McNeely, 1980). Recommendations for the Petersburg General Hospital and associated programs were developed based on these studies and consultations with the Petersburg Hospital Board, the Petersburg Health Council, the city manager, and the city council. This study and consultation process has led to planning for a new hospital wing to largely replace the existing acute care facility. The new wing is envisioned to reduce the number of medical surgical beds -102- fram 13 to 8, add two critical care beds specifically for coronary care, and improve various other hospital facilities. Petersburg's basic health care needs have been more than met.2 The issue becomes how much more above the basic emergency stabilization, high obstetrics, alcohol detoxification and basic surgery should the community support. The community has made these choices and provides a range of diagnostic, critical care, acute care, and long-term care ser- vices above and beyond the basic needs for a city of this size. Alcoholism/Substance Abuse Program There are two community-based alcoholism and substance abuse programs in Petersburg. The Alcoholism/Substance Abuse Program deals with people who have serious alcoholism or drug abuse problems. The Petersburg Youth Program focuses on preventing youth from falling into a pattern of alcoholism and drug abuse. The Alcoholism/Substance Abuse Program was established in 1972. The program concentrates on helping people who already have significant alcohol and drug abuse problems. Their clients include referrals fran the Petersburg Hospital's Detoxification unit, people convicted of driving while intoxicated, and people off the street who have recog- nized their problem and came in for help.3 The program has facilities in the Holmes Warehouse Building at 215 Indian Street. The program's facilities include an office area and a recreation room with a pool table, TV, cards, and a full kitchen. ‘Two full-time counselors and one half-time office person staff the program. The program provides outpatient and informal counseling for people having alcohol- or drug-related problems. The problem has four aspects: 1) Information and Referral, responding to direct questions and referrring inquirer to appropriate people. 2) Education, presenting alcohol information to high school freshmen and sophomores in health classes, and presenting an education program for people convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. 2. Based on "Recommendations for the Development of Petersburg General Hospital" and an interview with Dr. D. C. McNeely on January 5, 1982. 3. Data for this program is based on "Recommendations for the Development of Petersburg General Hospital" and interviews with Larry Blank, Director of the Alcoholism/Substance Abuse Program. -103- 3) Outpatient Program, counseling people with alcohol and drug problems who do not have to be restrained within a facility. Cases come in voluntarily or are referred by the hospital after they have been through detoxification. 4) Alternative to Drinking Program, provides a recreation room for people to socialize in a non-alcoholic environment. People who have been outpatients for 90 days are given keys to the recreation room with little supervision. The Alcoholism/Substance Abuse Program has served 262 formal clients and many more people on an informal basis during its nine years of operation. An internal evaluation by the program's director shows 164 formal clients are now sober, 45 are somewhat improved, 7 have died, 19 show no change whatsoever, and the whereabouts of 27 are unknown. 4 There are currently 42 formal cases in the program and 50 to 60 people who are not officially listed but are seen on a regular basis. Program officials estimate that Petersburg approximates the Alaska rate of one person in ten having a drinking problem. This would mean that there are approximately 300 people in Petersburg with drinking problems and that the program is serving about a third of them with a high rate of success. Alaska natives make up about 40 percent of the formal case load and the general age level of clients in the program is decreasing. These client characteristics indicates a higher alcoholism or drug abuse rate among natives than among the population in general. ‘The dropping age level reflects a passing through of older people who have been in the program and are now sober or just leaving, and the inflow of younger people as a new generation of alcohol and drug abuse cases. This interpretation of the dropping age level is reflected in the reduced number of "hard core" alcoholics and a drop-off in the number of detox- ification cases at Petersburg General Hospital. Many citizens of Petersburg have ongoing personal problems with alcohol and drug abuse. The director of the Alcoholism/Substance Abuse Program believes that it is at an optimal size for the current situation. The Petersburg Youth Program focuses on preventing young people fran falling into a pattern of alcohol or drug abuse. The program was established as part of the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program, but has grown into a separate entity with its own funding and board of directors. The Youth Program's facilities are located in a house across the street from the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program facilities. The 4. Larry Blank, Interview January 14, 1982. -104- facilities are composed of a drop-in center at the street level with a TV, pool table, foosball, and a jukebox. There is a study and tutoring center on the second story. The program is staffed by two professional counselors. Clerical help is provided by youths hired on a part-time basis as part of an employ- ment program. The program is oriented toward giving youth a setting for non-alcoholic interaction and individual counseling. It includes: 1) A Drop-in Center, providing a social setting for youths to get together without alcohol. TV, pool table, foosball and jukebox are provided. The center is open at lunch, after school, and nights. It currently serves 40-50 different youths or approximately 700 visits per month. 2) An Employment Program, started in 1981. Seven youths are employed managing the rollerskating rink, a T-shirt shop, doing center maintenance, selling lunches to students, and center bookkeeping. 3) A boys counseling group with six to ten members. 4) A girls counseling group with ten members. 5) Monthly dances during winter and twice during sumer. 6) In-school tutoring, currently serving eight students. The Youth Program receives most of its funding from the State Board of Alcoholic and Drug Abuse ($79,000). Other funding is fram the Tlingit-Haida Native Association for the employment ($6,000), the City of Petersburg ($2,000), and a small amount generated by the employment program. The City has also recently given a $5,000 grant to the program for house renovation. Both the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program and the Petersburg Youth Program indicate that staffing, funding and facilities are at optimal levels for the current level of demand. The Director of the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program envisions this to be the case for the foreseeable future; however, the staff of the Petersburg Youth Program sees a need for larger facilities approximately five years in the future. The major need of the programs will thus be to maintain their existing level of funding. Funding may became a problem for the Petersburg Youth Program. The State may begin requiring a 10 percent local match for State funds, which would require an increase in the City's contri- bution. The City already provides a 10 percent funding match for the Alcohol/Substance Abuse Program. Along with maintaining their present level of funding, the programs can consider options such as increasing the efforts in in-school preventive programs, and perhaps using old high school facilities for future expansion. -105- RECREATION Due to the size and rural setting of Petersburg and Kupreanof, many of the outdoor recreational needs are met as far as open space are concerned. Although not formally defined, both public and private lands are used for hiking, hunting, fishing, camping and other recreational pursuits. The. opportunity for more formal or institutionalized recreational activities is not as abundant. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) has_ established recommended standards for various recreation activities which relates population size to the need for facilities. For example, the NRPA suggests one baseball field for every 6000 persons, and one tennis court for every 2000 persons. In communities the size of Petersburg and Kupreanof, standards such as these are meaningless. Recreation participation data and opinion surveys provide a much better measure of the need for park and recreation facilities. The opinion survey conducted in October, 1981, asked the citizens of Petersburg a series of questions pertaining to various recreation opportunities and issues. The results of that survey indicate a strong desire for an indoor sports facility, an outdoor athletic facility and a park near the harbor. An important issue was the amount and quality of cooperation between the City and the school pertaining to the availability of existing recreational resources. These issues are typical of those of southeastern Alaskan communities. Indoor recreation facilities are important because of the climatic conditions. Athletic fields are in short supply because of their development and maintenance costs. Conflicts between school recreation facilities and the public desire to use them during non-school hours are not uncommon due to security and liability problems. The desire for a park near the harbor reflects the public's recognition of the amenity of the waterfront. These are the facilities which have a recognized need. There are several areas in and around Petersburg and Kupreanof which are set aside for park use, have historically been used for recreational purposes or have the potential for recreational use. Each is unique as to its location, amenities and constraints, and, therefore, its opportunities for development and use. Each area is described above. Blind Slough Blind Slough is located approximately 12 miles south of Petersburg, off Wrangell Narrows. It is designated as a U.S. Forest Service recrea- tional area which provides opportunities for hunting, fishing, picnicking, hiking, and sightseeing. Overnight use is not encouraged, except at Ohmer Creek campground. Recreation opportunities are managed so as not to impact the wildlife habitat. Future expansion plans for this area include a day-use group shelter. -106- Three Lakes Recreation Area This area is managed by the U.S. Forest Service and is located on the east side of Mitkof Island on Frederick Sound just north of Dry Strait. The area is managed for dispersed and semi-concentrated uses. Access to the area is by trails. Facilities in the area will include day-use developments and rudimentary overnight facilities. Future U.S. Forest Service plans include a boat launching ramp along Dry Strait. Petersburg Creek Wilderness Area Designated by the Forest Service as a wilderness, Petersburg Creek is a popular fishing and hunting area for the residents of Kupreanof and Petersburg. The area provides hiking and hunting opportunities, and Petersburg Creek itself is an excellent producer of salmon and trout for sportfishing. Petersburg Creek is particularly valuable because of its proximity to the cities. Few areas can give such a sense of isolation within only a few minutes of a city of 3,000 people. There are no present plans for recreation facilities in this area, and there does not appear to be any pressure to develop facilities; however, the lower portion of the creek's watershed has been subdivided by the State. Residents of both Kupreanof and Petersburg are working to prevent sale of these subdivided lots. School Facilities The Petersburg School provides a swimming pool, gymnasium, and an old tennis court. Play areas are also provided for on the school grounds. Proposed Parks Several parks have been proposed in Petersburg. The sites include an area near the school complex, a small urban park along the waterfront, and an area at the head of Hammer Slough. Opportunities exist not only to develop these individual sites but to link them together through an open space corridor system. Utilizing public lands, undeveloped rights-of-way, public streets, waterways such as Hammer Slough and a park system can te created to increase the potential of the individual park sites. Upgrading the waterfront for pedestrian use would provide for recreational activities which would not conflict with the harbor use or the commercial businesses. -107- KUPREANOF POLICE Police services for Kupreanof are provided by the State of Alaska Department of Public Safety. The department has one State Trooper in Petersburg. This officer is also responsible for law enforcement on state lands in the area. Additional resources can be brought in as necessary. There are no crime statistics available for Kupreanof. However, the absence of a locally based police force, difficulty of access and the openness of the community all suggest a lack of significant crime. FIRE PROTECTION A fire protection system includes three elements: (1) preventive maintenance in individual structures, (2) an alarm system, and (3) fire fighting capability. Kupreanof's coverage of these three elements is discussed below. Fire Prevention There is no organized preventive maintenance program currently enforced in Kupreanof. It is the responsibility of each homeowner or household to ensure that structures are fire-safe constructed and remain that way through the years. Fire Alarm System The fire alarm system in Kupreanof consists of battery-powered smoke alarms. These smoke detectors are provided to each household in Kupreanof by the city. This alarm system is generally effective in warning the occupants of individual structures of fire danger and preventing loss of life. The city does not have an area-wide alarm system which can summon aid for the injured or reduce property loss. This lack would be especially serious since there is no telephone system within Kupreanof and only one telephone line to Petersburg and outside aid. -108- Fire Fighting Capability Kupreanof's fire fighting capability largely consists of fire extinguishers which are provided to each household by the city. This fire fighting system relies heavily upon early, quick and effective response to fires by the members of each household. Early, rapid and effective response is necessary because of the limited capacity of fire extinguishers and because the fire retardant must be applied directly onto the burning surfaces in order to be effective; standing away and directing fire retardant toward the flames will not extinguish a fire. The fire fighting capabilities of Alaska towns are evaluated by the Insurance Services Office (ISO). The ISO is a private organization which rates fire protection levels of communities across the nation for insurance companies. Based on discussions with ISO representatives, Kupreanof would have an IsO rating of 10, the worst level available. In arder to receive a rating of 9, it would have to establish a fire department with five volunteers, acquire a 250 gal. pumper truck, and develop an alarm system. In the absence of roads, such a traditional fire department with a truck is currently not possible. OPTIONS The major improvement to Kupreanof's fire protection level would be developing more extensive fire alarm and fire fighting capabilities. These systems would include developing a fire alarm system so that neighbors could quickly come to help fight a fire before it gets too large; portable fire fighting equipment (such as small, gasoline-powered seawater pumps) which could be quickly moved by skiff and one or two people; and a fire-fighting organization committed to help fight fires. Kupreanof could also benefit from a fire inspector to identify significant fire hazards. In developing a fire alarm and fighting system, Kupreanof could establish a fire alarm system with surplus telephone equipment, flares, or alarm boxes; purchase portable water pumps which can use salt and fresh water; purchase fire extinguishers for volunteer fire fighters; purchase a surplus amphibious vehicle and adapt it for fire fighting; and formally organize a volunteer fire fighting group. Kupreanof could also hire a fire inspector on a consulting basis, share the cost of Petersburg's fire inspector, or have several trained volunteers to identify significant fire hazards. -109- PUBLIC EDUCATION The City of Kupreanof is part of the Southeast Island School District (SISD). The SISD funds public education for outlying communities such as Kupreanof and Petersburg. There are six school-aged children living in Kupreanof. These students are ferried across Wrangell Narrows to attend the Petersburg Elementary School and Petersburg High School (see Petersburg Public School System section). HEALTH The closest health services and facilities are located in Petersburg (see Petersburg Health section). Kupreanof residents must cross Wrangell Narrows for health care. One or more residents of Kupreanof could improve the local emergency care situation by being trained as emergency medical technicians, and being available for emergencies. -110- - PUBLIC FACILITIES The City of Petersburg has developed a system of local services and utilities that is remarkable for a city of its size. Electric power, water, sewage disposal and other services are provided for all but the most outlying areas of Petersburg. There are limitations on the capac- ity of these utility systems, but these limitations can be remedied. The future development of Petersburg may require that the utilities be upgraded, but regional developments will likely bring about changes in the local utilities as well. In contrast to Petersburg, the residents of Kupreanof rely on individually-owned systems for their utility needs. Electricity comes from a few small generators, water comes from small streams, and pref- erences are mixed about upgrading these systems. This chapter describes the public facilities in the two cities. It analyzes in detail the strengths and weaknesses of Petersburg's util- ities, and discusses the outlook for improvement. It also projects the needs for and likelihood of further utility development in Kupreanof. PETERSBURG WATER SYSTEM Petersburg's drinking water is supplied by impoundment of an unnamed stream into a reservoir approximately two miles southeast of the city, with a storage capacity of approximately 50 million gallons. The im pounded water is treated in a coagulation-rapid sand filter plant prior to disinfection and subsequent distribution in the City's water system. Distribution storage is provided by a 750,000 gallon, steel storage tank. The distribution system consists of lines ranging fram 2-inch galvanized pipe to 10-inch ductile iron. Most of the system is 6-inch asbestos cement pipe and 8-inch ductile iron pipe, much of which has been installed within the last 5 years. The transmission line from the reservoir to the treatment plant, distribution storage and distribution system is provided by a single 14-inch ductile iron pipe constructed in 1972-1973 (See Plate VI ). Prior to 1966, the City's water quality suffered fram bacterial contam- ination, color and suspended solids. In 1966, the City began dis- infecting the water supply. This was followed by construction of a coagulation-rapid sand filter treatment plant in 1972-1973. Public water supply is presently provided only to customers located within the developed "core" of the city. Users at Scow Bay rely on -1l1l- individual wells or small, unprotected surface sources. ‘Typically, these small sources are subject to conflicts with other uses of the water, such as disposal of untreated sewage. In some cases water rights have not been filed by users of such sources of supply, which can lead to further conflicts. Water Usage Petersburg water consumption records fran July 1977 to August 1981 indicate that metered water use has averaged about 460,000 gallons per day. Of this amount, the cannery industry uses slightly over half. The remainder of the