The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCoastal Policy Council Review of Ketchikan Coastal Management Program 1983KET 004 01 A3SLH TATE OF ALASKA /“"- OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR FOMEAU JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811 PHONE: (907) 465-3568 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION RECEIVED September 12, 1983 SEP 1 4 1983 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Dear ACMP Participant: Subject: Coastal Policy Council Review osfKeEhikan) Coastal Management Program The Ketchikan Gateway Borough Coastal Management Program has been submitted to the Coastal Policy Council (CPC) for review and approval. Enclosed is the review packet for the district program which includes the following items: 1. The Ketchikan Coastal Management Program document. 23 Review schedule. 34 Findings and conclusions on the conceptually approved district program prepared by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough (green copy). 4. Preliminary findings and conclusions on the conceptually approved district program prepared by the Office of Coastal Management (OCM). The distribution of findings and conclusions by this office begins the formal review period preceding Coastal Policy Council consideration of the Ketchikan Coastal Management Program. Review procedures are outlined in 6 AAC 85.150. The review period for the enclosed findings and conclusions is 45 days. Comments must be received by October 26. Comments should be directed to the Coastal Policy Council through the Office of Coastal Management at Pouch AW, Juneau, Alaska 99811. They may be delivered to 211 Fourth Street, Third Floor, Juneau. Revised findings and conclusions will be sent to those who comment on the preliminary findings and conclusions. Enclosed is a map to supplement the maps in the program document. The map shows the current corporate limits of the City of Ketchikan. Reviewers should note that the City of Ketchikan corporate limits are not the same as those of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. The current corporate limits of the City of Ketchikan only include a ACMP Participant -2- September 12, 1983 small portion of the Borough. Many of the plan policies address areas within the city only and therefore it is important to refer to this map for an understanding of the respective boundaries. gaviaoan Thank you for your continuing interest in the Alaska Coastal ro(Management Program. If you have questions about this program, ‘please contact David Cohen at 465-3562. TACHI UA FAWOD ARZALA oes <p Re ead 7 im Ayer , Coordinator “coastal Management, Division of Governmental Coordination ir Enclosure cc/encs Coastal Policy Council Ketchika Lamers po] pS ae 2” KETCHIKAN, ALASKA Schedule for Coastal Policy Council Review of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Coastal Management Program September 12 October 26 November 10 December 8-9 lr The program, the Office of Coastal Management's preliminary recommendations, and the district's findings and conclusions are distributed. 45-day review period begins. Closing date for 45-day review period; comments must be received by this date. Revised findings and conclusions distributed. Projected date of Coastal Policy Council meeting. Preliminary Findings and Conclusions September 12, 1983 District: Ketchikan Gateway Borough Document: Ketchikan District Coastal Management Program July 1983 Action: Coastal Policy Council consideration of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Coastal Management Program. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough coastal management program has been submitted to the Coastal Policy Council. The Division of Govern- mental Coordination, Office of Coastal Management (OCM), as staff to the Council, has reviewed the Ketchikan Coastal Management Program (KCMP) to determine whether it meets the requirements of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) Standards and Cuidelines (6 AAC 80 and 6 AAC 85). The attached findings and conclusions on the KCMP present the results of the review. The findings and conclusions display the text of each ACMP standard and guideline. A boldface line in the left margin indicates the text of these existing ACMP regulations. The "findings" indicate how the KCMP has addressed each requirement. The "conclusions" indicate whether each requirement has been met. in addition, for the standards of 6 AAC 80, the text of the enforceable policies of the KCMP that address each of the stan- dards has been included. OCM has also indicated whether they supplement the existing standards. This is intended to aid reviewers in comprehending the impact of the policies that Ketchikan is asking the Council to adopt. The enforceable policies of the KCMP are presented in Chapter VI of the program document. The numbering of the policies in the KCMP is retained. Distribution of the conceptually-approved KCMP and the preliminary findings and conclusions initiates the Council's formal review process. The review must be concluded within 90 days. Comments on these recommendations are due by October 26 and should be submitted to OCM. Summary The Ketchikan coastal management program has developed policies for the populated portion of the borough. The existing ACMP standards and guidelines will continue to apply to development in the outlying areas of the Borough. Ketchikan may develop policies for these areas at a future date. The goals, objectives and policies of the KCMP are presented in Chapter VI of the program document. The policies presented are comprehensive and provide good direction for future development and preservation of the Ketchikan environment. OCM has concluded that the Ketchikan coastal management program is substantially consistent with the ACMP and recommends that the district program be approved by the Council. lr Materials Considered in Preliminary Findings and Conclusions Ketchikan Gateway Borough Coastal Management Program September 12, 1983 Ketchikan District Coastal Management Program (KCMP). Prepared by Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department. July 1983. Ketchikan Coastal Management Program, Public Hearing Draft. Prepared by Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department. July 1982. District Record File on Ketchikan Coastal Management Program. Maintained by the Office of Coastal Management. KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 6 AAC 80.040. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT. (a) In planning for and approving development in coastal areas, districts and state agencies shall give, in the following order, priority to (1) (2) (3) water-dependent uses and activities; water-related uses and activities; and uses and activities which are neither water-dependent nor water-related for which there is no feasible and prudent inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity. NEW_POLICY: Se Bisy Cs {| Note: Non-water-related commercial use of waterfront areas within the City of Ketchikan are allowed where water-dependent or water-related uses are not feasible or prudent (p. VI-6). New small commercial/industrial waterfront developments shall be encouraged to locate in currently available, suit- able, and accessible areas on the Revilla side of Tongass Narrows, including the Ketchikan Northern Terminal area (p. VI-6). New major commercial/industrial waterfront developments shall be encouraged to locate on the Airport Reserve (pro- vided that the planned activity does not restrict or endanger aviation uses), and on George Inlet adjacent to and south of White River (p. VI-6). The pierhead line depicted in the Waterfront Development and Management Study Phase Two Summary shall be adopted as a guide in determining the limit of seaward construction of waterfront development projects (p. VI-6). The environmental sensitivity (Figure II-14, p. I1-43) and waterfront development suitability (Figure III-9, p. III-29) analyses shall be used as guides for determining where waterfront development should and should not be directed (p. VI-4). [Note: This policy is also considered a habitat policy and is repeated under 6 AAC 80.130.) Major waterfront development shall be allowed in the iden- tified environmentally sensitive areas (Figure II-14, page II-43), if there is a public need for the proposed develop- ment and if the identified resource values are not signifi- cantly impaired (p. VI-4). The Borough intends to enact a zoning ordinance that shall incorporate: KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 1) 2) A Waterfront Industrial Zone. A Waterfront Commercial Residential Zone. Within these zones, the following land use priorities shall apply: a. Water-dependent uses and activities; b. Water-related uses and activities; c. Other compatible uses, including recreational uses (p. VI-6 B 4 a)]. & Finding: The policies replace existing Standard 6 AAC 80.040(a). Conclusion: The policies are consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). (b) The placement of structures and the discharge of dredged or fill material into coastal water must, at a minimum, comply with the standards contained in Parts 320-323, Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (Vol. 42 of the Federal Register, pp. 37133 - 47 (July 19, 1977)). NEW POLICY: RT Bids. te The use of piling supported or floating structures shall be encouraged over those requiring solid tideland fills (p. VI-5). Tideland fill for residential, commercial and/or industrial uses shall be allowed within the City of Ketchikan in areas not environmentally sensitive (p. VI-5). Tideland fill for water-related commercial and/or industrial uses shall be allowed in areas not environmentally sensitive which lie outside the City of Ketchikan (p. VI-5). Tideland fill above mean high water to be used for non water-related commercial and/or industrial uses shall be allowed in areas not environmentally sensitive that lie out- side the City of Ketchikan (p. VI-5). Tideland fill above mean high water outside the City shall be allowed on subdivided property that does not lie within an environmentally sensitive area or in a potential indus- trial/commercial waterfront development area (p. VI-5). If the State should choose to grant tideland leases, first preference to upland property owners shall be considered (pe VIES):; Float homes shall be recognized as an approved use of pri- vate and State tidelands in all residential zones where: -2- KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 > Finding: 1) Adequate sewage treatment (marine sanitation devices) and/or tidal flushing exists. 2) The float homes are moored in an least 15 feet of water at mean high water. 3) The presence of a float house will not jeopardize access to another's upland property. 4) There is no obstruction to use of navigable waters (p. VI-5). State tideland leases and Army Corps of Engineers permits for log dumps and storage areas shall protect water access to private property and public lands (p. VI-5). The State shall reserve beachfront areas to be used for domestic wood salvaging (p. VI-5). Existing Standard 6 AAC 80.040(b) remains in effect and is supplemented by policies noted above. Conclusion: Policies are consistent with the ACMP. 6 AAC 80.050. GEOPHYSICAL HAZARD. (a) Districts and state agencies shall identify known geophysical hazard areas and areas of high development potential in which there is a substantial possibility that geophysical hazards may occur. a Finding: Pages II-32 to II-35 address geophysical hazard areas. Figure II-1l, p. II-33, displays locations of fault lines, flood areas, known avalanche paths, known landslide areas, V-notched drainages and steep slopes having a potential for avalanches and landslides. Soils and homesite suitability are identified at pp. II-2 to II-4. Figure II-1 illustrates soils--homesite suitability. Conclusion: The requirements have been met. (b) Development in areas identified under (a) of this section may not be approved by the appropriate state or local authority until siting, design, and construction measures for minimizing property damage and protecting against loss of life have been provided. NEW POLICY: G.3. a, A ten-foot strip of open space encompassing each side of the natural floodplain of Ketchikan, Carlanna, Hoadley, and Whipple Creeks, shall be managed for safety and public aesthetics (p. VI-13). KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 % Finding: This policy supplements existing Standard 6 AAC 80.050(b). Conclusion: The policy is consistent with the ACMP. [Note: The Borough intends to study and survey probable shoreline limits of storm surges to support construction restrictions in water- front zones (p. VI-6).] 6 AAC 80.060. RECREATION. (a) Districts shall designate areas for recreational use. Criteria for designation of areas of recreational use are (1) (2) the area receives significant use by persons engaging in recreational pursuits or is a major tourist destination; or the area has potential for high quality recreational use because of physical, biological, or cultural features. NEW POLICY: TI ET Fil. a. The following areas and trails shall be retained, classified, and/or managed as recreational resources (p. VI-11): * Naha River and Jordan and Heckman Lakes. * Ward Lake. a State public interest lands on the Mountain Point shoreline. = Black Sands Beach. * Blank Islands. * Harriet Hunt area. * Silvis Lake. * Loop trail connecting Deer Mountain, White River, Harriet Hunt, and Second Waterfall Creek. . State Public Interest Lands at South Point Higgins. * Setiler's Cove. es Rotary Beach. x Refuge Cove; State property along Sunset Drive, USS 3681, Lots 1, 2, and 3. KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 { Note: & Finding: - State property at Survey Point, USS 3275, Lots 201 and 201A. * Beach on southeast end of Pennock Island. a State property at Survey Point USS 3762, Coast Guard Beach. * Perseverance Lake and Trail. All reasonable measures shall be taken to protect the scenic and recreational values of the Whipple Creek drainage, par- ticularly when developing timber harvesting and residential development plans for the area (p. VI-12). Public beach designations, swimming areas, camping sites, toilets and picnic facilities shall be increased and improved. Additional cabins shall be funded and constructed in remote areas (p. VI-12). A trail system shall be developed and maintained through the cooperative participation of the Borough, the State, Cape Fox Corporation, and the Forest Service (p. VI-12). Recreational boat and seaplane launching sites and facilities shall be increased and improved along the roaded system; and docking facilities, tie-up buoys, and floats shall be provided in remote areas suitable for recreational use (p. VI-8). Figure II-9 on p. II-26 shows the location of recreation areas.] The Borough has designated areas of recreational use through the above policies. Further discussion of recrea- tion is found on pp. II-25 through 30. Conclusion: The policies are consistent with the ACMP. (b) Districts and State agencies shall give high priority to maintain- ing and, where appropriate, increasing public access to coastal water. NEW_POLICY: SRT PETE 92 F.1. g. Trails and access corridors to and along public beaches, including appropriate easements and rights-of-way, shall be marked and publicized to encourage greater public use (p. VI-12). Capital improvements to waterfront property owned by the local, State and Federal governments shall incorporate walk- ways, shelters, and landscaping to facilitate public access and increase public enjoyment (p. VI-13). KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 c. Non-motorized public access to and along the waterfront and corridors providing unobstructed views shall be required in all future commercial waterfront development (p. VI-13). b Finding: The policies supplement existing Standard 6 AAC 80.060(b). Conclusion: The policies are consistent with the ACMP. SRRRROANRREIN S9 To TS 6 AAC 80.070. ENERGY FACILITIES. (a) Sites suitable for the development of major energy facilities must be identified by districts and the state in cooperation with dis- tricts. (b) The siting and approval of major energy facilities by districts and state agencies must be based, to the extent feasible and prudent, on the following standards . [Note: The full text of the standards is not repeated here. |] NEW POLICY: PBI EAAN. EP MELT D.3. a. Federal, State, and local land use decisions in the Ketch- ikan area shall protect the community's options to develop the following sites for hydroelectric power generation: . Near-term potential--Lake Grace, Swan Lake, Mahoney Lake, and Lake Whitman. = Long-range potential--Lake Perseverance. 2 Finding: The existing Standard 6 AAC 80.070 remains in effect and is supplemented by the above policy. Conclusion: The policy is consistent with the ACMP. SA A AT ES YE EE ES 6 AAC 80.080. TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES. (a) Transportation and utility routes and facilities in the coastal area must be sited, designed, and constructed so as to be compatible with district programs. (b) Transportation and utility routes and facilities must be sited inland from beaches and shorelines unless the route or facility is water-dependent or no feasible and prudent inland alternative exists to meet the public need for the route or facility. NEW POLICY: SOAR TE C.l.a. Prior to disposal of State and Borough lands, public access routes, such as roads and trails, shall be identified and dedicated (p. VI-7). KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 b. For subdivisions beyond the existing road system, water- front access, trails, and/or stairways shall be recognized as reasonable access; however, reservations for future road access must be adequately considered prior to plat approvals (p. -VI-7). c. During the short-range (at lease five years), the shoreline north of Settler's Cove shall be accessible via water, air, and trail only (p. VI-7). d. Future roads and highways in waterfront development areas shall be located inland insofar as possible in order to maxi- mize the amount of waterfront property available for water- related uses (p. VI-7). e. A White River loop road connecting the south end of the Tongass Highway to the Harriet Hunt area shall be supported, constructed, and opened to public use in accordance with development plans of the Cape Fox Corporation and projected commercial/industrial waterfront development adjacent to and south of White River (p. VI-7). fi. Adequate public access (improved ferry service or a hard link) to future commercial/industrial development on the Airport Reserve shall be encouraged, ensured, and/or provided (p. VI-7). C.2. a. Small boat harbors shall be systematically created and/or expanded to provide approximately 300 new stalls at the preferred sites discussed on page III-26 by the year 2000 (p.) Vi-8) d. Provisions of additional marine fueling facilities for small crafts shall be supported and encouraged (p. VI-8). e. Additional transient barge moorage shall be supported and encouraged, particularly in less congested areas (p. VI-8). Cie Corridors for power transmission lines shall be identified and reserved to allow delivery of power to meet future needs and shall be sited inland from beaches and shorelines unless no prudent inland alternative exists (p. VI-10). 2 Finding: These policies supplement the existing Standard 6 AAC 80.080. Conclusion: The policies are consistent with the ACMP. EP APPEL DO Ta LE SLA LIEN DL GI TALES SEE AEE ATTEN TEE 6 AAC 80.090. FISH AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING. Districts shall identify and may designate areas of the coast suitable for the location or development of facilities related to commercial fishing and seafood processing. KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September l2, 1983 & Finding: Fishery resources and their importance to Ketchikan are discussed at pp. II-12 to II-17. The location and develop- ment of aquaculture facilities is found at p. II-16. Fishery policies are described at p. VI-II. No specific sites are identified for the location and development of facilities related to commercial fishing and seafood processing, how- ever waterfront development areas are discussed at p. V-5. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. CEES A CT 6 AAC 80.100. TIMBER HARVEST AND PROCESSING. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the statutes pertaining to and the regulations and procedures of the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations with respect to the harvest and processing of timber are incorporated into the Alaska coastal manage- ment program and constitute the components of the coastal management program with respect to those purposes. NEW POLIGY: ENE A.2.b. Support, through State and Federal permit review and appropriate zoning, shall be given for the expansion of log storage areas where there is documented good natural tide flushing action to minimize build-up of bark and wood chips (p. VI-2). d. State and Borough land management programs shall include provisions for small timber sales on commercial timber lands having either road or shoreline access (p. VI-2). » Finding: The existing Standard 6 AAC 80.100 remains in effect and is supplemented by the above policies. [Note: Local advisory criteria for siting of log storage areas is found on p. II-10.] Conclusion: The policies are consistent with the ACMP. ETRY TNT A 6 AAC 80.110. MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING. (a) Mining and mineral processing in the coastal area must be reg- ulated, designed, and conducted so as to be compatible with the standards contained in this chapter, adjacent uses and activities, statewide and national needs, and district programs. NEW POLICY: SANT A.4. a. Land management programs shall identify accessible, high quality rock, sand, and gravel sites outside environmentally sensitive areas (Figure II-14) and allow for their excavation with minimal impact to the surrounding landscape. Where -gs- KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 appropriate, a materials extraction plan shall be prepared for large intensive use sites (p. VI-3). b. Reasonable and prudent development within the scope of proven technology and reasonable surface access to all valid existing and future mining claims shall be given due consid- eration by all involved levels of government in their review of mining developments (p. VI-3). B Finding: The existing standard 6 AAC 80.110 remains in effect and is supplemented by the above policies. {[Note: Discussion of minerals and mining is found on pp. II-22 to 11-25. Specific information on the Quartz Hill Molybdenum Mine development is located on pp. VI-6 to VI-8.] Conclusion: The policies are consistent with the ACMP. (b) Sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits, when there is no feasible and prudent alternative to coastal extraction which will meet the public need for the sand and gravel. P Finding: The existing Standard 6 AAC 80.110(b) remains in effect. (a) (b) ic) (d) (e) 6 AAC 80.120. SUBSISTENCE. Districts and state agencies shall recognize and assure oppor- tunities for subsistence usage of coastal areas and resources. Districts shall identify areas in which subsistence is the domi- nant use of coastal resource. Districts may, after consultation with appropriate state agencies, Native corporations, and any other persons or groups, designate areas identified under (b) of this section as subsistence zones in which subsistence uses and activities have priority over all non- subsistence uses and activities. Before a potentially conflicting use or activity may be authorized within areas designated under (c) of this section, a study of the possible adverse impacts of the proposed potentially conflicting use or activity upon subsistence usage must be conducted and appropriate safeguards to assure subsistence usage must be provided. Districts sharing migratory fish and game resources must submit compatible plans for habitat management. Dp Finaing: Subsistence fish harvest areas are identified in Figure II-4 on p. II-13. Discussion of the subsistence fishery is found on p. II-14, Information on subsistence and sport hunting -9- KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 a is located on p. II-18. Policies related to commercial, sub- sistence and sport fisheries are found on p. VI-3. Policy B.2.a. requires that access be maintained to traditional subsistence areas along the shoreline. The existing State standards remain in effect. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. 6 AAC 80.130. HABITATS. (a) Habitats in the coastal area which are subject to the Alaska Coastal Management program include (1) offshore areas; (2) estuaries; (3) wetlands and tideflats; (4) rocky islands and seacliffs; (5) barrier islands and lagoons; (6) exposed high energy coasts; (7) rivers, streams, and lakes; and (8) important upland habitat. (b) The habitats contained in (a) of this section must be managed so as to.maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the habitat which contribute to its capacity to support living resources. (c) In addition to the standard contained in (b) of this section, the following standards apply to the management of the following habitats: (1) offshore areas must be managed as a fisheries conservation zone so as to maintain or enhance the state's sport, com- mercial, and subsistence fishery; (2) estuaries must be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, natural circulation patterns, nutrients, and oxygen levels, and avoid the discharge of toxic wastes, silt, and destruction of productive habitat; (3) wetlands and tideflats must be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, nutrients, and oxygen levels and avoid adverse effects on natural drainage patterns, the destruction of important habitat, and the discharge of toxic substances; (4) rocky islands and seacliffs must be managed so as to avoid the harassment of wildlife, destruction of important habitat, and the introduction of competing or destructive species and predators; (5) barriers islands and lagoons must be managed so as to maintain adequate flows of sediments, detritus, and water, avoid the alteration or redirection of wave energy which would lead to the filling in of lagoons or the erosion of barrier islands, and discourage activities which would de- - 10 - KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 (6) (7) crease the use of barrier islands by coastal species, includ- ing polar bears and nesting birds; high energy coasts must be managed by assuring the adequate mix and transport of sediments and nutrients and avoiding redirection of transport processes and wave energy; and rivers, streams, and lakes must be managed to protect natural vegetation, water quality, important fish or wildlife habitat and natural water flow. (d) Uses and activities in the coastal area which will not conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section may be allowed by the district or appropriate state agency if the follow- ing are established: Q) (2) (3) there is a significant public need for the proposed use or activity; there is no feasible prudent alternative to meet the public need for the proposed use or activity which would conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section; and all feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section will be taken. (e) In applying this section, districts and state agencies may use appropriate expertise, including regional programs referred to in sec. 30(b) of this chapter. NEW POLICY: CERO B.2.a. Eid. Bs E.2. a. The environmental sensitivity (Figure II-14) and waterfront development suitability (Figure III-9) analyses shall be used as guides for determining where waterfront development should and should not be directed. [Note: This policy is also repeated under 6 AAC 80.040. Environmentally sensitive areas are explained on page II-41.] Where practicable, critical deer winter range areas shall be protected. Greenbelt access corridors between shoreline ad upland deer habitats shall be provided (p. VI-10). Local, State, and Federal land management programs shall protect eagle nesting trees. No construction shall take place within 330 feet of a tree with an active eagle nest without first consulting the local Fish and Wildlife Service, and development within this radius shall be limited to low density residential uses (p. VI-10). All identified anadromous streams and stream banks; bays and coves with significant amounts of freshwater inflow; - ll - KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 and subsistence and sport shellfish areas shall be managed to protect and enhance fisheries resources (p. VI-II). b. Tideland dredge and fill, log storage areas, and other development that may directly cause a loss of fisheries habitat shall not be permitted in the immediate vicinity of areas critical to the productivity of local commercial and subsistence fisheries as referenced on p. II-39 as signifi- cant salmon-producing streams or on Figure II-14 as subsis- tence salmon, clam, and dungeness crab areas or herring beach spawning areas (p. VI-II). {Note: Standards for rocky islands and seacliffs or for exposed high energy coasts are not applicable to the borough, as these habitats are not found there.] b Finding: The policies supplement existing Standard 6 AAC 80.130. In addition, pp. II-37 to II-41 describe and identify habi- tats within the borough. Figure II-13 on p. II-38 shows the location of all coastal habitats. Conclusion: The requirement has been met and the new policies are consistent with the ACMP. SRNR RRS) a 6 AAC 80.140. AIR, LAND, AND WATER QUALITY. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the statutes pertaining to and the regulations and procedures of the Alaska De- partment of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land, and water quality are incorporated into the Alaska coastal management program and, as administered by that agency, constitute the components of the coastal management program with respect to those purposes. NEW POLICY: RTA TTOREIOTI D.1. a. Watershed areas contributing to existing and future potable water supplies shall be protected by buffer strips along streams and lakes supplying community water, measures to minimize erosion, and/or zoning provisions (p. VI-8). Dp Finaing: The existing Standard 6 AAC 80.140 remains in effect and is supplemented by this new policy. Conclusion: Policy is consistent with the ACMP. 6 AAC 80.150. HISTORIC, PREHISTORIC, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. coast which are important to the study, understanding, or illustration 4 Districts and appropriate state agencies shall identify areas of the of national, state, or local history or prehistory. - 12 - KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 NEW_POLICY: H.1. a. The following historic resources shall be protected at their existing sites: * Pennock Island native burial sites, the Loring Sailor Graveyard, and the City of Ketchikan Cemetery. * Remaining public wood streets and walkways through- out the City of Ketchikan. * The Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB) Hall, Old Saxman Totem Park. * The Guard Island lighthouse. = Native petroglyphs and totem poles. n Historic properties survey State and National register nominations (p. VI-13). Cis Prior to disposal of State and borough lands, potential archaeological sites shall be surveyed (p. VI-13). a Finding: The existing Standard 6 AAC 80.150 remains in effect and is supplemented by these policies. (See 6 AAC 85.050 also Pages IlI-5 to III-7 describe the sites in the Ketchikan area. Figure III-1 on p. III-5 shows the approx- imate location of each site. Conclusion: The requirement has been met and the policies are consistent with the ACMP. 6 AAC 80.160. AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION. (a) Any person may recommend to a district or to the council areas to be designated as areas which merit special attention. Districts shall designate in district programs areas which merit special attention. Areas which are not in districts and which merit special attention shall be designated by the council with the concurrence of appropriate state agencies, municipalities, and villages affected by the designation. Designations must include the following information: [Note: The full text of the standards for areas which merit special attention is not reprinted here.] p Finaing: The borough has not proposed any areas which merit special attention for designation in the district program. The Naha River and lagoon area may be considered for designation as an AMSA at a later date. -13- KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 PART 2: DISTRICT PROGRAM GUIDELINES 6 AAC 85.020. NEEDS, OBJECTIVES, AND GOALS. all coastal management needs, objectives, or goals, or the district's Each district program must include a statement of the district's over- comprehensive land and resource use plan. & Finding: Chapter VI of the program presents the borough's goals, objectives and policies. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. RI ES 6 AAC 85.030. ORGANIZATION. Each district program must include a description of the district pro- gram organization for coastal management. Budgetary and staff needs and, where appropriate, a schedule for necessary reorganization must be included. ‘ fb Finding: Chapter VII, Part D describes the district organization for coastal management. Page VII-9 explains who makes consistency determinations. Staff requirements for imple- mentation are found on p. VII-10. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. 6 AAC 85.040. BOUNDARIES. (a) Each district must include a map of the boundaries of the coastal area within the district subject to the district program. Boun- daries must enclose those lands which would reasonably be included in the coastal area and subject to the district program if they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal government. (b) Before council approval of the district program, initial bound- aries must be based on Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska's Coastal Zone (published by the Office of Coastal Management and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1978, a copy of which is on file with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, and which is available from the Office of Coastal Management) and must include the zone of direct interaction and the zone of direct influence. (c) Final boundaries of the coastal area subject to the district pro- gram may diverge from the initial boundaries if the final bound- aries (1) extend inland and seaward to the extent necessary to manage uses and activities that have or are likely to have a direct and significant impact on marine coastal water; and = 4) |= KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 (2) include all transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, saltwater wetlands, islands, and beaches. (d) If the criteria in (c) of this section are met, final boundaries of the coastal area subject to the district program may be based on political jurisdiction, cultural features, planning areas, water- sheds, topographic features, uniform setbacks, or the dependency of uses and activities on water access. » Finding: The Ketchikan district coastal management boundary is described in Chapter I, Section C, starting on p. I-5. A portion of the borough was selected for planning and manage- ment at this time. The boundary of this area is outlined in Figure I-2 on page I-7 and encompasses the populated area of the Ketchikan vicinity. The boundary contains elements required by 6 AAC 85.040(c), as well as all upland areas beyond direct coastal influences. The boundary has been adjusted in accordance with 6 AAC 85.040(d) to be based on the current planning area. For the rest of the borough, the existing coastal boundary will be retained. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. (e) The boundaries of the district must be sufficiently compatible with those of adjoining areas to allow consistent administration of the Alaska coastal management program. > Finding: There are no coastal resource districts adjoining the Ketchikan Borough at this time. a SSI STEED CE SERRE PPE TE SLR PEL LI ET 6 AAC 85.050. RESOURCE INVENTORY. Each district program must include a resource inventory which des- cribes, in a manner sufficient for program development and implemen- tation: (1) habitats listed in 6 AAC 80.130 that are found within or adjacent to the district; » Finding: Coastal habitats within the borough are described on pp. II-37 to II-41. Figure II-13 on p. II-38 shows the location of coastal habitats within the borough. A dis- cussion of fish and wildlife, including a map of fish and wildlife resources, is included in Chapter II, Part D, starting on p. II-12. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. (2) major cultural resources that are found within or adjacent to the district; - 15 - KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 é Finding: Population information is found on p. III-7. A discussion of the Ketchikan economic situation is found in Chapter IV, Part A, starting on p. IV-2. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. t (3) & Finding: major land and water uses and activities which are conducted within or adjacent to the district; Land and water uses are discussed on pp. III-12 to II-2l. Figure III-4 on p. III-13 shows land and water uses within the district. Commercial/industrial waterfront uses are shown in Figure III-6 on p. III-20. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. f (4) b Finding: major land and resource ownership and management responsi- bilities within or adjacent to the Aretrict; an Land ownership is described in Chapter II, Part C, starting on p. III-8. A land ownership map, Figure III-3, is found on p. III-10. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. i (5) & Finding: major historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources which are found within or adjacent to the district. Archeology and history information is located in Chap- ter III, Part A, starting on p. III-2. Figure III-1 on p. III-5 shows the approximate location of archaeological and historical sites within the borough. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. 6 AAC 85.060. RESOURCE ANALYSIS. Each district program must include a resource analysis which des- cribes, in a manner sufficient for program development and implemen- tation Q) (2) (3) significant anticipated changes in the matters identified under sec. 50 of this chapter; an evaluation of the environmental capability and sensitivity of resources and habitat, including cultural resources, for land and water uses and activities; and an assessment of the present and anticipated needs and demands for coastal habitats and resources. - 16- KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 b Finding: Resource analysis information is presented following each segment of the resource inventory information identified in 6 AAC 85.050. Resource inventory and analysis information is found in Chapters II, III, and IV. Chapter V analyzes special issues in the Ketchikan area. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. ETN INCE AD TPE PETE EL ASS OSS 2 AR LT LTT 6 AAC 85.070. SUBJECT USES. Each district program must include a description of the land and water uses and activities which are subject to the district program. The uses and activities mentioned in ch. 80 of this title are, if appli- cable, subject to the district program. ie Finding: Uses subject to the KCMP are listed on p. VII-2. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. 6 AAC 85.080. PROPER AND IMPROPER USES. Each district program must include a description of the uses and activities, including uses of state concern, that will be considered proper, and the uses and activities, including uses of state concern, that will be considered improper within the coastal area, including land and water use designations. This description must be based on the district's statement of overall needs, objectives, or goals, or the district's comprehensive land and resource use plan, under sec. 20 of this chapter, and must be consistent with the standards contained in ch. 80 of this title. ® Finding: Page VII-3 contains a discussion of proper and improper uses. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. 6 AAC 85.090. POLICIES. Each district program must include a summary or statement of the policies that will be applied to land and water uses and activities subject to the district program and the process which will be used to determine whether specific proposals for land and water uses and activities within areas designated for those uses and activities under sec. 80 of this chapter. Districts shall use existing means appro- priate for the evaluation of specific proposals to the greatest extent feasible and prudent. Policies and procedures under this section must be consistent with the standards contained in ch. 80 of this title and must meet the following criteria: (1) comprehensiveness, so as to apply to all uses, activities and areas in need of management; -17 - KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 e (2) specificity, so as to allow clear understanding of who will be affected by the district program, how they will be affected, and whether specific proposals for land and water uses and activities will be allowed; and (3) enforceability, so as to insure implementations of and ad- herence to the district program. Finding: The policies of the KCMP are presented in Chapter VI along panne: P Pp P with the district goals and objectives. The enforceable policies are highlighted in Chapter VI by an asterisk. Policies are evaluated against the ACMP standards in the first half of this packet. Conclusion: The policies meet the requirements of this section. REY 6 AAC 85.100. IMPLEMENTATION. Each district program must include a description of the methods and authority which will be used to implement the district program. Methods and authority must be adequate to insure program implementation, and any additional methods or authority which are required must be specified. Methods and authority include land and water use plans, municipal ordinances and resolutions, (including shoreline, zoning, and subdivision ordinances and building codes), state and Federal statutes and regulations, capital improvement programs, the purchase, sale, lease, or exchange of coastal land and water resources, cooperative agreements, tax exemptions for nondevelopment purchase of development right, memo- randa of understanding, and coordinated project or permit review procedures. 3 Finding: Program implementation is found in chapter VII. Primary implementation tools are the borough's zoning and subdivi- sion ordinances and the permit review process. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. SMR AT 6 AAC 85.110. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Each district program must include evidence of effective and signifi- cant opportunities for public participation in program development under sec. 130 of this chapter. REUTER GA A 6 AAC 85.130. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. (a) No less than two public meetings must be held within the district during program development to inform the public and receive comments concerning the program . { Note: The complete text of the guidelines in this section has not been reprinted. ] - 18 - KETCHIKAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS September 12, 1983 w Finding: Public participation and involvement are described on od pp- 1-4 and 5. Opportunities for public participation and involvement began in 1979 with the appointment of six task force groups. Through public work sessions the task force groups formulated recommendations for the borough assembly. All draft work products were distributed to the public and comments incorporated in subsequent drafts. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. a AAR TS ER SE PP PIE NE SRT 6 AAC 85.140. COORDINATION AND REVIEW. Districts shall provide opportunities for coordination and review by Federal, state, and local governmental agencies, including adjacent districts, and other persons with a significant interest in coastal resources or who are conducting or may conduct uses and activities that have or are likely to have a direct and significant impact on the district's coastal area. Finding: The borough provided review of several drafts of the KCMP. In February 1982, Chapter 1-4 was distributed, followed by a complete review draft in June 1982. A public hearing draft was distributed and widely reviewed July 1982. Conclusion: The requirement has been met. Prepared by the Office of Coastal Management. lr 163/FANDC - 19 - ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM fo. District Programketchikan District Coastal Management Prografjate: 8/1/83 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By: Rochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS rat CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 80.040. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT. (a) In planning for an approving development in coastal areas, districts and state agencies shall give, in the following order, priority to (1) water-dependent uses and activities; (2) water-related uses and activities; and (3) uses and activities which are neither water- dependent nor water-related for which there is no feasible and prudent inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity. (b) The placement of structures and the discharge of dredged or fill material into coastal water must, at a minimum, comply with the stan- dards contained in Parts 320-323, Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, (Vol. 42 of the Federal Register, pp. 37133--47 (July 19, 1977)). (a) addresses this requirement. (b) Chapter VI, Page 6 B. Land & Water Use 4. Objective a. Policy No policy statement complies specifically with these standards, although Chapter VI, page 5; B. Land & Water Use 3. Objective a. Policy b. Policy c. Policy d. Policy e policy, and Page 11; E. Fish & Wildlife 2. Objective b. Policy Speaks to this concern. ee ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM District Program:_Ketchikan District Coastal Management ProgrBate:_ 8/1/83 Page: 22s CONCLUSIONS aes geophysical hazard areas and areas of high development potential in which there is a substan- tial possibility that geophysical hazards may occur. (b) Development in areas identified under (a) of this section may not be approved by the ap- Propriate state or local authority until siting, design, and construction measures for minimizing property damage and protecting against loss of life have been provided. (b) Resource Inventory & Analysis: The Natural Environment H. Geophysical Hazards Page 32,34 covers these areas. Page 33, Figure II-1l further depicts these areas in map form. Chapter VI, pages 6 & 7. B. Land & Water Use 5. Objective a. Policy b. Policy addresses this requirement. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS __ Prepared By:__ Rochelle Rollenhagen ne So ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS 6 AAC 80.050. GEOPHYSICAL HAZARD AREAS. (a) Districts and state agencies shall identify known (a) Chapter 12 FY ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Com District Program:_Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date:_ 8/1/83 w FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By: Rochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS Page:.3 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 80.060. RECREATION. (a) Districts shall (a designate areas for recreational use. Criteria for designation of areas of recreational use are (1) the area receives significant use by per- sons engaging in recreational pursuits or is a major tourist destination; or (2) the area has potential for high quality recreational use because of physical, biological, or cultural features. (b) Districts and state agencies shall give high priority to maintaining and, where appropriate, in- creasing public access to coastal water. (b) (162) Chapter II, Pages 25-30 F. Recreation Describes and identifies areas that address this requirement. Chapter VI, Pages 1l & 12 F. Outdoor Recreation 1. Objective a. Policy ib; “Policy. c. Policy Further designates areas for recreational use. Chapter VI, Pages 7 & 8 C. Transportation 1. Objective c. Policy d. Policy 2. Objective £. Policy Chapter VI, Page 12 F. Outdoor Recreation 1. Objective d. Policy e. Policy £. Policy g- Policy District Program:Ketchikan District Coastal Management Prograjate: 8/1/83 page: 4 ey ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS _—— Prepared By:__ Rochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 80.070. ENERGY FACILITIES. (a) Sites suitable for the development of major energy facilities must be identified by districts and the state in cooperation with districts. (b) The siting and approval of major energy Chapter VI, Page 10 facilities by districts and state agencies must be D. Regional Facilities based, to the extent feasible and prudent, on the 3 Objective following standards: r a. alae (1) site facilities so as to minimize adverse en- b. Policy vironmental and social effects while satisfying in- dustrial requirements; (2) site facilities so as to be compatible with existing and subsequent adjacent uses and pro- jected community needs; (3) consolidate facilities; (4) consider the concurrent use of facilities for public or economic reasons; ‘ (5) cooperate with landowners, developers, and federal agencies in the development of facilities; (6) select sites with sufficient acreage to allow for reasonable expansion of facilities; (7) site facilities where existing infrastructure, including roads, docks, and airstrips, is capable of satisfying industrial requirements; (8) select harbors and shipping routes with least exposure to reefs, shoals, drift ice, and other obstructions; (9) encourage the use of vessel traffic control and collision avoidance systems; (10) select sites where development will re- quire minimal site clearing, dredging and construc- tion in productive habitats (b) Chapter II, Pages 6 & 7 "Hydroelectric Potential" discusses this requirement, and fe. Polity ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Coa District Program:Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date: 8/1/83 Page:__5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS __ Prepared By:___ Rochelle Rollenhagen bability, along shipping routes, of spills or other forms of contamination which would affect fishing grounds, spawning grounds, and other biologically Productive or vulnerable habitats, including marine mammal rookeries and hauling out grounds and waterfowl nesting areas; (12) site facilities so that the design and con- struction of those facilities and support infrastruc- tures in coastal areas of Alaska will allow for the free passage and movement of fish and wildlife with due consideration for historic migratory patterns and so that areas of particular scenic, recreational, environmental, or cultural value will be protected; (13) site facilities in areas of least biological Productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and where effluents and spills can be controlled or contained; (14) site facilities where winds and air currents disperse airborne emissions which cannot be cap- tured before escape into the atmosphere; (15) select sites in areas which are designated for industrial purposes and where industrial traffic is minimized through population centers; and (16) select sites where vessel movements will not result in overcrowded harbors or interfere with fishing operations and equipment. (c) Districts shall consider that the uses authoriz- ed by the issuance of state and federal leases for mineral and petroleum resource extraction are uses of state concern. Pasa Es ey eae [RE aR ee oan a Ee ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 80.070 (continued) (11) site facilities so as to minimize the pro- See Page 4. FY ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM e District Program:Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program pate. 8/1/83 Page: © ee FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By:___ Rochelle Rollenhagen : T BT Ce ee ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS ne meee 6 AAC 80.080. TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES. (a) Transportation and utility routes and | (a) Chapter VI, Page 7 facilities in the coastal area must be sited, design- C. Transportation ed, and constructed so as to be compatible with 1. Objective district programs. a. Policy Addresses this requirement. (b) Transportation and utility routes and facilities must be sited inland from beaches and shorelines unless the route or facility is water-dependent or no (b) Chapter VI, Page 7 feasible and prudent inland alternative exists to C. Transportation meet the public need for the route or facility. 1. Objective a. Péisicy 6 AAC 80.090. FISH AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING. Districts shall identity and may | Narrative on Chapter II, Pages 12-17 designate areas of the coast suitable for the loca. | Speaks to this requirement, and tion or development of facilities related to commer- cial fishing and seafood processing. Chapter VI, Page ll E. Fish & Wildlife 2. Objective a. Policy b. Policy ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM District ProgramKetchikan Dist. Coastal Management program Date:_8/1/83_ ss Page:__7 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By:__ Rochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 80.100. TIMBER HARVEST AND PROCESS- Chapter VI, Page 2 ING. Notwithstanding any other provision of this A. Economy & Growth chapter, the statutes pertaining to and the regu- 2. Objective lations and procedures of the Alaska Forest Re- a. Policy sources and Practices Regulations with respect to b. Policy the harvest and processing of timber are incorpor- c. Policy ated into the Alaska coastal management program d. Policy and constitute the components of the coastal man- agement program with respect to those purposes. District Program: ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Programn ate: 8/1/83 fer ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page: ssa Prepared By: Rochelle Rollenhagen ae ae eae FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 80.110. MINING AND MINERAL PRO- CESSING. (a) Mining and mineral processing in the coastal area must be regulated, designed, and con- ducted so as to be compatible with the standards contained in this chapter, adjacent uses and ac- tivities, statewide and national needs, and district programs. (b) Sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits, when there is no feasible and prudent alter- native to coastal extraction which will meet the public need for the sand and gravel. 1 (a) (b) Chapter II, Pages 22-25 Discusses minerals and mining. Figures II-7 and II-8, map: rock types and mineral deposits. Chapter VI, Page 3 4. Objective b. Policy Chapter II, Page 25 Discusses sand and gravel deposits. Chapter VI, Page 3 A. Economy & Growth 4. Objective a. Policy Se FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Prepared By: Rochelle Rollenhagen District Program: Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date: 8/1/83 Page: _9 ~ F | ACMP REQUIREMENTS 6 AAC 80.120. SUBSISTENCE. (a) Districts and State agencies shall recognize and assure oppor- tunities for subsistence usage of coastal areas and resources. (a) (b) Districts shall identify areas in which sub- sistence is the dominant use of coastal resources. | (D) (c) Districts may, after consultation with ap- Propriate state agencies, Native corporations, and any other persons or groups, designate areas iden- tified under (b) of this section as subsistence zones |(c) (a) (e) in which subsistence uses and activities have priori- ty over all nonsubsistence uses and activities. (d) Before a potentially conflicting use or activity may be authorized within areas designated under (c) of this section, a study of the possible adverse impacts of the proposed potentially conflicting use or activity upon subsistence usage must be con- ducted and appropriate safeguards to assure sub- sistence usage must be provided. (e) Districts sharing migratory fish and game resources must submit compatible plans for habitat management. T FINDINGS The Ketchikan Coastal Management Program recognizes subsistence usage throughout the plan. Chapter II, Figure II-4, Page 13 Fish and Wildlife identifies these areas. Chapter VI, Pages 3 & 4 A. Economy and Growth 3. Objective a. Policy B. Land and Water Use 2. Objective a. Policy CONCLUSIONS e) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ACMP REQUIREMENTS ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM District Program:_Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date; 8/1/83 Prepared By: Rochelle Rollenhagen FINDINGS 6 AAC 80.130. HABITATS. (a) Habitats in the coastal area which are subject to the Alaska coastal Management program include (1) offshore areas; (2) estuaries; (3) wetlands and tideflats; (4) rocky islands and seaciiffs; (5) barrier islands and lagoons; (6) exposed high energy coasts; (7) rivers, streams, and lakes; and (8) important upland habitat. (b) The habitats contained in (a) of this section must be managed so as to maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the habitat which contribute to its capacity to sup- port living resources. (c) In addition to the standard contained in (b) of this section, the following standards apply to the management of the following habitats: (1) offshore areas must be managed as a fisheries Conservation zone so as to maintain or enhance the state’s sport, commercial, and sub- sistence fishery; (a) (b) ——_—_—+ Chapter II, Pages 37-41 including Figure II-13 Coastal Habitats, describe and identify these habitats. Chapter VI, Pages 10 and 11 1. Objective a. Policy b. Policy e. Policy d. Policy 2. Objective a. Policy bi Policy. Page:__1° CONCLUSIONS FY ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM District Program:Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date:_ 8/1/83 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By: Rochelle Rollenhagen Page:__11 ssi ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS 6 AAC 80.130 (continued) (2) estuaries must be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, natural circulation pat- terns, nutrients, and oxygen levels, and avoid the discharge of toxic wastes, silt, and destruction of Productive habitat; (3) wetlands and tideflats must be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, nutrients, and oxygen levels and avoid adverse effects on natural drainage patterns, the destruction of important habitat, and the discharge of toxic substances; (4) rocky islands and seacliffs must be manag- ed so as to avoid the harassment of wildlife, destruction of important habitat, and the introduc- tion of competing or destructive species and predators; (5) barrier islands and lagoons must be manag- ed so as to maintain adequate flows of sediments, detritus, and water, avoid the alteration or redirec- tion of wave energy which would lead to the filling in of lagoons or the erosion of barrier islands, and discourage activities which would decrease the use of barrier islands by coastal species, including polar bears and nesting birds; (6) high energy coasts must be managed by assuring the adequate mix and transport of sediments and nutrients and avoiding redirection of transport processes and wave energy; and See Page 10. —————————————————_ CONCLUSIONS FY ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Com District Program: Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date:_8/1/83_ Ss Page:_12 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS _ Prepared By:__Rochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 80.130 (continued) (7) rivers, streams, and lakes must be manag- ed to protect natural vegetation, water quality, im- See Page 10. portant fish or wildlife habitat and natural water flow. (d) Uses and activities in the coastal area which will not conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section may be allowed by the district or appropriate state agency if the following are established: (1) there is a significant public need for the proposed use or activity; (2) there is no feasible prudent alternative to meet the public need for the proposed use or activi- ty which would conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section; and (3) all feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with the standards contained In (b) and (c) of this section will be taken. (e) In applying this section, districts and state agencies may use appropriate expertise, Including regional programs referred to in sec. 30(b) of this chapter. ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM District Program:Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date: 8/1/83 Page: 13 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS __ Prepared By:___ Rochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 80.140. AIR, LAND, AND WATER QUALITY. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the statutes pertaining to and the regulations and procedures of the Alaska Depart-. ment of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land, and water quality are in- corporated into the Alaska coastal management Program and, as administered by that agency, con- Stitute the components of the coastal management program with respect to those purposes. Narrative in Chapter II Resource Inventory and Analysis: The Natural Environment addresses this requirement. —$————$ $s ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Page aS & District Program: Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program pate. 8/1/83 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By:__Rochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 80.150. HISTORIC, PREHISTORIC, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Districts and appropriate state agencies shall identify areas of the coast which are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory. Chapter III, Page 5 Figure III-l, Archaeological & Historical Sites identifies these areas. Chapter VI, Page 13 H. History and Archaeology 1. Objective a. Policy FY ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM aaa District Program: Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date:_8/1/83 Page:__15 FINDINGS ANDCONCLUSIONS Prepared By:__Rochelle Rollenhagen FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS fa ACMP REQUIREMENTS 6 AAC 80.160. AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION. (a) Any person may recommend toa | Chapter Vv, Pages 6-11, and district or to the council areas to be designated as Chapter VI, Page 14 areas which merit special attention. Districts shall | +, pyture Planning and Implementation designate in district programs areas which merit 1. Objective special attention. Areas which are not in districts Ee and which merit special attention shall be designated by the council with the concurrence of appropriate state agencies, municipalities, and villages affected by the designation. Designations must include the following Information: Policy addresses this requirement for the Quartz Hill area in the Misty Fjord National Monument. (1) the basis or bases for designation under | Chapter VI, Page 14 AS 46.40.210(1) or (b) of this section; I. Future Planning and Implementation 1. Objective (2) a map showing the geographical location, c. Policy surface area and, where appropriate, bathymetry of the area; (3) a description of the area which includes dominant physical and biological features; (4) the existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of the area, including existing uses and activities; (5) the existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of adjacent shoreland and sea areas, Including existing uses and activities; (6) present and anticipated conflicts among uses and activities within or adjacent to the area, if any; and FY ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Gar District Program:_Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date: 8/1/83 Page:_16 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By:__ Rochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 80.160 (continued) See Page 15. (7) @ proposed management scheme, con- sisting of the following: (A) a description of the uses and activities which will be considered proper and the uses and activities which will be considered improper with respect to land and water within the area; (B) a summary or statement of the policies which will be applied in managing the area; and (C) an identification of the authority which will be used to implement the proposed manage- ment scheme. (b) In addition to the categories contained in AS 46.40.210(1), areas which merit special attention may include the following: (1) areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging; (2) area with special scientific values or oppor- tunities, including those where ongoing research projects could be jeopardized by development or conflicting uses and activities; and (3) potential estuarine or marine sanctuaries. (c) Management schemes for areas which merit special attention must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value or values for which the area was designated. (d) As used in this section, “areas which merit special attention” has the same meaning as in AS aa 49,299), ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ae District Program:Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Plan Date:_ 8/1/83 Page: _17 <2 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS __ Prepared By: 8°chette Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 85.020. NEEDS, OBJECTIVES, AND GOALS. Each district program must include a state- Chapter VI: Goals, Objectives and ment of the district's overall coastal management Policies addresses this requirement needs, objectives, or goals, or the district's com- prehensive land and resource use plan. Chapter I, Pages 3-5 B. Development of Ketchikan's Coastal Management Program, and Figure I-l, Program Development Process 6 AAC 85.030. ORGANIZATION. Each district pro- gram must include a description of the district pro- gram organization for coastal management. Budgetary and staff needs and, where appropriate, a schedule for necessary reorganization must be in- cluded. FY ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM aoa District Program:Kketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date:_ 8/1/83 Page:__18 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS __ Prepared By:_®ochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 85.040. BOUNDARIES. (a) Each district must include a map of the boundaries of the coastal | This entire requirement is addressed area within the district subject to the district pro- | im narrative in: gram. Boundaries must enclose those lands which : would reasonably by Included in the coastal area | Chapter I, Pages 5-8 subject to the district program if they were not sub- | C- Determination of Coastal Zone ject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal Boundaries, and government. Figure I-2, Page 7. (b) Before council approval of the district pro- gram, initial boundaries must be based on Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska's Coastal Zone (published by the Office of Coastal Management and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1978, a copy of which is on file with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, and which is available from the Office of Coastal Management) and must include the zone of direct interaction and the zone of direct influence. (c) Final boundaries of the coastal area subject to the district program may diverge from the initial boundaries if the final boundaries (1) extend inland and seaward to the extent necessary to manage uses and activities that have or are likely to have a direct and significant impact on marine coastal water; and (2) include all transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, saltwater wetlands, Islands, and beaches. (d) If the criteria in (c) of this section are met, final boundaries of the coastal area subject to the district program may be based on political jurisdic- tion, cultural features, planning areas, watersheds, topographic features, uniform setbacks, or the dependency of uses and activities on water ac- cess. (e) The boundaries of