water use is for commercial and residential demand. Exclusive of industrial needs, the per capita demand for residential and commercial use averages about 55 gallons per day. This finding is consistent with results obtained in a recent analysis of the City's wastewater system (Brown and Caldwell, and Arctic Environmental Engineers, 1981). The amount of water that is treated in Petersburg's treatment facility averaged about 770,000 gallons per day from 1977 to 1981. Since an average of only 460,000 gallons per day is sold to the system's metered custamers, approximately 40% of the water supply is not consumed by customers. This water consists of an average of about 48,000 gallons per day (16% of the total) for filter backwash at the treatment plant. The other 24%, amounting to about 257,000 gallons per day, is lost due to leakage, hydrant tests, etc. This amount of unaccounted water appears to he somewhat excessive. Typical losses expected in a municipal water system range from 15-20%. The installation of meters has had a dramatic impact on water use in Petersburg. Prior to their installation in 1973, water demand averaged more than 1.4 million gallons per day. Treated water needs are now on the order of about 770,000 gallons per day or about half of the earlier level. The system presently experiences maximum demands for treated water of 2.0 to 2.25 million gallons per day several times during peak cannery operations in August of each year. On August 22, 1979, the plant treated 2,998,000 gallons, but this appears to be a single, isolated event. If the system expands to serve the Scow Bay and Sandy Beach areas, water demands at the year 2000 could average 510,000 gallons per day, with a peak-day demand of 2.5 million gallons per day. This assumes that the service area population will expand to about 3,800 to 4,600 year round residents and the canneries will increase operation during the "off season". No additional canneries are anticipated in the area, nor are increases in the normal peak season anticipated. -112- ste Fire Protection Water Needs Based on evaluations by the San Francisco branch of the Insurance Ser- vice Office in 1975 and 1981, Petersburg's peak fire protection re- quirement is a flow of 6500 gallons per minute in the vicinity of the . PFI cannery. The next greatest requirements were flows of 2500 and 2000 gallons per minute on 3rd and Kiseno and 3rd and Dolphin Streets, respectively. Of these requirements, the distribution system is capable of meeting the 2500 and 2000 gallon per minute requirements, but can only provide 4500 gallons per minute of the 6500 gallon per minute capacity required for PFI. For fire flows of 2000 and 2500 gallons per minute, the Insurance Ser- vices Office has established a two-hour storage requirement, or a maximum storage need of 300,000 gallons. For a 6500 gallon per minute fire, a six-hour storage, or 2.3 million gallons, is required. These storage needs are in addition to normal system needs or emergency storage. The effective storage of the City's present 750,000 gallon storage reservoir is only 600,000 gallons, so even if the pipe system were capable of providing 6500 gallons per minute, there would not be sufficient storage to fight such a fire. Water Source Petersburg's water source consists of a reservoir impoundment of ap- proximately 50 million gallons. The capacity of this reservoir was increased from 30 million gallons in 1972-73 when the treatment plant and new transmission lines were constructed. The Petersburg water supply quality is characterized by a low pH and high levels of color, dissolved solids and suspended solids. These water quality characteristics result from the 3-1/2 to 5 feet of mskeg that covers the entire reservoir drainage area. As rainfall leaches through the decaying muskeg, the pH of the water is lowered, and the water acquires color and solids. These water quality characteristics require treatment prior to consumption. Kupreanof's water supplies are generally better, and have been found to require no treatment prior to use. The drainage area of the reservoir is approximately 1,350 acres. For an average yearly rainfall of about 105 inches, an average annual yield of 2 million gallons per day can be anticipated. This should be more than adequate to meet Petersburg's needs for at least the next 20 years. This conclusion, however, is somewhat limited since it is based on rainfall data rather than on runoff records which are preferred for making such conclusions. Preliminary U.S.G.S. runoff records available for the municipal watershed (Hughes, 1981) do not contain sufficient data upon which to make more definitive estimates of runoff. -113- The rainfall data indicate that Petersburg might experience seasonal water shortages during dry years. However, if the reservoir is main- tained as full as possible, especially as the yearly dry season approaches, it is likely that potential shortages can be minimized since the maximum reservoir storage capacity of approximately 50 mil- lion gallons can more than meet the present maximum monthly demand of about 42 million gallons. Water Treatment Petersburg's treatment plant consists of a rapid mix-flocculation- sedimentation process followed by filtration through rapid sand filters and chlorine disinfection. Although the plant was designed for 4.0 mgd, a comparison with typical design criteria for such plants indicates that the capacity of the plant is probably between 1.1 and 1.7 mgd. This conclusion is supported by comments from plant personnel which indicate that treated water quality deteriorates when flows exceed about 1.5 mgd. Since treatment plants should be designed to accommodate maximum day demands, the plant should have a capacity of at least 2.25 mgd to meet present needs and 2.5 mgd to meet anticipated needs through the year 2000. Expansion of the plant to about twice its present size is re- quired to reliably provide a higher quality water for all anticipated demands through the next 20 years. Distribution Storage The water system's only distribution storage is provided by a 750,000 gallon steel storage tank located approximately midway between the treatment plant and the distribution system. Due to piping configurations in the reservoir, only about 600,000 gallons of the total capacity is available for use. The operating range of the reservoir is between approximately 173 and 202 feet above sea level. This can produce a maximum static pressure of between 75 and 88 psi in the system. The purpose of distribution storage is to provide water for emergencies and fires, and to equalize daily peaks in demand. Typically, equalizing storage for peak demands is approximately 15% of the peak day demand. For Petersburg, such a requirement would be approximately 300,000 gallons. Of the 600,000 gallons that are available, therefore, 300,000 are needed to meet the system's equalizing requirements through the day. The remaining 300,000 gallons are available for emergency conditions and fire protection. Since the average daily water use is about 460,000 gpd, the remaining storage represents less than one day's emergency storage. for fire -114- -_ protection, the 300,000 gallons of storage will meet fire flow requirements rated at 2,500 gpm or less, but is not sufficient for the maximum expected fire demand of 6,500 gpm. In summary, the reservoir appears to have sufficient capacity to meet equalizing needs and fire protection for all but the largest fire but does not have sufficient emergency storage. Consequently, greater storage tank capacity would ke desirable if the City's goal were to provide adequate emergency storage as well as full fire protection. However, other non-structural improvements (such as sea water pumps near the canneries) might provide less costly solutions, since a total of about 2.5 million gallons of storage is needed for total fire protection and equalizing storage. Further, ideally, there should be emergency storage in addition to this amount in the event of a break in the main transmission line fram the source of supply during a large fire. Since the probability of simultaneous occurrence of such events is remote, the addition of an additional 2.0 million gallons of storage would be sufficient to meet the city's full needs for at least 20 years. If full fire protection was not an objective of the City, however, increasing effective storage by only about 620,000 gallons would provide for fire protection (excluding canneries demand) or equalizing storage, and two day's emergency storage for the next twenty years, or about two days emergency storage with fire protection. Transmission Line Ideally, a water system should provide a safe and reliable supply of water to its users. Weaknesses in portions of the system have been previously identified. The weakest limb in the system's reliability is the fact that the system is served by a single transmission line fran its source to the distribution system. If something should disrupt the flow in the line, the city would soon be out of water until flow could begin again. For this reason, it is often desirable to have dual transmission lines in the event one should be inoperable. In Petersburg, however, the need for increased capability to provide for a large fire flow provides another option. Rather than construct a second transmission line, the additional 2.0 million gallons of storage, previously discussed, can serve the combined purpose of fire protection and emergency storage. In the event of an emergency, if demand does not exceed average requirements, about four days' supply could be available fram the additional storage. If that is sufficient time to repair any foreseen problem, then a dual transmission line may not be needed. If repairs could take longer than four days, or if the City is concerned about the simultaneous break of the transmission line and a large fire, then a second transmission line would be needed. -115- Distribution System A distribution system must have adequate capacity to provide peak demands without causing unnecessarily low pressure levels. In most systems, either peak hourly flow or fire flow requirements represent peak demands. In Petersburg, fire flow requirements represent the greatest demand on the distribution system since normal peak demands can be met by the existing system without extensive improvement. If total fire protection were to be provided to the system, larger lines from the distribution reservoir would have to be provided. To improve reliability of the system, at least two large-diameter lines would be needed to provide flow from the reserwir. Much of the system has been recently constructed as part of Petersburg's road improvements. Unfortunately, many of the recently installed lines are undersized for total fire protection. The 10-inch line proposed as part of the Sandy Beach Road improvement appears to be an example. At a later date, if total fire protection were to become cost-effective, that line size would have to be increased to 16 inches to provide a line with sufficient capacity to meet system objectives. If total fire protection were not a desired objective of the City's water system, however, the need for these large-diameter lines would be nearly eliminated. For example, seawater pumps could be used to provide fire protection water at the canneries, and would save the cost of a 16-inch line. SEWAGE SYSTEM Petersburg's sewerage system dates back to 1916 when parts of the col- lection system were first constructed. From these beginnings, the downtown area was sewered between 1920 and 1930. Collected sewage was discharged untreated to Wrangell Narrows until 1974. After 1974, a secondary treatment plant, five pump stations and interceptors were constructed to collect sewage from the eleven raw sewage municipal out- falls for treatment prior to discharge to Frederick Sound through a deep water outfall system. Collection and Treatment The collection and treatment system serves areas only within the central core of Petersburg, although there are some areas within the City, such as Hammer Slough or along Sandy Beach Road where raw sewage is still discharged or is treated by package on-site treatment methods and then discharged to receiving waters. Areas outside of the central core rely primarily on septic tanks, privies, aerated package systems, direct discharge or other means of on-site sewage disposal. Process -116- wastewaters from each of the canneries are screened prior to discharge through individual outfalls into the Narrows, with the screened solids processed collectively at the PFI reduction plant. Sanitary wastewaters, however, are collected from these facilities and routed to the sanitary sewer system. The current layout of the sewage collection system is presented on Plate VI . Five pump stations relay collected wastewaters fran individual areas to the outfall located around the north tip of Mitkof Island where the collected sewage is to be discharged to Frederick Sound. A total of 45,000 lineal feet of gravity sewer main wes reported to be installed as of early 1981 (Brown and Caldwell, and Arctic Environmental Engineers, 1981) of which 26,000 lineal feet had been constructed since 1974. In addition, force mains totalling 11,000 lineal feet have been constructed to convey collected sewage for eventual routing to the point of discharge. Of these totals, more than 6,600 lineal feet have been installed by the City Public Works Department by over-excavating to hardpan and then backfilling with crushed rock in order to provide proper bedding for sewer pipe. Most of the pipe laid before 1975 was asbestos cement (transite) except for some concrete pipe utilized prior to 1950. Current City policy regarding sewer construction is to use PVC sewer pipe for 8- and 10-inch gravity mains. Pipe sizes range from 6 to 21 inches in diameter, with the majority of the pipe being 6- and 8-inch pipe. The treatment facility, at the end of Boundary Street in the northeast portion of the City, was designed for a 1993 design population of 4,500 with an average daily flow of 0.6 mgd (million gallons per day) sumer and 1.0 mgd winter. The treatment process, a relatively new concept in municipal wastewater treatment at the time it was designed, included raw sewage solids separation, static screens, an activated biological filter tower, clarifiers (secondary biological units), and chlorina- tion. The sludge handling process included aerobic digestion (later reduced to sludge storage), dewatering, and incineration. Incineration was added later, after it was determined that landfilling of the sludge would not be acceptable to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). Waste Volumes A detailed analysis of Petersburg's sewerage system was completed in February, 1981 (Brown and Caldwell, Arctic Environmental Engineers, 1981) after significant problems were experienced with operation and maintenance of this collection and treatment system. The findings of that study indicate that there is a _ significant quantity of storm-related extraneous flow in the sewer system. This storm-related extraneous flow often increases the amount of sewage by a factor of five or more above base flow conditions. -117- This extraneous flow exceeds the capacity of the treatment plant and pump station works, often resulting in violations of the plant's discharge standards. A prediction of the effect of these storm-related extraneous flows in the Systems Analysis report indicates that actual wastewater flows in the entire service area total only about 150,000 gal/day but infiltration/inflow frequently increases the total sewage flow to over 1 million gal/day. As flows exceeded plant capacity, City procedures have been to bypass raw sewage around the plant. Under the driest weather conditions, total sewage flows are on the order of 185,000 gal/day. (This flow does not include areas within the City which are not now served by sewers.) Under a situation in which one inch of precipitation falls in 24 hours, the study indicates that flows will increase to about 760,000 gal/day. Because rainfall inten- sities frequently exceed this amount, it is clear that flows will often total much more than 1 mgd, the 1993 design flow for the treatment works. In fact, the system analysis report recommends that 1.0 mgd be the design average flow under present conditions. Operator reports often indicate that flows have been in excess of this value, as flow records from the treatment works show flows during the months of January, February, March, September, October and November have averaged about 1 mgd. Considering flows which have been estimated for the next 10 to 15 years in the 1981 Systems Analysis report, it is evident that both the col- lection system and the treatment works would have to be substantially upgraded to handle those design flows. The report predicts that 1993 sewage flows will average 1.425 mgd with a peak of 3.138 mgd if no cor- rective action were taken to reduce the excessive infiltration/inflow. At this flow, both the plant and pump stations would require sub- stantial upgrading. If cost-effective sewer line rehabilitation were to be performed, however, 1993 flows might be reduced to an average of 0.993 mgd with a peak of 2.058 mgd, with the result being that Pump Stations 3, 4 and 5 might be able to handle such flows (cost effective sewer rehabilitation, as described in the Systems Analysis report, would involve an expenditure of approximately $2 million to reduce infiltration/inflow in the collection system). Collection and Treatment Plant Deficiencies Because of this excess infiltration/inflow, the City continues to bypass sewage around the treatment facility and has no plans to utilize the facility again in the future for sewage treatment. Moreover, the possibility exists to discharge sewage from some of the pump stations as well as the outfall with no additional modifications needed. Further, the City is pursuing litigation which would allow it to assume control of the treatment works for the purpose of disposing of the facility and recovering some of the costs previously incurred by the City in satisfying State and federal requirements. -118- This situation is not only due to problems resulting from the high storm-related flows, but also due to problems associated with the treatment plant itself. The 1980 Systems Analysis report identified several problems with the treatment plant related to the design, construction and operation of the plant. Many of the plant deficiencies were related to poor process design and layout of the facilities, as well as constant operating difficulties with various equipment items. After the City expended a considerable amount of effort in attempting to operate the plant, the City decided to shut down the facility. Now the plant is used only for storage of Public Works and Municipal Power and Light equipment. Besides not being able to adequately treat frequent storm-related ex- cessive flows in the treatment works, often the pump stations pumping sewage around the City are unable to handle all of the flow. Peak hydraulic flow for the current system was determined to be 2.5 mgd in the Systems Analysis report, assuming no changes in the condition of the sewer system. At this peak flow, Pump Stations 3 and 4, with rated station capacities of 1.73 and 2.16, respectively, are likely not of sufficient capacity to handle that portion of the 2.5 mgd design flow which would pass through these pump stations on the way to ultimate discharge through the system outfall near Pump Station 5. [In general, it is thought that the extraneous flows which in part forced a shut-down of the treatment facility originate on private property fram poorly constructed side sewers, roof drains or area drains. Stormwater either directly enters the collection system through these connections or enters the sewers through cracks or joints in the sewer pipes as stormwater percolates through the soil to the groundwater. Sewerage System Options The conclusion of the 1981 analysis was that correction of the extra- neous flow problem was not cost-effective. A number of possibilities were presented to deal with the sewerage problems identified in the study. One recommendation was to upgrade and expand the existing treatment plant to provide secondary treatment to the flows that are experienced by the system. An alternative was to construct primary treatment facilities at Pump Station 5 with discharge to Frederick Sound. A second alternative was to construct an intermediate treatment facility at the existing treatment plant site. Subsequent to the 1981 report, the concept of screening and disin- fection prior to discharge at each of the City's pump stations was sug- gested. Although final State and federal regulations have not yet been promulgated concerning such treatment methods, the City has initiated action to begin obtaining approval for such measures, and has continued -119- to discharge untreated sewage to the adjacent receiving waters while it determines the best course of action. This option would have the benefit of eliminating some of the cost for operation and maintenance of all of the pump stations, but is offset by the additional expense of operating more than the one primary treatment facility recommended for Pump Station 5. Impacts on receiving water must also be considered. Currents and other conditions in the vicinity of Pump Stations 1, 2 and 3 could make discharge from these sites undesirable and would need to be analyzed. In summary, the following recommendations made in the 1981 Wastewater System Analysis are still valid: 1. Correction of obvious sources of extraneous flow (eg., manholes in ditch lines). Additional correction is not cost-effective, although the City should maintain a capital improvement budget to expand its service area. 2. Primary treatment in the form of screening might be adequate to protect the receiving waters of Frederick Sound and Wrangell Narrows, subject to a written waiver of secondary treatment requirements. In addition to the obvious need to remedy problems of the collection and treatment system, expansion of the service area should ke considered. This could include the Scow Bay area and will include the area in the vicinity of Sandy Beach Road, where 12" diameter sewerage gravity lines and some force mains will be constructed in 1982. As mentioned previously, sewage treatment and disposal at Sandy Beach is accomplished primarily by individual on-site packaged aeration treatment systems followed by discharge to Frederick Sound. This type of system appears to meet the State's minimm requirements for treatment and discharge of sewage from individual residences. Other alternatives for the Scow Bay area, including portions of the City south along the Mitkof Highway, are being addressed in a utilities study being conducted in conjunction with the development of this plan. At these other locations, sewage is handled by direct discharge or some minimal treatment prior to discharge to the Narrows through subsurface means. Although these disposal methods do not appear to meet the State's minimum requirements for treatment and disposal and would require improvements to do so (with the responsibility borne by individual residents and establishments), such improvements do not appear to be high on the State's list of priority problems. Nonetheless, the results of the utilities study for the Scow Bay area should delineate options and alternatives for treatment and disposal from this area and identify a prudent course of action for Petersburg to pursue. -120- Within the city limits of Petersburg, elimination of raw sewage dis- charge, for example at Hammer Slough, is of higher priority, however. Since the area is below the grade of nearby sewers, and is more densely populated, an interceptor sewer and pump station may be required. an alternative would be installation of grinder pumps at each home which would then discharge sewage through small diameter pressure sewers to nearby gravity sewers. Other improvements to the system, such as replacement of old transite pipe or pipe in which the grades are such that adjacent homes cannot be serviced (e.g., Lumber Street collector, "E" Street collector), would have the same priority as Hammer Slough improvements. SOLID WASTE Solid waste collection and disposal in Petersburg is primarily the responsibility of Petersburg's Public Works Department. Supported by user fees and general fund monies, residential, commercial and some in- dustrial wastes are managed by the City of Petersburg. Private indi- viduals do collect and transport some wastes not collected by City personnel to Petersburg! s disposal site, while other industrial wastes (e.g., cannery processing wastes and wood wastes) are handled separate- ly. Almost all cannery processing wastes are further processed at Petersburg Fisheries' reduction facility, and wood wastes generated by Mitkof Lumber are used as fill material or burned at on-site facilities. Disposal Practices Like most other communities in southeast Alaska, Petersburg disposes of municipal solid wastes at a landfill site not far fram the City center. Located within a forty-acre parcel of City-owned land (see Plate VI), the landfill has been operated by the City since 1967. The site is situated on mskeg soils, and like most landfills in the area, has nearby surface streams and small bogs which are likely to be contaminated with leachate from the fill area. True groundwater is not present at the site, and therefore effects on groundwater are not likely to be significant. At the landfill, the City practices open burning on a continuous basis to reduce waste volumes and conserve available space. Wastes which are hauled to the site by City-owned compaction vehicles or private individuals are generally segregated into combustible and non-combustible fractions by the landfill operator, who controls burning and filling operations. A crawler tractor is used by the operator to handle the waste but limited cover material restricts the operation. ~121- Open burning, while typical of the practice of many of the surrounding cammnities, nonetheless has been identified by State authorities as being unacceptable as a long-term management practice for the Petersburg landfill. According to State officials, such practices will likely not be permitted after the existing operating permit for the landfill expires in late 1982. In place of open burning at a landfill site, State officials are encouraging Petersburg, like the surrounding communities, to increase recycling of recoverable materials (e.g., ferrous metal, aluminum, white goods, junked autamobiles) and energy recovery from combustible wastes as alternatives to open burning in order to conserve valuable landfill space. Waste Volumes Existing waste volumes generated in Petersburg have been estimated in an earlier report (Finite Resources, Inc., 1980) to be on the order of 2,040 tons per year, or approximately 8,200 cubic yards per year based upon a population of 3,200 residents. Similar estimates prepared by the City of Petersburg indicate an annual solid waste volume of 10,150 cubic yards delivered to the landfill, which is broken down as follows: Household garbage 6,500 cubic yards Cannery wastes (packing material, 1,500 scrap metals) Yard trimmings, old furniture 500 20 junked automobiles 150 Unclassified fill material for 1,500 cover material Total: 10,150 cubic yards Of this total, approximately half is suitable for burning, which likely is a result of the relatively large amount of packaging wastes. Following volume reduction by burning, approximately 6,000 cubic yards of available landfill space are now being consumed yearly. Assuming population growth in Petersburg is limited to about two per- cent per year and little change in disposal habits of residents in the area, waste volumes might increase as much as 3.5 percent per year, ex- clusive of any major change in disposal of locally generated industrial or other special wastes (e.g., sewage sludge). This estimate considers changes in disposal patterns and composition of wastes to be typical of trends found elsewhere. Also, industrial wastes such as wood wastes from Mitkof Lumber Company are not assumed to require landfill space, and increased recycling of materials is not anticipated. Under these assumptions, then, annual waste volumes would increase to nearly 8,200 cubic yards by 1990, and 111,500 cubic yards in 2000 if burning were -122- continued according to present procedures. If open burning is not practiced, then yearly waste volumes might require as much as 13,800 cubic yards of landfill space in 1990, and 19,500 cubic yards by 2000. The extent of the landfill site already occupied by wastes comprises only about 15 percent of the area, or 0.7 acre of that part of the forty-acre site which is suitable for landfilling (approximately 5 acres). Based on the above solid waste generation rates, then, the capacity of the existing fill site should be adequate for approximately 10 to 15 years if present collection and disposal practices are continued with operators filling in remaining available areas up to. presently constructed elevations. However, if more restrictive permit conditions are enforced starting as early as 1982, the planned disposal area could be filled within a time span of 5 to 7 years. The life of the landfill would te extended, of course, if changes such as increasing the total depth of the fill were implemented. As a result, despite uncertainties over an explicit ban on open burning by State authorities, Petersburg might elect to consider options to open burning and current policies regarding disposal of solid wastes within the existing landfill site. There is further impetus for such action, since a comprehensive, long-term solid waste management plan is required to be developed and implemented by Petersburg once existing permits expire. Moreover, it is likely that once the landfill reaches its capacity a suitable replacement site would be difficult, if not impossible, to locate and operate economically under State and Federal laws governing land disposal of solid wastes. Existing Problems While Petersburg continues to operate one of the more effective solid waste disposal operations in southeast Alaska, State and local officials have expressed concern over a number of problems concerning present disposal operations. Of prime importance is the issue of open burning at the site, as discussed above. Associated with this are problems related to air emissions from the site, since complaints of smoke and odors from the landfill have been lodged. New regulations issued by the State Department of Environmental Conservation are reported to prohibit open burning, although enforcement of a strict prohibition is unclear at this time. The high precipitation rate, poor soils and numerous surface streams adjacent to the landfill threaten surface water contamination with leachate from the landfilled wastes, although no documentation has been developed of such a problem. With a lack of suitable cover material and as the site becomes more nearly filled to capacity, however, the potential for nearby surface water contamination becomes greater. Third, attraction of bears to the landfill area is a problem not unlike that experienced by most other southeast Alaska communities. At -123- Petersburg, up to thirteen bears have been reported visiting the site. The burning of putrescible wastes does reduce the amount of birds visiting the site, however, which is beneficial due to the fact that the landfill is situated near the airport runway. These issues will become important and will need immediate considera- tion if State officials strictly enforce the provisions of Federal and State laws governing land disposal of solid wastes, since Petersburg's current operating practices violate in part the letter of existing laws and, as mentioned above, the present permit expires in late 1982. In a related matter, emerging State regulations governing sewage treat- ment practices will also impact waste disposal practices in Petersburg. Policies are now being developed which relate to the treatment and handling of municipal sewage sludge (see section on wastewater col- lection, treatment and disposal). If Petersburg is required to install primary treatment facilities as part of its effort to revise the exist- ing sewage collection system, then disposal of such sludges will con- stitute yet another waste stream requiring unique handling practices. Management Options With the problem facing Petersburg of continuing to provide environ- mentally acceptable disposal areas in the face of changing state regu- lations, several options are available to the City. To increase the expected life of the landfill, the City could engage in a mre restricted method of burning combustible wastes at the landfill which is acceptable to State authorities. Such methods might include con- trolled burning in approved areas to ensure a minimum of air emissions, as well as permitting burning only during favorable wind conditions and a maximum of three days per week. Installation of a batch incinerator to conduct such operations would almost double the present cost of disposal, however (Finite Resources, Inc., 1980) and would impose a heavy burden on the City. Operations at the landfill could also be upgraded to include fencing of the site and installation of surface and groundwater monitoring equip- ment in order to periodically monitor drainage from the site for possible contamination. State-of-art leachate control systems would not be a viable option for the City to pursue due to a lack of adequate soil and high precipitation rates. Further, if the City were to ke required to provide protection against such water quality degradation, the landfill site would require extensive modifications beyond those listed here. Should Petersburg be required to cease all open burning activities at the landfill pursuant to conditions stipulated in future permits, several options could be pursued to prolong the life of the existing landfill. First, Petersburg could encourage the development of a State-sponsored recycling project in which items such as scrap metals -124- (e.g., ferrous and aluminum), white goods, derelict automobiles and the like could be recovered and barged south to salvage markets to support the venture. Assuming a joint operating plan could be pursued, periodic collection of such goods from Petersburg and other nearby communities might sustain such operations with a minimum of State support. Already, private barge operators operate in a limited capacity in southeast Alaska (Finite Resources, Inc., 1980), and limited recycling is being practiced in Petersburg. The City could pursue a coordinated effort between the region's municipalities and the State in order to a self-sustaining effort carried out by private operators or the State. Second, the City could also construct volume reduction facilities such as a shredder, baler or compactor. Of these options, earlier studies (Finite Resources, Inc., 1980) suggest that baling facilities might be the most viable of these options identified for Petersburg due to simplicity of operation and low maintenance costs. ‘To ease the burden of the City, State funding assistance might be available through the Solid Waste Construction Grant Program. Regardless of the options available to achieve volume reduction, in the event of a ban on open burning, modular incineration of solid wastes appears to be superior in terms of overall volume reduction and exten- sion of the life of the existing disposal site. Incineration would not resolve potential disposal problems associated with primary screened sludge from sewage treatment facilities, however, nor would it ke economically feasible to incorporate energy recovery with such a unit utilizing municipal solid waste only (Finite Resources, Inc., 1980). As an alternative, however, the City might have the option of develop- ing a joint reduction facility with Mitkof Lumber Co. if the Company's plans proceed ahead to install a pyrolytic gasification unit to produce electricity from Mitkof Lumber's wood waste. As a long-term solution to volume reduction of its wastes, the City could monitor progress of the Company's venture and at a later date pursue som form of cooperative agreement to produce electricity from its combustible solid wastes with wood wastes. Such a program might be eligible for State funding assistance under the Solid Waste Construction Grants Program and might be a cost-effective solution to the long-term problem of providing adequate land disposal space for Petersburg's and Kupreanof's wastes. ELECTRICAL POWER Local Power Sources There are two power sources which supply electrical power to Petersburg. Owned and operated by Petersburg Municipal Power and Light (PMP&L), these sources include diesel-electric and hydroelectric generators. -125- The five diesel-electric generators have 350-, 1250-, 2100-, 800-, and 600 KW (kilowatt) ratings, with a supply voltage of 2400 volts. These generators are housed in the City Light Building, at the corner of Haugen Drive and Main Street, from which electrical service is supplied to the City. Approximately 70 percent of the City's power load is supplied by these five diesel electric generators. The remaining 30 percent of the power is supplied by two Pelton wheel-driven hydroelectric generators located approximately 17 miles from Petersburg at Blind Slough, below Crystal Lake. One generator has a rating of 1600 KW, 2400 volts. The second generator, rated 400 KW, 2400 volts, is infrequently used, but on occasion supplies power in parallel with the 1600 KW generator. Built several years ago, the Blind Slough power plant has extensive maintenance scheduled for late 198l-early 1982, including installation of a new Pelton wheel for the larger generator and rebuilding of the smaller unit. One industry in the study area, Mitkof Lumber Company, at mile 4 of the Mitkof Highway, currently supplies approximately 80 percent of its own power through its own diesel generators with a generating capacity of 1600 HP (1200 KW). No other industries surveyed have facilities for power generation at this time. Electrical power generated by PMPsL is distributed to customers primarily via eight 2400 volt feeder lines from the plant building located at Haugen Drive and Main Street (see Plate VI ). A single 22 KV (22,000 volt) aerial line brings hydroelectric power from Blind Slough to a substation located along Lumber Street in Petersburg. This transmission line runs across beach areas as well as the state highway right-of-way between Blind Slough and the Lumber Street substation, and approximately parallels the highway between those points except north of Scow Bay. Power generated at the Blind Slough plant at 2400 volts is "stepped-up" at the plant to 22 KV prior to transmission along this 17 mile corridor to the Lumber Street substation, and then is stepped down at Lumber Street to 2400 volts for distribution. A limited number of customers are served from the 22 KV line bringing power in from Blind Slough by means of step-down transformers along the line to drop the transmission voltage from 22 KV to required service voltages. Tyee Power Project . Interfacing with this system of generation, transmission and distribution within Petersburg will be power supplied by the Tyee Lake Power Project, currently in the design and initial construction phases. Scheduled to provide electrical power to Wrangell and Petersburg by early 1984, this project will include a powerhouse on Bradfield Canal south of the cities, a power tunnel connecting the powerhouse to Tyee Lake, and a 138 KV transmission line (with step-down substation at its terminus) to Petersburg and Wrangell along a route which includes both -126- hy ) gu! ih underwater and above-ground segments. This transmission line will approximately parallel the Mitkof Highway to Petersburg, where it will tie into the existing electrical system near Scow Bay. The project, initially developed by Thomas Bay Power Authority and later taken over by the Alaska Power Authority (APA), will supply 20 MW (megawatts) of hydropower to the Wrangell-Petersburg area, and may be extended to provide additional service to the village of Kake pending the outcome of a feasibility study. The Tyee project will impact electrical power service to Petersburg in four respects. First, the cost of electrical power will likely be stabilized and fluctuations in price slowed since relatively inexpensive hydropower from the Tyee Lake Project will replace diesel generated power which the City