the district must be suffi- ciently compatibie with those of adjoining areas to allow consistent administration of the Alaska istal ager rog ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM District Program:Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date: 8/1/83 Page: 9 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By:__Rochelle_ Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 85.050. RESOURCE INVENTORY. Each | (1) Narrative found in Chapter II, district program must include a resource inventory Pages 37-41 and Figure II-13, pagq which describes, in a manner sufficient for program 38 and Table II-1. development and implementation (2) Narrative in Chapter III, Page 2 (1) habitats listed in 6 AAC 80.130 that are and 3, (closely related to (5)). found within or adjacent to the district; (3) Narrative found in Chapter III, pages 12-22 and Figures III-4 page 13; III-5 page 15; III-6 page 20 and III-7 page 21, also Table III-2 page 14. (2) major cultural resources that are found within or adjacent to the district; (3) major land and water uses and activities which are conducted within or adjacent to the district; (4) Narrative found in Chapter III, (4) major land and resource ownership and Pages 8-12, and Figures III-2 Management responsibilities within or adjacent to page 9 and III-3 page 10. the district; and (5) Narrative found in Chapter III, (5) major historic, prehistoric, and ar- Pages 1-7 and Figure III-1 page chaeological resources which are found within or 5. adjacent to the district. ae FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ACMP REQUIREMENTS 6 AAC 85.060. RESOURCE ANALYSIS. Each district program must include a resource analysis which describes, in a manner sufficient for program development and implementation (1) (2) (3) (1) significant anticipated changes in the mat- ters identified under sec. 50 of this chapter; (2) an evaluation of the environmental capabili- ty and sensitivity of resources and habitats, in- cluding cultural resources, for land and water uses and activities; and (3) an assessment of the present and an- ticlpated needs and demands for coastal habitats and resources. Prepared By: ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM District Program: Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date:__ 8/1/83 Rochelle Rollenhagen Chapter II Resource Inventory & The Natural Analysis: Environment, Chapter III, Resource Inventory & Analysif: The Social Environment and Page: 20 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Coe District Program;_Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date: 8/1/83 __- Page:_21 & FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By: ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 85.070. SUBJECT USES. Each district pro- gram must include a description of the land and water uses and activities which are subject to the district program. The uses and activities mentioned in ch. 80 of this title are, if applicable, subject to the district program. Chapter III Page 13, Figure III-4 Land and Water Uses 6 AAC 85.080. PROPER AND IMPROPER USES. Each district program must include a description of Narrative in Chapter VII, Page 3. the uses and activities, including uses of state con- cern, that will be considered proper, and the uses and activities, Including uses of state concern, that will be considered improper within the coastal area, Including land and water use designations. This description must be based on the district's state- ment of overall needs, objectives, or goals, or the district's comprehensive land and resource use plan, under sec. 20 of this chapter, and must be consistent with the standards contained In ch. 80 of this title. ea ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM District Program: Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Programpate: 8/1/83 Page: 22 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By:_ Rochelle Rollenhagen 0 ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 85.090. POLICIES. Each district program must include a summary or statement of the policies | ‘1) (2) Chapter VI, Pages 2-13. that will be applied to land and water uses and ac- tivities subject to the district program and the pro- cess which will be used to determine whether | (3) Chapter VI, Page 14 specific proposals for land and water uses and ac- Ts jpature: Rlenning/ & tivities will be allowed. It shall be the general policy Implementation of the district to approve specific proposals for uses and activities within areas designated for those uses and activities under sec. 80 of this chapter. Districts shall use existing means ap- propriate for the evaluation of specific proposals to the greatest extent feasible and prudent. Policies and procedures under this section must be consis- tent with the standards contained In ch. 80 of this tl- tle and must meet the following criteria: (1) comprehensiveness, so as to apply to all uses, activities and areas in need of management; (2) specificity, 80 as to allow clear understan- ding of who will be affected by the district program, how they will be affected, and whether specific pro- posals for land and water uses and activities will be allowed; and (3) enforceability, so as to insure implementa- tion of and adherence to the district program. FY ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM aa District Program:_Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date: 8/1/83 Page: 23 WE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By:___Rochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS 6 AAC 85.100. IMPLEMENTATION. Each district program must include a description of the methods and authority which will be used to Implement the district program. Methods and authority must be adequate to insure program implementation, and any additional methods or authority which are re- quired must be specified. Methods and authority In- clude land and water use plans, municipal or- dinances and resolutions, (including shoreline, zon- ing, and subdivision ordinances and building codes), state and federal statutes and regulations, capital improvement programs, the purchase, sale, lease, or exchange of coastal land and water resources, cooperative agreements, tax exemp- tions for nondevelopment purchase of development rights, memoranda of understanding, and coor- dinated project or permit review procedures. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS fn Chapter VII, Pages 1-10 fy ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Com District Program: Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program pate, 8/1/83 __ Page:__*4 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By:_ Rochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS —- Ao 6 AAC 85.110. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Each district program must include evidence of effective and significant opportunities for public participation in program development under sec. 130 of this chapter. Chapter I, Page 5. ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM District Program: Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date: 8/1/83 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page:__25 ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS fe Prepared By: Rochelle Rollenhagen CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 85.130. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. (a) No less than two public meetings must be held within the district during program development to inform the public and receive comments concerning the program. A brief summary or report of the matters considered at the public meeting held under this subsection must be prepared by the district, made available to the public, and retained for inclusion in the record file referred to in sec. 150(c) of this chapter. (b) Atleast 60 days before giving conceptual ap- proval to the district program or significant amend- ment to the district program, the district shall give written notice to the council and any person who has requested notice In writing, as well as public notice of the proposed action by conspicuous advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation within the district. In addition, notice must be given by radio and by posting In villages and municipalities within the district. The notice must specify the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed ac- tion and the availability for review of the proposed district program document or significant amend- ment to the district program. The public hearing under this subsection may be held not sooner than 30 days after notice is given. At the public hearing, each person must be given the opportunity to pre- sent statements, arguments, or contentions, orally or in writing. Districts shall insure that, where ap- propriate, translation into the appropriate Native language(s) is provided. The district shall consider ali relevant matter presented to it. A written transcript or electronic recording of the public hear- ing must be submitted to the council. (c) In addition to the requirements of (b) of this section, districts shall provide publicly advertised Opportunities for public Involvement in the develop- ment of all program elements contained In secs. 20 - 110 of this chapter. (a) Chapter I, Pages 2-8. (b) (c) (d) Chapter I, Figure I-6, Page 6: Program Development Process states that in Spring of 1980 the Ketchikan Daily News published and distributed the Task Force Reports over a six week period. This chart documents public hearings. Fy ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Com District Program: Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program Date:_8/1/83___s Page:_ 26 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prepared By:_Rochelle Rollenhagen 00 ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 85.130 (continued) (d) Districts shall provide the public, in a timely See Page. manner and in understandable form, information ex- plaining the district coastal management program, the requirements of public participation in program development, how and when the public may par- ticipate in program development, what information is available, and where that information may be ob- tained. fs ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ae District Program:_Ketchikan Dist. Coastal Management Program pate. 8/1/83 Page: 27 aS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS _ Prepared By:___ Rochelle Rollenhagen ACMP REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 6 AAC 85.140. COORDINATION AND REVIEW. Districts shall provide opportunities for coordination : a and review by federal, state, and local governmen- ee ee tal agencies, including adjacent districts, and other persons with a significant interest in coastal resources or who are conducting or may conduct uses and activities that have or are likely to have a direct and significant impact on the district's coastal area. Pe ee a — al - ET ene ee Se Prepared by: . Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department July 1983 Acknowledgment This project was supported, in part, by Federal Coastal Zone Management Program Implementation Funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 306) granted to the State of Alaska by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH Carroll G. Fader, Mayor Assembly Wes Davidson Jim Elkins Ernest Hansen Richard Whittaker Darrell Thomas Ralph Bartholomew Kathryn Carssow Gary Emard* Al Johnson * Planning Commission Dennis McCarty, Chairperson Judy Lundamo Kathy Johnson-Kuhn Valarie Jackson Ron Short Richard Standerfer Bob Luse Paul Grainger* Eric Muench* Ralph Gregory* Gary Freitag* Ketchikan Area Port Commission Al Ludwick, Chairperson Cliff Taro Chuck LaFray Kirk Thomas Norma Green Edwin Morgan David Hashagen* Administration Marvin Yoder, Borough Manager Planning Department Bill Jones, Planning Director Marilyn Westfall, Projects Director Kate Troll, Associate Planner Jim Jones, Winnie Robb Susan Rydeen, MaryAnn VandeCastle John Robertson, Mike Yeomans, Vicki Fader Consultants Charles Pool and Associates, Inc. George Gee *Former Assembly and Commission Members involved with this planning project Task Forces Industrial/Commercial Waterfront Task Force Members: Chair - Kirk Thomas Sam Young, Anne Shrum, Len Laurance Rural Shorelines Task Force Members: Chair - Al Johnson Bob Watt, John Benson, Linda Elliott Deubner Recreation, Heritage, and Viewsheds Task Force Members: Chair - Barry Roberts Walt Bolling, Ed Zastrow, Tillie Kushnick Fish and Wildlife Task Force Members: Chair - Lucille Holden Ralph Gregory, Glenna Hopper, Jack McBride, Mike Tavoliero Timber and Minerals Task Force Members: Chair - Jason Hayes Ed Thomas, Mike Salazar, Gary Elkins John Garland Watersheds and Hazards Task Force Members: Chair - Eric Muench Charlie Freeman, Lynette Nakazawa, Betty Streeper Coastal Management Supporting Documents Atlas of the Ketchikan Region, Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department, January 1978 Waterfront Development and Management Study, Phase One, Charles Pool & Associates, Inc., December 1980 Waterfront Development and Management Study, Phase Two Summary, Charles Pool & Associates, Inc., Ketchikan Area Port Commission, April 1982 ii I Ir. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ENTRODUGTLON acu sre ets lito reser atest Ste SPS es PET ed eed I-1 Asp WHAT IS) COASTAL, MANAGEMENT 2) 151-5) 5) 5s) eee ts) fe) oe ier ees 1-2 The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. .......... 1-2 The Alaska Coastal Management Act .............. I-2 B. DEVELOPMENT OF KETCHIKAN'S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS teenie tet een nile non 1-3 C. DETERMINATION OF COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES .......... 1-5 DSS FORMATO PR PIGAN eaters ycireictorrebttolsarq-ophle ter e-atesHar+eitrattattreits 1-8 RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS: THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .... II-1 Ais SOIBS a etrattarpettotaite tartar ier hel at peter tiet ak aires et et iet ret rat tet het ts II-2 Beet MATER cepted ret aptrottiesasiteebapprartite etetbramteibebrehiertaktorhertettesttet ab fatehe thats II-4 Water Supply (els. see aa Se TSS II-4 WaterniQualliity iets les edhe sient ste sthe bel lstued stbeciedrert sche Lae obs II-5 Hydroellectrichbotentiali ie eotr testo els kue ti de cueehl il ieee eats II-6 Cares FOREST eeu eel iets det euuiekiecisitlovervelLeh, suerte usu-suitelieialeietie as II-7 FOeStHECOlOGyiemciesit-iisnCMiursnelicestr iiss eer rile nreas II-7 Commerciale Timbeterciccrrreriesewntsp ret heerecehot tet tains hatter barpratetethiot 5 II-7 Timber Harvesting: Concerns) :pesersco- ia tertoy to Merete pewter te tethey ts II-10 DSJCORISHCANDIWILDIETRE css Seles ieee so aten ohne ciation loi skis lhs II-12 FishentesiiResourcesireuieitureiionteisune tickle mrcue suena oile Uren II-12 Key iFisheries Concerns tice) ss ete is eae eae elicits ieiwe ts II-16 Wildl fey Resources} recente yer tet perce ieer ist rer tat er ier ton te elt fete roy Ts II-18 Key Wii diifenConcernsitatatie piste street tres or ert cre trae tay torttorts 11-20 Local Revdewnandsln puto pet et cpotteriere eto beeriereseetontechtatroihobtetts II-21 E-_/ BEDROCKS | MINERALS|S AND DEPOSITS Gc s5 Sr Ss sin II-21 Bedrockilypeste reas eurlicns uence eee keeles elon. II-21 MineralsrandiMiningm-n-enet ironies ipo ties iieatonni< tr II-22 Quarry Rock, and Sand and Gravel Deposits .......... II-25 REGCREATLON Sr rec cso sfovetapeco eles tes}-roy-tareteolefohelateh'sbplotsetsete shieteorfesty apto ita etter II-25 RecreatiOngActivitiesmme me iret rol ur-iisarouto mice <Uireuioir oar bonis II-25 iii Ill. IV. Reereesi gn ArQes ee ee eo ee ee ee ee II-28 Recreation Concerns. 4.32 <u 6 6 oe wi ow wwe we we II-29 VISUAL RESOURCES 42 fetceeite tie i et et tei oe oe te eee II-30 GEOPHYSICAL. HAZARDS... « «9 5 6 «© «em 9 © 8 ee 8 we II-32 Barthquakesiand Faults) ee ele eis rel eter we oe as eel ee II-32 Landslides and Avalanches .........-2 + ee ee eee II-34 StU ec sw ek ee ee ee II-34 FROOGGHaAZ aS ss iat tae tah ethereal Stren ot rata ae tot o ballot 11-35 SHORELINE PHYSICAL. FEATURES 35-45 -3s e e 11-35 COASTAL FABIA Tootsies peg eat aCe cae tah Haake ate hast te II-37 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS... 2... 27.2. ee eee II-41 RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS: THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT . . . . III-1 ARCHAEOLOGY-VAND: HISTORY oe rene roto setter ete hase III-2 The: Native Al asker Cel Ceres re tiat (e iol bit beet eer tt Lae tap ok wt feel fa III-2 Historic Settlement. 92 4. 296s 2 6 6 6 me we eo ew oa III-3 Archaeological and Historic Sites ...........4.2.4. III-4 POPUIEAT LON sie tactic tte ale cece ete tha lteter co ae tas otter iced testael cette ete III-7 LAND-OWNERSHIP 5 3-53 3-6 8 ow 6 6 oe we we ww oe III-8 Land Legislation .........50 20562 2 eee eevee III-8 Anticipated Changes in Land Ownership............ III-11 Implications for Future Land Use ..........4406-. III-11 EANDAND:-WATER- USES see esis sce eee eer ee III-12 Residential= Patterns: 333): -6- ts iw ee ee ewe ee ie . ITI-12 Commercial/Industrial Uses 1. 1 << «ss «© © * © ee me ee III-16 TRANSPORTAT TONS sig oes gig ihe ctowi oe tie ipo gio tye gee teste oe III-22 Adie Tans Port Seeger oe eco ewe en eee te ie ow III-22 Water Transport ..... 2.2 ce essere sce een snevens III-24 Roma transport - «sees tre eee ee ee ene III-26 Major Proposed Transportation Projects .......-+.e+-e. III-26 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ..... 2.2.2.2. 2.2 eee III-27 RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS: THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ... IV-1 iv Vic A. PAST AND PRESENT TRENDS IN KETCHIKAN'S ECONOMY ........... IV-2 Employment ‘and ‘Wages |.o |<. | |s)/5 |< |e is! 6 ls |e oe" © nel oo ci) el) =| ieillter| Sih Iv-2 Comparison with Statewide Industrial Composition. ......... Iv-2 Historical <Employment Patterns <2 6). eens <i 3 oe. © ©) Sl.e| 3| «| | 1V—Rd Seasonal (Industry Emplownent |. | 5)2)5 23 )2%\e 2 6 6s) = cle ols Iv-4 The) Waterfront ECONOMY: Ses .eike elie ts | ole jerlece lee reh oe te ecimciiterciine IV-6 B. INDUSTRY CHARACTERESTIICS) << |o)iq le) 2) 4 les\r |) [4 |= || © ols) ol) © |e lots! © IV-6 Commercial iErSning|iaicieuieciieneienienrshenie ic oumenielieeinteltetes sellers ie) LO Timber and Wood Products Manufacture .........2.+4.24.24-2426-. IV-7 TUNES | Aas ee || coil) or] ox) op fee toi |e en) rey oe bes Let fl ley ol te et ol) © )eiieal | © IV-7 Tyanspor tation. 1) 5) 6) 6) alesis mea lel la leis is 6) & lel) wisi! oo Iv-8 Distributive) Industries) iri) o> |e iert onl ore let fois ter ssh te lite si) oll onl or) Iv-8 (Ge ECONOMIC] OUTUOOK are re nen cHiceeiisieaicnteni stil cal cil oN cHeeiicdneiellooneaicnteyire Iv-9 Overall | Employment Growthi) jo) <6 lars | lel [s/s ke) a) ele li) sete |) Iv-9 Expected! Area | Industrial (Growth) | |) [a |= |e |a)o ke) oo) ues | ollie | ot) Iv-11 ae | | | ok lk fe el el le lee ee le le elle le) el lll lle y-1 A. COMMERCTAL/ INDUSTRIAL \WATERFRONT 1 (ef) |e |e 14/3 be lin) o || to 9) ole || © V-2 Waterfront iProyects mri ciel cid cneilansnicnlenlcalsnielecieeielieinotietcnienne V-2 Seawand) | Development ieee enicetien onion re leniellelicolce iteliconaieniter ice v-4 Summary. of Significant | Findings, | je) 6/2 \< |e /o)- ks) 5) 6) s/o) 6) ole |e) @ y-5 B. QUARTZ HILL MOLYBDENUM MINE DEVELOPMENT ..........2..2.2. V-6 he) | UES's | Borax Project | 2 )c ys) lie eros) |e) er fo) |e fel tes) |) tell) 2) eel rer) V-6 Anticipated Impacts of the Mine Development ............ V-8 Area Meriting Special Attention) )-.2.)5 ¢)< 2 [5 |< 4) oem) sl) e)e| oo v-10 EC. | | GER EGC eee ne ele le le tlie ie a tle le elt mle elle ee y-12 Corps of Engineers Permit Activity in the Ketchikan Area. ..... v-12 Local Concerns with the Permitting Process ..........2.--. v-14 Efforts to! Improve the | Permitting! Process) |. /4)< 2) 5) 3)<\.0) 5)<)- | 3 - V-15 GOALS) OBJEGTIVES AND) POEKGIES arenreuicniceenlca culenl sueaictrales Helialine ieilloiteris VI-1 A. EGORGNT ABP GRUMIN sc ee wee eee ee ee le ee VI-2 B. Ce oR ty 2 ee ee ee ee er ee 2 oe 2 2 2 2 ae 2 VI-3 Ge TRARETORIAL EGE See ee elie alee lee ee le le el lle el VI-7 D. REGIONAL PACTISHILES micrreiion toile caiiciisalenl cle nlstlsilonisltelel teiiteiieolne listers iis VI-8 Bs FISH ABD WELLE pw ee lis ee ee ee ee le VI-10 Fe Toeon REGETATIOR cae se ele le ee le le le le VI-11 G; | | |COMMUNITY DESIGN) 5) 5.J.0) 4 |s lis ls | ie bela le le he (a | esl a1] © 16) 3) ©) ole ol VI-12 H. HISTORY VANDI FARGHAEOEOGY jajcuncdienrenienliceecaicaleulcaiculetielmedcceellneliiallsetitenits VI-13 I. FUTURE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION... . 2... 2.222 eee eee VI-14 Viel, IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES) | iy) 5) 5) ie |e) cies | | ie) et a ol et | oie let) oof) | | VII-1 moony REFERENCES GLOSSARY IMPLEMENTATION) EUEMENTS) (516) a) 3) ©) a Lele els lee) ole) 9) 6) ene | eile VII-2 LOCAL ADMINISTRATION OF ORDINANCES, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, & PROJECTS VII-4 LOCAL COORDINATION OF PERMITS . 2. .:. - 2 2 sees ses sees VII-7 COASTAL MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS .......... VII-9 STAFF REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION . . 1... 24 2 2 ee ee ee VII-10 aU tos fast ed fou fal cet} Pol | sift. | fell center | el) ot) ol) eel) te) fete lsh |e) eee st) tol rel) of) bet ere | st] oll R-1 cen real tet ed co ced enh re asil Keilereaezyi Kol luroy fr] lod | el) tocol Coded Codfcodleton te |) s1] eM relbyo!| fei] 0 G-1 vi Figure onl te no— II-1 II-2 II-3 II-4 II-5 II-6 II-7 II-8 11-9 II-10 II-11 II-12 II-13 II-14 III-1 III-2 III-3 III-4 III-5 III-6 III-7 III-8 III-9 IV-1 V-2 LIST OF FIGURES Page Program Development Process ........-2-+ 22.2 eee 1-6 Coastal Zone Boundaries ..........2..22+42046-. 1-7 Homesite Suitability Rankings ..... See a 8 is II-3 Estimated Timber ReSOuUrC@Smsnmicn se ec ee en ee os II-8 Commercial Timber Land Ratings .........4-4+4e4460-. II-9 Fish and Wildlife Resources ........2..2.64. a« L=13 Purse Seine Salmon Harvests ...... 2.2.22 ee eee II-15 Deer Hunting Effort.......... 5 je Sion a(S) SS teO Ses Se II-19 Bedrock Types = 3 . 6 3 3 3 3 co 4 5 cher os 5 ee ol II-23 Minerals Deposits: cs 2 ¢ « o @ ere) 6 2%) 6) @ i to @ 11-24 Recreasti OnwAVeasimurimrmcmrsjmtciin. item “ofircirelmNtc INT- Imo )mI(>) recy mT NIeyEE’s II-26 Visual, ReSources, <4. oo le) ee) els II-31 Geophysicall HazardS «6 3 «6 6c to www AS OHO aw II-33 Shoreline Physical Features... .....-+4.-4-2+006- 11-36 GoaS tail Habitats acmcuscuncmsmcincn (cr oMncinte mic ichn cmn+ Mom CINCOM MNCIES II-38 Environmentally Sensitive Areas ........2.-+22+26. II-43 Archaeological and Historical Sites. ........... ITI-5 Population Growthis 5 6 6 5 6 6 wes oe ws wm a we wi III-9 andeOwnersh ips cmcunmecmtcstcisn fire's ts iis ir oyitctirs) mcuura=ramn oun mre III-10 Landvand. Waters USCS cece coon noice eines) co) ponte oeontotanrs III-13 Developed and Vacant Residential Properties ........ ITI-15 Commercial/Industrial Waterfront Uses ..........-. III-20 Distribution of Waterfront Uses ........-2. 2. ee ee III-21 Transportation, «<3 0 os se ed fe III-23 Waterfront Development Potential ........-+4.2+e+e. III-29 Historical Employment) «25 6) ss tesesases os 3 ees Iv-5 Quartz Hill Area Map . . 2... 1. 2 ee ee ee ee wee V-7 Corps of Engineers Permit Applications .........-. V-13 vii Table II-1 III-1 III-2 IV-1 IV-2 LIST OF TABLES Page Assessment of Rivers, Streams, and Lakes. .......... II-39 Borough-wide Population Projections ............. III-8 Housing Construction’ << <6 4 3 <7 3 3 © si «© is) ©) @ III-14 Ketchikan Industries: Employment and Wages; 1979. wc stew oe Oe ee Iv-3 Projected Employment Levels, TWSB5 cand) WOSO) se ep ete sed ec ru lel wi en oi ieleieeien el eicoce IV-10 viii WHEREAS : WHEREAS : KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 714 A RESOLUTION BY THE KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH PLAN- NING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE KETCHIKAN DISTRICT COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BY THE BOROUGH ASSEMBLY. AS 46.40.030 states that coastal resources districts shall develop and adopt district coastal management programs in accordance with the provisions of the Alaska Coastal Management Act and the Alaska Coastal Management Program, Guidelines, and Standards, and Ketchikan's District's Coastal Management Program has been a long- standing community project (since 1978) involving the active par- ticipation of six coastal management task forces, the Port Commis- sion, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and over 200 Ketchikan residents, resource experts, and agency representatives in the development of the plan and policies, and A Coastal Management Plan has been developed which recognizes, 1) the need to balance resource development with resource protection, 2) that the demands upon the coastal resources of the coastal dis- rrict are significant and will increase, 3) that community growth and resource use must be planned in a manner consistent with the community goals and desires, and The Coastal Management Program provides an opportunity for in- creased local control through the consistency requirement in federal and state law, and Ketchikan's Coastal Management Plan avoids the creation of new regulatory structures wherever possible, relying instead upon existing federal, state, and local authorities to implement the plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission to request the Borough Assembly to conceptually approve the Ketchikan District's Coastal Management Program as presented in the public hearing draft and in the Planning Department report concerning changes and additions needed to respond to further public testimony. PASSED and APPROVED this 28th day of September, 1982. ATTEST: fr. Co sig Dac 7 Dennis McCarty, Chairman Planning Commission Sure Lydia Susan Rydeen Zoning Clerk CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION BALANCING COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION WITH RESOURCE USE AND DEVELOPMENT IS A RESPONSI- BILITY TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY KETCHIKAN RESIDENTS, THE KETCHIKAN COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN IS THE PRODUCT OF A COORDINATED MASTER PLANNING EF- FORT DIRECTED AT MINIMIZING CONTRADICTION AND CONFLICT AMONG THE VARIETY OF NEEDS WHICH MUST BE MET WITHIN KETCHIKAN S NATURAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTS, I-] A. WHAT IS COASTAL MANAGEMENT? Ketchikan's Coastal Management Plan is directed at preserving, protecting, developing, using and, where necessary, restoring or enhancing the coastal resources of the region for this and succeeding generations. Ketchikan's Coastal Management Plan is the local guiding statement to the State and Federal governments as to how the mission of balancing resource protection with use and development will be accomplished in the Ketchikan area. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act Recognizing the value of the nation's coastal resources and the many competing demands for their use, the U.S. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The Act calls upon the coastal states to use coastal resources in ways which protect natural systems and cultural values. The Act directs and funds planning programs for the coastal states to carry out this mission. The Coastal Zone Management Act does not create new Federal, State, or local governmental authorities. Neither does the CZMA conflict with or diminish any existing authorities. Instead, a mechanism is provided for minimizing contra- diction and conflict through coordination during the program development and project review processes. Congress recognized that balancing resource use with resource protection is a difficult task, best done at the state level. To entice states to participate in coastal zone management, the Federal government offers: 1) substantial funds for preparation and implementation of coastal management plans, and, 2) Federal consistency with approved state plans. The Federal consistency device requires all Federal agencies to exercise their authority in a manner consistent with approved state programs to the maximum extent practicable. The term consistent to the maximum extent practicable describes the requirement that Federal acti- vities, including development projects, be fully consistent with the state coastal program unless compliance is prohibited based upon the requirements of existing law. Hence the Act expands the power of the states. Since Alaska has an approved State plan, the Federal consistency requirement will apply to all approved local plans. The Alaska Coastal Management Act Each coastal state has independently developed an approach to coastal management that fits its unique political, socio-economic, and natural resource attributes. In 1977, the State of Alaska passed the Alaska Coastal Management Act (ACMA), which focuses on balancing human use of coastal resources with maintenance of natural systems. Recognizing the diversity and uniqueness of coastal areas within Alaska, the approach adopted by the State Legislature placed more respon- sibility at the local level for formulating coastal management policy than exists in any other state in the nation. Each coastal organized borough and municipality with planning powers is required by the State law to prepare a coastal resource district plan. Within the plan, the local government is responsible for determining the "highest and best" use of coastal resources within its jurisdiction through an approved planning pro- cess that involves federal and state agencies. 1-2 The State commitment to follow the plan developed and approved by the local government gives an unprecedented opportunity for local control of resource use decisions. This opportunity is given with checks and balances for national and State interests. However, it is the local government that must consider those interests instead of relying upon the Federal and State governments to consider local interests. To guide the overall State coastal management program, the State Act created a Coastal Policy Council comprised of seven state agency heads and nine public members appointed from nine coastal regions. The Council must review and approve each district program. To insure that a district program does not arbitrarily or unreasonably restrict or exclude an area or issue of State concern, the Council adopted Alaska Coastal Management Guidelines and Standards to assist districts during plan development. A district plan, once approved, becomes the State Coastal Management Plan for that region. To date, the Coastal Policy Council has approved seven local programs and rejected none. The key advantages of local participation in the coastal management program are: 1. An opportunity for increased local control; all Federal and State agencies exercising authority within the local planning area must do so in a manner consistent with local coastal management policies. 2. Coordination of comprehensive resource planning and management with State and Federal agencies. 3. The opportunity to form special agreements among various levels of government on issues regarding the management of coastal re- sources, such as permit simplification. 4. Funding for planning and implementation. B. DEVELOPMENT OF KETCHIKAN'S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Ketchikan Gateway Borough initiated its Coastal Management Program in April of 1978. Preparation of the Atlas of the Ketchikan Region commenced. This document summarized into one volume all of the known facts about the physical, biological, and economic environment of the Ketchikan region. The Atlas was designed to serve several functions: 1. To heighten citizen awareness and understanding of Ketchi- kan's environmental issues, 2. To provide a basis for understanding environmental factors to be considered in the development of coastal resources in the area, and, 3. To furnish a primary data base for the formulation of coastal Management policies. Early in 1979, as the Atlas neared completion, six task forces of community residents and officials were organized to develop management policies and recom- mendations in the following areas: Industrial and commercial waterfront Rural shorelines Recreation, heritage, and viewsheds Fish and wildlife Timber and minerals Watersheds and hazards AnNPwn— The Commercial/Industrial Waterfront Task Force met with representatives of Ketchikan's waterfront users including fish and wood processors, barge terminal operators, ship repair firms, float plane companies, and the city harbor depart- ment. After discussing ongoing waterfront development activities, use conflicts, and development opportunities, the members of the Task Force designed and initi- ated a waterfront development and management study and encouraged formation of a local inter-governmental port commission. Members of the Rural Shorelines Task Force researched and developed general management recommendations for guiding development of the rural shoreline to meet Ketchikan's settlement needs. The Rural Shorelines Task Force held four separate meetings - one north and one south of town, one in the City Council Chambers, and one on Pennock Island - attended by more than 150 Ketchikan residents in total. The Recreation, Heritage, and Viewsheds Task Force encouraged, through newspaper advertisements and radio announcements, other Ketchikan residents to participate in work sessions. Task Force members met with representatives of Cape Fox Corporation, the Creek Street Design Review Board, the U.S. Forest Service, the Tongass Historical Society, the Tongass Conservation Society, the Ski Club, and the Saxman Native community. The Fish and Wildlife Task Force identified community concerns relating to the management and use of Ketchikan's fish and wildlife resources, located areas important to the protection and enhancement of these resources, and recommended Management goals, policies, and objectives to guide decisions affecting the protection and use of Ketchikan's fish and game. Task Force members met with representatives of commercial fishing organizations, the local aquaculture association, State and Federal fish and game management agencies, logging and mining interests, environmental groups, the rifle club, and other concerned Ketchikan residents. The Timber and Minerals Task Force members concentrated their research and recommendations on local and State resource management authorities, policies, and regulations and on the developing State and Borough land programs. The Task Force met with representatives of local timber and mining concerns including Cape Fox Corporation; Louisiana Pacific Corporation; U.S. Borax; and smaller- scale timber, sand, rock, and gravel users. 