produces. Second, the existing 22 KV line bringing in power from Blind Slough will be in part upgraded by being "underbuilt" on the new 138 KV trans- mission line bringing power from Tyee Lake to Petersburg. This will occur over about four miles between Twin Creek and the location of the new step-down substation approximately 1/2 mile north of Scow Bay. Between the Big Gulch and Danger Point Creek the capability of constructing the 22 KV line underbuilt on the new 138 KV transmission line is being considered during the fTyee transmission line construction. Mrs = r “ ide chat ough \\ such inte iWtible and\ separate from réeqilar \service ‘alread provided to the home. I successful, such aNprogram ould create several additional significant power distribution problems due to increased demand on the distribution system. Improvements Needed The existing electrical power system is in need of several modifica- tions regardless of the effect of the Tyee Power Project, however. First, the 22 KV line feeding power to Petersburg is unreliable and requires immediate replacement of some rotted poles, insulators and tie wires. Further, many of the 2400 V feeder lines in Petersburg lose a large amount of electric energy due to small conductor sizes and a low distribution voltage. Third, the load power factor in the City ranges fram 85 to 90 percent. (Power factor is a term which describes the relationship between power actually used by electrical equipment, and the amount of power which the distribution system must be capable of handling to supply that power demand. The power factor is a measure of the ratio of the two values, and the closer the value of power factor is to one, the less excessive is the power demand which is placed on the distribution system by that custamer. Typically, low power factors are indicative of inefficient use of power.) The low power factor is in need of upgrading to approximately 95 percent with the addition of capacitors on the feeder lines in the vicinity of loads creating low ower factor, since low power factors are indicative of large electrical losses. Finally, noise pollution fran the diesel plant in the downtown area has concerned many residents, although the extent of the problem should be considerably diminished when Tyee Power becomes available, as diesel generators will be relegated to standby operation. Power Requirements Growth in power requirements for Petersburg has been and will continue to be determined by the growth of the fishing and timber industries. Another important factor, however, in the future loads in the Petersburg area will be the response of consumers to price adjustments in electrical power rates due to completion of the Tyee Lake project. Petersburg utility records indicate that loads have been increasing primarily due to residential and industrial consumers over the past few years. Power sales over the period 1974 to 1980 show a steady increase in residential demand and industrial demand (with the exception of 1975), while commercial power use has been more variable (Figure 6 ). Total system generation (including system losses, street lights, City use, etc.) over this period has increased fran 18,735 MAH in 1974 to 21,451 MAH in 1980, with peak demands increasing fram 3500 KW to slightly over 4000 KW during that period. Power consumption for 1980, the last full year of record, was: Residential 7289 MAH Commercial 4461 MWH Industrial 6710 MWH 18460 MAH Source: PMP&L Utility Recap Records. -128- 8000 7000 6000 COMMERCIAL 5000 4000 3000 | | } } + 1 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 YEAR FIGURE 6 ~— Power Consumption, Petersburg Municipal & Light (Source: International Engineering Co. Inc., 1979, Petersburg MP & L Utility. Recap Records) As discussed earlier, Mitkof Lumber will likely be modernizing its facilities within the next 10 to 15 years. Although such modernization will probably not produce a significant number of new jobs, energy intensive equipment may increase electrical demands for this facility as much as two to three times its present level. On the other hand, the industry may use its wood wastes to produce electric energy and might even produce excess electricity which could be made available to PMP&L through a buy-back agreement. In the fishing industry, the traditional cannery facilities have been supplemented with fresh freezing equipment and cold storage facilities to satisfy increased demand for fresh frozen products. If there is in- creased bottom fishing, expansion of these energy-intensive facilities may double the present fisheries industry energy use in Petersburg. These developments may depend upon the availability of cost-stable energy supplies, however, as well as other factors such as the distance to fishing grounds, transportation costs, and the like. Residential energy use averaged only 530 KWH per home per month over 1980. This average is low compared to the national average, but accounts for the fact that many homes in Petersburg use other forms of energy for space heating, water heating and cooking. If each residen- tial customer were to use electricity and to cook and heat water in addition to lighting and small appliance use, the average power con- sumption might likely be 1100 KWH per month, roughly double the present average consumption. If residences were to convert to electric home heating in response to special home heating programs now being con- sidered, power consumption would be increased perhaps as much as 1700 KWH per month, or 20,000 KWH per year per customer (International Engineering Company, Inc. 1979), significantly increasing current residential consumption. This seems possible if costs induce customers away from conventional sources of heating, although there appears to be a strong preference for wood home heating. Nonetheless, it is reason- able to assume that more residential customers will turn to cooking and heating water with electricity if power rates drop significantly as a result of the Tyee Project. Therefore, the present distribution system should be planned for a future residential load of at least 1100 KWH/month/customer in Petersburg, (and perhaps more if the home heating program is instituted), and for the same load for homes in Kupreanof if service to Kupreanof is provided via the PMP&L distribution system (see following discussion of options for Kupreanof). Projected demands for power in the PMP&L service area (not including the Wrangell area) through the year 2000 based upon expected growth in the area are shown in Table 31. ‘These projections, developed for APA as part of the Tyee Power Project planning effort, assume that develop- ment of the project will provide the area with a more cost-stable source of electric energy. Under this scenario, electric energy con- sumption by industrial users could ke three to five times the present consumption due to conversion of equipment, while the number of com- mercial and residential customers will grow at a rate of only about -130- -Tet- Residential Consumption No. of consumers kWh/mo. /cons. annual MWh Small Commercial Consumption No. of consumers kWh/mo. /cons. annual MWh Large Commercial Consumption No. of consumers kWh/mo. /cons. annual MWh Street Lights annual MWh Own Use annual MWh Total MWh Sales Losses MWh Losses Percentage Total Generation MWh Demand kW Load Factor, percentage TABLE 31 PETERSBURG MUNICIPAL POWER & LIGHT FUTURE POWER REQUIREMENTS EXPECTED CASE 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1,005 1,056 1,110 1,167 1,226 610 641 674 860 1,098 7,357 8,123 8,978 12,043 16,154 161 169 178 187 197 2,970 3,121 3,280 3,448 3,623 5,738 6,329 7,006 7,737 8,565 10 11 12 12 12 60,417 114,167 198,611 248,958 303,472 7,250 15,070 28,600 35,850 43,700 194 210 222 233 244 - - Negligible - - 20,539 29,732 44,806 55,863 68,663 1,551 2,238 3,374 4,202 5,167 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 22,090 31,970 48,180 60,065 73,830 4,425 6,400 9,650 12,030 14,790 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 Source: International Engineering Company, Inc., 1979. one percent per year, reflecting the trend towards energy-intensive rather. than labor-intensive expansions of local industry. These estimates also assume that general system improvements made over the period will stabilize system losses at about seven percent in Petersburg. No allowance is made for possible service to Kupreanof but such loads would only constitute a small fraction of the residential load of Petersburg (less than two percent) and contribute little to total loads in the future. Electrical Utility Options With the advent of power supplies from Tyee Lake, adequate power should be available to serve all needs in the PMP&sL service area within the next 20 years, assuming that the ultimate capacity of the Tyee Project is utilized (30 MW). It is possible, however, that additional standby sources of power will be needed within the next several years in the event of a loss of Tyee Power, if retirement schedules of some of the existing diesel generators to be delegated to standby operation after 1983 are followed. For example, 1990 peak demands have been estimated to be on the order of 9650 KW (Table 31 ), and according to retirement schedules published for PMP&L generating equipment (International Engineering Co., Inc., 1979) standby system capacity at that time would only total about 6750 KW. In the event of Tyee Power failure, then, Petersburg would need additional standby generating capability. In place of more diesel units, the City might look towards developing additional hydropower capacity, perhaps tapping local streams (e.g., the outflow from the municipal water reservoir or Twin Creek if it were to be dammed for water supply purposes) or utilizing other alternative sources (e.g., electricity purchased from the sawmill using wood wastes, or solid wastes to produce power). The need for alternative standby sources of power would be even greater if Wrangell and Petersburg were to institute an interconnected system which allowed power to be fed backwards from Petersburg to Wrangell along the new 138 KV transmission line during an interruption of Tyee power. This would be necessary as Wrangell's standby generating capacity would le deficient for its own system demand as early as 1985 with three diesel units of 2.25 MW capacity being scheduled for retirement at that time. If Wrangell does not replace those units scheduled for retirement, then, PMP&L might find itself in the position of feeding power to Wrangell as well as serving the Petersburg area. Since the interconnection arrangement and control of operation of the entire Tyee Project is unclear at this time, though, it is not known if such a problem could actually develop. Further, it is not certain that the existing generating plants are capable of maintaining a tie at 138 KV, although it represents a distinct possibility, however, and should be planned for. -132- Plans for correcting the general distribution system deficiencies mentioned earlier in this section should be completed and implemented as early as possible to prepare a reliable network of distribution for the advent of hydropower from the Tyee project. These would include replacement of. small-sized aerial primary conductors with larger size conductors that create less than 2.5 percent voltage drop at the receiving end as well as power factor corrections to 95 percent. Power factor corrections could be made by adding capacitors near the loads which cause system inefficiencies (i.e., low power factors) and by encouraging industrial, commercial or residential users to correct their own poor power factors by costly penalties for power factors below 95 percent. If all of these distribution system improvements were delayed until long after Tyee Power comes on line, it is probable that, with increases in loads, the distribution system would he inadequate to provide reliable service to the entire community. Also, if the City moves the existing Lumber Street step-down transformer to the PMP&L plant downtown, it would be advantageous to install a new transformer with the capability of being reconnected from 2400 V three-wire, three-phase to 4160/2400 V four-wire, three-phase power. This installation would be for the purpose of increasing distribution system voltage to 4160 V as soon as possible, thus increasing system capacity and reliability. This would require existing distribution transformers to be reconnected from the 2400 V delta system to a 4160/2400 V grounded wye system, as well as installation of additional equipment such as a grounded neutral at each 2400 V feeder and the addition of other switchgear equipment. At this time, it is not clear what transformer will be provided or what responsibility PMP&L will have regarding this equipment when the Tyee transmission line interconnects, yet the need for a conversion to 4160 V distribution voltage is essential for reliable power service in Petersburg. -133- KUPREANOF WATER SYSTEM Kupreanof relies primarily on small, unprotected surface sources. Typically, these small sources can be subject to conflicts due to other uses of the water, such as for disposal of untreated sewage. Many times water rights have not been filed by users of such sources of supply, which can lead to further conflicts. However, the precipitation and numerous surface supplies are generally adequate to meet water needs of the community, although the dispersed nature of the City might result in some areas not being near a surface source. One option for the City to increase availability of water supplies would be to develop a central water supply system, possibly tapping Coho Creek as the source. Indeed, the State has selected the Coho Creek watershed to protect it for future use and the City has adopted ordinances to protect water quality and quantity within the watershed. However, distribution costs would preclude an extensive distribution system, and management of the source would require an excessive commitment of labor and time. Further, substantial groundwater supplies are likely scarce due to the nature of the soils and underlying bedrock, although no site-specific data on well yields are available. As a result, roof-catchment, small creek diversions and small surface impoundments might still remain cost-effective means of water supplies until such time as water demands warrant larger systems. SEWAGE SYSTEM In Kupreanof, sewage is handled in a manner described earlier in this section; that is, by direct discharge or some minimal treatment prior to discharge to the Narrows through subsurface means. Again, although these disposal methods do not appear to meet the State's minimum requirements for treatment and disposal and would require improvements to do so (with the responsibility borne by individual residents and establishments), such improvements do not appear to be high on the State's list of priority problems. Alternatives to this form of sewage handling include on-site treatment and disposal by a variety of means or a centralized collection and treatment approach. For the residences in Kupreanof, the slow growth rate projected limits the options to those which provide upgrading of the individual systems to meet State requirements for individual residences, however. A centralized treatment and disposal system would be prohibitively expensive for such a dispersed population base, al- though the City would likely have to initiate policies to handle potential conflicts between on-site disposal and water rights of -134- residents as uplands land sales increase. On-site disposal methods might include such options as septic tanks with sand filters or pits for disposal (which would likely require large lot sizes); various chemical or recirculating toilets to minimize discharges; or even composting or waterless toilets. Of the various options available, the most reliable and environmentally acceptable disposal options might be those which minimize wastewater flows. SOLID WASTES Although a limited number of residents have used "green boxes" located in Petersburg to dispose of solid wastes, it is the policy of Kupreanof to encourage recycling and reuse of wastes to the extent possible. The majority of Kupreanof's solid wastes are thus recycled and residuals then disposed of inside the City. For example, residents generally compost organic wastes, burn combustible wastes such as paper, and crush glass, metal, plastic, etc., for on-site burial. Due to the low and dispersed nature of the population and the character of the resi- dents of Kupreanof, these disposal methods probably constitute the most environmentally acceptable means of waste disposal for the City. City officials have also indicated an interest in promoting the development of a recycling facility, perhaps being jointly sponsored by Kupreanof and Petersburg. Options for such a project are discussed in the solid waste section presented earlier. ELECTRICAL POWER At the present time, no central electrical service is provided within Kupreanof. Several residents have installed small, portable diesel electric generators at their own homes. Most utilize other means to provide for cooking, lighting and heating needs. The installation of electrical service within the City thus has been mentioned by some residents as being highly desired, although it is recognized that the costs involved would be substantial. The options for providing power to Kupreanof are costly due to the fact that there would be fewer than 50 potential customers in the near future, widely scattered throughout the city. Because of this, the options of providing electrical power to Kupreanof are somewhat limited but would consist of either building an underwater transmission line from PMP&L's distribution system across the Narrows, developing a short spur line off the possible Petersburg-Kake transmission line, or per- haps developing a centralized power generation system and distribution line. An underwater transmission line from PMP&l, would have to be -135- located in a portion of the Narrows which is unaffected by dredging activities, thus limiting the potential sites which could be used for the crossing. Since some locations for a submarine crossing for the proposed Petersburg-Kake transmission line have been identified (Gropp, 1981) which considers these factors, it might be best to utilize those locations as the points to cross the Narrows to serve Kupreanof as well. Under this scenario, single phase power would be brought in on an overhead spur line off of the Petersburg-Kake transmission line to Kupreanof, and then stepped down to a woltage for distribution, most likely by overhead lines. Although such a venture would be costly, similar projects have been undertaken in the past, such as for Pennock Island and Gravina near Ketchikan and transmission corridors and costs could be identified for Kupreanof as well. These tasks should be ac- complished as the Comprehensive Plan is completed. The remaining option of providing centralized generation and distribu- tion would probably be the least desired option due to the small, dis- persed population. However, if Coho Creek were reserved as Kupreanof's water supply, it could be possible to arrange a system that provides hydropower as well as a municipal water supply. The multiple benefits of such a joint project would increase the attractiveness of the project, although power and distribution costs would still le expensive. -136- TRANSPORTATION Petersburg and Kupreanof's transportation links to other communities are by water or air; there are no road connections. Presently, con- nections to both southbound and northbound destinations are available although service is limited in some seasons of the year due to weather, lack of demand, and the like. Within Kupreanof, an inadequate trail system and poor skiff, float and docking facilities create access problems typical of sparsely populated communities in southeast Alaska. This chapter discusses Petersburg and Kupreanof's road, water and air transportation services, and identifies opportunities to improve those services. PETERSBURG STREETS AND ROADS Petersburg has over 13 miles of improved streets and roads in the City center, exclusive of the Mitkof Highway beyond Skylark Way (Union Street). Outside the City center, road travel is primarily limited to the Mitkof Highway along the east shore of the Narrows, and some col- lector and local access roads servicing residences, commercial estab- lishments and industry along the edge of the Island. further details of the existing network are illustrated in the accompanying topographic base maps. The Mitkof Highway stretches over 20 miles beyond the City center to the southern tip of Mitkof Island, providing paved access to logging roads, public recreation facilities, the Crystal Lake Fish Hatchery and the City's Hydro Plant. Beyond the power plant, the highway is unpaved and parallels Blind Slough to its terminus near Dry Strait on the east side of Mitkof Island. Petersburg's street and road system has not been developed systemat- ically. Only a few streets appear to be adequately constructed, with many streets being too marrow, or improperly aligned. Only some roads of State jurisdiction are paved, and portions of those are in need of new surfacing. In same cases, travel ways meander in and out of the platted right-of-way. An informal survey of streets open to traffic within Petersburg's downtown area as of November, 1981, revealed that a significant number of roads are deficient in one or more aspects. Each street segment was rated in terms of sight distance, condition of travel surface and ability to safely accommodate two-way traffic. The majority of the -137- streets and roads under State jurisdiction were found to be adequate, with the following exceptions: From To Main Street Fram (F) Street Balder (B) Street Dolphin (D) Street Main Street First Street First Street Dolphin Street Balder Street Balder Street First Street Second Street Second Street Balder Street Arcade (A) Street Wrangell Avenue Arcade Street Middleton (Joy) St. Numerous streets of City jurisdiction were found to be inadequate as well. Major problems result fram the fact that virtually all City streets have been constructed on top of muskeg soils, which creates serious maintenance problems for the City Public Works Department. Currently, the only acceptable method of constructing roadways on muskeg is to excavate all muskeg soils down to the underlying hardpan layer and backfill with good rock. Alternatives to this, such as use of filter fabric to increase stability of fills, have not been proven to effect much cost reductions, and use of lightweight fill material such as wood waste has not been adequately evaluated. Since excavating to hardpan is expensive, the City has avoided it except in certain locations. The result is that roads typically have excessive settle- ment, fill instability, rutting, etc. Further, many of these streets were not built according to a set of uniform standards, or were con- structed sequentially, one block at a time, thus resulting in streets of too narrow widths or crooked alignments. The length of streets and roads under State or City jurisdiction which were adequate in terms of sight distance, road surface, and safety totalled about 6.3 miles, only 48 percent of the City's streets. (Roads of State jurisdiction accounted for four miles of this total.) Of the remainder, 3.5 miles or 27 percent were slightly deficient (one defect), another 2.6 miles, or 19 percent moderately deficient (two defects), and the remaining 0.7 miles, or five percent rated excessive— ly deficient, exhibiting deficiencies in all of the criteria. The survey did not consider local access and collector roads outside of the City center, such as those found within the Scow Bay area. Some privately owned roads in this area have not been built or maintained to acceptable standards according to City officials. In addition to deficiencies outlined in the survey, there are other City Street problems. First, the downtown area experiences the highest traffic usage within the City, yet only Nordic Drive (Main Street) is paved, and even this section is in need of extensive repair due to subsurface subsidence and general wear. Moreover, since collector and local access roads leading from upland areas down to Nordic Drive are not paved, traffic and storm runoff fram these travelways typically creates drainage and mud problems on Nordic Drive. Further, lack of suitable parking space in the vicinity of the old harbor area has created some difficulties in allowing for ample parking for marine related use activities. -138- While a long range street improvement plan is to have all City streets paved, it is more desirable that the City have an intermediate plan of street improvements which addresses these problems. As a result, it would ke advantageous for the City to concentrate its near-term efforts on those sections of City streets which have been discussed above. It is likely that the City could make these improvements in an efficient manner since DOTPF will be making similar improvements to Sandy Beach Road and Haugen Drive during 1982. Moreover, City officials have been successful in persuading the State to program funds for improvements to the roads of State jurisdiction mentioned above in 1984, In this light, the City should have the capability to construct several improvements to the streets of more immediate concern in 1982-1983. Streets in the downtown area of City jurisdiction which would be the best candidates for immediate improvements include the following: 1) Harbor Way (including the two side streets leading from Harbor Way to Nordic Drive, as well as the parking lot adjacent to the small boat harbor 2) Sing Lee Alley (Indian Street) fram Nordic Drive to Hammer Slough 3) Excel (E) Street from Harbor Way to 1lth Street 4) Fram (F) Street from Nordic Drive to lst Street 5) Gjoa Street fram Nordic Drive to lst Street 6) 1st Street fram Haugen Drive to Dolphin Street Source: Richard Underkofler, City Manager, Memo, 1981. One step which the City must take prior to such improvements is to have all sewer and water min deficiencies upgraded. Numerous sections of these services are in need of rehabilitation, including parts of those utilities along Excel Street, lst Street, Gjoa Street, Nordic Drive, Wrangell Avenue, and Dolphin Street. City crews and temporary employees could be used for the rehabilitation work, as they have con- structed several similar improvements previously. In the downtown area bordered by 1st Street to the east, the waterfront to the west and Haugen Drive to the south, the City could install storm sewers, curbs and sidewalks, along with street paving, to improve runoff, drainage, and pedestrian access within the area. Existing storm sewers might be upgraded to reduce the costs of such improve- ments, although alternative drainage plans could be used. Along Harbor Way, the road surface could be paved with a minimum of subsurface disturbance as the existing travelways are built upon good material. However, limited additional space is available for increased parking in the vicinity, and large quantities of fill would likely be necessary to construct additional parking space without the City taking steps to acquire additional property in the vicinity or initiating land use -139- changes. These issues are to be more fully explored in the waterfront development plan as part of the continuing planning effort. With these improvements to be made, Petersburg's streets can be clas- sified into categories for planning, programming and budgeting pur- poses. Utilizing criteria such as the area of town the street ser- vices, the amount of traffic which uses the street and land use, the streets in Petersburg can be classified into categories of arterials, collectors and local access streets. Table 32 summarizes the classifi- cation of Petersburg's streets, and Plate VI depicts this graphically. These classifications need not remain fixed, but can (and should) ke reviewed periodically and revised as needed to accommodate changing conditions in the community. For example, scheduled improvements to Sandy Beach Road along the City's eastern edge, now serving primarily as access to waterfront property, might result in heavier traffic flows along this route, particularly when disposal of State lands near Frederick Point is completed, and when subdivision and further develop- ment of property upland of the road begins. If the scheduled road im provements were to be the responsibility of the City rather than the State, anticipated heavier traffic might require the City to plan to upgrade the roadway appropriately, and use stricter design standards developed for arterials. (In this particular case, the State will construct improvements to Sandy Beach Road which will make the road adequate for all future transportation needs in the foreseeable future; however, this example typifies how Petersburg can use street classifi- cations along with design standards to schedule needed improvements as conditions change within the community. ) Possible Street Expansions With the expected disposal of State lands near Frederick Point and pos- sible development of Scow Bay, the City has several options for future street extensions. One would be an extension of Sandy Beach Road out along Frederick Sound as detailed in the accompanying topographic map series. Alternatively, access could be provided by planned Forest Service roads which would be located to the south of the land disposal boundaries (see Plate I ). In the latter case, public utilities would not be available to plats within the land disposal area; utilities might be available if access were available fram Sandy Beach Road. Next, the City might extend a roadway from the Sandy Beach area to Scow Bay via the quarry road turnoff south of the airport runway. By con- structing a roadway out of the Mitkof Highway near Scow Bay, increased accessibility to the area would be available, as well as providing right-of-way for possible extension of utilities (e.g., City water ser- vice) to Scow Bay residents. The road might also permit heavy vehicular traffic (e.g., quarry traffic) heading towards the Scow Bay area to avoid using downtown streets. Prevailing soils along this route would be muskeg, however, making the cost of a roadway substantial. -140- A. B. Cc. TABLE 32 PETERSBURG STREET CLASSIFICATION Street Arterials 1. Mitkof Highway 2. Nordic Drive 3. Main Street 4. Haugen Drive 5. Harbor Way 6. Excel Street 7. Fram Street all 8. Gjoa Street Collectors 1. Sandy Beach Road 2. Wrangell Avenue 3. Second Street (Arcade to Balder) 4, Balder Street 5. Ist Street 6. 8th Street 7. Chief John Lott Street 8. Indian Street 9. Sing Lee Alley 10. Dolphin Street Local Access (All remaining streets) between -141- Justification for Classification ° ooo0o°0o fe) ° Main transportation corridor linking City center with Scow Bay, recreation facilities, commercial and industrial activities, etc. Good vertical and horizontal alignment Route of State jurisdiction Same as in 1) above Heavy use by traffic Serves industrial, commercial uses Serves link between Airport and City center Good vertical & horizontal alignment Harbor Way and Nordic Drive ooo 0000 Street used as secondary route in City Same as in 1) above Same as in 1) above Same as in 1) above Same as in 1) above Street serves neighborhoods as link to arterials Same as in 1) above Same as in 1) above Same as in 1) above Serves as link to schools and neighborhoods All remaining streets are used for and classified for local access The City would face a similar problem if it were to extend Augusta Street from Gaufin Street to Front Street. The platted right-of-way appears to traverse through muskeg soils, and the City might realign the right-of-way in some fashion in consideration of this hazard. Platting and Vacating City Streets Street platting is a process by which the legal right-of-way for a street, sidewalk or other thoroughfare is defined and established. The process involves defining boundaries by survey and legal description, establishing public ownership (by gift deed, condemnation, negotiated purchase or other means) and recording the transaction at a land title recording office. Vacating is the process by which a public body deter- mines that a right-of-way is no longer necessary, and transfers public ownership to a private party, often in return for payment of a fee. Platting allows for orderly development of street alignments, and should be considered an integral part of street improvements. Platting is particularly important if subsequent legal and use conflicts are to be avoided. This is especially true in light of the numerous conflicts between existing roads which apparently meander aut of established rights-of-way, although these conflicts might be resolved once street improvements are begun in Petersburg. More important, however, are the many cases in which existing structures appear to encroach upon street rights-of-way. This section addresses the problem of platting and vacating Petersburg's streets, outlining a method to systematically review and decide on platting or vacating actions. There are no hard and fast rules that can be applied to arrive at decisions regarding platting and vacating of existing travel ways and rights-of-way. Each street must be evaluated in light of its individual conditions, but on a uniform basis. ‘To ensure uniformity, a worksheet can be used; an example worksheet is shown in Figure 7 . By using a worksheet, candidates for possible platting or vacation can ke selected on logical, rational grounds. Six major questions should determine the outcome of a platting or vacating action. These are: (1) Is a right-of-way or easement required for access to land, business establishments or dwellings? (2) Is a right-of-way or easement required for access by emergency vehicles? (3) Can a right-of-way use be limited to pedestrians and emergency vehicles only? (4) Is a right-of-way needed for utility construction and maintenance? -142- FIGURE 7 PLATTING/VACATING WORKSHEET ls there a platted R/W? Ri ght-of-wa Yes No Remarks Is there an existing travel way? Is the existing travel way within the R/W? Does existing facility meet design guidelines, except for R/W? If no, does it meet tolerable criteria? Does the existing R/W meet design guidelines? Does the facility serve daily traffic? If no, does it serve seasonal traffic? If no, or seasonal, will it serve daily traffic in the future? If no to future traffic, should the R/W be retained as a pedestrian trail and/or utility easement? Are there utilities within the R/W? Will improvements facilitate traffic flow and/or reduce hazardous conditions: on this street? on another street? Can the street be improved to design guidelines within present R/W? Are construction costs higher than average for street construction? Does the travel way in its existing location present any problems; very steep grades, poor drainage, hazardous objects, etc.? Are there utilities outside of the existing R/W? Would relocation to existing R/W result in an improvement or an enhancement to the environment? Are construction costs to relocate in existing R/W higher than costs for new or additional R/W and platting? Can another street or streets provide better access and service to abutting property? (5) will elimination of a platted right-of-way enhance the environment? / (6) Will improvement to one street help relieve traffic or reduce hazardous conditions on another street? In a right-of-way vacation action, streets should be vacated only where present and future needs can be handled with no appreciable decrease in quality of street service. It is often desirable to retain the street for emergency vehicle and pedestrian use only. Similarly, street platting should improve access to lands and ease traffic flow. PEDESTRIAN WAYS Although Petersburg is relatively small and compact, foot travel is often difficult, especially during cold and wet weather. Pedestrian ways are limited to primarily along Nordic Drive (Mitkof Highway and Front Street) and adjoining side streets within the central business district, Haugen Drive from downtown to the airport, and older side- walks surrounding school facilities. During wet weather, foot travel can be hazardous, particularly when snow and slush pile up in and adjacent to the street, forcing pedestrians to walk in traffic lanes. If street and road improvements included maintained pedestrian walkways in areas of heaviest foot travel (e.g., along lst Street fram Haugen Drive to Balder Street, and Sing Lee Alley fram Nordic Drive to the bridge), then foot travel would te aasier. Such walkways should connect community facilities and businesses with the residential areas of the City. PRIVATE BOATS With the economy of Petersburg tied so intimately to the water, it is not surprising that many hundreds of private craft call on Petersburg each year. Many of the private craft are commercial fishing vessels, although a significant portion of the boats are pleasure craft. The boat traffic reaches its peak during the summer season. In addition, Foss Alaska Lines also serves Petersburg. The barge ser- vice operates from a privately owned dock located near Mitkof Lumber Company. The Foss Line is a regular means of delivering containerized shipments and truckloads of supplies, provisions, etc., to the com- munity. It also provides freight service for shipment of lumber products to southern markets. The service operates generally through- out the year with weekly sailings arriving fram Seattle and points south. It does serve vehicles which miss or cannot he accommodated by the State Ferry. Other barge services which will serve the -144- Petersburg/Kupreanof area include Sampson Tug and Barge Company and Southeast Barge Lines, although these barge operators do not have regularly scheduled service to Petersburg. PORT FACILITIES Petersburg has formulated a port development plan which includes several phases. The first phase of work has been completed, resulting in a lease of port space to the U.S. Coast Guard. In a second phase, both increased dock space and construction of boat haul-out facilities are envisioned. Already improvements to the City-owned port facility are being mde. These improvements are located across Buschmann Drive from the Standard Oil tank farm. A tideland fill is being constructed adjacent to the 275-foot dock in order to provide additional space for marine use related buildings. The dock (also in need of upgrading) is currently used by Chevron for fuel deliveries and storage. A second City dock, located just to the east of the above mentioned dock, is currently being used by Alaska Island Air as a base of operations. ‘The Chevron dock facility was previously considered as a possible site for expansion of small boat harbor facilities, however, the dock was found to be inadequate to meet current demand for moorage space and use of the dock was relegated to the above stated use. Private barge oper- ators and the State Ferry utilize separate docking facilities near the municipal port. Improvements are being made to the State Ferry dock facilities, with a new office being built to increase available space. This space is also necessary to provide increased passenger waiting room areas as current facilities are often overcrowded and inadequate to handle heavy ferry traffic. As part of Petersburg's plan to develop improved facilities, the small boat harbor is also undergoing extensive improvements to relieve over- crowding. Serving the local fishing fleet and other small boats, the harbor is being expanded with construction of new facilities adjacent to the existing harbor. Presently, the harbor contains about 300 slips (Strandahl, 1981) occupied by about 75 pleasure craft, and 225 cam mercial fishing vessels. Approximately 150 float siders are currently using the existing facilities also. Available services in the harbor include electrical power, fresh water and lighting. The new harbor, to be built by the State and operated by the City, will increase the number of slips by about 300, with areas for both small pleasure craft and larger commercial fishing vessels in excess of 75 feet. According to Harbormaster records, however, by early 1981 over 164 names were on waiting lists for this new moorage space, not count- ing those who abandoned plans for moorage at Petersburg upon realizing long delays in securing space. As the new facility is constructed, then, it is anticipated that the new space will be rapidly leased and might even be completely occupied within