1-4 The Hazards and Watersheds Task Force examined, on a stream by stream basis, use of water drainages and competing community needs for the land and water of each drainage basin. Task Force members concentrated on developed portions of the Borough in their several discussions with the Department of Environmental Conservation and the District Sanitarian. Altogether, these coastal management task forces held over 20 public work ses- sions attended by over 200 Ketchikan residents and resource experts. Hundreds of hours were expended in reviewing and discussing information and issues and in formulating recommendations. The Borough Assembly accepted the task force recommendations on August 4th, 1980. Two key task force recommendations were then implemented: 1) a detailed water- front development/management study was conducted, and, 2) the Port Commission, an advisory body on waterfront management issues, was formed by resolution of both city councils and the Borough Assembly. The Port Commission guided the Waterfront Study from initiation to completion, developing the overview under- standing of Ketchikan's waterfront issues, needs, and opportunities necessary to recommend policies and actions relating to the development and management of Ketchikan's waterfront. Updated information from the Atlas and various existent plans, the Task Force reports, the Waterfront Study results, and the Port Commission recommendations were then compiled into a review draft. After six public meetings and work- shops and one public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the plan and forwarded it on to the Borough Assembly. The Borough Assembly held a public hearing, as required by the State act, and a work session prior to giving concept approval to Ketchikan's Coastal Management Program by Resolution Number 512 on April 11, 1983. When the assembly finalizes the program document, it will go to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council and appropriate State and Federal agencies for review. The Council, in reviewing the locally adopted district program for compliance with the State act, may request changes. Once the Coastal Policy Council members give it their stamp of approval and the plan is filed with the Lieutenant Governor, a routine program review is done on the Federal level by the Office of Coastal Zone Management; then the Ketchikan District Program becomes part of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Figure I-1 depicts the process of coastal management program development with local involvement. C. DETERMINATION OF COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES Any organized borough which exercises planning and zoning authority qualifies as a "coastal resource district" under the Alaska Coastal Management Act. Thus, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough is a coastal district. Within its legal boundaries, a coastal district must base initial coastal zone area boundaries on the Biophysical Boundaries for Alaska's Coastal Zone, including the zones of direct interaction and direct influence. Figure I-2 depicts these zones as defined by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The zone of direct interaction is that portion of the coastal area where physical and biological I-5 April 1978 Ketchikan Gateway Borough contracts with State to initiate the Coastal Management Program. Summer 1980 Final public work- shop on Task Force recommendations. Summer/Fall 1982 Public hearing draft formally reviewed by State & Federal agen- cies and local resi- dents. Planning and Zoning Commission and Borough Assembly conducted public hearings. February 1979 Borough Assembly appoints six Task Forces. August 4, 1980 Figure I-1 Program Development Process Spring 1979 Completion of Atlas of the Ketchikan Region. September 1980- December 1982 Borough Assembly adopts Task Force recommendations as "blueprint" for the Plan. Fall_ 1982 Borough Assembly gave concept approval to the plan. Plan sent to State & Fed- eral agencies again for sign- off review. Waterfront Devel- ment Study conducted. Winter 1982-3 Spring 1979- Summer 1980 Task Forces conduct public work sessions & prepare reports. October 1981- February 1982 Review draft of Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan compiled by Plan- ning Department. Spring 1983 January 1980 Borough Assembly forms Port Com- mission. February- May 1982 Planning & Zoning Com- mission reviews draft & holds public meetings. Spring 1980 Daily News publishes & distributes Task Force reports over 6-week period. June 1982 Draft revised based on public comment. Plan- ning and Zon- ing Commission approves printin of public hear- ing draft. Spring 1983 Plan presented to Coastal Policy Council for approval. Routine program re- view by Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management. 1-6 Plan adopted by ordinance by Borough Assembly. Plan implementation begins. processes are a function of the direct contact between land and sea. The zone of direct influence, adjacent to the zone of direct interaction, is therefore influenced by that interaction.2 An example of this influence is the ecological dependence of the spruce-hemlock forest on the weather patterns caused by the interaction of land and sea. Basically, all of the land in the Borough except the mountain tops could be considered to be in the coastal zone, because of the ecological dependence of the spruce-hemlock forest on the coastal environment. During the planning process, each district can expand or limit its boundaries provided that the change is needed to reasonably manage uses and activities that have or are likely to have a direct, major effect on coastal lands and waters. Thus districts may draw new boundaries within their legal limits that coincide with political jurisdictions, watersheds, or other natural and man-made features. Because some coastal districts are quite large, local governments also have the option of focusing planning on only one portion of the coastal area at a time. The Borough chooses to exercise these options. The extent of the current Ket- chikan Coastal Management boundary includes all land and water within the box outlined on Figure I-2. The boundary primarily encompasses only the populated area of the Ketchikan vicinity, since resource uses and protection in this area are of immediate concern to Ketchikan residents. It is understood that the outlying areas of the Borough can be included in Ketchikan's Coastal Management District at a later date. Coastal Management options for the outlying areas have not been surrendered, just deferred. In the interim, the Standards and Guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Management Act and the Forest Service management regulations will continue to operate in areas of the Borough outside the current Coastal Management boundaries. D. FORMAT OF PLAN The Coastal Management Program synthesizes a great deal of information contained jin the Ketchikan Comprehensive Plan, the Atlas of the Ketchikan Region, the six Coastal Management Task Force Reports, and the Ketchikan Waterfront Development and Management Study. Federal and State resource agencies provided additional data needed. The three chapters following this introduction are inventories of the District resources. The Natural and Social Environment chapters include comprehensive inventories and analyses of natural and cultural resources within the Ketchikan area. Each section within the Natural Environment chapter discusses the resource base, consumptive uses of the resource, and resource management concerns. Sections within the Social Environment chapter each discuss existing conditions and anticipated changes. A composite analysis section is included at the end of each of these two chapters. Chapter II provides a simplified evaluation of environmentally sensitive areas, while Chapter III evaluates the development potential of shoreline areas. 1-8 The Economic Environment chapter examines Ketchikan's overall economic base in light of past and present trends and individual industry characteristics, enabl- ing some general assessments of present needs and future demands. The final section of the chapter examines anticipated demand for the resources inventoried in the two previous chapters. Chapter V focuses on three special issues affecting the Ketchikan planning area's coastal resources: first, the pattern of development along Ketchikan's water- front, which will influence access to coastal waters for years to come; second, the development of the U.S. Borax molybdenum mine at Quartz Hill in the Misty Fjords National Monument east of Ketchikan, which may contribute to rapid increas- es in area population and impact Ketchikan's coastal resources; and finally, government regulation of waterfront construction activity, which has caused unnecessary delays and impediments to many desirable projects and which requires streamlining in order to better reflect the community's land use values. The next chapter presents the goals, objectives, and policies which the plan will seek to implement. These statements, based on the background presented in the earlier chapters, embody the values and directions which will best guide the development and utilization of the community's coastal resources. The final chapter describes the specific strategies which will be employed to implement the plan's policies. I-9 CHAPTER II RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS: THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT THE KETCHIKAN AREA IS GRACED WITH A WEALTH OF COASTAL RESOURCES WHICH PROVIDE ECONOMIC OP- PORTUNITIES AND SCENIC SURROUNDINGS. KETCHIKAN RESIDENTS ARE FORTUNATE TO LIVE IN A PLENTIFUL ENVIRONMENT WHERE HUMAN ACTIVITIES CAN BLEND HARMONIOUSLY WITH NATURE, HOWEVER, KETCHIKAN IS NOT WITHOUT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. THERE ARE SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND WATER POLLUTION CONCERNS IN RURAL AREAS, SALMON STOCKS DEPENDENT ON AQUACULTURE TECHNIQUES, LOGGING ACTIVITIES NEAR SCENIC AND RECREATION AREAS, AND A LACK OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT. SINCE FUTURE GROWTH COULD INTENSIFY SUCH PROB- LEMS, SOUND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND LONG-TERM PLANNING ARE NEEDED NOW TO RESOLVE THEM, II-1 A. SOILS Soils are created by a combination of climate, parent material, time, topography, and living organisms. Since thousands of years are required for good buildup and depth, soils must be viewed as a precious non-renewable resource. In the Ketchi- kan area, heavy precipitation and cool temperatures with little seasonal varia- tion make climate the overriding soil-forming factor. Soils are highly variable depending upon the degree and sequence of the soil-forming factors mentioned above, but soils in the Ketchikan area share some features. The most obvious common feature is wetness. All soils in the area are per- petually moist, and never reach the wilting point. Due to the excess of soil moisture, tree roots concentrate in the surface layers, making mature trees highly susceptible to blowdown. Glacial till (rock debris) of local origin is the most common mineral parent material. Because compact till is relatively impervious to water, it forms the surface along which most of the landslides in the area occur. The glacial till, common around Ketchikan, is often responsible for the poorly drained soils on gentle slopes. Where soils are not underlaid by glacial till, bedrock is often found close to the surface. Ketchikan's high precipitation and cool temperatures result in the slow decompo- sition of organic matter which builds up rapidly in the thick forests. Conse- quently, the soils are acidic and high in organic matter. The dark tea color of many of the streams results from organic staining from muskeg soil runoff down gentle slopes. The orientation of physical features greatly influences soil accumulation. For instance where slopes are very steep, as in V-notched drainages like upper Carlanna Creek, erosion by landsliding and slumping may remove soil as quickly as it develops. Likewise, water-laid alluvial soils and floodplains are continu- ally being washed away by recurrent floods. Therefore, these areas have little net soil development. Knowing the ecology, drainage, slope, and depth of the soils yields information useful for prospective development and resource protection. Since building on good soils and leaving unstable soils undisturbed are sound development princi- ples, the soils in the Ketchikan area have been grouped and mapped according to their "homesite suitability". This suitability ranking is based only on soil types, and does not account for ease of access, acreage size, or water orienta- tion. The following soil descriptions were used to produce the suitability rankings shown on Figure II-1. II-2 Planning Dept., Produced by Ketchik 1982, using an Gateway Borough uSGS 1:63 360 topography series, Ketchikan, 1955 B-5 B-6 C=5 C-6 SOILS-HOMESTITE SUITABILITY FIGURE II-1 N ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (\ Min, Potat HS LEGEND eau cn VERY GOOD SOILS GOOD SOILS WITH MINOR LIMITATIONS GOOD SOILS BUT STEEP 9! o nitiD ie ~ ~ 1 2 SCALE miles SOURCE: Atlas of the Ketchikan Region FAIR SOILS WITH MANY LIMITATIONS POOR SOILS WITH MANY LIMITATIONS UNSUITABLE SOILS 11-3 Very good soils - Freely-drained forested soils on gentle slopes; three to ten feet deep; water table within one to five feet of the surface; some terrace alluvial soils where flooding may occur on the lower terraces. 9 - Good soils - Moderately well-drained forested soils on low land, footslopes, and shorelines; one-half to four feet deep; water table within two feet of surface; some shallow soils may neces- sitate bedrock excavation. Good but steep soils - Freely-drained to somewhat poorly-drained forested soils on steep slopes up to 75%; water table commonly within one foot of surface; found on valley sides and sloping ridges. Fair soils - Complex of well-drained and somewhat poorly-drained forested soils, predominantly somewhat poorly-drained, predomi- nantly on gentle slopes; one to three feet deep with occasional deeper patches; water table within one foot of surface, includes a few patches of muskeg. i Poor soils - Freely-drained to somewhat poorly-drained soils on steep slopes; shallow; water table within one foot of surface; includes muskeg/forest complexes. Unsuitable soils - Well-drained soils on very steep slopes; poorly-drained forested soils that include muskegs; avalanche paths; soils found in V-notched drainages. B. WATER While water seems to be a plentiful resource in Ketchikan, the volume, quality, and dynamics of the water base (streams, lakes, and aquifers) pose some problems for water users. This section briefly examines water availability and the planning concerns associated with water quality and hydroelectric potential. Water Supply Surface streams in the Ketchikan area are numerous, but no large rivers are found because the islands are not large enough to provide sufficient watershed area. Although most of the streams are not used directly for human consumption, they provide vital habitat for salmon and many other fish. The Ketchikan Lakes watershed, encompassing the two Ketchikan Lakes and the Granite Basin, is the principal contributor to the Ketchikan municipal water supply. Water is collected from the approximately 10.5 square mile watershed and treated for domestic use at the Ketchikan chlorination plant, adjacent to the power house. The other municipal water source is the approximately 1.3 square mile Carlanna Lake watershed. II-4 Six major streams run through densely developed portions of the City of Ketchikan - Ketchikan Creek, Hoadley Creek, Carlanna Creek, and three smaller streams located between Hoadley and Carlanna. The effectiveness of these streams as transporters of water runoff from the upland areas down to the Tongass Narrows is increasingly hampered by debris accumulating along the stream banks, fill and structural encroachment on the natural floodways, and hillside grading and clearing for development. Today, the banks of all six major urban streams are cluttered with fallen trees and other refuse, including bicycles and car bodies. Independent water supply and distribution systems provide potable water to Herring Bay (Whitman Lake), Mountain Point (Forks Creek), the City of Saxman (Saxman Creek), Ward Cove (Walsh Creek, Ward Lake watershed), and Point Higgins (Whipple Creek). Of these water sources, Whitman Lake and the Ward Lake water- shed (Ward Lake, Connell Lake, and Lake Perseverance) are the most promising for high quality community water supplies. Forks Creek and Walsh Creek presently have water quality problems and can not be relied upon to meet future demand. A second reservoir is planned for Saxman Creek. The realization of a north end community water supply will largely depend upon successful maintenance of the Whipple Creek drainage. A few rural residents depend on streams and wells for their individual domestic water needs. Because of the region's geology and topography, the Ketchikan area lacks natural impoundments and aquifers. Consequently, many rural residents rely on rainwater collection systems. Although stream and well water require special treatment before use, rainwater is recommended for direct use by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Bostwick Lake on Gravina Island has a watershed area of about 1.7 square miles. This water supply would appear to be adequate to meet water needs for both the airport and future residential or commercial development. Several smaller lakes located at the tip of Gravina Island are the only other potential surface water sources. Water Quality Within the City of Ketchikan, the sewage collection system currently sends untreated effluents directly into Tongass Narrows through 16 outfalls. In 1979, the Ketchikan city voters approved the construction of a wastewater treatment plant and trunk collector system. The City is filing for a waiver from statu- tory requirements to conduct primary treatment only as the flushing actions of the tides are thought to be sufficient to meet water quality standards. Site selection studies are now underway for a plant. Contamination of the surface water at both supply sources, Fawn Lake and the Carlanna Lake region, is becoming a concern as surrounding development occurs. With additional growth, developers and recreationalists are applying greater pressure for the City to provide opportunities for access to and use of these areas. Rural water collection and distribution systems rely on surface water runoff, which is susceptible to pollution and siltation from on-site wastewater disposal systems and water flow over inhabited and cleared lands. As a result, the public II-5 health hazard attributable to domestic use of surface water supplies continues to increase as rural uplands are developed. With the exceptions of Saxman and Forest Park, there are no public sewage collec- tion and treatment systems serving residents outside of the City of Ketchikan. While most private shoreline sewage systems empty wastes directly into the sea, upland owners commonly deposit wastes on-site. In the Ketchikan area, poor soils, heavy rainfall, a high groundwater table, and small lot sizes prohibit the use of conventional sewage systems. Use of even a well-designed private sewage treatment system with on-site disposal is likely to contaminate surface and ground water run-off. In addition, several private sewage treatment systems in Ketchikan's rural area open directly into streams and creeks that flow through residential areas below. For these reasons, the quality of rural drinking water supplies is decreasing as rural areas of the Borough are developed. The local office of the State Department of Environmental Conservation has recom- mended that community water and sewage systems be installed in the following areas, arranged from highest to lowest priority: 1. Mountain Point 2. North Point Higgins area from old Forest Boundary to Coast Guard Radio Station 3. South Point Higgins area from Coast Guard Radio Station to Whipple Creek 4. Rotary Beach area from City limits to Homestead 5. Shoreline Drive area from City limits to Ward Creek 6. Whipple Creek to Mud Bay 7. Mud Bay to Ward Cove 8. Herring Bay Hydroelectric Potential Many of the streams in the Ketchikan area are large enough to provide hydro- electric power, but the great variability in stream flow would necessitate the building of reservoirs on the streams. The physical geology of the basin therefore becomes a limiting factor. There are currently three hydroelectric facilities - Ketchikan Lakes, Beaver Falls, and Silvas Lake - with an annual production capacity of 62 million kilowatt hours. In addition, construction of the Swan Lake hydroelectric facility at the head of Carroll Inlet began in the summer of 1981. The Swan Lake facility will be capable of delivering 85 million kilowatt hours average annual energy, and is expected to be providing power by early 1984. If the per capita consumption of power remains the same as it was in 1980 (assuming conservation awareness will offset increased use of appliances) the combined capacity of all four facilities will more than provide for the power requirements of Ketchikan's population for a reasonable period. II-6 Furthermore, Mahoney Lake and Lake Whitman have long been identified as having a high potential for hydroelectric development. Lake Perseverance and the Naha River also show some promise for hydroelectric power, but are less likely to be developed within the near future. Hydroelectric facilities and powerlines are shown on the land use map in Chapter ipo ee C. FOREST The thick, tall rain forests climbing the mountainsides play a major role in defining Ketchikan's character and economic base. Of equal importance is the ecological role the forests play in sustaining fish and wildlife populations. Forest Ecology The most common forest ecosystem present is the mature Sitka spruce-western hemlock forest, the climax vegetation for this area. Most of the forest consists of old growth stands undisturbed by man, that have reached climax maturity and size. The stands are ragged in appearance because they include trees of various ages, sizes, and conditions with many dead tops and snags. In climax stands, trees decline in vigor as the natural aging process occurs, increasing suscepti- bility to insects or disease. Individual tree losses perpetuate the continuance of old growth stands. Because of deterioration caused by insects and disease, a climax forest may not be as productive as a second growth forest on good soils. Stands which have been disturbed during the last century or two by windthrow, fire, landslide, or clearcutting have a more uniform appearance, a higher per- centage of spruce, and fewer snags and defective trees. These disturbed stands and areas clearcut by man are followed by even-age stands. Careful logging done in accordance with good forest practices can in many cases increase timber pro- ductivity and improve the health of Ketchikan's forests. Commercial Timber Commercial forest lands in Alaska are defined as those lands yielding more than 8,000 board feet per acre. However, commercial timber land in Southeast Alaska yields an average of 25,000 to 34,000 board feet per acre with a high of 50,000 board feet per acre. Tongass National Forest personnel have conducted numerous forest inventories in the region for the purposes of long-term resource management and immediate timber sales. Estimates, as shown in Figure II-2, indicate that approximately 46% of the land in and near the Ketchikan Gateway Borough has commercial timber. II-7 Figure II-2 Estimated Timber Resources Noncommercial forested land, slow site index Commercial forest 67,260 acres 426,310 acres Noncommercial high elevation forested land 175,049 scres slide zone 6,733 acres Alder (pure) 6,712 acres ‘Brushland (nonasider) 26,848 acres Alpine meadow 20,136 acres Muskeg meadow 6,712 acres Lakes less than 40 acres 6,630 acres Alpine rock 40,292 acres Ketchikan Gateway Borough (includes Annette and Duke Islands also) 917,299 Acres. Note: [ne above estimates are subject to up to 20 percent statistical error. The 426,310 acres of commercial timber would yield about 12 billion board feet under ideal circumstances. However, once distribution, accessibility, availa- bility, ownership, and resource management factors are considered, the extent and value of available commercial timber land is greatly reduced, to perhaps 1/3 or less. Figure II-3 shows “very good", “good", and "fair" commercial timber land in the Ketchikan vicinity, as well as old cut-over areas. The criteria for this rank- ing are as follows: Well stocked stands 8,000 - 20,000 board feet = Fair Well stocked stands 20,000 - 30,000 board feet = Good Well stocked stands 30,000+ board feet = Very Good II-8 a Ww a = — a < m4 Oo NY a 4 a Woo = Lu = & eo 8 a oO Lh a coat We Roe rr ieee aC Sy Ny Oo oO oy an mo Ben Ono Y an Oud oo Mos APG eee © acd bes ound UsAv o Goss oN eo fs rE) aAg Od peru o-oo MvPUD ion ma ooM AAn I av gma, Vanwo O-d BaD aa 0 og ain Hoo} anew COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SOURCE: USFS Timber Inventory GEND ee Y GOOD TIMBER STANDS VER GOOD TIMBER STANDS FAIR TIMBER STANDS CLEARCUT AREAS (OLD & NEW) II-9 Future logging activity in the Ketchikan vicinity will primarily be concentrated on Cape Fox Corporation lands. The State Division of Forestry manages its lands primarily for wood gathering and beach }o9 salvage sales, although there may be some small timber sales of a few acres.* The Forest Service has 22 million board feet tentatively scheduled for cutting during the 1994-1999 period and 35 mil- lion board feet scheduled during 1999-2004. General areas where this cutting may occur lie north of George Inlet and in the Heckman Lake vicinity.° Timber Harvesting Concerns Several issues relating to timber harvesting are of major concern in the Ketchi- kan area. These issues include reforestation, log storage areas, wood gathering, and buffer strips/local zoning. Reforestation Because no local nursery exists, the State and the Native corporations must send their coniferous seeds to the State nursery at Palmer or to the Weyerhauser nurseries in Seattle. In both locations, seedlings are grown and shipped back to Ketchikan for planting. Since the nurseries are so far from the planting sites, they must simulate Ketchikan's environment. Simulation, while adequate, is not as good as growing seedlings in their home environment where there would be better success in "hardening off" before planting. The volume of logging and the amount of wood processed in Southeast justifies a State nursery in Ketchi- kan, and the 1980 legislative lobbying group from the Borough requested that the State locate a nursery in the area. Log Storage Areas Logs are transported to the mills in large rafts that are towed along the waterways. Until enough are harvested to transport, the logs need to be stored in wind protected coves. At the receiving end, logs also need to be stored in protected areas until processed at the mill. The State currently discourages log storage in intertidal areas, where logs may be "stranded". Additionally, the State Forest Practices Act and Regulations include these requirements for log storage area: o Preference to on-shore storage and towing of logs. o Sites for in-water dumping and storage must be selected in areas having the steepest and the least productive intertidal and subtidal zones. o Prohibit sites within 300 feet of the mouths of anadromous streams or in areas known to be important for fish spawning or rearing. Local criteria for log storage areas include: o Good natural tide flushing action to minimize build-up of bark and wood chips on the ocean floor. o Deep water close to shore to minimize lag time in transfer operations due to tides. o Shelter from winds from the southeast and storms from the northwest. o Upland area for log storage and transfer operations - a minimum of 1/2 acre, preferably two acres. II-10 When possible, logs should not be trucked on publicly used highways or through congested city streets. Presently these local areas are used for log storage: Grant Island, Mud Bay, Ward Cove, coves North and South of the airport, Ketchikan Spruce Mill, Saxman harbor, Herring Bay, and Coon Cove in George Inlet. The State Area Forester states that all these areas are well used and that a great deal more log storage area is needed. Wood Gathering The following excerpt from a Ketchikan Wood Gatherers' Association petition addresses the need for public access to driftwood beaches to meet domestic wood fuel needs: Traditionally, firewood has been available from two sources; either the beach where drift logs accumulate, or from the timbered uplands. Getting firewood from the timbered uplands requires a rather large investment, not the least of which is a road, floating yarder, or large boat. Ava ‘le firewood along the Ketchikan road system is becoming very hard to come by simply because public land that has provided this fire- wood in the past is changing ownership to the private sector or is tied up in legislation or legal bickering. In a town where timber is the primary resource, and where numerous people are willing to use firewood in place of fossil fuel, it seems a shame that many of them should be denied being able to use this renewable resource simply because they cannot get to it. In a recently completed survey by the Division of Forestry, 120 Ketchikan households were interviewed. The results show that the following sources of firewood are used (percentages listed are by individual household, not volume): 30% Beachlogs 11% Private land 25% Purchased locally 9% Native corporation 16% Sawmills 9% Other 13% U.S. Forest Service Land 1% State Land 11% Land clearing Buffer Strips/Local Zoning The Borough zoning ordinance allows sustained yield timber harvesting in areas zoned for Future Development. The only development requirement of this zone relating to logging practices is that a strip of uncleared land, at least 100 feet wide, remain between logged areas and public rights-of-way, residential zones, or recreation areas. When Cape Fox Corporation began 1980 logging operations, they appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission to waive this requirement. By leaving a narrow strip of land, the Corporation contended, valuable board feet are forfeited and the vulnerability of the remaining trees to heavy winds creates a hazard along public rights-of-way. The waiver was granted. Foresters consulted on the width necessary to ensure a windfirm buffer strip cite the need to evaluate local conditions such as topography, prevailing wind direction, soils, water runoff, and size of the clearcut. Because buffer strip widths must be determined on a case-by-case basis however, some general ongoing logging practices indicate that a windfirm buffer strip may be on the order of 300 - 500 feet wide along a road or shore.