a few years (Stromdahl, 1981). As much of Petersburg's economy is based on marine-related industries, it will be essential that harbor facilities be provided that are large -145- enough to satisfy present and future needs of boat owners. This would mean that the City might wish to begin developing plans and alternatives for more harbor space if demand remains strong. A problem with the expansion of facilities in the proposed area is the impact the expansion would have on surrounding land use. Since the uplands are primarily residential, citizen complaints regarding effects of the development have been woiced. Since the land is zoned Industrial, however, the project is consistent with present land use controls. It is likely that development of the harbor would lead to increased pressure for development of related support service industries in the nearby area, thus affecting the character of the area. However, any alternative site would probably not be able to take full advantage of existing support services since other sites would be located at much greater distance from those industries and would create other land use conflicts. Another problem with the development of the new harbor will ke potential conflicts between Alaska Island Air's operations with those of the harbor. Since the proposed plan for the harbor will create boat traffic running through an area now used for seaplane taxi runs, it is likely that some conflicts will exist. Representatives of Alaska Island Air have expressed concern over what policies the City may pursue to resolve these conflicts, particularly with regard to suitable alternative sites for Alaska's floatplane operations. (One such site might be the east side of the Port Facility.) While new improvements are being made to the harbor, the City has expressed the desire to upgrade the harbormaster building as part of this facility expansion. The existing harbormaster's office has serious structural deficiencies, and is inadequately sized to handle public services and office needs. When the new harbor facilities are completed, it will be advantageous to upgrade the harbormaster building to allow for easier and safer monitoring of the entire harbor area, as well as improve facilities for public use. According to current moorage rates, which are scheduled to pay maintenance, harbormaster wages, etc., more than $70,000 in yearly revenues above that already derived fram existing slips will be derived from the expansion. These revenues might be able to partially support needed improvements. FERRY SERVICE The Alaska Marine Highway system operates several vessels which provide service to Petersburg and other communities in southeast Alaska. Four vessels are used as mainline ferries, providing service to larger communities, including Petersburg, fram Seattle or from Prince Rupert, B.C., to Skagway. Two smaller vessels are used as feeder ferries to connect the smaller communities, with the ferry system's mainline. Year round ferry service is provided to Petersburg with approximately eight northbound and eight southbound departures per week during the -146- peak summer season and four northbound and four southbound sailings per week during the winter off-season. Service has been described as being generally adequate, although more convenient scheduled arrivals and departures and service to Sitka are desired. Ferry passenger and vehicle traffic has been relatively stable over the past several years with the exception of the summer peak season. between 1975 and 1980, winter, spring and fall passenger and vehicle traffic fluctuated greatly and even declined somewhat, while summer traffic steadily increased (Figure 8 ). Approximately 38 percent of the total passenger and vehicular traffic has been occurring during the summer season. Since Petersburg is served primarily by the mainline ferries operating out of Seattle or Prince Rupert, it is likely that as much as 75 to 85 percent of this peak traffic load is non-Alaskan (DOTPF, 1980). Projections for increase in ferry traffic at Petersburg (Burton, 1981) suggest that traffic will continue to grow, but at a slow pace. At Petersburg, it is expected that an annual growth in traffic will ke limited to two to three percent per year, and that a shortage of tourist facilities within the City will be a limiting factor in growth of ferry traffic. With the previously mentioned improvements being campleted at the existing ferry terminal, then, it appears that adequate capacity will be available to meet ferry user needs for the next several years. Service will likely be improved also, including greater service to Sitka if the Marine Highway system follows planned schedule changes for the next several years (DOTPF, 1980). If the ferry system's mainliner extreme southern terminus were shifted from Seattle to Prince Rupert during the summer season, the system could provide additional weekly mainline ferry runs from the terminus to Skagway and back. This arrangement would provide greater weekly service to Sitka as well as other major communities in the region. Ferry traffic could also increase at Petersburg if a major new highway were constructed through the Stikine River Valley and a bridge built over Dry Strait to provide a continental link to the ferry system. The previous Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan proposed a highway to be built in the period 1986-96 to provide the mid-region continental ferry connection which was considered to be a desired improvement. Citizen and local government reaction to the proposed connection was not favorable, however, and plans for the highway were dropped. AIR TRANSPORTATION The Petersburg Airport is located approximately one mile southeast of the City center. Owned by the State and leased in part by Alaska Airlines, the facility includes a paved 6,500 foot runway, the Alaska Airlines terminal, an Alaska Island Air hanger, and offices of Temsco Helicopters. Access to the facility is provided by Haugen Drive which -147- -8PT- 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 ——— > 1975 1976 1977. 1978 1979 YEAR FIGURE 8 — Seasonal Number of Passenger Embarkments and Disembarkments, Petersburg, Alaska 1980 SUMMER SPRING FALL WINTER leads fram the City center to the airport and around the airport, where it links up with Sandy Beach Road. Jet service to Petersburg is provided by Alaska Airlines, with one northbound and one southbound flight scheduled daily. Passenger volumes, according to this schedule of service, have been tabulated as follows: TABLE 33 Scheduled Scheduled Departures Enplaned Quarter Departure Completed Passengers 1979 4th 180 147 2,973 1980 1st 180 141 2,367 2nd 182 178 3,565 3rd 184 174 4,073 4th 180 idl 2,546 1980 TOTALS 726 644 12,551 1981 1st 178 164 2,665 2nd 182 168 3,081 3rd 184 169 3,858 4th Atal ate = 1981 TOTALS 7 - - Source: Alaska Transportation Cammission. Other carriers and air taxi services also use the facility on a frequent basis, for charter, passenger and air cargo services. Airlines currently serving Petersburg on this basis include Southeast Alaska Airlines and Alaska Island Air. The State also leases space at one of the docks for Alaska Island Air's seaplane operations, as discussed earlier. Fron this hase of operations, regular mail service to Kake is provided, as well as other passenger and freight hauling services. Typically, the airline has 90 to 100 flights scheduled per quarter between Petersburg and Kake, as well as several hundred charter flights. There will also be a seaplane pullout facility just north of Scow Bay about three miles south of the -149- City center, where tidelands have been filled in preparation for development of a seaplane and boat haulout and dry storage. The potential for air transportation service for Petersburg has heen enhanced by the 1981 paving of the airport runway. Previously, Alaska Airlines only had two jets which could service the airport since special rock deflectors were required on aircraft using the gravel runway. Upon paving of the runway, the facility has much increased serviceability and safety, and should help reduce maintenance costs for the facility. It might also improve service to the airport as a larger number of jet aircraft can access the airport. Further, the increased capability to handle different jet aircraft may allow for a greater amount of goods to be shipped quickly to more distant markets, for example, fresh seafood to West Coast markets, as other aircraft with increased cargo capacity can be utilized for shipments. Although surfacing of the runway has provided increased opportunities, there are frequent periods in which Alaska Airlines scheduled service is not available due to inclement weather conditions. Also, during these periods other air transport services are not available. Public interest has thus been expressed in improving the reliability of air services through the installation of better navigational aids. Since navigational aids is an area regulated by federal agencies, those improvements are usually made according to federal standards and regu- lations. The 1980 Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan (DOTPF, 1980) has developed a set of options which describe improvements to enhance the safety and reliability of general aviation in the region, including navigational aids. The Plan points out that an additional Flight Service Station might be located in the Wrangell-Petersburg area. The station would be used to communicate weather briefings and traffic ad- visories, and allow air taxi and charter services to file flight plans in a more efficient manner than is presently available. The FAA has located its remote and primary VHF transmission facilities on sites nearly at sea level, which can cause very poor visual flight reference coverage on aircraft VHF frequencies. Such a station in the Wrangell-Petersburg area could ensure improved communication services and eliminate any communication "blind" spots near the Petersburg area experienced by small plane and general aviation aircraft. Next, although instrument landing aids are well developed at the air- port, the Plan mentions that localizer/distance measuring equipment components of an instrument landing system (ILS) were not available in 1980 but were to be operational at the airport shortly. When installed these components would add to other equipment such as non-directional radio beacons, visual landing aids (e.g., visual approach slope indicators), and runway end identifier lights at the airport. Ad- ditional improvements such as a high intensity runway approach lighting system or remaining components of an ILS system , such as those found at Ketchikan, might improve the capability of the airport according to the Plan, but probably at a considerable expense. -150- KUPREANOF Transportation in Kupreanof is accomplished by two methods - foot trails and water travel by skiff. Kupreanof does not maintain any improved streets or roads, and currently has an ordinance which prohibits motorized land vehicles within the City limits. ‘There does exist an old abandoned USFS right-of-way which traverses through the City limits, and litigation is being pursued to ensure that the aban- doned right-of-way is not to be reserved as a future transportation corridor. In place of streets, Kupreanof is embarking on the development of a trail system which will provide a much needed link to improve access within the City limits. Phase I of such a trail system will be con- structed in 1982 under funding through the State Local Service Roads and Trails program, and the trail will serve as a future utility corridor as well. Following State regulations (6AAC 80.080), trans— portation and utility routes must be sited inland from beaches and shorelines unless the route or facility is water dependent or no feasible or prudent inland alternative exists. As such, the planned route will traverse fram Petersburg Creek behind privately owned land and across some City-owned land. It will then terminate at the northernmost city boundary, thus enabling the trail to intersect with both the USFS foot trail that proceeds to Petersburg Lake and the USFS Petersburg Mountain trail. Later phases of construction of the trail are envisioned to occur to the south and west of Petersburg Creek along the back of waterfront lots. These improvements could provide the remaining link between the southern portion of the City and residents in the northern and eastern sections of the City. The trail is planned to have ingress-egress at either Government Lot 14 (a state corridor) or at the present location of the State public float dock at Lot 12 or at the State corridor on Lot 1l. Relocation of the existing dock to Government Lot 14 would make ingress-egress there desirable, and the City has recommended that this move be made (presently, the dock is situated such that entry is onto private land). Other dock facilities are primarily limited to individual skiff floats maintained by residents themselves. Most of the floats leave moored skiffs dry during low-tide, and some preference has been expressed for developing low-tide skiff floats. Locations for possible floats might include Government Lot 11, a State corridor (see the accompanying topo- graphic base maps) with potential access to the planned trail system, and near the mouth of Sarber Creek in the southern part of the City. -151- LAND AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT EXISTING LAND USE Petersburg grew around the fishing industry and its development is closely associated with the shoreline of the Wrangell Narrows and Frederick Sound. Another reason for the lineal development pattern is that the lands adjacent to the shoreline and extending inland for several hundred feet (although the distance varies) are characteristically better drained and more stable than lands further inland. Therefore, the density of development in Petersburg is high along the shoreline and decreases toward the inland. The main commercial/industrial area fronts on the Wrangell Narrows and functions to serve and supply the fishing industry. The residential area of the City fans out from the downtown oore but is restricted in many areas by the muskeg soils which limit development. Publicly developed lands for city offices, schools and the hospital are located between the commercial core and the residential area. For the purposes of this analysis, Petersburg is divided into the urban area (the north end of Mitkof Island) and southern Petersburg (fram the state ferry terminal south to Scow Bay). The Petersburg urban area has a variety of residential dwelling wnits including mobile hams, traditional "stick-built" homes and apartment complexes. The typical lot size ranges from 5,000 to 7,500 square feet. Smaller, odd-shaped lots are platted along Hammer Slough and Singlee Alley. Approximately 98 acres have single family, typically "stick-built" homes with an additional 13 acres for mobile homes. There are two mobile home park where the individual lot size is small. Many mobile homes are located on conventional single family lots. Multi-family land use occurs on approximately seven acres scattered around the urban area. This includes 2.5 acres in public housing duplex units and about five acres in apartment complexes. The fishing industry requires a great deal of seasonal labor. Supplying housing for these seasonal workers has always been a problem in Petersburg. In 1981 the City received a grant to construct "Tent City", as temporary housing for these workers. This development and other seasonal housing covers about three acres in the City. Offices and businesses use about five acres of the city, while warehouse and industrial uses include 11 acres of land. Beyond this, piers and other over-water uses include approximately 26 acres. The City of Petersburg has seven churches of various denominations, one hospital and a school complex. Combined, these uses include over 6 acres. Within the urban area are approximately 112 acres of vacant platted land. Much of this land is located in the northeastern part of -153- the city where muskeg soil conditions make development difficult and expensive. However, on the average, there are two vacant lots per block in the main residential area (from D Street to K Street). These areas have the infrastructure to serve these lots and therefore could be developed with little cost to the city. South Petersburg (from the State Ferry Terminal through Scow Bay) is an area of large lots and is more rural in nature than the rest of town. In this area there are about 66 acres in single family residential, 24 acres with mobile homes and 11 acres in multi-family. The landfill site contains 40 acres while 23 acres are set aside for park and recreation purposes. Sixty-three acres are used for warehouse and industrial purposes. Approximately 1,132 acres in the south Petersburg area are platted but vacant. Table 34 summarizes the land uses in the city. The 1966 Camprehensive Plan calculated the used land by classification within the City. It is difficult to compare the 1966 figures with those shown in Table hke- cause it is not known which areas were included in the 1966 count. Also, in 1966 the city limits did not extend to Scow Bay. Generally, residential growth has occurred in the urban area of the City through the development of mobile home parks and the placement of mobile homes on individual lots. Many of these homes are found in the southeast quadrant of the urban area between I Street and L Street. Mobile homes are popular in Petersburg as well as in many other Alaskan cities because of the high cost of traditional housing in Alaska. In 1966 there were about two acres of land used for mobile homes. Today there are approximately 13 acres in the urban area and 24 acres in the south Petersburg area. The density of mobile homes in the urban area is about 8 units per acre, while traditional single family housing in the urban area has a density of 5 dwelling units per acre. Cammercial and industrial land use has not increased at the same rate as residential uses. This can be explained by the lack of space available in the downtown core and along the waterfront and the fact that many businesses and industries have redeveloped in their present location. This modernization has made the individual structures more efficient and allows more productivity; however, the shortage of lands in the urban core and along the waterfront continues to be a problem for Petersburg. Traffic congestion and competition for parking spaces typifies the problem. To ease this problem, the City must decide on priorities for the use of these lands. Under-utilized lands should be made available for new, intensive development, and non-water dependent uses along the waterfront should be encouraged to move to inland locations. New development in this area of the city which encourages pedestrian use would ease the demand for parking spaces. This can be done by allowing public access to the waterfront and including amenities such as landscaping, special lighting, wider sidewalks and covered walkways and slowing and re-routing vehicle traffic in the area. The land use adjacent to the waterfront is a combination of businesses, apartments, single family homes, industries and public -154- Classification Single Family Res. Multi-Family Mobile Homes Seasonal Housing Public /Semi-Public Office/Business Industrial Airport Piers /Overwater Vacant Platted Land Totals Table 34 EXISTING LAND USE Urban South Area Petersburg 98 ac. 66 ac. 7 ac. tec. 13 ac. 24 ac. 3 ac. 6 ac. 63 ac. 5 ac. 11 ac. 63 ac. 362 ac. 26 ac. 112 ac. 1,132 ac. 643 ac. 1,359 ac. -155- Sub-Total 164 ac. 18 ac. 37 ac. 3 ac. 69 ac. 5 ac. 74 ac. 362 ac. 26 ac. 1,244 ac. 2,002 ac. % of Total 83 1% 23 4g 183 2% 623 100% buildings. In itself, this variety is not a detriment. However, the land in this area is extremely valuable because of its location. If used to its potential it would allow the city center to function as a regional shopping area and as a working waterfront. If lands are not made available in this area, commercial development must move to other areas of the city, draining the econamic viability of the downtown core. As mentioned in the 1966 comprehensive plan and still true today, the central business district is a definite asset to the comunity as it encourages close competition, supports a greater variety of businesses and provides an identity or focal point for the city. Should this core area be allowed to degenerate, it will be most difficult and expensive to rejuvenate. Located on Wrangell Narrows, the harbor is almost completely used by the fishing industry. The canneries and cold storage facilities are built out over the water to provide direct access by the fishing fleet. Piers and docks take up the remainder of the water area with several float plane facilities competing for space. The interface between the harbor development and the waterfront development, in the area of Indian Street, Singlee Alley, Harbor Way and Main Street, is a problem area identified by the Steering Cammittee. Vehicle traffic competes with pedestrians, businesses face several streets and parking is limited. However, this is ome of the few areas in the downtow core where the general public has access to the waterfront. ‘Treated as a visual amenity as well as a working shoreline, the waterfront can be used both for industry and as an attractive element to enhance the character and quality of the business district. Along these lines, another problem lies in the fact that the Alaska State Ferry dock is located approximately one mile southwest of the commercial area. This requires the passengers to walk along the Mitkof Highway and relatively busy streets to reach the major shopping area, and does not provide the visitor with a good introduction to the city. To take advantage of this economic resource, measures should be taken to improve this corridor and to provide for these visitors. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS Constraints on development arise from many sources. Often they are natural conditions which make development activity difficult or expen- sive. Comstraints can also take the form of limited sewer line and sewage treatment plant capacity, existing development and street and road location. Most of these man-made constraints can be overcome, at some cost to the developer, the city, or both. Many of the natural constraints must be considered in the design of the development and often cause environmental impacts during or after construction. The development constraints discussed below will impede but not necessarily prohibit construction; however, construction in the areas described will, most likely, have higher economic and environmental costs. -156- Slopes Steep slopes impact development by increasing the amount and cost of grading, the design and cost of foundation work and the cost of utility and road access. It is generally accepted that construction is not feasible on slopes greater than 25 percent. Often, the economics of construction on slopes greater than 15 percent prohibits development activity; however, individual sites and building design can, in same cases, overcome this constraint. For the purposes of this plan, lands which have slopes greater than 25 percent are defined as having development constraints. Soils Soils play an important role in determining development suitability. Areas which are poorly drained, or are susceptible to flooding, slides or massive earth movement not only cost more to build upon but cause environmental and human safety problems once developed. Also, if these lands are developed and problems arise, the public is often charged with the cost of evaluation, redevelopment and resettling of displaced individuals. In Petersburg and Kupreanof , the soils problems are compounded by the fact that much of the area is covered by mskeg. Muskeg is generally characterized by ome or more layers of organic mucky or fibrous material of depths ranging from 3 to over 50 feet. Muskeg is poorly drained and wet, having a water table at or near the surface for most of the year. Muskeg soils have been built upon by removing the muskeg and filling with crushed rock until a stable foundation is established, or by using alternative foundation methods such as pilings. All of these methods increase the cost of development and cause further drain- age problems on adjacent lands. Therefore, lands which are overlain by muskeg, which are poorly drained and/or susceptible to flooding, slides or massive earth movement, are classified as having development constraints. Tidal Wetlands Often thought of as waste or reclaimable areas, wetlands such as tidal marshes and tideflats have a number of important values. Wetlands af- fect water quality by protecting the downstream and offshore water resources from siltation and pollution. The stems, leaves, and roots of wetland vegetation slow the flow of water through the area, allowing the silt to settle out and absorbing potentially problem-causing nutrients. Wetlands also influence the quantity of water by retaining water during dry periods, holding it back during floods and stabilizing the water table. Biologically, tidal wetlands have a high rate of -157- productivity of food for animals. They are also essential breeding, nesting, resting, and feeding grounds for many species of fish and wildlife. Because of their importance to man and the environment, and the fact that developing on wetlands is more expensive than other areas, these lands are considered development constraints. Streams Streams play an important role in the overall function of the landscape. They affect the quantity and quality of the water resources available to the communities. The stream and its floodway are major corridors for transporting nutrients and sediments as well as pathways for wildlife and fish. They provide spawning and rearing habitat for salmon, which contribute to the economic viability of Petersburg and Kupreanof. Streams also provide recreation opportunities for residents of the two communities as well as visitors. Due to their sensitivity to disturbance and their importance to the communities, all natural waters which have a channel width greater than two feet between ordinary high-water marks or are demonstrated to support salmonid spawning have constraints for development. A strip of land 25 feet along either side of the stream channel is also designated as having constraints. This area might be increased based on natural characteristics such as soils, wetlands and topography. Utilities and Roads The lack of existing roads and utilities (sewer, water, power) in most instances is considered a constraint to development. Without this infrastructure, the proponent of a project or the City must provide these services, often at high costs. Therefore, for the purposes of this plan, areas in Petersburg which are more than one-half mile from existing roads and utilities shall be assumed to have development constraints. In Kupreanof, where there are no road or utility systems, this constraint would not apply. The following table summarizes the development constraints discussed above. -158- TABLE 35 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS Condition Constraint o Slopes Land with slopes 25% or greater ° Soils Areas with high soil hazard character- istics or more poorly drained o Tidal Wetlands All the tidal wetlands which are iden- tified in Figure o Streams Minimum of 25 feet on either side of a stream which has a channel width greater than 2 feet between ordinary high-water mark or which supports salmon o Utility/Roads Areas which are further than 1/2 mile fram existing roads, water distribution lines or wastewater collection lines With these constraints as criteria for future development, much of the unplatted and some of the platted lands east of the urban area of Petersburg are impacted by poor soils and/or some other constraint. Land areas along streams and waterways such as Hammer Slough also have development constraints. During Phase III of the Camprehensive Plan, a map will be prepared to illustrate the constraints described above. =159— ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Although the people of Petersburg and Kupreanof share many concerns about coastal resource management and community development, each city has concerns unique to that community, and each gives its own priority to the issues facing it. This chapter reviews the issues that face the two communities, prioritizes them according to the importance each city gives them, and proposes goals and abjectives to guide each city in resolving the issues. -161- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN LOCAL PLANNING These plans were developed under the guidance of a Steering Committee camposed of citizens representing the cities of Petersburg and Kupreanof, major local industries, and public agencies concerned with resource management. The Steering Committee held monthly meetings in September, October and November, 1981, and actively solicited public involvement through posters, articles in the Petersburg Pilot and broadcast announcements on radio station KFSK. The Committee developed an initial list of issues, which was refined into the form of a public survey, printed and distributed in the Pilot. The results indicated the priority that the public gave each issue. The Committee refined these priorities in a public meeting, broadcast live on KFSK with opportunities for listeners to offer their comments on the air by telephone. The lists of issues in this chapter are ar- ranged according to those priorities. These prioritized issues served as a guide for inventory and analysis work and were used as a basis for developing preliminary planning goals and objectives. Following the issues in each subject area is a proposed goal, and a list of objectives which would help in attaining that goal. In planning, a goal is a desired level of achievement which reflects com- munity values (for example, "Adequate housing for all residents"). Ob- jectives, on the other hand, are more specific. An objective is a measurable short-range step forward achieving a certain goal (for example, "Build 90 units of low-income housing by 1990"). Since these goals and adbjectives have not been finalized by the Steering Cammittee, they should be considered only proposals, to be revised and/or finalized in subsequent drafts of this report. As the cities finalize these plans later in 1982, each objective will be fol- lowed by a number of policies which the cities can adopt to achieve the objective, and the policies will be followed by specific actions the cities or other organizations will take to implement the policies. The issues and goals are presented separately for each city, and are divided into the following major subject areas as determined by the Steering Committee: Natural Resources Watershed Management Economic Development Local Government Organization Local Government Finance Housing Social Services Public Safety Recreation Public Utilities (Water, Sewage, Solid Waste, Electric Power) Transportation Land Use Waterfront + FF Fe Ot OH OH -163- PETERSBURG ISSUES AND GOALS The people of Petersburg expressed the concerns of a developing com munity with a limited economic hase. Community growth has been gradual, and no major "boom" events are expected, but the people look for opportunities to develop the local economy without depleting the resource base. The quality of life is important in Petersburg, and citizens emphasize the importance of improving local infrastructure (such as streets and utilities) and public services (such as fire protection and education). Petersburg residents receive a remarkable level of service from their City, yet they remain concerned that the City be well organized and operate efficiently. The issues of importance to Petersburg and some proposed goals and ob-— jectives are listed below. NATURAL RESOURCES Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Forest use practices and timber harvest. 2. Identify valued streams and threats to salmon streams. 3. Identify valuable wildlife habitats. 4. Identify traditional hunting, sports and commercial fishing grounds. 5. Re-establish old streams which used to produce fish. 6. Impact of development/timber harvest on deer winter range. 7. Protection of Stikine Delta and Blind Slough for wildlife habitats. 8. Special protection for Petersburg Creek and Coho Creek. Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. Identify potential salmon hatchery sites. 2. Gravel mining for good quality fill. 3. More firewood areas designated. Issues to be studied briefly: 1. Resource areas set aside for subsistence use. 2. Protection of eagle roosts. -165- Goal: © Management of valued natural resources in the long-term best interests of the community. Objectives: © Encourage the development of natural resource harvesting industries (such as fishing and timber) and management of essential habitat areas to maximize sustained yield and long-term employment. © Manage resource areas on a multiple use, sustained yield basis. © Protect natural renewable resource areas such as hunting and fishing grounds from degradation by non-renewable resource extraction (i.e., mining). WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Shortage of water in summer. 2. Adequacy of existing watershed. Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. Protection of individual water systems. 2. Divert streams southeast of town to present reservoir. 3. Investigate Fall Creek for domestic water and hydro-electric power. Goal: © Management of watershed areas to ensure adequate and safe water supply now and for the future. Objectives: © Protect water quality and quantities of existing public water supply watersheds. o Ensure adequate availability of water during summer months. © Identify and secure management of additional watershed areas to assure safe, high quality water to meet future demands. -166- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Promotion of maximum sustainable yield for natural resources. 2. Effects and feasibility of Stikine development (i.e., hydro-electric projects, mining, deep water port and roadway). Issues to be studied in some cetail: 1. More non-seasonal employment. 2. Improved tourist facilities such as campgrounds or R.V. parks near town, cruise ship docks and tourist information center. 3. Additional equipment servicing facilities for fishermen such as haul-outs and gear repair. 4. Improved air freight for export of fresh fish. 5. Adequate supply of land zoned industrial and commercial. Issues to be studied only briefly: 1. Problems and opportunities of mining and its impact on communities. 2. Government incentives for economic development (i.e., tax incentives for new or risky businesses). Goal: © A stable local economy based on use of renewable resources. Objectives: © Diversify forest products industry to utilize wood by-products. © Maintain existing level of activity in fishing industry. o Encourage and promote tourist industry. -167- HOUSING Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. More seasonal housing. Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. 2. More trailer parks? Improve quality of trailer parks. Private subdivision development. Develop land? More city lots. South Sandy Beach development. Revise zoning to show separate zoning classification for duplexes. Upgrade Tent City with showers and sewer. Issues to be studied briefly: Condominiums. More subsidized housing. Best housing combinations. Housing assistance by the City. Housing rehabilitation. Need more lands zoned for trailers? Goal: ° An adequate supply of year-round and seasonal housing. Objectives: ° Develop sufficient new adequate quality, affordable year-round seasonal housing to satisfy projected demand. Increase stock of seasonal housing. Determine and promote the best mixes of housing types (e.g., single vs. multi-family). Improve the quality of the existing housing stock. -168- SOCIAL SERVICES Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Hospital expansion (what to do with old wing). 2. Community school development (what should be the uses and priorities for new school facilities?). 3. Alcoholism and drug abuse. Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. Public health nurse. 2. Mental health. 3. Magistrate Court. 4. Youth programs. 5. Supplemental education (early childhood and teacher's aides). 6. How much should the city subsidize social services? Issue to be studied briefly: 1. Daycare. Issue not prioritized: 1. Senior citizen's needs. Goal: o A wide range of social services to meet the social, health, educational and cultural needs of the community. Objectives: © Develop and maintain a community school program to sustain local radio, entertainment, arts and crafts, continuing education and library services. © Maintain accessible, low cost health, judicial, education, daycare and other social services in the community. -169- PUBLIC SAFETY Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. 2. 3. 4. Harbor fire safety. Seaplane approach and landing lanes (danger of conflict with boats. Boat speeds in harbor and Narrows. Emergency equipment for EMT's in Fire Department. Issue to be studied in some detail: 1. Scow Bay fire service. Issues to be studied briefly: Build new firehall/police/ambulance building. Evacuation plan (civil defense). Air pollution from wood stoves. Air pollution from Petersburg Fisheries, Inc. and Ohmer's cannery. Goal: °o Protection of the public health and safety. Objectives: ° ° Ensure that the Fire and Police Departments have sufficient staff and equipment to protect the public within their jurisdiction. Establish a system for identifying, halting, and preventing future outbreaks of environmental pollution which present a health hazard. Provide for the safe operation of marine activities. -170- RECREATION Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. 2. 3. 4. Outdoor athletic recreation facility, ('E' Street). Park near the harbor. Indoor sport facility (developed as part of school?) Better cooperation between schools and city. Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. Neighborhood parks. Cross-country ski trails. Designation of snowmobile areas. Waterfowl viewing sites and scenic turnouts. Issues to be studied briefly: 1. Renovate Coho Creek trail to Duncan Canal. 2. Upgrade trap/skeet/archery range. 3. Ice skating. 4, Identify sport fishing sites. 5. Harbor facilities for weighing and cleaning sport catches. Goal: o A diverse range of recreational opportunities, especially emphasizing high-demand activities. Objectives: o Improve and expand the recreational trail system, viewpoints and scenic turnouts. o Designate areas for low compatibility activities such as snowmobiles, archery and trap/skeet shooting. o Develop facilities for high-demand recreational facilities such as sports fishing. o Develop a park and recreation system plan to guide facility development. -171- PUBLIC UPILITIES Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Upgrade electric lines fram Blind Slough power plant. Upgrade local electric distribution systems. Ensure adequate Tyee power for industrial growth in Petersburg. Low head hydro electric power - identify sites and feasibility. Water reservoir improvements. Waste disposal fram fish processing plant. Issues to be studied in some detail: 9. 10. 11. 12. On-site sewage disposal opportunities. Solid waste disposal sites. City sewer and water supply to Scow Bay. Sidewalks and storm sewers. Waste disposal from fish processing plant. Sewer collecting lines at Hammer Slough and Mill Creek. Waste recycling. Additional water storage capacity. Upgrade the water main fram 10th Street to storage tank. Explore feasibility of using Crystal Lake for a water supply. Location of power plant and substations. Expansion of water treatment facility. Issues to be studied briefly: 1. 2. 3. Electric "brownouts". Tidal generator at Hammer Slough. Pressure reduction electrical generators in water lines. Goal: o Dependable, adequate, low-cost public utility services. -172- Objectives: ° Ensure that electric power is available to users at the lowest feasible cost. Improve wastewater collection and treatment capabilities. Provide adequate, safe and econamical disposal of solid waste. Provide satisfactory quality, reliable year-round water service from individual or community sources to all area users. Develop safe, effective methods of handling and disposing of storm water runoff. TRANSPORTATION Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Harbor and port improvements. Pave downtown streets. Continued daily jet service. Improved instrument capability for airport. Construction of Stikine Highway and bridge over Dry Straits. Downtown parking plan. Issues to be studied in some detail: Development of Frederick Point road system within state land disposal area. Dredging of Wrangell Narrows. How to dispose of or use unconstructed street right-of-ways. Construction of 'A' Street from Gauffin to Sandy Beach Road. Traffic problems at the north end of lst Street. Issues to be studied briefly: 1. 