° Within such a wide buffer strip, II-1] selective cutting for high grade logs and wood gathering for fuelwood could occur without seriously hindering the windfirmness of the buffer strip. Currently, the State Forest Practices Act does not require buffer strips along public rights-of-way. Nonethless, buffer strips properly constituted are useful in separating logged areas from areas used by the public. The current Future Development Zone allows timber and mineral extraction as well as recreation, wildlife, and watershed management. A distinction may be needed between those areas to be used for sustained timber yield and mining and those areas that the community wants managed to protect recreation, wildlife, and watersheds. D. FISH AND WILDLIFE Ketchikan's residents continue to hunt and fish in the immediate area - not only for recreation, but also as a hedge against rising food costs. Likewise, Ket- chikan's trade and service businesses benefit from expenditures by visiting commercial fishing fleets and tourists who come to Ketchikan to sportfish and hunt. Less tangible, but hardly less significant, is an appreciation for opportunities to observe wildlife sharing the surroundings - whales migrating through Tongass Narrows, harbor seals sunning on rocks at the head of George Inlet, salmon spawning in Ketchikan Creek, and the mystery of the miniature worlds of the tide pools at Rotary Beach. Fish and wildlife resources are important to the economy, recreation, education, and daily enjoyment of the community. Fisheries Resources Figure II-4 depicts significant commercial and subsistence fisheries harvest areas. Herring wintering areas and spawning beaches are also shown. Salmon and Secondary Fisheries 7 All five species of Pacific salmon are present in the Ketchikan vicinity. Salmon return to spawn in many of the local streams after spending several years maturing in the open marine waters of the Gulf of Alaska or the inside waters of the Alexander Archipelago. The distribution of the salmon species is controlled by the size and productivity of the river and lake systems. Salmon are especial-- ly vulnerable during the spawning season when they school up in coastal areas, bays, and freshwater areas open to the sea. In the 1920s and 1930s there were tremendous schools of red salmon in the vici- nity. Because of the efficiency and proficiency of fish traps and nets, the red salmon population was greatly reduced, perhaps to about 10% of the original stock. The Naha River is one of the few areas within the Borough where notable runs of red salmon still occur. Likewise, the king salmon population has dwin- died over the decades. King salmon prefer large rivers, most of which are on the mainland. Presently, the pink salmon is the most abundant in the area, followed by the chum salmon. The miles of rugged island coastline create good spawning condi- tions for pinks and chums, both of which will spawn in the lower reaches of short coastal streams and in intertidal areas at the mouths of these streams where the eggs are washed by fresh and brackish water with the ebb and flow of the tides. Pink and chum salmon were not harvested and processed as heavily as red salmon by past canneries. Consequently, the pink and chum salmon currently have good natural populations and are still improving. The late 1970s and early 1980s were good years for pink salmon runs and more good years are predicted by Fish and Game biologists. II-12 Biologists attribute the reduction in the coho salmon population to increased commercial fishing pressure as a result of improved harvesting techniques. Because coho fry spend one to two years in freshwater streams before migrating to the oceans, coho are most susceptible to habitat damage caused by logging. Chinook salmon also spend significant portions of their life cycle in freshwater systems and are likely to be affected by logging activities. II-13 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 LEGEND ™@ = ~—sEAGLE_NEST 0% — BLACK BEAR CONCENTRATIONS S888 DEER - HIGH WINTER DENSITY mr a SALMON STREAM (CATALOGUED) asad SALMON ‘G35 — VERRING - BEACH SPAWN oe CLAMS HERRING - WINTER CONCENTRATIONS etse DUNGENESS CRABS ? . [> magor MIGRATION ROUTE Seceecseecs ABALONE ——» MINOR MIGRATION ROUTE 1-13 ROK WATERFOWL & SEABIRD CONCENTRATIONS HARBOR SEAL - HIGH DENSITY AREA SIGNIFICANT SUBSISTENCE FISH HARVEST AREAS FISH AND WILDLIFE FIGURE I1-4 we SOURCES: Fish and Wildlife Task Force; Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Habitat Maps; Atlas of the Ketchikan Recil SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL FISH HARVEST AREAS oS Osan ZN s—HERRING — DUNGENESS CRABS 7 x BLACK COD Ketchikan's commercial and sport fishery has largely depended upon the salmon - predominantly pink and silver, and to a lesser degree king, red and chum. Today's salmon catch far surpasses the quantity and value of all other local marine re- source harvests combined. Since the mid-1930s, the salmon pack, based mostly on pinks, has declined markedly. For reasons not fully understood, the fishery occasionally produces surprising numbers of fish, as in 1949, when just over one million cases were canned in the district. Salmon packs since 1970 have generally been very low, but 1977 and 1978 were exceptionally good years. Figure II-5 displays the trend of salmon harvests in the five sub-units surround- ing Ketchikan. This chart shows that Sub-units 29 (West Coast of Gravina) and 90 (Pt. Higgins to Neets Bay) are the most important offshore areas for the purse seiner fleet. The Mountain Point area is also mentioned by the fishermen and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as an important purse seine and hand troll area. Areas most important for the power troll fishery lie outside of the Ketchikan Coastal District. Hand trollers fish in Tongass Narrows and in the waters off Mountain Point and Carrol] Point. There are a few areas in the Coastal District where salmon subsistence permits are issued - White River, George Inlet, and Vallenar Point. Of these areas, White River receives the most use; 20 permits were issued in 1978. Ketchikan residents subsistence fish mainly in the waters off Prince of Wales Island; the Ketchikan vicinity is used most heavily for sportfishing. The natural systems in Southern Southeastern Alaska which support salmon runs are capable of producing much larger quantities of salmon than those observed during recent years. Human over-exploitation and damage to spawning grounds have been largely responsible for the drop in salmon production. Hatcheries and lake fertilization projects are essential for improving salmon populations. Other fish harvested in the area for commercial and personal use include herring, sable fish, codfish, halibut, steelhead, trout, and red snapper. Of these, halibut and herring are the most important commercial species. The others are marketed locally and fished for personal use. Halibut production has increased over the last three years, and herring tonnage has been climbing steadily and now surpasses total halibut production. Shellfish Shellfish account for a small portion of the total commercial sport and subsis- tence fishing effort. Dungeness crab are harvested for personal and commercial use, aS are a lesser number of tanner crab and Alaska king crab. Nearly all of the crab catch is absorbed locally. Dungeness crab prefer protected bays and coves. Heavy commercial, recrea- tional, and subsistence harvesting; habitat deterioration from landfills and water pollution; and some logging practices such as log dumping, rafting, and storage have decreased the crab population. Shrimp - including pink, side stripe, and spot - are harvested in moderate quantities from coastal waters near Ketchikan. This fishery also caters to local commercial and subsistence demands. Apparently, the shrimp harvest could be expanded, but more information is needed to prevent over-harvesting. II-14 Figure II-5 SL-II Purse Seine Salmon Harvests ? Sub-Unit Sub-Unit Sub-Unit Sub-Unit Sub-Unit Sub-Unit Sub-Unit 27 29 44 45 46 47 90 East Coast West Coast George Mountain Point Carroll Tongass East Coast of Revilla/ Years of Gravina of Gravina Inlet to Bold Island Inlet Narrows Pt. Higgins to Neets Bay 1970 215052 369,150 C 11,491 Cc C 1,738,385 1971 CG 454,881 C Cc C C C 1972 180,905 1,468,517 Cc 1,456 Cc C 345,577 1973 5,857 Cc G ( Cc le C 1974 68,940 630,100 Cc 74,234 Cc ’ 1,096 ,487 1975 Cc c C Cc C Cc (¢ 1976 Cc 63 ,936 C Cc C Cc C 1977 3,549 380 ,475 C 251,847 Cc Cc 258,115 1978 60,721 1,811,782 1,099,623 9,019 c C 33,207 1979 c Cc ¢ Cc Cc Cc 65,229 1980 38,874 975,220 CG 94,861 ; Cc 136 ,630 Average for open seasons 54,311 769 ,258 - 73,818 524,804 C - Closed for fishing season Abalone, traditionally a subsistence resource, have been harvested commercially in the Ketchikan area several times in past years, with as much as 5,200 pounds of shucked meats taken in 1967. But the small, slow-growing local species has limited commercial harvest potential. The only commercially valuable shellfish not presently harvested, other than for sport, is the clam. Local clam beds are being tested for paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), the major barrier to commercial marketing. Preliminary results indicate that geoduck clams would be suitable for marketing if the digestive organs are not included. Vallenar Bay tideflats host a sizeable geoduck clam population. Aquaculture Facilities Aquaculture facilities often work well in combination with hydroelectric projects. These facilities can share common water supply lines, or the hatchery may reuse water at low pressure after discharge. The State hatchery at Beaver Falls is a good example of such compatible use. The two sites in the planning area which suggest themselves for both uses are the Mahoney Lake area in George Inlet and Whitman Lake/Herring Bay. The latter once served as a hyroelectric facility, but now supplies only a fish hatchery and a small potable water system. Sites with water supply potential for aquaculture purposes alone exist at Whipple and Ward Creeks on Tongass Narrows, and on major stream systems such as Leask Creek and Naha River. Except for Whipple Creek, none of these sites is likely to be selected because fish biologists generally discourage location near streams with large existing escapements to avoid genetic impacts on natural stocks. The Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association is reportedly considering construction of a new fish hatchery at Neet's Bay, about 25 miles north of Point Higgins. Key Fisheries Concerns With logging and fishing activities both prevalent in Ketchikan, the effect of logging on fishing has been a long-standing concern. Lack of information and community expansion are also problematic. Timber Harvesting 8 All species of salmon, trout, and char require clean, sediment-free gravels for spawning and a rather narrow range of water temperatures to assure adequate survival and development of eggs and fry. Likewise, salmon require productive, clean estuaries to promote the fast growth necessary to cope with the open ocean. Timber harvesting can affect freshwater habitat in many ways: increased stream- bed sedimentation, changes in water temperature and flow, changes in nutrients and stability of stream channels, or blocked access to spawning and rearing areas. These problems have all been addressed through the appropriate harvest II-16 guidelines of the U.S. Forest Service, State Forest Practices Act and Regula- tions, and the Interference with Streams and Water Regulations administered by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alleviation of these problems now rests with adequate enforcement. However, many questions about the long-term impact of timber harvesting on streams and estuaries remain unanswered. One of the major concerns is the effect of the removal of streamside vegetation on three basic requirements of fish - food, shelter, and water quality. While no set buffer width along streams is required, wind firm buffer strips along important salmon streams serve to mitigate impacts and are considered in timber harvesting plans. Another impact on stream life can be traced to old growth timber canopy. As old trees die and fall, they often enter streams where they form important components of stream habitat. The disturbance to estuaries stems from their use as log storage and log dumping areas. Soluble organic compounds are leached from the bark of logs and are often toxic to juvenile pandalid shrimp, dungeness crabs, and juvenile salmon. The plant and animal productivity of estuaries is reduced by the protracted accumulation of bark debris. A multi-agency cooperative research project is now underway in Southeast to assess the long-term impact of logging on fish habitat. Lack of Information A common problem for the local aquaculture association, the Department of Fish and Game, the fishing industry, and the U.S. Forest Service in striving to improve Ketchikan's commercial, subsistence, and sport fisheries is the lack of information on the rearing, harvesting, processing, and marketing of the local fisheries resources. A Ketchikan marine center would provide a focus for fisheries developing in Southeastern through research, education, and applied technology. The center should have three kinds of facilities: 1. Research laboratories to be shared by private industry and university researchers. 2. Working areas including a fish processing plant and freight handling docks. 3. Displays, interpretive exhibits, and fish tanks for public enjoyment and education. Community Expansion Urban streams, including Carlanna and Hoadley Creeks, once produced sizeable quantities of salmon and sport fish. Carlanna Creek has been encroached upon by adjacent landowners, robbed of streamside vegetation by natural and man-made forces, and clogged with debris. Pink salmon production now only ranges from 50 to several hundred annually. Carlanna Creek is a good example of the detrimental effects of community expansion that need not happen. Habitat protection need not preclude community expansion if habitat concerns are understood and consi- dered in planning land development. II-17 Wildlife Resources ? Sport and subsistence hunting and opportunities to observe animals in their natural habitats are important to Ketchikan residents and benefit Ketchikan's tourism industry. The area's wildlife includes Sitka black-tailed deer, black bear, wolf, blue grouse, migratory and resident waterfowl, bald eagles, harbor seals, and a variety of fur animals. Suitable habitat presently exists for all of these species and for a wide variety of lesser birds and animals. As the community expands and encroaches on wildlife habitat, certain populations are decreasing and could be eliminated from the immediate vicinity if construction impacts are not properly mitigated. Figure II-4 shows the concentration areas and critical winter range areas of conspicuous wildlife. Waterfowl and seabirds over-winter in all of the near- shore waters in the Ketchikan Coastal District. Wolves are present throughout. Wildlife thus generally distributed are not mapped. Sport hunting and subsistence hunting, dominant uses of the wildlife, are not differentiated in this report. Most hunters are local residents that use the meat and there are no hunting guides based in and around Ketchikan. The Sitka black-tailed deer is the main species hunted in the Coastal District. Figure II-6 depicts the number of persons hunting and deer harvested in each subarea of Unit 1A (Revilla and Gravina Islands) during 1980. Of these hunters, 95% were from the Ketchikan area. The areas which received the heaviest hunting pressure for deer included Vallenar Bay, Tongass Narrows (Gravina side), Betton Island, Blank Inlet, the head of George Inlet, and the southern shoreline of Carroll Inlet. However, the hunter success rate was slightly higher in Area 2. A few deer were killed near the road system, although hunter success was low for these efforts. Fish and Game biologists estimate that Gravina Island may be approaching the carrying capacity for deer, suggesting that critical winter range is and will be the factor limiting the deer population, rather than hunting pressure. Currently, there are no ongoing efforts to improve the deer habitat on Gravina Island. Black bear is a distant second to deer in the amount of big game hunting pressure received. Rough estimates indicate that about 70 hunters sought black bear in Unit 1A in 1980, approximately 14 of which hunted in the Ketchikan Coastal District. The total kill was 27, two below the average (1974-1980). The black bear population appears to be maintaining a fairly constant level, as indicated by the harvest, hunter success, and general observation by game biologists. Waterfowl hunters may number from only 50 to 100, but they are high in hunting days effort. Most duck hunting is concentrated on the muskeg puddles behind the airport, at White River, and on the tideflat at upper George Inlet. Coon Cove and Gem Cove up George Inlet, Bostwick Bay, and Naha Bay receive some waterfowl hunting pressure. Blue grouse "hooters" are hunted all along the road system. There is no mountain goat hunting on the Island, although there is some interest in stocking goats in the northeast region. Trapping is now mostly a recreational pursuit rather than a commercial venture within the Coastal District. There are about 10 to 15 trappers seeking mink, martin, and otter on Gravina Island and in the George Inlet area. II-18 Figure II-6 Deer Hunting Effort - 1980 II-19 Areas popular for wildlife viewing include: 1) the Tatoosh Islands for harbor seal, 2) the Deer Mountain trail for deer, and, 3) the Naha River area for black bear. Wildlife viewing may not be the sole objective of an outing in the Ket- chikan area, but it is always a hoped for opportunity. Key Wildlife Concerns Habitats of deer and eagles, some of Ketchikan's most common wildlife, are being encroached upon by man's activities. Concerns related to wildlife are discussed in the context of the need for co-existence. Deer Habitat 10 Sitka black-tailed deer are the wildlife most threatened by land development. During harsh winter months, the deer population largely depends upon a narrow strip of vegetation along the saltwater where they find food and refuge from deep snows. This narrow and very specific zone, known as the "critical deer winter range", is often also preferred for community expansion because of favorable topo- graphy and protection from severe weather. Recent research on Sitka black-tailed deer suggests that current timber manage- ment plans may significantly reduce the carrying capacity for deer throughout Southeast Alaska as old growth forests are converted to even-aged stands. Adverse winter conditions and good winter habitat are critical factors affecting the deer population. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game found that, in general, the higher volume, uneven-aged old-growth timber stands (50,000 board feet/acre and above) receive the most deer use during harsh winters. In light of this conflict of forest use, Fish and Game recommends that: Remaining high volume stands of more than 50,000 board feet per acre (less than 2% of the commercial forest in Southeast) should be permanently retained for wildlife except by special exemption agreed upon mutually between the USFS and ADF&G. Old growth of 30,000 to 50,000 board feet per acre should be favored for its wildlife values. Foresters and some wildlife biologists agree that more research is needed to clear up the relationship between deer and high volume coastal old growth in the winter. Presently there are studies to determine if silvicultural manipulation of second growth stands can provide deer with winter habitat needs. Eagle Habitat The habitat of the bald eagle, also primarily along the shorelines of the Ket- chikan area, is another casualty of community expansion. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified areas of frequent, consistent eagle nesting and roosting. The Fish and Wildlife Service considers protection of old growth trees along the shoreline as one of the most important eagle management tools. To assure that the survival of the national bird is not further threatened, the Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that no activity take place within 330 feet of an eagle tree without first consulting the local office, and that development within this radius be limited to low density residential uses. 11-20 Although consideration should be given to protecting important wildlife habitat, such concerns ought to be evaluated in light of human land use needs as well as the observed ability for humans and wildlife to co-exist in harmony. Continued community respect for the eagle and other area wildlife is endorsed, but the presence of wildlife in an area does not automatically call for restriction on human settlement. Local Review and Input There is a need to improve local decision makers' knowledge and understanding of the area's fish and wildlife resources and the effects of Planning Commission and Borough Assembly actions on habitat management. In addition, local residents should have a greater voice in formulating a community position on the processing and issuance of State and Federal permits affecting the Ketchikan area. Just as important, those seeking permits should have better information on State and Federal procedures, and on where and how development can occur without damaging important habitat. Furthermore, the subdivision and zoning ordinances of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough do not incorporate fish and wildlife management concerns. E. BEDROCKS, MINERALS, AND DEPOSITS The combined geological processes of tectonic activity, faults, continental drift, and uplift have produced several types of igneous rocks in the Ketchikan area. From these igneous rocks, sedimentary rocks resulted from erosive disin- tegration, breakup, and compaction. These eroded materials were laid down in extremely thick beds. With time and the pressure of overlying beds, the deposits became cemented into new sedimentary rock. The next major type of rock, meta- morphic rock, was formed when the pressures created by the coming together of two crustal plates increased the temperatures to such a degree that igneous and sedimentary rock became plastic in places and flowed and mixed. This complex metamorphism had the additional effect of concentrating metals and minerals, which are sought after today as valuable ores, into veins and pockets. Overall, faulting and continental drift have rearranged the pattern and igneous intrusion followed by uplift and glacial erosion have produced the present bedrock landscape. Bedrock Types As a result of these processes, five major types of bedrocks are found in the Ketchikan vicinty. The pattern for these and some minor rock type occurrences are shown on Figure II-7. They are described briefly as follows: Slate - Slate is a fine-grained platey matamorphic rock formed by the compression of clay and shale. The slate found here is inter- laid with sandstone in the upper portion. Slate and graywacke - Graywacke, a dark-colored, hard rock, was altered from slate and impure sandy sedimentary rocks through metamorphic processes. Slate is still found in association with graywacke. Thin layers of limestone and small beds of conglomerate are found interspresed in this general rock type. II-21 Phyllite - Phyllite is the product of a series of sedimentary and metamorphic changes that involve silt, clay, shale, and the recrystallization of several minerals. The product of this fusion is large outcroppings composed of innumerable thin plates. The rock exposure at Tatsuda's Market is a good example. Greenstone - The schists and the lavas were turned into green- stone by the process of heating, melting, and mixing. The reenstone found locally is primarily comprised of hornblende faluminum minerals) and beds of tuff and lava flows, slate, and graywacke. A high iron and magnesium content produces a greenish coloration to this rock. Quartz diorite - Quartz diorite is a massive granite like rock with a large percentage of quartz crystals. Quartz diorite is the major coarse grained igneous rock found in the Ketchikan vicinity. Minerals and Mining Figure II-8 shows the general location of Ketchikan's common mineral deposits, such as gold, copper, lead, and zinc. Areas with good quarry rock are also shown. Gold was discovered on both sides of the Tongass Narrows around 1900. Since Gravina Island's geology was found to be more complex, due to fault activity and plate transmigration, minor gold operations continued there through 1913. Most mining on Revillagigedo Island was near the head of Thorne Arm where the Sea Level Mine produced a small amount of gold and silver beginning in 1902. In 1947 and 1948 the Mahoney Mine, up George Inlet, produced the only zinc concen- trates commercially exported from Alaska. The Mahoney Mine also produced some lead concentrates as well as gold and silver. The Goldstream Mine on Gravina produced smal] amounts of gold in 1906 and 1912. At Hoadley Creek minor amounts of gold were produced around 1900. The Wildcat Mine, near Mountain Point produced very little saleable minerals. In 1905 bricks were made from clay deposits at Vallenar, but this operation lasted only a year.''While these mines are the only known operable mines in the greater Ketchikan area, there were more than 40 mines in operation in the vast Ketchikan mining district which includes Prince of Wales. A few mines lasted for more than 40 years, but most were short- lived enterprises. With the worldwide rise in the demand for metals and the corresponding price increases, interest in prospecting has increased lately in the Ketchikan area. Several firms and individuals are prospecting and making claims. The Gold Standard Mine at Helm Bay may soon be reactivated; this will involve moving a small mill from Sleeping Beauty Mine to the site, constructing a tailings pond, and developing water and road access before mining could begin. More Ketchikan area mines are likely to be reactivated in the 1980s, but the U.S. Borax molybdenum find at Quartz Hill is most likely to remain the headliner for decades to come. The prospective U.S. Borax mine is discussed as a special issue in Chapter Five. II-22 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough BEDROCK TYPES Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 FIGURE II-7 B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 anaetre FeALE SOURCE: Atlas of the Ketchi- kan Region LEGEND GREENSTONE PHYLLITE Tyee Lax SLATE & GRAYWACKE KK CONGLOMERATE, SANDSTONE & LIMESTONE KK SLATE CHRYSTALLINE SCHIST QUARTZ DIORITE 11-23 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough MINERAL DEPOSITS Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 FIGURE II-8 B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 N o te SOURCE: Timber and Minerals Task Force Report LEGEND MINERALS bf AREAS OF COMMERCIAL QUARRY ROCK Au GOLD 8i BISMUTH ° EXISTING MATERIAL SITES cu COPPER e PATENTED CLAIMS re IRON Pe LEAD x MINES (PLACER AND LODE DEPOSITS) Re RADIOACTIVES Zn ZINC 11-24 Quarry Rock, and Sand and Gravel Deposits As Figure II-8 indicates, rock suitable for commercial use is available through- out the Borough, but only four quarry sites are certified for State road paving - two near Carlanna Creek, one near Whipple Creek, and one on South Tongass near the Homestead. Other quarries in the area supply material for tidelands and muskeg fill, and for building foundations and driveways. Sand and gravel deposits are not as available as rock quarries. Because of the expense involved in testing and opening up a pit, only gravel deposits of over one million yards are considered for certified gravel pits. Smaller quantities may be used for local projects where engineering specifications are not as strict. No large deposits are known at this time. Smaller, untested deposits occur at Whipple Creek, Vallenar Bay, and between Ketchikan Lake and the city Jandfill. Much of the sand and gravel used for Ketchikan construction comes from Prince Rupert, British Columbia and other areas to the south. Future studies and surveys are needed to determine when and where tideland sources of gravel would have to be used. F. RECREATION Residents of Ketchikan enjoy the benefits of one of the most visually stunning settings in the world, rich in reminders of Native and pioneer heritages and abundant with opportunities to enjoy a multitude of outdoor recreation activities - sport fishing, hunting, boating, hiking, and simple appreciation of wildlife, forests, and water. Yet, because of the monument designation of millions of acres of remote lands within and adjacent to the Borough, recreation and heri- tage needs on a smaller, community scale tend to be overlooked. Figure II-9 maps recreation resources. Hunting was discussed in relation to wildlife re- sources on Page II-18. Recreation Activities Sportfishing is the favorite outdoor recreation activity in Southeast, according to the 1979 Alaska Public Survey.!4In 1980, interviews conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game with anglers returning to Clover Pass Resort, Bar Harbor, Knudson Cove, and Moupgain Point indicated that the Clover Pass region is the most heavily used area!3 Expanded angler effort in the Ketchikan area (entire Borough vicinity) was 180,806 hours to catch 17,503 salmon, 1,843 hali- but, and 10,606 rockfish and cod. Figure II-9 shows heavy sportfishing use areas. Trend data suggest that angler pressure for fish in the Ketchikan salt- water areas has been increasing and will continue to increase. Trail-related activities have the highest participation rate among recreational activities. The Alaska Public Survey results showed that 67% of the adults in Southeast participate in beachcombing or exploring along the coast. Forest Service data substantiate this level of use as follows: 11-25 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough RECREATION AREAS Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 FIGURE II-9 B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 Cw N = a 4 Ne f pd \ D Y fogs h és v Cs Oevitiaciceos = SSE SOURCES: Atlas of the Ketchi- kan Region; Tongass National LEGEND Forest map; Recreation, Heri- tage and Viewsheds Task Force HEAVY SPORTFISHING BOAT LAUNCHING RAMP MODERATE SPORTFISHING/BOATING CAMPGROUND GENERAL RECREATION AREA PICNIC FACILITY ae RECREATIONAL CRABBING & SHRIMPING FOREST SERVICE CABIN TRAILS SPORTFISHING STREAMS & LAKES ee “TRAILS - UNDEVELOPED LL RECREATIONAL BOAT ANCHORAGE/MOORAGE oe 11-26 Trail 1980 Visitor Days* Ward Lake Nature Trail 1,300 Deer Mtn. - John Mtn. Trail 900 Naha River Trail 400 Silvis Lake Trail, Harriet Hunt/White River Trail, and Second Waterfall Creek Trail are also used, but less because of the poorer trail conditions and access. Although hiking trails along the beaches are sparse and scattered, Rotary Beach, Refuge Cove, and Settler's Cove are commonly used by Ketchikanites and visitors seeking a leisurely walk and beachcombing. The 1979 Alaska Public Survey reported that 40% of the adults in Southeast camp or stay in cabins about twice a pgar- The following levels of use were estima- ted for areas around Ketchikan: !3 Forest Service Cabins 1980 Visitor Days Fisheries 400 Portage 150 Naha River 600 Jordan Lake 300 Heckman Lake 400 Deer Mountain 100 Blue Lake 100 Forest Service Campgrounds Signal Creek (25 units) 15,400 Three C ( 4 units) 1,700 Settler's Cove ( 9 units) 5,200 Signal Creek campground is approaching capacity, and during the summer Settler's Cove campground is full most of the time. While these figures depict developed camping, many Ketchikan boaters camp on the beach in protected bays such as Blank Inlet and Moser Bay. Picnicking is a favorite activity for close-to-home recreation. Berry-picking and beachcombing are commonly associated with premiering. Below are the use estimates for Forest Service picnic grounds: ! Forest Service Picnic Grounds 1980 Visitor Days Ward Lake 3,400 Grassy Point 1,300 Black Sands Beach 100 Settler's Cove 1,300 Naha Bay 300 Lower Silvis Lake 100 * A "visitor day" consists of relatively constant use over a 24-hour period; therefore, several users may make up one visitor day. 11-27 Data for the previous years indjcate that the levels of use for these picnic grounds have remained constant.* Road accessible picnic grounds are obviously preferred. Public beaches such as Rotary Beach and Refuge Cove are also favorite areas for picnicking. Sixty-one percent of the adults in Southeast participated in motorboating about six times a year according to the 1979 Alaska Public Survey. This would average out to about 41,000 motorboat trips around Ketchikan. Most of these trips are associated with fishing, crabbing, and shrimping. The recreation map shows recreational boat anchorages and moorages. Sporthunting levels of use and hunting areas were discussed in the section on Wildlife Resources. Recreation Areas The following areas have been identified as important recreation resources: Mountain Point Shoreline - State-owned parcels on the Mountain Point Shoreline provide for public fishing, swimming, boat launching, and open space. Clover Pass - Largely Borough selected, this is Ketchikan's chief boating and sportfishing center, excellent for hiking, camping, beachcombing, and picnicking. Gravina Island - Black Sands Beach and the Blank Islands are tradi- tional areas for shell fishing and recreational boating and are sure to receive increased public use as Ketchikan's population grows. Herring Bay, Beaver Falls, and White River - This stretch of scenic shoreline along George Inlet is owned by Cape Fox Corporation. Harriet Hunt Lake - Picnicking, swimming, hiking, fishing, and skiing all occur at this popular year-round recreation area with road access. Ketchikan Lakes Watershed - Under management as a watershed, this area provides a unique wilderness recreation opportunity within a short walking distance of downtown Ketchikan. To avoid contamination of potable water, only necessary facilities (toilets) and trail access should be considered. Silvis Lakes - Silvis Lakes are accessed by trail and are noted for their potential for winter sports. Loop Trail - The loop trail connects Deer Mountain, White River, Harriet Hunt, and Second Waterfall Creek on Clover Pass. Point Higgins - Two State-owned public beaches located in South Point Higgins provide easy access from Ketchikan's densest rural settlement to open waterfront, clam beaches, and swim- Ming areas. II-28 Ward and Connell Lakes - U. S. Forest Service-managed camping, boating, and picnicking spots close to Ketchikan, with road or easy hike-in access. Naha River - Popular remote fishing, boating, and camping area, with established trails, in Tongass National Forest north of Ketchikan. Whipple Creek Drainage - There is an established neighborhood playfield in Whipple Creek. Scenic values in the region sug- gest that this area is suited for additional future recrea- tion activities. Existing recreational shoreline footage is estimated as follows: Area Feet Rotary Beach 1,200 Refuge Cove to Mud Bight 3,000 Totem Bight 2,800 South Point Higgins Beaches 1,000 Settler's Cove 2,000 10,000 = 1.9 mile The State land selections west of the Point Higgins Coast Guard station have been recommended for recreational beach use, and would add about .5 mile to the inventory. Recreation Concerns There is a shortage of designated public beaches and shoreline fishing areas, swimming areas, ocean viewpoints, camping facilities, and boat and seaplane ramps and tie-ups in the Ketchikan area. Although such areas need not be large, they should be frequent along the Borough's roadways. A coordinated effort between government and private concerns is needed to insure that Ketchikan residents retain access to the community's traditional recreation areas and to meet the recreation needs of future generations. Although recreational opportunities within U.S. Forest Service and State lands benefit both Ketchikan residents and visitors, there is a shortage of remote cabins and road accessed camping sites at present. Trailers and campers use scenic turnouts along the highway during the tourist season when Ketchikan's few roadside camping sites are overcrowded. This leads to unsafe, unsanitary conditions and an undesirable visiting experience in Ketchikan. Access to and from most scenic, recreational, and heritage public areas is largely oriented to the automobile. For boaters, there are few launching facil- ities outside marinas along the roaded system; docking and tie-up is also a problem beyond the roaded system. Seaplane pilots face similar difficulties. Pedestrians and bikers are limited in the number of safe, well-marked paths they can travel; there are few safe bikeways and paths in the City and none along Tongass Highway. In Ketchikan, people-powered transportation is difficult and often dangerous. A separate bike and pedestrian lane is needed for both north and south extensions of Tongass Highway. 11-29 Access to Ketchikan Lakes and the foot of Deer Mountain is via the steep and winding road leading to the dump, used predominately by haul trucks. A hiking trail, separate from the road, would provide safer and more pleasant access to this close-in recreational area. An overland trails system starting at the corner of Fair and Deermount streets and connecting all the existing Forest Service trails would greatly improve Ketchikan's hiking opportunities. Beachfront property for public enjoyment is also a concern. Shoreline areas particularly suited for public use, or that have been traditionally used by the public, need to be identified and considered for management by the Borough or the State to insure continued public use. Furthermore, private beachfront development with covenants protecting public access is a viable alternative to public ownership of all beaches. The importance of shoreline lands for recrea- tion, fishing, viewing, and subsistence use is well recognized. G. VISUAL RESOURCES Ketchikan has, for the most part, retained some access to the waterfront, pre- served scenic views, and maintained an attractive downtown area. Forests and unspoiled creeks penetrate the man-made areas, while older buildings, wooden streets, and boardwalks are still a significant part of the city's image. Essentially, Ketchikan abounds in visual resources. With the increasing pressure for development and change brought on by a strong economy, the forest/mountain/coast complex of Ketchikan's dramatic scenery and the urban waterfront vital to the daily enjoyment of living in Ketchikan could be severely affected. A relative ranking of scenic resources can serve as a guideline for areas where development controls and land acquisition measures should be used to insure their visual integrity. The U.S. Forest Service has developed a detailed process for assessing the quality of visual resources, using the following five types of criteria: VW Is the view seen from state ferries, tour ships, pleasure crafts, major roads, major flyways, or public trails? 2. Is the viewer a recreationist, tourist, or community resident? 3. Is the view in the foreground, middleground, or background? 4. How extensive is the view, and are there contrasting forms, colors, lines, and textures? 5. Compared to similar areas, does the view contain unique or common landscape features, and are ‘they uniform or various? Figure II-10, which rates high, moderate, and low visual resources in the Ketchi- kan area, was produced, in consultation with the Forest Services landscape architect, by synthesizing this landscape assessment process. ]6Viewsheds worthy of protection are overlaid. II-30 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough VISUAL RESOURCES Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 FIGURE II-10 B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 N PeviccaleliBe oe tsk AMMETTE st SOURCES: USFS Visual Analysis Maps; Recreation, Heritage, & Viewsheds Task Force LEGEND BEY HIGH VISUAL RESOURCES ] MEDIUM VISUAL RESOURCES LOW VISUAL RESOURCES a SCENIC OVERLOOK HE vicwsnep II-31 Ketchikan residents also value unobstructed views from the densely populated city core. Freighters loading timber harvested from Native-owned lands, sea- planes taking off for nearby communities, fishing boats approaching port to unload their catch, cruise ships bringing tourists from around the world, and many other activities combine to make Ketchikan's waterfront a fascinating and colorful attraction for residents and visitors alike. Yet there are few places, other than the new city-owned dock, where people can pause to watch these excit- ing waterfront activities or to just enjoy the natural beauty of Ketchikan's city seascape. As one resident has commented, "You can walk or drive for blocks along our major thoroughfare unaware that you are within yards of the waterfront." West of downtown, one and two story buildings standing side by side along Front Street and Tongass Avenue create a formidable wall, block after block, between the roadway and the waterfront. The barrier ends at the beginning of the west- end commercial district, an area dominated by asphalt parking lots and commercial outlets, which render the waterfront backyard status for deliveries and garbage collection. Fenced industrial and government storage areas, the State ferry terminal parking lots, the post office building and parking lot, and the city utilities compound occupy the remaining stretch of the urban waterfront. H. GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS The assessment of geophysical hazards relies on the probability and periodicity of natural events, making predictions of episodes uncertain. Nonetheless, an assessment of hazards can result in construction which is designed to avoid or minimize the effects of damaging natural events on life and property. Figure II-11 maps earthquake faults, landslide and avalanche areas, floodplains, and V-notched drainages. Earthquakes and Faults The diverse tectonic forces bearing on Southeast Alaska have created numerous linear features in the earth's crust. These linear features are active or inactive faults where the earth's plates have shifted. Fault lines have helped create some distinctive local formations such as Tongass Narrows and the Vallenar- Bostwick Valley. No active faults are known to exist in the Ketchikan region. The historical record indicates that there have been no earthquake epicenters in the Ketchikan area (55 to 56 degrees N, 130 to 132 degrees W) since 1788. Several earthquakes generated elsewhere have been felt in Ketchikan, but no damage was reported. Ketchikan is placed in Seismic Zone 2 by Lemke, which means that the magnitude of the largest earthquakes would range from 4.5 to 6.0 with moderate damage to structures. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers places Ketchikan in Zone 3, where strong earthquakes with magnitudes of 6.0 or greater can be expected. Since the Queen Charlotte Islands Fault lies just offshore, a strong earthquake generated there might be felt in Ketchikan. I-32 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 ' topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 FIGURE I1-11 B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 N XY am \ \ . SS yO a Wye \ \ Ss Ls SA ‘A . Y WY, 4 GAO PS Ke {y \ BM The SOURCES: Atlas of the Ketchi- miles kan Region; Planning Dept. Land Selection Overlays LEGEND * —— INFERRED FAULT LINES @® KNOWN LANDSLIDE AREA <itt» FLOOD AREA "3 VeNOTCHED DRAINAGES SS e7ENOWN AVALANCHE PATHS @2UD AVALANCHE AND/OR LANDSLIDE -— POTENTIAL DUE TO STEEP SLOPES 11-33 Since tsunamis are generated by crustal movements associated with earthquakes, they are relatively common in the Pacific Ocean. Ketchikan, however, is so well sheltered from the open ocean that it is unlikely that a large tsunami will ever reach here. Two small tsunamis have been recorded in Ketchikan - one on August 21, 1949 of 0.3 feet (0.1m) and another on March 27, 1964 of two feet (0.6m) Landslides and Avalanches Landslides are relatively common in the Ketchikan area for several reasons. First, gravity exerts a strong force on the steep slopes common throughout the region. To compound the problem, glacially polished bedrock may be very close to the surface with only a thin covering of unconsolidated material. This thin layer is incapable of holding tall trees firmly and cannot absorb large amounts of water. During periods of heavy precipitation, landslide probability increases on these slopes because water adds weight and acts as a lubricant. Landslide potential increases tremendously when the protective vegetation and organic soil layers are removed. When the holding power of plant roots is destroyed, water runoff and erosion increase. Since the local topography was fashioned princi- pally by glaciers, compact till underlies the base of many slopes and impedes drainage, thereby increasing landslide potential. Short-run avalanches are common above timberline, and a few chutes are easily visible on the peaks of Deer Mountain and Twin Peaks. Long-run avalanches that extend down onto the heavily timbered sideslopes are rare, but can occur if heavy snowloads and several freeze-thaw cycles happen during a short period of time. Typically, avalanche paths are covered by alder, ferns, and salmon berry. The possibility of a long-run avalanche is higher in areas where old chutes exist. These areas are unsuited for structure location. Storms Storms in the Ketchikan area most often occur during the fall and winter months. The prevailing winter wind is a north wind that moves out of Canadian high pressure cells bringing cold weather and strong winds. South winds are also common in the winter. The funneling effect of the Tongass Narrows tends to increase the velocity of the wind and turns north winds into northwesterly winds and south winds into southeasterly winds. The normal high tide level can be easily increased by one foot or more as a result of high monthly tides combined with strong offshore winds accompanying storms. Shoreline high exposure areas generally have a "fetch" of ten or more miles, irrespective of wind direction. This degree of exposure can result in typical wave heights ranging from over three feet in a 22 knot wind to over ten feet at 60 knots. Flooded buildings and power outages caused by seepage of salt water into utility vaults can occur where structures and utilities are not properly located to compensate for storm surges. Buildings along the waterfront should be located several feet above highest high water to avoid damage. II-34 Flood Hazards Most of the developed area of the Borough is on lands not subject to flooding by local streams. However, development has occurred along several streams that present some flooding threat; Carlanna Creek flooded in 1973 when Carlanna Lake Dam failed. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has prepared floodplain informa- tion reports focusing on the flood hazards at Ketchikan, Carlanna, Hoadley, and Whipple Creeks. Streams running down steep, unstable slopes have created several V-notched drainages in the Ketchikan area. These drainages are the greatest source of stream sediments. During periods of heavy rainfall, debris torrents could cause considerable damage to nearby or downstream development. Upper Carlanna Creek tra- verses a V-notched drainage. The cluttering of streams in the developed area poses a safety threat to Ketchi- kan residents and their property. As storm rains fill the creek beds, the fast flowing water carries debris lining the banks downstream. The debris piles up against culverts and bridges spanning the stream banks. When the dam of logs and refuse breaks, a destructive wall of water and debris surges forth. Some city riparian property owners increase their buildable lot area by filling or building structures within the stream floodways. In some cases, the natural drainageway is inadvertently rerouted, causing flooding and mudslides on property below. In other cases, stream passage is constricted, increasing the velocity of the stream flow and aggravating erosion downstream. I. SHORELINE PHYSICAL FEATURES The natural physical characteristics of the shoreline affect the developability of a waterfront site. Figure II-12 shows exposed and protected areas and shore- line characteristics in the Coastal District. Locating waterfront facilities in zones of high wind and wave exposure is unde- sirable for a number of reasons. Since structures in such areas are subject to severe punishment by the elements, initial construction is more expensive and more maintenance is required. Vessels may be unable to maneuver in such areas during bad weather, and docked vessels may cause significant damage to the moorage structure. The severity of exposure is generally proportional to the amount of open water, or "fetch", in the vicinity. Offshore rocks, shallow reefs, and general navigability are additional consider- ations in assessing the desirability of given waterfront areas for development, particularly when vessels are involved. Highly exposed areas are generally rocky and often associated with fairly steep uplands. The engineering feasibility of seaward development is also strongly influenced by the steepness of the submerged shoreline and the material of which it is composed. It is expensive to construct a fill on a steep beach, since the II-35 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough SHORELINE PHYSICAL FEATURES Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 FIGURE II-12 B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 CP ) N ecvitiaereroe * a ay Pe, eearyaun \ “ . ge a SYP wo wg ‘ g 4 F * i ° i i * GY » y em d . me x it * 5 i? 4 Ey \\ Se OIA anwerre st YES E a ots he SOURCES: SSRAA Board of Direc- mars tors; NOAA Navigational Charts 17428 & 17422; Coast and Geo- LEGEND detic Survey 8094 NEAR SHORE CHARACTERISTICS (9-200 FEET): EXPOSURE TO PREVAILING WINDS : MUD & SAND eee” HIGH EXPOSURE AREAS ROCKY & SHALLOW, 0-10 FATHOMS ——— MODERATE EXPOSURE AREAS ROCKY & STEEP, 10 FATHOMS ww, WELL-PROTECTED AREAS * OFFSHORE ROCKS & REEFS 11-36 average amount of fill required to create one square foot of land is greater than that required on a flat beach. In addition, steep bottom slopes provide less stable foundations, particularly where they consist of silts and sands. Some sand deposits, even though they may be quite dense, are susceptible during seismic tremors to a phenomenon called "liquefaction", a quicksand-like unstable condition. This condition was discovered at the mouth of Carlanna Creek during geotechnical investigations for the Ketchikan municipal sewage treatment plant, and probably occurs elsewhere in the area. Shallow tidelands, less than 30 feet below lower low water, are valued as potential landfills. The popularity of this method for creating waterfront land in Ketchikan is evidenced by the fact that large sections of the Ketchikan west end and downtown areas are built on tideland fill. J. COASTAL HABITATS Coastal habitats provide nutrients, food, and energy for many living species, including man. Because they are depended upon for feeding, rearing, overwinter- ing, and cover, coastal habitats are of primary ecological importance. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has identified and mapped six coastal habitat types within the Ketchikan vicinity: Rivers, Streams, and Lakes Important Upland Habitat Wetlands and Tideflats Estuaries Barrier Islands and Lagoons Offshore Areas AnrwWwnhn— Figure II-13 shows the distribution of these habitat types. Rivers, streams, and lakes provide a myriad of microhabitats which support salmon, trout, waterfowl, otters, beavers, black bears, and many other forms of fish and wildlife. During spring, these fresh waters begin to teem with life. Hordes of insects emerge, providing food for fish which feed throughout early summer. As summer progresses, waterfowl and many mammals rear their young along these waterbodies. During summer and fall, salmon migrate upstream to spawn, and bears and eagles feed on decaying salmon carcasses. By winter, this habitat quiets, with fish overwintering in deep pools. Consequently, rivers, streams, and lakes fulfill the needs of many species during critical life stages. While any salmon-producing stream is an important habitat, practical resource manage- ment in a large area so rich in resources necessitates delineating particularly important freshwater habitats. The Alaska Department_of Fish and Game assessed these habitats in relation to their fisheries value.!/The more important rivers, streams, and lakes in the Ketchikan Coastal Management District, as shown in Table II-1, include the Naha River/Lake system, the Ward Creek/Lake system, White River, Vallenar Creek, the Bostwick Creek/Lake system, and Leask creek .!8 II-37 Reproduced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough COASTAL HABITATS Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topography series, Ketchikan, 1955 FIGURE I1-13 B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 N i Mi a 0 1 hi st i Map Prepared by: Marine & Coastal Habitat "at Management, Habitat Pro- tection Section, Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game LEGEND IMPORTANT UPLAND A] STREAMS im HABITAT BARRIER ISLANDS RSJ _seestuaries & LAGOONS OFFSHORE AREAS; WE owetvanps & t1pervats SEAWARD OF HEAN LOW LOW WATER 11-38 Table II-1 Assessment of Rivers, Streams, and Lakes SIGNIFICANT SALMON PRODUCING STREAMS WITH MORE THAN 5,000 SQUARE METERS OF SPAWNING AREA Estimated spawning area Stream (in square meters) Vallenar Creek 27,879 Bostwick 20,900 Ward Creek/Lake 17,723 Naha River/Lake system 83,383 Steelhead Creek 7,358 White River 35,000 Leask Creek 9,197 East Salt Chuck Creek 6,867 AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR POTENTIAL FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT: Ward Creek Wolf Creek Moser Bay Creek Mahoney Lake Naha River System Leask Creek STREAMS WITH SIGNIFICANT WATERSHEDS FOR EXISTING ENHANCEMENT PROJECT: SPORT FISHING AREAS: Ketchikan Creek (Deer Mountain Hatchery) Naha River System Whitman Lake (SSRAA Hatchery) Ward Creek System Beaver Falls Creek (Beaver Falls Hatchery) Bostwick Lake and Creek Ketchikan Creek (Fish Pass) White River II-39 The area designated as important upland habitat by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game roughly parallels the 1,000-foot elevation contour. In this context, "upland" is defined as those drainages, aqui fegs » and land whose use would have a significant direct impact on coastal water.'’The coastal forests play a key role in controlling the flow and quality of fresh water to the sea by temporar- ily retaining and filtering rain. If critical deer wintering range were to be considered as a key factor in determining important upland habitat, then Blank Inlet, the Gravina side of the Narrows north of the airport, and the George Inlet area would be highlighted as shown on Figure II-4 in the wildlife section. These areas provide essential shelter for Sitka black-tailed deer during periods of heavy snowfall. Intertidal flats and tide-influenced wetlands offer rich, diverse habitats, because nutrients constantly pass down watersheds to the ocean. These coastal habitats are the interface between the forest and the sea. The edge between two habitats, known as the ecotone, is critical to many species of wildlife who feed in one habitat and seek cover in another. Depending on the amount and texture of sand and clay particles, tideflats may be relatively barren or may contain clams, cockles, worms, crabs, and snails. Clams are filter feeders, consuming the plentiful microscopic life hidden in the mud. Crabs scavenge and prey on the life sustained by the tideflats. The tide-influenced wetlands host a variety of grasses and sedges, which are fed upon by waterfowl, deer, and even black bear in the spring. Because of the steepness of the terrain around Ketchikan's bays, there are limited coastal wetlands and tideflats. (Muskeg areas are not considered to be coastal wetlands.) However, the large tideflats of Vallenar Bay and Moser Bay yield crabs and clams. Geoducks are also found at Vallenar Bay. There are numerous clams on the Grant Creek flats. At White River and Coon Cove, clams and crabs can be found on the river delta and the tideflat, respectively. Eelgrass, an indicator plant for productivity, is found along the White River delta. An estuary is a semiclosed coastal body of water which has a free connection with the sea and within which seawater is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage. Estuaries are of particular management interest because of their strong circulation of nutrients, exceptionally high carrying capacities, and vulnerability. Aquatic plants, such as kelp, provide additional food and shelter, and are the beginning of a long marine food chain that culmi- nates with salmon, halibut and killer whales. Salmon fry are reared for four to six weeks in estuaries. Estuaries generally have a high biomass in relation to offshore waters. Freshwater inflow is most significant to estuarine circulation in the Naha, Moser, Vallenar, Blank Inlet, Bostwick, and Herring Bay areas gnd at the mouths of White River, Leask Creek, and the George Inlet Salt Chuck. There are no barrier islands in the Ketchikan Coastal District; however, there is one saltwater lagoon, Roosevelt Lagoon at the head of Naha Bay. A lagoon is a relatively shallow estuary with very restricted exchange with the sea. The restricted entrance to Roosevelt Lagoon limits some of the exchange of marine life with freshwater life, although seals, apparently seeking shelter, have been sighted in Roosevelt Lagoon. / Because of the shallowness of lagoons, coastal wetlands are prevalent along the edges, as is the case at Roosevelt Lagoon. However, their shallowness also makes lagoons more susceptible to sedimentation if erosion occurs in the area. II-40 All waters and submerged lands three miles seaward of the coastline are con- sidered to be offshore areas for the purposes of coastal management. The off- shore area is to be managed as a fisheries conservation zone so as to maintain or enhance sport, commercial, and subsistence fisheries. 9The importance of Ketchikan's offshore waters for fisheries is discussed in the fisheries section. K. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS Although resources have been individually inventoried and analyzed in the pre- ceding sections of this chapter, resource values have not been assessed collec- tively. Certain areas in the Ketchikan vicinity are relatively important envir- onmentally. Identification of these environmentally sensitive areas is intended to: 1) identify environmental concerns early in the land and water development process, 2) guide development into areas having less environmental value to impact, and, 3) assist in efforts directed toward permit simplification. Recognition of environmentally sensitive areas does not preclude development in those areas. Rather, the developer must give special consideration to the identified concerns in designing and locating a project within a sensitive area. However, it is also intended that future development, particularly industrial growth, would be planned to avoid these areas whenever possible. This approach acknowledges that, with balanced planning, development can be compatible with environmental concerns. Sophisticated planning models enable planners, with sufficient time and finan- cial resources available, to do detailed and complex mapping of composite re- source values. However, a much simplified method of sensitivity rating was designed for use here. Ten resource characteristics were identified as key determinants of environmen- tal sensitivity. These resource values, which focus on unique attributes of the land and water, habitat areas critical to the life cycles of fish and wildlife, and recreation and scenic areas used and appreciated by Ketchikan residents include: Hazard prone areas Offshore areas important for commercial fishing Productive tideflats Critical deer winter range Mammal concentration areas Bald eagle nesting sites Salmon streams with 5,000 square meters or more of spawning habitat Herring wintering and/or spawning areas Heavy recreational use areas Viewsheds worthy of protection in heavily used recreation areas ooooo°0oo9o oo ° II-41 Any area possessing two or more of these resource characteristics is identified on Figure II-14 as an environmentally sensitive area. All resource values were considered to be of equal importance. The following listing briefly describes the resource values of each area identified: West Loring - Heavy sportfishing takes place in the area; herring Spawn along the beach; two surveyed bald eagle nests are located in the vicinity. Naha Bay/Lake System - The Naha river and lake system (excluding Heckman Lake) offers over 70,000 square feet of salmon spawning area, and is one of the best known red salmon systems in South- east; with three Forest Service cabins in the vicinity and excel- lent sportfishing for steelhead trout, the area receives heavy recreation use; its viewshed has been identified as worthy of protection; black bear concentrate along the Naha and several adjacent streams. Clover Passage/Betton Island - The Clover Pass area has long been recognized for its scenic value; herring winter in the area; Clover Pass is heavily used by sportfishermen for openwater fishing; Settlers' Cove and Knudson Cove have developed recrea- tion facilities receiving significant use; herring spawn on the beaches, and on the kelp around Back Island, and near Betton Island; the Tatoosh Islands are known for harbor seal congre- gations; purse seine use is significant along the western shore of Betton Island; V-notched drainages and flooding occurs at Waterfall and Lunch Creeks. Vallenar Point - The shoreline along Vallenar Point is a critical deer winter range; the shoreline has been identified as a domi- nant element in Ketchikan's ocean view; the area around Vallenar Point receives heavy use by sportfishermen; the area has been identified as a viewshed because of concentrated recreation use and viewpoint at Point Higgins. Inner Vallenar Bay - Extensive tideflats and the presence of crabs and clams may indicate significant productivity; Vallenar Creek has about 27,000 square meters of salmon spawning area, much of which is concentrated near the mouth. Bostwick Creek - Bostwick Creek has about 20,000 square meters of salmon spawning ground; black bear concentrate along the left fork; excellent populations of crabs and clams exist on the extensive tideflats at the head of the bay, indicating productive tideflats. Ward Lake - The entire Ward Creek/Lake system offers 17,000 square meters of salmon spawning habitat; Ward Lake is a popular sportfishing and picnicking area with developed recreation facilities. Quter Ward Cove - Heavy sportfishing occurs at the mouth of Ward Cove; herring are known to concentrate in area during the winter; surveyed bald eagle nest exists on the islands off Refuge Cove. II-42 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 FIGURE II-14 B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 N SS > (} | wir SOURCE: Composite of Coastal Management Maps, Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Dept. LEGEND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 11-43 Mountain Point - Well-known as an offshore and on-shore fishery for both purse seiners and sportfishermen because of the dense schooling of salmon; well-used boat launch exists; herring spawn along the shore. Whitman Lake Area - Shoreline serves as a critical winter range for deer; heavy sportfishing occurs along shore; potential ava- lanche or landslide area exists. Upper George Inlet - Shoreline serves as a critical winter range or deer; surveyed bald eagle nests are found in the vicinity; White River offers 35,000 square meters of salmon spawning ground; black bear concentrate along the White River and major tribu- taries; clams and crabs are found.on the delta of White River; herring spawn near the mouth of White River; Leask Creek offers about 9,000 square meters of salmon spawning habitat and has black bear concentrations; herring winter concentrations and harbor seal concentrations are found at the head of the inlet. Salt Chuck Stream offers about 7,000 square meters of salmon spawning habitat for chum and pink salmon; black bear concentrate along the stream. West Coon Island - Harbor seals are found in high numbers along the shore; a bald eagle nest is located on the western shore. II-44 CHAPTER ITI RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS: THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT A PRIMARY FOCUS OF COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE ON THE MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE ~- PEOPLE. THE PRESENT NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY MUST BE BALANCED WITH THE NEED TO PROTECT AND FOSTER WISE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COASTAL RESOURCES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF KETCHIKAN S RESIDENTS, WITH PROJECTED SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN POPULA- TION BY 1990, IT WILL BE A CHALLENGE TO KETCHIKAN TO RETAIN THE BLEND OF NATIVE CULTURE AND PIONEER HISTORY THAT MAKES KETCHIKAN A UNIQUE PLACE TO LIVE, PERHAPS THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE WILL BE TO MAKE BEST USE OF KETCHIKAN’S WATERFRONT FOR FUTURE WATER TRANSPORTATION NEEDS. WHILE RESIDENTIAL LAND OUTSIDE THE CITY APPEARS IN AMPLE SUPPLY, PROVIDING SUITABLE AREAS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUS- TRIAL EXPANSION, AND RESIDENTIAL LAND CLOSE IN TO KETCHIKAN WILL BE PRIMARY CONCERNS. JUST AS THE STAGE IS SET FCR CHANGE, THE PATTERN OF LAND OWNER- SHIP IS ALSO CHANGING AS SELECTIONS BECOME PATENTS AND MORE SELECTIONS ARE MADE. IN ESSENCE, THE NEAR FUTURE IS FULL OF CHALLENGES FOR GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISES, III-1 A. ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY A variety of Native cultures have flourished among the abundant coastal re- sources in the area which became the town of Ketchikan a century ago. Their wealth, customs, and sophisticated artistic traditions brought the Tlingit societies worldwide recognition as resourceful, highly developed cultures. Ketchikan is also one of the few cities in Alaska that retains a sense of historic character; many of the early nineteenth century structures are still occupied by residents and businesses. This blend of Native culture and pioneer history contributes greatly to Ketchikan's ambience today. The Native Alaskan Culture The Tlingit Indians occupied an area of Alaska's panhandle reaching from Yakutat Bay on the north to Cape Fox on the south. When the Haida Indians migrated to Prince of Wales Island, the Tlingits relocated to outlying areas, including Revilla Island. Hence, Tlingit culture is today the predominant Native culture of the Ketchikan area. Tlingit societies depended upon two essential resources: the forest and the sea. The forest furnished the raw materials for fashioning functional and decorative objects. The sea offered food in great abundance. The primary marine resource harvested by these people was salmon, but herring, halibut, crustaceans, shellfish, and marine mammals supplemented their diet. The readily available resource base shaped the cultures of the area. Because of the plenti- ful subsistence goods available, time was freed for the pursuit of noneconomic activities, including development of a complex social structure. Tlingit ceremonialism focused on the conspicuous display of wealth. The best- known ceremony in this tradition was the potlatch. The goal of tribe members was to amass wealth in the form of goods of all kinds, and then to bestow it upon others on special occasions. The potlatch thereby demonstrated affluence and validated status within the tribe. The Tlingits created an intricate artistic tradition of great beauty in the decorative arts and wood carving. Virtually every object utilized was decorated with totemic symbols. They were painted and carved on house posts and siding, canoes, boxes, horn spoons, and dishes; engraved on coppers; and carved on memorial and totem poles. The artistic abilities and achievements of the Tlingit artisans are recognized worldwide. Fine examples of totem poles were once found at a Tlingit cemetery on Pennock Island. These totem poles, as well as others from Native villages in Southern Southeast Alaska, were transported to Ketchikan where they have been refurbished for display at Totem Bight State Park, the Totem Heritage Center, and the City of Saxman Totem Park. Ketchikan's parks and museums contain the largest col- lection of original and replicated totem poles in the world. At Totem Bight State Park, a large traditional-style meeting house was constructed of local materials to illustrate the varied motifs used to decorate ceremonial buildings. III-2 Today, Native organizations actively document and maintain their rich cultural heritage. Lectures, films, and classes are given on traditional skills such as carving and basket weaving. The Tlingit language is still taught to both chil- dren and adults. Traditional singing and dancing are displayed on holidays and at special gatherings. A modified form of the potlatch is still observed; smal- ler naming parties given by the parents of a child claiming a traditional name or crest are not uncommon. These efforts are vital to maintaining the Tlingit culture. Historic Settlement White settlements tended to form around canneries and mines in early Alaska. As large capital enterprises followed individual attempts to exploit Alaska's natural resources, Ketchikan (Kitsan, as it was known in 1885) was founded near the saltery at the mouth of Ketchikan Creek. Outlying canneries gradually relocated to Ketchikan because of its convenience for shipping, and remote mining camps relied on the new colony to provide their supplies and process their mail. Use of local timber increased as canneries opened and the surround- ing town grew. By the end of the nineteenth century, the Ketchikan area had the characteristics of a boom town: a large influx of settlers (mainly from Wrangell) living in tents, small businesses opening to accommodate the settlers, and large corporate interests (such as the Alaska Steamship Company) beginning to establish them- selves. The early 1900s were years of growth and prosperity as Ketchikan became an incorporated city. Public facilities and services - such as a school, a hospital, a post office, and a newspaper - helped to transform the tent city into a permanent settlement. In 1901 the Fortmann Hatchery, then the world's largest, was established at Loring at the mouth of Naha Bay. Shortly thereafter, the New England Fish Company built a wharf and a fish freezing plant in Ketchikan. By 1908 the salmon canning industry was the basis of Ketchikan's economy. When mining slumped, the canneries were able to provide employment and prevent the "bust and desertion" syndrome typical of mining communities. With this economic activity, Ketchikan quickly superseded Loring as the main port of entry into Alaska, further enhancing the City's potential to become a major settlement. Perhaps the most significant development of the following decade, from 1910 to 1919, was the establishment of the 14-acre spruce mill in the center of town. Because of year-round halibut fishing, dried halibut shipping, wooden box manufacturing, and new canneries operating in the vicinity, Ketchikan grew while other regions in Alaska suffered economically. The City expanded north and south and up the steep coastal slopes. With the addition of regular air service in the 1930s, Ketchikan became the largest trading area in the Alaska territory. Federal government programs and the City's purchase of electric, telephone, and water facilities helped ensure a slow but steady pace of growth through the depression years; the City of Ketchi- kan actually experienced an overall growth rate of 25%. III-3 Logging camps were then established in the area, stimulated by the wartime demand for spruce for military aircraft. Several sawmills continued to operate after the war, cutting spruce and cedar for local use and export. During the Jate 1940s, Ketchikan's annual salmon runs declined dramatically. However, with the opening of a pulp mill at Ward Cove in 1954, and the resulting increase in area logging camps from five to 45, Ketchikan soon had a new economic base. The 1950s were an important era in Ketchikan's development. A new high school, road extensions south and north, a community college, construction of the tunnel, and the "clean-up" of Creek Street were all indications of the changing image and growth of the First City. Archaeological and Historic Sites While it is difficult to make assumptions that conditions in prehistoric times were Similar to those of the historic period, it can be safely stated that all major prehistoric Native villages and seasonal camps were sited near the coast, facing gently sloped hillsides. Recent preliminary fieldwork conducted by the U.S. Forest Service determined fet several criteria influenced the locations selected for these settlements.