2. 3. 4, Development of bypass road from Scow Bay to Airport. More tiedowns for float planes. Deep water port at south Mitkof Island. Improve ferry service schedules to Sitka. -173- Pave all streets. Mooring for boat houses. Boundary Street extension toward Sandy Beach. Construction of 13th Street around senior citizen center. Construction of 'E' Street from 10th to 13th Street. Goal: ° Safe and quick movement of people and services in and around Petersburg. Objectives: Maintain and improve streets in downtown Petersburg. Make harbor and channel improvements necessary to support the fishing and marine trades industry and marine transportation. Provide adequate downtown parking. Construct new roads to serve designated development areas, and vacate unneeded streets. Provide pedestrian sidewalks and pathways in heavily travelled areas. Improve airport services to maintain and increase air travel reliability and accessibility of Petersburg. Maintain and improve ferry and barge travel reliability and accessibility. LAND USE Issues to be studied in great detail: City land disposal policy. Zoning for newly annexed areas. State land disposal on Mitkof and Kupreanof Islands. Should growth be encouraged? Height restrictions on beachfront property. -174- Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. Designate city land for park use. 2. Review all land use in the city. 3. Ensure that zoning can be flexible. Issues to be studied briefly: 1. Revise existing zoning? 2. Development of agricultural areas including aquaculture and seaweed farming. 3. Provide the flexibility for a mix of uses to be allowed in the zoning code (i.e., commercial with residential uses). 4. Development of the beach area on Front Street. Goals: o Sufficient land in each use classification to accommodate anticipated demand or desired levels of use activity. o A pattern of compatible, multiple uses which enhances the city character and wisely uses valuable natural resources. Objectives: © Tailor the amount of land zoned residential, commercial, industrial and park to the expected demand. Encourage compatible, multiple uses. Protect valued natural resources, especially watershed areas. o Encourage orderly, efficient community growth without unduly restricting private property rights. WATERFRONT Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Use of tidelands (sell or lease?) 2. Land use in front of the small boat harbors? 3. Floating businesses and residences. -175- 4. Public restrooms and showers. 5. More parking needed. 6. Singlee Alley renovation. 7. Land use at Scow Bay. 8. Supply of waterfront land for commercial/industrial uses. 9. Priority for marine dependent uses on waterfront land. Issues to be studied briefly: 1. New harbormaster building. 2. Noise from small planes, motorcycles, industrial activities. Goal: o Waterfront development which is compatible with existing activities and with the area's natural resources. Objectives: o Ensure an adequate supply of waterfront land for marine dependent activities. © Make waterfront areas more attractive and comfortable for both residents and visitors. © Use constriction methods that minimize adverse effects on water quality and fishery resources. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION Issue to be studied in great detail: 1. A governmental organization to address issues common to Petersburg and Kupreanof,. Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. Relationships between the city council, school board, hospital board, advisory boards, etc. 2. Harbor advisory committee. 3. Create assessor's advisory group to advise assessor on value of land and improvements. -176- Issues to be studied briefly: 1. 2. Best size of government. Central office for available grants. Goal: ° Ob: A city government which provides for public health and safety and community development in an efficient and equitable manner. jectives: ° Develop an ongoing means of addressing issues common to both Petersburg and Kupreanof. Improve the efficiency and responsiveness of local governments and avoid further increases in the size of local government agencies. Develop land disposal policies, ordinances, and programs. Avoid unnecessary competition between public agencies and private businesses in providing local services, encouraging private organizations to participate with the City in new activities. LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. 2. Equitable taxing of land in city, including newly annexed lands. Debt limits. Levels of taxation. Types of taxation. User charges for city services. Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. 2. Allocation of grant funds. Campensation for local government employees. -177- Goal: © Equitable, efficient generation and distribution of public revenues, at a level adequate to meet the cammunity's needs. Objectives: © Assure that taxing policies are based on equitability, benefits received and long-term community interests. o Assure that City expenditures and grant locations are in the long-term, best interests of the City. -178- KUPREANOF ISSUES AND GOALS The character of the environment is important to the people of Kupreanof. While they want the opportunity to earn a living and build a home, they also want to preserve the streams, forests, and other resources that drew them to the area. Areas such as Petersburg Creek and Coho Creek do not only serve as an attractive backdrop for Kupreanof, but also provide recreational op- portunities for Petersburg residents, and Kupreanof citizens are concerned that their resources be protected. They emphasize self-reliance in their lifestyles and in the manner in which they administer their local government. Yet they are not isola- tionist, and prefer to participate in the social and cultural life of Petersburg and of southeast Alaska in general. The following lists include the issues of importance to Kupreanof and proposed goals and objectives to resolve those issues. NATURAL RESOURCES Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Forest use practices and timber harvest. 2. Identify valued streams and threats to salmon streams. 3. Identify valuable wildlife habitats. 4. Identify traditional hunting, sports and commercial fishing grounds (Duncan Canal, Thomas Bay and Frederick Sound) (protect shrimp/fisheries/recreation/moose hunting). 5. Should plan look at federal and state timber policies and practices relating to timber lands? 6. Re-establish old streams which used to produce fish. 7. Impact of development and timber harvest on deer winter range. 8. Protection of Stikine Delta and Blind Slough for wildlife habitats? 9. Special protection in Kupreanof at Petersburg Creek and Coho Creek. -179- Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. Identify potential salmon hatchery sites. 2. Gravel mining for good quality fill. 3. More firewood areas designated. Issues to be studied briefly: 1. Set aside resource areas for subsistence use. 2. Protection of eagle roosts. Goal: o Protection of natural resources for the long-term best interests of the citizens of Kupreanof. Objectives: o Protect habitats in Kupreanof city limits. Pursue protective status for watersheds draining into Kupreanof. o Encourage sustained yield management of resources outside city limits. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Shortage of water in summer. 2. Adequacy of existing watershed. 3. Coho Creek watershed for water and power. 4. Protection of individual water systems. Goal: © Protection of watershed areas necessary to ensure adequate and safe water supply. -180- Objectives: o Secure jurisdiction of Coho Creek watershed to assure safe, high quality water. o Protect individual water supply systems. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Promotion of maximum sustainable yield for natural resources. 2. Effects and feasibility of Stikine development (i.e., hydroelectric projects, mining, deep-water port and roadway). Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. More non-seasonal employment. 2. Additional equipment servicing facilities for fishermen such as haul-outs and gear repair. 3. Improved air freight for export of fresh fish. Issues to be studied only briefly: 1. Review problems and opportunities of mining and its impact on communities. 2. Government incentives for economic development (i.e., tax incentives for new or risky businesses). Goal: o A stable local economy based on use of renewable resources without permanent changes to the character of the landscape around Kupreanof. Objective: © Maintain existing level of fishing industry. -181- HOUSING Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Subdivision development. 2. More seasonal housing. 3. Develop land? More city lots. Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. Best housing combinations (i.e., high quality housing?) Issues to be studied briefly: 1. More subsidized housing. 2. Revise zoning to show separate zoning classification for duplexes. 3. Housing rehabilitation. Goal: © Opportunities for the development of homes that are affordable and reflect individual lifestyles. SOCIAL SERVICES Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Hospital expansion (what to do with old wing). 2. Community school development (what should be the uses and priorities for new school facilities?) 3. Alcoholism and drug abuse. Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. Public health nurse. 2. Mental health. 3. Magistrate Court. 4. Youth programs. -182- 5. Supplemental education (early childhood and teacher's aides). How much should the city subsidize social services? Issue to be studied briefly: 1. Daycare. Issue not prioritized. 1. Senior citizen's needs. Goal: © Social services available on a regional level to meet the social, health, educational, and cultural needs of the community. PUBLIC SAFETY Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Fire equipment (i.e., all-terrain vehicle or fireboat). 2. Boat speeds in harbor and narrows areas. 3. Air pollution fram Petersburg Fisheries and Ohmer's Cannery. 4. Emergency equipment for EMT or Fire Department. Issue to be studied in some detail: l. Provide a city hall. Issue to be studied briefly: 1. Evacuation plan (civil defense). Goal: o Public safety protection suited to the isolated character of the community. -183- Objectives: © Develop a local fire-fighting capability. o Establish a system for identifying, halting, and preventing outbreaks of environmental pollution which present a health hazard. © Provide for the safe operation of marine activities. RECREATION Issue to be studied in great detail: 1. Renovate Coho Creek Trail to Duncan Canal. Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. Cross-country ski trails. 2. Better cooperation between schools and City. 3. Waterfowl viewing sites and scenic turnouts. Issues to be studied briefly: 1. Upgrade trap/skeet/archery range. 2. Ice skating. 3. Identify sport fishing sites. Goal: o Recreational opportunities for Kupreanof residents and for visitors, based on the natural character of the surroundings. Objectives: o Improve and expand the trail system. o Develop facilities for sports fishing. -184- PUBLIC UTILITIES © Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Extension of electricity from Tyee to Kupreanof. 2. Backup electric source to Tyee. 3. On-site sewage disposal opportunities. 4. Garbage and refuse dump sites. 5. Location of power plant and substations. 6. Low head hydroelectric power. 7. Waste recycling. 8. Waste disposal from fish processing plant. Goal: © Dependable, adequate public utilities to meet existing and future needs. Objectives: o Pursue extension of electric power to Kupreanof at an affordable cost. Encourage safe and economical disposal of solid waste. o Develop and utilize small-scale local energy resources. © Provide satisfactory quality, reliable year-round water service from individual or community sources to all area users. TRANSPORTATION Issues to be studied in greater detail: 1. Harbor and port improvements. 2. Development of trail system on Kupreanof. 3. Development of low-tide skiff floats on Kupreanof. 4. Relocation of docks at Kupreanof to give access to public right-of-way. -185- Issues to be studied in some detail: 1. Dredging of Wrangell Narrows. 2. How to dispose or use unconstructed street right-of-ways. Issues to be studied briefly: 1. Deep water port at south Mitkof Island. 2. Road to Kake. 3. Improve ferry service schedules to Sitka. 4. Mooring for boat houses. Goal: © Adequate facilities for transportation of people and services to, fran, and within Kupreanof. Objectives: o Provide a commnity trail system for foot travel. © Develop a community small-boat dock. LAND USE Issues to be studied in great detail. 1. City land disposal policy. 2. State land disposal. 3. Should growth be encouraged? 4. Designate city land for park use. 5. Review all land use in the city. 6. Special attention for Petersburg Creek, Sasby Island, and Coho Creek. -186- Issues to be studied briefly: 1. Revise existing zoning? 2. Development of agricultural areas including aquaculture and seaweed farming. 3. Provide the flexibility for a mix of uses to be allowed in the zoning code (i.e., cammercial with residential uses). Goal: © Land use which preserves the low-density, isolated character of Kupreanof. Objectives: o Limit the amount of residential zoned land by minimum lot size standards. © Encourage multiple uses where campatible with the community's character. © Protect valued natural resources, especially watershed areas. WATERFRONT Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Use of tidelands (sell or lease?) 2. Encourage or discourage floating businesses and residences. 3. Noise from small planes, motorcycles, industrial activities. 4. Adequate supply of waterfront for commercial/industrial uses. 5. Give marine dependent uses priority on waterfront land. Goal: o Waterfront facilities which are compatible with both residential needs and natural resources. -187- Objectives: o Encourage public or private development of additional small-boat docks to serve Kupreanof. © Minimize adverse effects of waterfront construction on water quality and intertidal habitat. KUPREANOF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION Issues to be studied in great detail: 1. Alternative forms of government. 2. A governmental organization to address issues common to Petersburg and Kupreanof,. Issue to be studied in some detail: 1. Relationships between the city council, school board, hospital board, advisory boards, etc. Issues to be studied briefly: 1. Best size of government. 2. Central office for available grants. Goal: © A local government for Kupreanof that allows the maximum citizen participation. Objective: © Allow for frequent rotation of responsibilities among citizens volunteering to serve and elected as public officials. -188- LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE Issue to be studied in great detail: 1. User charges for city services. Issue to be studied in some detail: 1. Allocation of grant funds. Goal: o Use of public revenues in an efficient manner, and in amounts which are adequate to meet Kupreanof's needs. Objective: o Assure that City expenditures and grant allocations are in the long-term best interests of Kupreanof. © Undertake programs which the City of Kupreanof can accomplish at its present level of volunteer participation. -189- 10. 11. 12. 13. REFERENCES CITED Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs. Selected 1970 Census Data for Alaska Communities. March 1974. Alaska Dept. of Labor. Office of the Commissioner, Research and Analysis Section. Statistical Quarterly. Various years. Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities. June, 1980. Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan, State of Alaska, Planning and Programming Section, Southeast Region. Alaska Transportation Commission. Air Carrier Quarterly Operating Reports. 1980-1981. Bloom, Arthur M. 1978. Sitka Blacktailed Deer Winter Range in the Kadashan Bay Area, Southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.108-112. Brown and Caldwell, and Arctic Environmental Engineers. 1981. Anchorage, Alaska. Wastewater System Analysis. City of Petersburg Charter. Sections 4.8, 6.5, 10.4, 11.2, 14.1, 14.2. Combs, Earl R. Nov. 1980. System Strategy to Support Fisheries Devel- opment in Alaska. Prepared for the Econamic Development Adminis- tration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. Congleton, J.L. 1979. Feeding Patterns of Juvenile Chum Salmon in the Skagit River Salt Marsh. Fish Food Habits Studies. Proceedings of the Second Pacific Northwest Technical Workshop. University of Washington, SeaGrant Publication. WSG-WO-79-1. Del Moral, R. and A.F. Watson. 1978. Vegetation on the Stikine Flats, Southeast Alaska. Northwest Science. 52:2 pp. 137-150. Finite Resources, Inc., Nov. 20, 1980. Southeast Alaska Solid Waste Management Study. Prepared for Southeast Conference EPA Technical Panels Program. Franklin, Jerry F., and C.T. Dyrmess. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. General Technical Publication PNW-8. Portland, Oregon. Harris, Arland S., and Wilbur A. Farr. 1974. Forest Ecology and Timber Management. Vol. 7, in: The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska. U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-25. -190- 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Healey, M.C. 1979. Detritus and Juvenile Salmon Production in the Nanaimo Estuary: I. Production and Feeding Rates of Juven- ile Chum Salmon (Onchorhynchns keta). Journal Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 36: 488-496. Hutchinson, O.K., and V.J. LaBau. 1975. Timber Inventory, Harvesting, Marketing, and Trends. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-34. International City Management Association. National Summary of Functional Distribution of. Municipal Governments' Expenditure by Major Cateaory of Expense, 1976 - 77. The Municipal Year Book. 1980. Chicago, Illinois. International Engineering Co. Inc., December 1979. Tyee Lake Hydro- electric Project. Bradfield Canal, Alaska. Definite Project Report. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. McNeely, Dennis C., February 1980. Recommendations for the Develop- ment of Petersburg General Hospital. Prepared for the City of Petersburg, Alaska. Petersburg Municipal Code. 1980. A Codification of the General Ordinances of the City of Petersburg, Alaska. Petersburg Municipal Power and Light Utility Recap. Records fran 1977 - 1981. Scott, Michael, J. 1980. Prospects for a Bottomfish Industry in Alaska. Alaska Review of Social and Econamic Conditions. University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Vol. XVII, No. 1. Simenstad, Charles A., and William J. Kinney. 1978. Trophic Relationships of Out-Migrating Chum Salmon in Hood Canal, Washington, 1977. Report prepared for Washington State Dept. of Fisheries. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute. Seattle. Smith, James E. 1977. A Baseline Study of Invertebrates and of the Environmental Impact of Intertidal Log Rafting on the Snohomish River Delta. Final Report 77-2. Washington Cooperative Fishery Research Unit. University of Washington, Seattle. Stokes, Robert. 1979. Alaska Groundfish: A Financial Feasibility Analysis. Proceedings of the Alaska Science Conference. Ueda, Micheko, and David Darr. The Japanese Housing Market. U.S.F.S. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing. 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1981. -191- 27. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Survey of Current Business. Various years. 28. Wolff, E.N., and L.E. Heiner. 1971. Mineral Resources of Southeastern Alaska. University of Alaska Mineral Industry Research Laboratory. Report No. 28. -192-