°‘Villages were located: o With a south/southwest orientation, to obtain maximum available sunlight. o Adjacent to gently sloping beaches and shorelines to facilitate canoe landing. o At moderately strategic locations. o In areas not adjacent to salmon streams. o In areas receiving high protection from prevailing southeast storms. o Near sources of fresh water. Various sites discovered through oral tradition, literature research, and field investigations have been identified in the general Ketchikan area. These sites, depicted on Figure III-1, have been traced to either the historic or protohis- toric (i.e., before contact with western civilization) periods. Forts and villages have been found in the Loring, White River, Mahoney Creek, and Clover Pass areas and at the head of George Inlet. The municipalities of Ketchikan and Saxman were at one time seasonal villages. Stone fish weirs and traps have been discovered in George Inlet, on the west coast of Gravina Island, off Annette Island, and in the Clover Pass area. Gravesites dating from the late 1800s have been noted on Pennock Island. Smokehouses are known to have existed throughout George and Carroll Inlets and the White River area. Seasonal camps were located on Gravina Island and in George and Carroll] Inlets. Petroglyphs have been identified in various locations throughout the Ketchikan vicinity. Since addi- tional sites may exist, potential archaeological sites should be surveyed prior to the disposal of State and Borough lands. III-4 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Dept., ]982, using USGS 1: 63,360 topographin series, Ketchikan, 1955 B-5, B-6, C-5 & C-6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HISTORICAL SITES FIGURE III-1 N Loe 017 018 001 011 033 031 054 032 076 ll . ( aa , & Ez eA LEGEND SITE IDENTIFIED BY STATE OFFICE OF HISTORY & ARCHAEOLOGY PERMANENT VILLAGE SEASONAL VILLAGE FORT III-5 FISH TRAP ae FISH WEIR My | PetRocLyPx Em GRAVESITE SOURCES: Atlas of the Ketchikan Region; State Office of History & Archaeology; Goldschmidt and Hass, “Possessory Rights of the Natives of Southeastern Alaska", SALTERY MINING ._E oe e SAWMILL The Office of History and Archaeology within the State Division of Parks has compiled a statewide inventory of places of specific historical significance. These places are shown on Figure III-1 by the corresponding State identification number. The following listing contains historical sites relevant to the Ketchi- kan area Native culture: Dé Site KETOO1 Totem Heritage Center. Remains of 39 aged poles carved in the 19th century. KETO14 Totem Bight. Replica community house and 13 totem poles constructed from 1938 to 1942. KETO15 Carroll Inlet, Shelter Cove. Petroglyph site. KETO17 George Inlet. Petroglyph site. KETO21 Saxman. Petroglyph site. KETO26 Naha River. Live stone chisels found in vicinity. KET027 Port Gravina Site. Sawmill and resulting settlement established by Tsimshian Indians from Metlakatla, destroyed in 1904. KET047 Bostwick Inlet Village. Reported seasonal village. KETO53 Indian Point Village. Reported huge village site at Indian Point on Naha Bay. KETO54 Ketchikan. Reported large permanent village. KETO55 Old Saxman Cemetery. Burial site on Pennock Island used from 1888 to the 1930s. KETO60 Saxman Totem Park. Collection of 25 totem poles, originals and replicas, from area villages. KETO77 Herring Bay. Petroglyph site. Ketchikan began recognizing the value of preserving its history by creating the Creek Street Historic District in 1974. There are many more historic buildings and complexes in the area that should be similarly protected. The following historic structures and places are currently on the State inventory (locations are shown on Figure III-1 by the identification number). III-6 ID # Site KETO11 St. Johns Church. KETO25 Guard Island Light Station. Constructed in 1904; fog buildings completed in 1922. KETO31 Creek Street District. KET032 Water Street Trestle. Wood plank street dating from early 1900s. KETO76 Dolly's House. Residence of Dolly Arthur, famous madam. In addition, a recent Historic Properties Survey identified 120 buildings suit- able for nomination to the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey, and nine buildings eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. @ B. POPULATION The estimated 1981 population figure is currently under dispute between the Borough and the State. The Borough places the 1981 Borough population at 13,423 and the City of Ketchikan population at 8,324. The State, using U.S. Census figures, estimates the Borough 1981 population to be 11,373 and the City of Ketchikan population to be 7,200. Population projections must reflect historical growth rates as well as antici- pate likely future growth resulting from planned major development projects. For purposes of computing annual rates of population change, the Borough base estimates were used. With the exception of the years from 1965 to 1970, the Borough's population has been steadily increasing since 1960 at about 3% per year. For purposes of making the population projections displayed in Table III-1, a 2.9% annual growth rate was used. This growth rate reflects: 1. Historical increases in annual growth from 1976 to 1981. 2. Intensive construction activity anticipated to occur in association with the winter ferry maintenance facility, Swan Lake, the Cape Fox hotel, and other planned projects. 3. Average timber employment levels prior to recent market slumps. 4. Slight increases in fishing activity resulting from improved salmon runs. III-7 5. Anticipated increases in support activities as Ketchikan's role as a regional trade center increases. 6. Continued visitors' industry growth at present rates. In addition, population increases associated with construction and operational employment at U.S. Borax's Quartz Hill mine and the State's Winter Ferry Main- tenance Facility were added directly into the projections. The State estimates of the 1981 population were used, producing the following population projection ranges: Table III-1 Borough-Wide Population Projections 1987 13,194 1992 A (Borax townsite option) 16,603 1992 B (Borax Ketchikan commute option) 18,833 Figure III-2 places these projections in the perspective of past population growth. Regardless of where Borax chooses to house its employees, the current population of Ketchikan will grow by about 40% by 1990, according to preliminary estimates. In any event, the next decade in Ketchikan will be a period of accelerated growth that will necessitate careful planning at all levels. C. LAND OWNERSHIP Land use in the Ketchikan Coastal Management District is closely linked to land ownership; the management objectives of the area's predominant landowners will determine future land use configurations. Figure III-3 shows the present pattern of land ownership and reflects a major redistribution of land that is taking place in the Ketchikan area. A considerable number of acres of the land now under Federal management will be transferred to the State of Alaska and the local Native corporation. In turn, the State plans to convey land to the Borough as well as directly to private individuals. The Borough will then be able to dispose of land also. The following sections briefly discuss the legislation directing these land transfers, anticipated changes in land ownership, and the effects of these changes on future land use. Land Legislation Prior to Alaska's statehood, the Federal Government controlled the vast majority of the land in the Alaska Territory. Only a small fraction of Alaska's 367 million acres were owned privately or by the territorial government. The Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 attempted to change this configuration dramatically by entitling the State to select 104.5 million acres of Federally-owned land. An accompanying law, Public Law 84-830, provided an additional one million acres, which were to be used for the support of the State's mental health programs. III-8 Figure III-2 Population Growth 23 mo Mm Mm 1 Future Population ' 1 Estimates | 4 Borough Population 13 in Thousands 12 Historical 7 Population Growth 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1981 1990 Years A-Borax Townsite Option B-Borax Ketchikan Commute Option Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Alaska Department of Labor Statistics III-9 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough LAND OWNERSHIP Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 ais slr FIGURE III-3 slr B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 sl a ee. - a ] eo | 7 7A el | | \ } 5 ho | | =o = ; oe ay - a te gg Gxt Ht RP > G Ny Ad ee os PABA re oN c 35 i 8 SOURCES: Atlas of the Ketchi- eee ey kan Region; Ketchikan Gate- LEGEND e SCALE way Borough Land Dept. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE JM STATE-PATENTED LAND HN BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT sci] BOROUGH-SELECTED LAND HEEB uss. coast cuarD WM Private Lanp KW STATE-SELECTED LAND CAPE FOX CORP, LAND, PATENTED CAPE FOX CORP, LAND, SELECTED The State began selecting Federal land near Ketchikan in 1960, and by 1977 had received patent to about 14,000 acres in the vicinity. Because of the complex- ity of the land conveyance process, the amount of presently patented State land differs very little from the 1977 total. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, passed by Congress in 1971, entitled Native corporations to select Federal land and receive Federal funds. Cape Fox Corporation's entitlement included 23,000 acres of Federal land in the Ketchikan region. This law froze all State and local government land selections until 1977, when the Native corporations had completed their selections. In 1963, Alaska's Mandatory Borough Act gave Borough governments the right to select 10% of the unappropriated, unreserved, vacant State land within their municipal boundaries. Because 11,000 acres of State land within the Gateway Borough boundary were reserved as mental health trust lands, Ketchikan had virtually no State land from which to select. However, in 1978 the Alaska Land Policy Act removed the trust status on mental health land and the State's Municipal Entitlement Act raised Ketchikan's entitlement to 11,593 acres@3Thus, the Borough was given more land to select and more State land to select from. To date, the Borough has selected over 8,000 acres, but has received patent to only 106 acres. Meanwhile, the Borough has obtained a lease on the State lands known as the Airport Reserve, which include and abut the Ketchikan International Airport. e Anticipated Changes in Land Ownership Land ownership transfers are gradually progressing, although many anticipated changes will not be completed for some years. The majority, although not all, of the Cape Fox Corporation's land selections have now been conveyed. Cape Fox is currently negotiating a major land exchange with and/or purchase from the State. The amounts of land which will be exchanged are yet to be determined; various areas are currently being considered. The State has tentatively scheduled the second phase of national forest selec- tions to occur during the summer of 1982; over 100,000 acres remain to be selec- ted. There are no indications at this time as to where the selections will take place. Additionally, the Borough still has about 3,000 acres to select from lands that will be made available to the State in the future. Since the primary goal of State and Borough land disposal programs is to trans- fer land to private individuals, the percentage of land in private ownership will significantly increase over time. Ongoing land conveyance and disposal processes and land trade possibilities indicate that ensuing years will see a major evolution of land ownership patterns within the Ketchikan area. Implications for Future Land Use. The U.S. Forest Service is the major land owner in the Ketchikan vicinity and, even with future State selections, will most likely remain so. In accordance with the current Tongass Land Management Plan, the Forest Service is managing III-11 and will continue to manage its lands in the area for recreational use, scenic values, and timber cutting. Concentrated recreational developments are planned. Areas that lie north of Heckman Lake are to be managed for timber harvest. Depending on where the new State selections occur, Cape Fox Corporation is likely to be the second largest land owner in the Ketchikan vicinity. The Corporation's land selection criteria focused on maximizing economic returns to shareholders. Land was selected primarily for timber harvesting, although tracts suitable for industrial, residential, and recreational development were also chosen. In accordance with Borough recommendations during the State land selection process, much of the State-owned land in the Ketchikan area was selected for residential development. Recent State disposals for residential purposes have occurred at Mud Bight, D-1 Loop Road and Mountain Point. General public interest was also a criterion for the State's selection of certain parcels such as Coast Guard Beach for public recreation, and timbered land for woodcutting and small timber sales. The Borough will eventually be a major landowner in the vicinity, once patents are obtained from the State. Borough lands will be managed primarily for resi- dential and community development. Disposal of lands to private individuals is a primary objective of the Borough's land management program. However, some land will be reserved for community recreation, watershed, and commercial and industrial uses. As the U.S. Forest Service's share of land in the Coastal District continues to decrease, more land will be available and set aside for economic and community development. Because both the State and the Borough are responsible for managing land for the broader public interest, a balanced blend of land uses providing for recreational opportunities, open space preservation, and watershed protec- tion is foreseen. D. LAND AND WATER USES This section addresses community land and water uses development. The commercial, industrial, and residential development patterns and structures shown on Figure III-4 all physically impact land and water resources. Residential Patterns23 For many years, growth in the Ketchikan area was concentrated within the Ketch- ikan city limits. With the advent of the pulp mill and improved highways north and south, growth has increasingly spread throughout the rural areas of the Borough, as noted by Table III-2. Point Higgins and areas immediately south of the City experienced considerable housing construction during the 1970s. The 1976 Traffic Study recorded the population growth from 1970 to 1975 for areas north and south as 177 and 180, respectively. However, there were more houses built north of town during the III-12 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough LAND AND WATER USES Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 FIGURE III- 4 3-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 N SS s 3-2-3239 Fh o> ¢ LINES - EXISTING PULP MILL SHORELINE RESIDENTIAL AREA -E- ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION REMOTE RESIDENTIAL AREA LINES - PROPOSED teeavyua tse See Fig. for city detail (future) { NW Sa SOURCES: Atlas of the Ketchi- mes kan Region; Waterfront Devel- LEGEND opment and Management Study; Ketchikan Public Utilities, Manager's Office; Ketchikan © LOG RAFT STORAGE SITE ® HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY Gateway Borough, Land Manager's Office © CANNERY ©) HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY, PROPOSED Q) sawn ©) __ ELECTRICAL GENERATING STATION [C7] GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AREA © SHIPYARD 7% DAMS LAND DISPOSAL, PROPOSED ® FISH HATCHERY GX WATER SUPPLY - LAKES EE ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION MARINE TERMINAL FACILITY III-13 period from 1970 to 1980. Growth has been increasing south of town at a higher rate than north of town primarily because one new subdivision, Forest Park, accounted for 51 new units, and a public housing program in Saxman accounted for 30 more. While there certainly is rural spread, it should be noted that during the 1960s and 1970s about 52% of all new homes built were in areas where water and sewer services were provided. Table III-2 Housing Construction # of houses # of houses % of change Area built in 1960s built in 1970s 1970-1980 North Point Higgins 26 51 96% increase South Point Higgins 19 56 194% increase Pond Reef 15 22 47% increase Ward Cove to Pond Reef 27 53 96% increase City Limits to Ward Cove 26 21 19% decrease City 128 193 51% increase Forest Park area 2 57 275% increase Saxman 15 30 100% increase Saxman to Mountain Pt. 19 34 79% increase George Inlet 39 24 38% decrease Total North 113 203 80% increase Total South 75 145 93% increase Figure III-5 depicts the distribution of developed and vacant properties in the Ketchikan vicinity. A first glance reveals that there is clearly a considerable quantity of undeveloped land capable of absorbing additional housing. In fact, 75% of the lots obtained in the State land disposals from 1963 to 1975 remain undeveloped. Of the State land disposals along the road system, over 70% are undeveloped. Comparison of Figure III-5 with the previous chart shows that the areas receiv-— ing the most building activity between 1970 and 1980 (96% or greater increase) are also the areas where there are the most undeveloped lots. Hence, housing construction will probably continue to be concentrated in the North and South Point Higgins, Forest Park, Saxman, Ward Cove to Pond Reef, and Saxman to Moun- tain Point areas. There are also several subdivision and condominium develop- ments planned within the City of Ketchikan, particularly in the Bear Valley and Carlanna areas. Another factor affecting future residential patterns is State and Borough land disposals. A 77 lot subdivision on lst Waterfall Creek is tentatively scheduled for the winter of 1983 by the Borough, and a 100 acre subdivision is planned by the State in the Mountain Point vicinity. Since much of the Borough land suitable for subdivision development, approximately 800 acres, is at North Point Higgins, this area is likely to be a "concentration area" for land disposal for the next five years. With the Borough providing roads, power, and some type of State- approved sewage disposal system (required by ordinance) in its subdivisions, Borough land could attract significant housing development. These land disposal efforts further point to Point Higgins and from Saxman to Mountain Point as III-14 Figure III-5 Distribution of Developed and Vacant Private Residential Property, 1981 percent e ceveloped cet y 3% SaxXaare vo oe wok lazy potret AGGIE aan S| S <. a: ward cove ae to 5 i fond reer 3 ° . north ctl prod Liha t tS ef 55z Ward cove eae v & ‘§ Serr; DOSER =F a TONGASS NARROWS 51% sth pi zi Olt 9% 6 hog “as gra mei fi oMteck. Source: Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department, 1981, Ketchikan Gateway Borough Land Program, George Gee, Consultant III-15 areas where future housing is likely to be concentrated outside of the city limits. The Borough also intends to convey to the private sector dispersed remote parcels in Moser Bay, Clover Pass (past Lunch Creek), and Long Arm. An average of 120 new singlefamily residences have been built in the Borough each year since 1970, according to building permit records. Historically, home building correlates with population growth. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, there was one home built for every addition of three to four persons to the Ketchikan population. That is roughly a home per family over the past two decades. The present housing crunch and the total housing vacancy rate of 1% indicates that this rate of building will at least be maintained over the next few years. Using the population projections stated earlier, and assuming a 15,000 square- foot home size and a 2.6 person occupancy rate per home, the demand for residen- tial land would be as follows: 1985 150 acres to 215 acres 1990A 610 acres to 750 acres (Borax townsite option) 1990B 940 acres to 1,140 acres (Ketchikan commute option) These estimates are high as mixtures of housing types and densities will occur in response to individual needs. Floathomes are an important part of Ketchikan's past as well as an occasionally necessary lifestyle alternative for some Ketchikan residents today. Floathomes are not adequately provided for in State tideland permitting procedures and poli- cies. Areas need to be identified for transient and permanent floathome moorage along with provisions for allowing floathomes in residential areas in the Borough. Currently, there are very real wastewater problems with floathomes as many of these homes rest on tideflats during most of the tidal cycle which prevents adequate flushing of sewage. Beaching of floathomes can also be destructive to marine life. Commercial/Industrial Uses The historic downtown business district is Ketchikan's center of trade, govern- ment, and entertainment. It also contains the majority of the office and com- mercial space. In 1976, a decline in office and commercial space occupancy was occurring because of a shortage of public parking, the high cost of land, and the absence of a well-used transit system. Since then, some of these problems have been slightly alleviated, as additional parking and an improved city bus system have been provided. Restoration of Creek Street, a parking garage and a community center are all proposed projects that would help to maintain a vital downtown. These efforts are essential to counter the effect of linear spread of growth away from the city core. Ketchikan still has a viable and vital downtown; to lose it would have a significant aesthetic and economic impact on the lives of all Ketchikan citizens. The west end is also a major commercial center in the Ketchikan vicinity. With both the Sea Mart and the Mark-it Foods shopping areas, the west end is primarily a retail center. There is not a scarcity of commercially developable land in the west end due to extensive fill area. III-16 While the downtown area provides for a mixture of non-water-related commerce, 77% of the downtown waterfront (City Float to Thomas Basin) is used by water- dependent businesses. Only 14% of the waterfront in the downtown district is used by non-water-related businesses. Hence, the downtown area is one of the few areas in Ketchikan where there is good balanced use of the waterfront. Adjoining tracts of level land have allowed for efficient use to occur. Only 3% of the Westend's waterfront is used for water-related uses. Hence, the West- end's commercial center is an example of how the scarcity of large level lots for commercial development impinged upon another scarce resource - prime water- front property within Ketchikan's city limits. The remainder of this section examines the distribution and requirements of various uses along the waterfront. In gross terms, the total commercial/industrial waterfront now in use (not counting log storage areas) is about as follows: Area Miles City of Ketchikan 4 Ward Cove 2 Peninsula Point North 1 Refuge Cove ¥s Mud Bight 4s Saxman 45 Shoreline Drive % Airport Terminal Area 4 Knudson Cove 45 Beaver Falls % 0 10 miles Of this ten miles, two miles are in non-water-related use, therefore about eight miles of waterfront are currently used for water-oriented purposes in the Ketchi- kan area. While there are about 32 miles of shoreline accessible from the road system, only about two miles of shoreline are considered available, suitable, and accessible waterfront for water-related commercial/industrial uses. A more detailed examination produced the following inventory of types of water- oriented uses: Shoreline Percentage Miles of Total Raft, Chip Barge & Construction 2.31 25.9% Camp Moorage Smal] Boat Harbors 1.59 17.8 Timber Processing Facilities llie22 IS, Military and Federal Agencies -64 7.2 (Warehouses, Coast Guard, etc.) Major Public & Private Wharfage -56 6.3 Cannery/Cold Storage Operators 55 6.2 III-17 Shipyards -44 4.9 Barge Facilities -41 4.8 Marine Aviation 41 4.6 Ferry Systems «31 355 Fuel Depots 30 3.4 Float Houses 215 1.7 8.91 miles 100.0% Considering that most of the raft storage and much of the barge and wharfage totals are related to the operations of the LPK pulp mill and its subsidiaries, it is clear that the timber industry accounts for nearly 42% of water-related shoreline use. The needs of other industries are modest by comparison. Aside from the pulp mill, raft storage areas, the Coast Guard Base, the Ferry Main- tenance Facility, and public boat harbors, none of the individual private facilities require more than 1,000 feet of waterfrontage. Figure III-6 graphically shows the distribution of existing commercial/industrial waterfront uses and the proposed locations of future waterfront developments. The map shows that there is a natural grouping of compatible and related uses along the waterfront such as boatworks, cold storage facilities, and small craft moorage. Another example of the clustering of similar functions occurs at the ferry terminal locale, where barge terminals are also located. Figure III-7 shows the distribution of waterfront uses within the City of Ketchikan. The average land parcel size and waterfront frontage requirements of different types of waterfront use are compared in the following table: Average Average Uses Square Footage Waterfrontage Water-dependent industrial/ commercial 100,735 382 Non-water-related public facilities 41,659 362 Non-water-related industrial/ commercial 49,167 148 Other industrial/commercial 28,004 105 Vacant 25,102 49 Residential 6,442 33 Several conclusions were derived from the preceding inventory of waterfront uses and needs: o Water-dependent uses are relatively land intensive. Their average parcel size is more than twice as large as are lots used by water-related firms. o Non-water-related public facilities use as much waterfrontage as water-dependent facilities. III-18 o Non-water-related commercial/industrial-uses include estab- lishments that provide goods and services to fishermen, boaters, and other groups engaged in water-oriented activities. However, Since these goods and services are also available in non-waterfront areas, greater locational flexibility is indi- cated than for water-dependent and water-related uses. o Vacant parcels within the Ketchikan city limits are dispersed, and are too small to meet the typical size requirements of water-dependent or water-related uses. Private development patterns have organized the waterfront into several distinct functional areas. (See Figure III-6 for subdistrict boundaries. ) Subdistrict I: North City Limits to Sunny Point - Heavy industry, with only one water-dependent firm. Subdistrict II: Sunny Point to Foss Alaska Line - Characterized by a preponderance of water transportation uses, including barge and ferry activities. Subdistrict III: Foss Alaska Line to Westend Commercial Area -Because of the narrow strip of land between the water and Tongass Avenue, has been subdivided into numerous small lots; only area within the City of Ketchikan where a significant number of residences front the water. Subdistrict IV: Westend Commercial Area - Retail activities. Subdistrict V: Westend to SEA Airlines - Mixed use, with the greatest proportion of vacant waterfront property. Subdistrict VI: SEA Airlines to Tyee Airlines - Air taxi operations occupy 60% of the waterfront area. Subdistrict VII: Tyee Airlines to City Float - Mixture of water-dependent uses. Subdistrict VIII: City Float to Thomas Basin - Large vessel moorage at the downtown public and private docks. Subdistrict IX: Thomas Basin to Coast Guard Base - Predominantly used for petroleum storage; has the highest amount of waterfront in use by water- dependent activities. In summary, Ketchikan's densely developed waterfront is a composite of water- dependent, water-related and other types of industrial and commercial activities that have naturally congregated into relatively distinct functional use areas. While there may be enough City waterfront to accommodate some expansion within these functional use areas, there is generally not enough waterfrontage to accommodate new water-dependent development. Within the City, only Subdistricts I and V hold limited potential to accommodate new developments. III-19 Figu II-6 Commercial/Industrial Waterfront Uses KETCHIKAN’S WATERFRONT USES -1980 PROPERTY YMBOLS a eee ae Eze WATER - RELATED © Fume HAUNe MAINTAINANCE FRULITY WEES SUBDASTRICT Ir SWBOSTRICT rz O2-III SUBDISTRICT wm Source: Commercial/Industrial Waterfront Task Force Report Figure III-7 Distribution of Waterfront Uses Subdistricts Total / Cit. I II III} IV V IX Water-dependent Rae RY) uses ROY KO 44% ROM RAM \ ROX 30% KY Dy KY KO \ ROY \\ Re \\ ie A O00 OO Water-related uses 31% Other industrial/ commercial uses Residential uses 14% 11% | 18% Sf on | GAN] = |B 25 0 oo 8& 2) $3 252 res 23 eS re 25 SSooe $8933 Stos0 2505 23999 23532 5 S$ SoS 24% N 22 339 S23 $23 333 $5 oS = Ba Z 30% &% 5% Mw | 0% | 0% He 0% | ow Non-water-related public facili- poe = ties 5% 20% ae 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ay] Oo i Vacant, unfilled 47% 21% tidelands and o% " 10% 20% : 7% 1 | 6% * |) 42 | WW | 8 miscellaneous AY | oss =n om | 2%] ow structures RR Use is relatively concentrated in Subdistrict I: North City Limits to Sunny Point VI: SEA Airlines to Tyee Airlines II: Sunny Point to Foss Alaska Line VII: Tyee Airlines to City Float III: Foss Alaska Line to Westend Area VIII: City Float to Thomas Basin IV: V: Westend Commercial Area IX: Thomas Basin to Coast Guard Base Westend to SEA Airlines Source: Waterfront Development and Management Study, Phase One III-21 In essence, Ketchikan is at the crossroads in the development of one of its key resources - the waterfront. Chapter V addresses the potentialities of new areas for future waterfront development. E. TRANSPORTATION Major transportation routes and facilities are critical determinants of future development patterns. Much of Ketchikan's growth as a fishing village, as a timber town, and as an economic hub in Southern Southeast is a direct result of its diversified transportation modes and facilities. This section briefly discusses, and Figure III-8 displays, existing transportation modes and patterns and future transportation projects, focusing on land and waterfront use impacts. Air Transport 24 Without land access to the mainland, travel to and from the Borough depends totally on air and water transportation, with the majority of the residents depending on air transport for year-round access. There are a total of six airlines serving Ketchikan, most of which rely on floatplane charter service. Almost a half (.41) mile of Ketchikan's waterfront is dedicated to marine avia- tion. Floatplane facilities are concentrated north of the downtown sector. The Airport Master Plan projected continuing growth in amphibious commercial aircraft over "floats only", due to the competitive edge offered by additional landing sites.* The Airport could accommodate more amphibious and all-wheels opera- tions and the existing floatplane facility at the Airport could be redesigned for increased usefulness. Presently, there is no noticeable demand for commercial marine aviation space on the Ketchikan side of the Narrows. However, recreational aviation seems to be growing in terms of waterfront demand, with increased moorage of aircraft along Tongass Narrows from Peninsula Point to Refuge Cove. While floatplane operations specialize in serving local charter needs (for fishing, hunting, village travel, etc.), Alaska Airlines offer long distance transport services to neighboring communities and beyond. Their opera- tions are based at Ketchikan International Airport, which occupies several miles of shoreline on Gravina Island. Ketchikan International Airport's role as a hub airport for Southern Southeast is expected to be further emphasized in the future. The Airport Master Plan, adopted in May of 1981, focuses on future Airport expansion, but has several findings relevant to management of Ketchikan's land and water resources: o Peak-month-based aircraft, both of field-based aircraft and floatplanes, are expected to grow over threefold during the next 20 years. * With the addition of proposed airstips for Prince of Wales Island, growth in all-wheel charter planes could be expected to increase. ITI-22 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 TRANSPORTATION FIGURE III-8 N PEViLtAGIGE DO ise d LEGEND ROAD_ TRANSPORT PAVED ROAD GRAVEL ROAD PROPOSED ROAD CH f= ZZZ_ PROPOSED BRIDGE CORRIDOR MMM PROPOSED TUNNEL CORRIDOR -P-P PRIVATE ROAD 0 1 2 Tene miles ALR TRANSPORT AIRPORT RESERVE BE ruoatpvane ease 3 —HELIPORT III-23 SOURCES: Waterfront Development and Management Study; Tongass Narrows Crossing Site Selection Study, EMPS-Sverdrup, Inc. WATER TRANS PORT @ BOAT HaRBor A EFERRY TERMINAL Qe SHIPPING CHANNEL ww «BARGE MOORAGE o The existing runway, coupled with recommended Airport improve- ments, can easily accommodate aviation activity through the year 2000. o Sufficient land exists on the Airport property to accommo- date all projected airport-dependent land uses. o Improved access to Gravina through ferry remodeling and ferry terminal relocation will generate excess capacity capable of meeting forecasted airport and off-airport demand up to the year 2000. (Airport Steering Committee officially disagreed with this conclusion. ) o A water taxi operation could provide access between downtown and the floatplane bases. Water Transport External water transportation modes include State ferries, cruise and tour ships, and privately owned barges. The Alaska Marine Highway System presently operates nine ferries that provide service for residents and bring Ketchikan thousands of summer visitors. The Seattle-Ketchikan run already operates at capacity during the summer. The State estimates that, given its proposed system changes and the addition of two mainline ferries, marine ferry service to Ketchikan via Prince Rupert would reach capacity between the years from 1992 to 2000. If the U.S. Customs facilities are relocated to Ketchikan, layover time for vessels arriving from Prince Rupert would increase, and space would have to be allocated for Customs operations. Local feeder ferry service is running well below capacity except for the Chilkat service to Metlakatla. However, prospects are good for growth in the local State ferry network, as Hyder residents want to be connected and the Quartz Hill mine operators may desire service. Cruise ships constitute a visibly growing component in seasonal marine traffic, not only in terms of increases in visitors, but in terms of vessel size as well. With two or more cruise ships in town on the same day (which occurred on 38 days in 1981), vessel congestion at the dock and in the channel (mooring offshore in deeper waters) occurs. The trend toward higher ship capacity should reduce congestion in terms of berth competition while maintaining a slight increase in the number of visitors. However, since large ships like the Rotterdam are too large to berth, channel congestion will remain a potential problem during the summer . Charter vessels in the tourism sector constitute a small but growing segment of local commercial vessel traffic. Of 16 charter boats, most are small capacity fishing and sightseeing operations. In addition, larger capacity tour vessels are in operation or are scheduled to begin in the near future. These tour operations are geared to capitalize on national publicity of the Misty Fjords National Monument as a scenic attraction. Ketchikan is also the home base for a productive salmon fishing fleet. Despite growth in the harvestable resources, the size of the salmon fishing fleet is unlikely to increase because of limited entry controls on permits unless the fleet is unable to handle increased harvests with longer openings and/or larger III-24 gear. However, more Seattle vessels are expected to locate their home port in Ketchikan due to the economic advantages of lower taxes. This could increase the demand for harbor slips in the 30 to 40 foot range. Other than the salmon fleet, the two other classes of fishing vessels with demand for waterfront faci- lities are transient vessels such as crabbers or fish packers, and bottomfish vessels which need slips in the 60 to 120 foot range. In essence, it can be seen that the trend is for vessel sizes to increase. Any adverse impacts of existing channel congestion will grow more severe with time and larger slips and berths will be needed. Removal of submerged rocks and sunken wrecks in the inner harbor would effectively widen the shipping channels and make more of the Narrows available for anchorage. Significant vessel con- gestion is already occurring in the vicinity of fueling facilities during the fishing and recreational season. There is an increasing need for moorage for transient barges. Currently, Louisi- ana-Pacific, Ketchikan (LPK) allows transient barges to moor in Ward Cove, but LPK must often request these barges to depart so that their own wood-laden rafts and barges can be moved into a protected anchorage. When the Borax mine is in operation, the need for barge moorage may accelerate. There is also a need for barge moorage in more remote, less congested, areas. Higher volume operations are having an impact on Ketchikan's two largest bulk fuel facilities, Union and Standard Oil. Union Oil, in a shift to larger vessels, commenced construction of dock improvements in October, 1981. Standard Oil, on the other hand, has little opportunity for expansion of dock facilities to accommodate larger vessels. Consequently, Standard 0i1 will have to continue to rely on public wharfage during congested periods. Based on interviews with Foss, Boyer, and other barge carriers serving Ketchikan, loading facilities can accommodate the growing demand by significantly increasing the number of sailings. The real limiting factor to meeting demands is inade- quate upland storage. Inter-island travel within the Borough relies almost exclusively on water trans- portation. The Borough operates two airport ferries which transport passengers and vehicles between Ketchikan and Gravina Island every half hour during the winter and every 15 minutes during the summer. There is no evidence to suggest that major expansion of the intra-Borough ferry system is likely to occur in the foreseeable future. All other inter-island water travel is via private craft. Harbors providing moorage on the Ketchikan side are depicted on Figure III-8. On Pennock and Gravina Islands, boats are privately moored. City Float and Ryus Landing are often used by Pennock and Gravina residents for their daily trips to Ketchikan. The waiting list for boat slips contains an average 109 to 110 requests with the greatest need for berths in the 30-50 foot size class. 5The number of existing stalls will increase from 1,024 to 1,319 once the Bar Harbor expansion is com- pleted in 1983, resulting in a short-term surplus of about 165 stalls. However, an Army Corps of Engineers harbor demand study has predicted that there will be a total need for about 317 additional moorage slips by the year 2000. III-25 After accounting for expected growth, the net need for new stalls is projected to be from 52 to 285 stalls by 1991. Based on existing boat harbor densities this translates into a need for at least four and possibly as much as 20 acres of protected small boat harbor area in the next decade. Potential sites include: Pond Reef Cove 7 acres Mud Bay 9 acres Refuge Cove 7 acres Saxman 9 acres 32 acres If a bridge to the airport were provided via Pennock Island, then Whiskey Cove on Pennock Island could be considered a potential site for a boat harbor. Road Transport The existing Borough road system is confined to the inhabited areas of Revilla Island. The private automobile is the dominant mode of ground travel, accounting for more than 70% of the vehicular traffic. In the downtown area and along the waterfront, pedestrian travel continues to be an important means of transporta- tion. Nonetheless, the most prominent feature of the road system is the conges- tion on Ketchikan's sole thoroughfare, Tongass Avenue. Ketchikan's Traffic Study, done in 1976, determined that the number of vehicles traveling daily along this strip exceeded design capacity by nearly 80% and con- gested traffic volumes prevailed throughout the afternoon. At a population base of 15,000 people, the study estimated there would be 8,300 road vehicles which would result in 21,000 average daily trips on the Tongass Strip and the need for an additional 900 parking spaces in the downtown area. Because of the scarcity of developable area in the City, additional parking requirements could only be met by absorbing land already occupied by other uses.26 Currently, similar traffic problems in Ketchikan still exist. These problems could be alleviated by several means, including: 1) physical alteration and traffic control to existing roads, 2) substitution of alternative travel modes such as buses and water taxis, and, 3) construction of alternative roads and routes. The Tongass highway could also be improved to increase use and enjoy- ment of the shoreline by providing combination pedestrian/bicycle paths with roadside pullouts along the shoreline side of Tongass Highway. In the outlying areas, traffic is not as difficult of a problem as access to recreation areas and developable lands. One solution would be to connect the private road to White River owned by Cape Fox Corporation to South Tongass at Beaver Falls, thereby creating a loop road which would be scenic and encourage development. A road connecting North and South Point Higgins roads would pro- vide access to both developable land, and the proposed State park at Coast Guard Beach would become road accessible. This connecting road would also improve current vehicular circulation in the area. Major Proposed Transportation Projects The Traffic Study's primary recommendation was endorsing a secondary route from the Mountain Point vicinity to north of Carlanna Creek. Since the first secon- dary route proposal in 1976, the route has expanded to include access alterna- tives to State and Borough lands desirable for residential development. The III-26 proposed route now goes from Roosevelt Drive area of Mountain Point to Higgins Spur road. Within the City of Ketchikan, the route would provide a bypass around the tunnel. . The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the south benchland portion from Deer- Mount Street to the Forest Park connection with South Tongass be included in the first construction phase. Providing access first to the developable land close to the City's perimeter would assist in slowing linear dispersion of residential and commercial activities. The majority of the proposed secondary route is inland, recognizing that shore- line property is too valuable to be consumed by asphalt and automobiles. With final corridor establishment now underway, there is only one small area near Ward Cove routed near the shore line. Consideration of a bridge or tunnel crossing Tongass Narrows has been seriously discussed for decades. Recent discussion has focused on the need to access the airport on Gravina Island. Hard access is desirable for the following reasons: Airport Development Access to commercial and industrial waterfront property Access to borough land selections Access developable land close to the city center Mutual aid opportunities for fire and police services Improved air freight service to the business community ooooo$°o This project is a controversial issue and will most likely be put to a vote before construction begins. Ketchikan Gateway Borough consultants are currently investigating site and design options. The three bridge crossings and one tube (tunnel) crossing shown in Figure III-8 have been selected for detailed analysis of engineering feasi- bility. Costs for the crossing would vary depending upon the corridor site, but estimates range from 61 to 83 million, dollars for a bridge crossing and from 138 to 160 million dollars for a tunnel. Future waterfront development transportation projects are discussed in Chapter V. F. WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Given Ketchikan's economic dependence on the waterfront, making good use of the remaining waterfront area is of vital concern to the community. This waterfront suitability analysis, analogous to the environmental sensitivity analysis at the end of Chapter II, focuses on land and water requirements for waterfront devel- opment. Reviewed together, the sensitivity and suitability analyses will assist decision makers in determining where and where not to guide waterfront development. The existing data base, time limitations, and the need for an easily understood composite analysis necessitated a simplified approach which does not account for feasible technological improvements, such as breakwaters. Eight resource and land use criteria were identified as primary in determining general sites for commercial/industrial waterfront development: III-27 o Fair to good soils as depicted by the soils survey. o Freedom from geophysical hazards. o Location within two miles of an existing or potential water supply. o A well-protected or moderately-exposed shoreline. o The absence of offshore reefs and rocks in the general area. o Location within two miles of existing or proposed power trans- mission lines. o Available vacant tracts of waterfront in private or Borough land ownership (including the Airport Reserve). o Proximity to similar waterfront development, or location in an area that is primarily undeveloped. Areas that meet all of these resource and land use criteria are shown on Figure III-9 as areas having good waterfront development potential. The following listing briefly describes the areas identified for future commercial/industrial waterfront development. Mud Bight - Although remaining waterfront land is scarce at Mud Bight, the well-protected cove and the support facilities servicing existing industries makes this area desirable. However, Mud Bight can not be viewed as an ex- pansion area; only limited additional use could be accommodated. Congestion from log rafts may inhibit water-dependent use of the shoreline. Ward Cove - Services, proximity to the City of Ketchikan, and protection make Ward Cove an ideal site for industrial expansion. Since a pulp mill, cannery, and sawmill are already established, waterfront is a limited com- modity. The only possible sites are west of the pulp mill, and on a small parcel between the cannery and the sawmill. The steepness of the terrain in these few available areas imposes additional limitations. Because log raft congestion may impose restrictions on additional water use, the devel- opment requirements of any specific proposed project must be assessed care- fully. Carlanna Creek Area - This area includes the waterfront from Sunny Point to Foss Alaska Line, a steep-bottomed, moderately-exposed area used extensively by water-dependent industries. The Vessel Maintenance Terminal will be constructed at the old Sunny Point cannery site. Consequently, support facilities for ship building and/or repair are likely to concentrate in the area. While 23% of the waterfront area is unoccupied, the vacant parcels are generally small and dispersed. Making the best use of available water- front in this area will be difficult. East Shoreline of Gravina - The shoreline north and south of the Airport proper offers fair soils and a moderately-exposed shoreline. Power is currently provided via feeder line to the Airport and Clam Cove. The Air- port Master Plan concluded that waterfront uses are compatible with air- port-dependent uses, provided that no tall smoke stacks are constructed. This area, therefore, could accommodate new industrial/commercial water- front development close to town. III-28 Produced by Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Dept., 1982, using USGS 1:63 360 topographic series, Ketchikan, 1955 B-5 B-6 C-5 C-6 WATERFRONT FIGURE III-9 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL N aes a ms Ny oO ¢ axe Pevittacicene aMweETTE Teme mies. LEGEND AREAS WITH GOOD WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL III-29 st ise ot ho | SOURCE: Composite Evaluation of Coastal Management Maps, Ketchikan Planning Dept. Pennock Island - Although the shoreline of Pennock Island offers fair soils and moderate exposure, pockets of offshore reefs and residential develop- ment would limit potential waterfront development to those areas shown on Figure III-9. Because relatively large tracts of undeveloped private pro- perty exist, Pennock Island could also be viewed as an expansion area. Beaver Falls Area - Moderate exposure and proximity to road and power facili- ties make the Beaver Falls area desirable for waterfront development. The Major limitation is that steep mountain sides cut deeply into the fjord of George Inlet. Rock blasting and extensive piling use would be necessary to prepare this area as commercial/industrial waterfront. The abandoned cannery facilities at Beaver Falls could be redeveloped into a larger ship handling area. White River Area - An offshore reef lies directly at the mouth of the river, making the areas adjacent to White River more suitable than the well-protected cove at the delta. Moderate exposure, an available water supply, and proximity to the Swan Lake transmission line are key advantages of the site. The Cape Fox road currently terminates south of White River. The topography around White River is more favorable than the topography around the Beaver Falls area for waterfront development. City of Ketchikan - Moderate exposure and ready access to all community services necessitates consideration of any suitable vacant properties along the developed waterfront. However, vacant properties are generally too small and dispersed for development, although 400 feet of waterfront on Whitney-Fidalgo's Stedman Street properties are currently undeveloped. Other considerations relating to waterfront development are also important. Road transportation between a commercial/industrial waterfront site and the residential areas of Ketchikan is essential when a sizeable work force is anticipated for any proposed development. Presently, there are no known proposed waterfront develop- ments that necessitate additional road construction. Because of the initial substantial capital costs of hard access to Pennock and Gravina Islands, sites on Revilla appear more desirable for the immediate future. However, since the White River and Beaver Falls areas are distant from the existing residential core, linear growth patterns might tend to compound transportation and community service problems. Long-term planning for future commercial/industrial waterfront development must be based on a thorough consideration of such trade-offs. As stated earlier, this simplified suitability analysis does not account for feasible technological improvements. If breakwaters were to be constructed, exposed areas could be considered. A prime expample of the need to consider locations made feasible by breakwaters is the South Saxman area. The City of Saxman and the Army Corps of Engineers are now in the initial plan- ning stages for a small boat harbor at Saxman that includes breakwaters. The Ketchikan Northern Terminal, a cargo transshipment area once used by Foss Alaska, is also located in the area. Feasibility studies for upgrading the terminal have been completed by the City of Saxman. South Saxman has road transportation and lies within the developed portion of Revilla Island. Consequently, although, due to its unfavorable shoreline exposure, the area is not identified on Figure III-9, South Saxman has some desirable features for commercial/industrial water- front development. III-30 CHAPTER IV RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS: THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONYENT KETCHIKAN’S ECONOMY RELIES HEAVILY UPON THE ABUNDANT NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE AREA. THE DIVERSITY OF ITS INDUSTRIES, HOWEVER, RENDERS IT RELATIVELY STABLE IN COMPARISON TO MANY OTHER LOCAL ECONOMIES IN ALASKA. FISHING, FISH PROCESSING, LOGGING, FOREST PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE, TRANSPORTATION, AND TOURISM PROVIDE THE ECONOMIC FOUNDATION, THIS RELIANCE UPON A VARIETY OF RESOURCES HELPS THE AREA TO AVOID THE DRAMATIC BOOM- BUST CYCLES OF A ONE-RESOURCE ECONOMY, DEVELOPMENT OF THE U.S. BORAX MOLYBDENUM MINE DURING THE 1O8%|s WILL USHER IN A PERIOD OF ACCELERATED ECONOMIC GROWTH, PROVIDING MAJOR EMPLOYMENT IN AN INDUSTRY WHICH CONSUMES A NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE. KETCHIKAN S ECONOMY MUST GUARD. AGAINST OVER-DEPENDENCE UPON ANY SINGLE INDUSTRY AND CONTINUE TO VALUE THE SUSTAINED-YIELD MANAGEMENT OF THE AREA S PRIME RESOURCES, VI-1 A. PAST AND PRESENT TRENDS IN KETCHIKAN'S ECONOMY The major characteristics of Ketchikan's resource-based economy illustrate the direct, indirect, and secondary contributions of coastal resources to the area's jobs and income. Employment and Wages Since 70% of the total personal income in Ketchikan is attributed to wage pay- ments, an industry's wage payment total is considered the most accurate indica- tor of its contribution to the local economy. Great differences exist among the average wages paid within each sector, so that an industry's share of total local wage payments may be far higher or lower than the percentage of the work- force which it employs. See Table IV-1. For example, average wages for retail trade and service employees ($11,000 and $13,400, respectively) comprise less than 20% of the area's wage payments, even though the two sectors together provide 30% of the area's jobs. The manufacturing sector, on the other hand, offers an average annual wage of $28,300, boosting its share of the area's wage payments to 28% in contrast to its 19.6% share of employment. Employment levels and wage payments in the manufacturing industries, particu- larly at the Louisiana-Pacific Ketchikan (LPK) pulp mill, are critical to the stability of the local economy. However, since five industries each employ more than 10% of the workforce, Ketchikan boasts greater than average industrial diversity, which serves to mitigate some of the direct dependency on the manufac- turing industries. Comparison with Statewide Industrial Composition The manufacturing sector, per capita, employs nearly three times the percentage of workers in Ketchikan as it does on the State level. Transportation, communi- cations, and utilities (TCU); retail trade; and local government are also more highly concentrated in Ketchikan than in Alaska as a whole. All of these sectors which have higher representation in Ketchikan are, to different extents, "export" industries. The manufacturing sector exports pulp, logs, and seafood. Part of the TCU sector is engaged in transshipping goods and carrying non-resident passengers to and from Ketchikan. A sizable proportion of the retail sales are made to the growing numbers of out-of-state and in-state visitors to Ketchikan. And although local government is not primarily engaged in export activity, more than 45% of its revenues are passed down from State and Federal governmental sources. With this dependency on outside markets and funding, the Ketchikan economy is vulnerable to economic conditions beyond Ketchikan's control, thus stressing the need for a diverse economic base. 28 Three other sectors - construction; finance, insurance, and real estate services (FIRE); and State government - employ a percentage of the Ketchikan workforce roughly equal to their State level shares. Despite the Ketchikan economy's relative domination by forest products manufacture, comparison to the State's economy, as well as to those of Juneau and Sitka, suggests a high level, balanced development of the remaining sectors. IV-2 Table IV-1 Ketchikan Industries: Employment and Wages, 1979 Percentage of Percentage of Industry Total Employment* Total Wage Payments+ Manufacturing 19.6% 28.0% Retail 15.3% 8.6% Services 14.5% 9.9% Local Government 13.8% 13.9% Transportation, Communications and Utilities (TCU) 11.1% 10.5% State Government 8.3% 11.1% Construction 5.3% 7.6% Federal Government 5.0% 4.8% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) 4.0% 3.2% Wholesale 2.4% 2.7% = Total Employment: 5,317 + Total Wage Payments: $105,149,000 Source: Statistical Quarterly, Alaska Department of Labor Iy-3 Historical Employment Patterns Employment levels in Ketchikan's manufacturing industries are closely linked to national and international demand and supply conditions for the goods they produce. This dependency on a fluctuating market creates relatively volatile employment levels in the manufacturing sector compared to those in other local industries. During the period from 1965 through 1979, manufacturing recorded declines in annual employment six times, gains seven times, and no substantial change once, for a net decline of 219 jobs. Effects of these rising and falling employment levels reverberated through the local economy, as illustrated in Figure IV-1. Jobs in the construction, TCU, and wholesale and retail trade sectors paralleled these shifts to a lesser degree. Federal, State and local government grew more steadily and rapidly than any other sectors, reaching 27% of the workforce by 1979. Massive increases in State revenues following the discovery of North Slope oi] in 1969 fueled the growth of the local economy through municipal revenue sharing and the funding of large construction projects. Modest declines in Federal and local government employ- ment in 1975 and 1976 may have been partially precipitated by a sharp decline in forest products activity. Employment increases in the FIRE and services sectors were relatively uniform throughout the 14-year period. The services sector had the fastest rate of growth, averaging 6.1% annually from 1965 to 1979. The health services industry constitutes the largest component (40%) of this sector. Stable growth in retail trade during this period reflected the steadily increasing tourism business. In summary, sectors other than the forest products and seafood processing industries directly account for Ketchikan's employment growth in recent years. The ratio of non-basic to basic employment has been increasing steadily, a pattern consistent with national trends.29A11 industries except State government and FIRE exhibited some direct or indirect dependence on Ketchikan's manufac- turing base. Seasonal Industry Employment Large variations in seasonal employment are characteristic of Ketchikan's and Alaska's economies. For Ketchikan's labor force, there is an average increase in employment of about 28% from winter (January - March) to summer (July - September) of a typical year. The largest contributor to the seasonal employment pattern is the manufacturing sector, composed largely of forest products and seafood processing, which is responsible for almost 53% of the quarterly difference in employment. Construc- tion employment, also highly seasonal, accounts for an additional 12% of the total seasonal change in workforce. All other sectors typically experience relatively moderate changes in employ- ment - 10% or less of their average annual workforce - from one quarter to another. Local government, reflecting the school term, is the only category recording employment decline between the first and third quarters. IV-4 Persons Employed Figure IV-1 Historical Employment 1500 A 7/\\ 1450 //\\ / . 1 GOVERNMENT 1400 vf \s ; 1350 / \ 7 1300 i \ uw 1250 7 , 1200 1150 1100 1050 MANUFACTURING 1000 950 OLESALE & 900 RETAIL TRADE 850 800 750 “SERVICES 700 ’ i 650 i 600 a ee TCU BO4 fe 504 ~~" 450 ‘00 350 300 CONSTRUCTION 250 200 FIRE 150 100 50 0 | J | TTT. 197 386192 = 1974 1976 §=1978 1971 1973 19% 197 =1979 Iy-5 Sources: Ketchikan Comprehensive Plan Policies of 1976; George Gee, economic consultant. Ketchikan's seasonal employment patterns correspond closely to those statewide, but its greater concentration of weather-dependent, resource-based manufacturing pushes Ketchikan's winter to summer employment shift 5% higher than the average statewide change. The Waterfront Economy Approximately one-fourth (97 out of 413) of the privately-owned industrial and commercial establishments in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough are located on the waterfront. Like other local industries, waterfront firms are largely concen- trated within the city boundaries of Ketchikan. A high proportion of those located outside the central area consists of either resource processing activi- ties - the LPK pulp mill, four lumber mill facilities, two hatcheries, and a cannery - or marine-oriented facilities - two marinas, and a recently enlarged vessel repair facility. The percentage of the various industries located on the waterfront does not comprehensively reflect the economic significance of waterfront commerce. Because the area's manufacturing and transportation firms have relatively large workforces, all waterfront firms together account directly for almost 50% of the job opportunities in Ketchikan. Similarly, because these industries tend to require more highly skilled labor, waterfront firms have higher than average pay scales. In 1979, firms located on Ketchikan's waterfront paid employees an average of nearly $23,000 a year, compared to a $16,000 per worker average for other firms. As a result, wage payments by waterfront firms totaled 57% of the area's wage receipts. Waterfront commerce accounts for 70% of the export element of Ketchikan's economy. About 60 cents of local personal income are generated in distributive sectors of the economy as a result of every dollar of income directly derived from export sales. The waterfront therefore is a key economic resource; water- front management directly affects Ketchikan's economic stability. B. INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS All of Ketchikan's major industries directly utilize both coastal resources and waterfront access. Other sectors are indirectly dependent on the resource-based industries or on the export income they generate. Commercial Fishing The commercial fishing sector has many important linkages with Ketchikan's economy. Fishermen supply Ketchikan's seafood processing firms and purchase fuel, equipment, food, moorage space, and maintenance and repair services from Ketchikan suppliers. A 1980 Planning Department survey estimated that the resident commercial fishing workforce in Ketchikan consists of approximately 175 persons on a full-time basis and 150 persons on a part-time basis. (The latter group may be ynder-represented because respondents tend to list only primary employment. )2 A survey by the Alaska Department of Labor, however, estimates that commercial fishing in Ketchikan employs 593 persons - the equivalent of 262 full-time jobs, or 5.2% of the area's resident workforce. Annual income for fishermen averages between $13,000 and $19,500. (These income figures are low; part-time worker income is included. ) IV-6 Sales by the Ketchikan trade and services sector to nonresident commercial fishing operations are estimated to range between $6,000,000 and $15,000,000 annually, based on an estimate that nearly 1,000 vessels fish in the area during the season's peak. These sales to nonresident fishing operations affect the local economy much like sales made to tourists visiting Ketchikan. The fishing component of export sales ranges from slightly less than one-third to about equal value with sales made to visitors. Timber and Wood Products Manufacture Wood products manufacturing, Ketchikan's largest industry, includes pulp, cants, and round logs. The supply of pulp and cants is dependent for raw materials upon the annual timber harvest in the Tongass National Forest. The supply of round logs is dependent upon harvesting on Native corporation timber lands. The harvesting of raw materials for these products rose and fell sharply with market conditions during the 1970s, due in part to Federal land conveyance legislation passed in 1971 and the conservation legislation intensely debated during the decade. When Louisiana-Pacific took over the pulp mill at Ward Cove in 1977, pulp exports shifted from domestic to worldwide markets ranging from India to South America. No one country dominates the pulp market. Presently, the market for dissolving pulp is in a slump which reflects the current world economic reces- sion. The present decline in the pulp market is more severe than average indus- try fluctuations. Employment for the pulp mill from 1975 to 1979 ranged from 508 to 708 employees. In response, the pulp mill has diversified both their markets and their rayon products over the years. Louisiana-Pacific also operates the downtown Spruce Mill, which processes cants. Both cant and round log sales are heavily dependent on the Japanese market. Be- cause of worldwide money market changes, a depressed national housing market which led to Canadian competition with the Japanese, and changing economic poli- cies, the Japanese market has recently declined dramatically, which has greatly reduced local harvesting operations. Cape Fox Corporation, the local supplier of round logs, estimates that their contribution to local employment is comparable to employment produced by cant processing. Road construction, high Igad logging, and the sorting and loading of round logs are all labor-intensive.~’ Logging industry employment has ranged from 271 persons in 1975 to 530 persons in 1979.28In addition to providing local employment, Cape Fox Corporations's log export revenues echo through the local economy in the form of corporate investments and returns £9 shareholders. About 65% of the shareholders reside in the Ketchikan vicinity.3 In addition to pulp, cants and round logs, local mills and individuals provide lumber, firewood, cedar shakes and shingles and other specialty products. While manufacture of these additional products contributes less cash and fewer jobs than the large pulp and cant mills, they are still important as sources of primary and supplemental income for local residents. For instance, there are 42 small sawmill operators that list addresses in Ketchikan and Ward Cove. While some of these mills are located outside the Borough it is clear that small mill operators make a sig- nificant contribution to Ketchikan's economy. Tourism A State of Alaska survey on the period between November 1, 1976 and September 30, 1977 found that 505,189 out-of-State visitors traveled to Alaska. Twenty- nine percent (93,000) of all summer visitors (June through September) and 10% IV-7 (21,000) of winter travelers (November through April) visited Ketchikan. In the summer, 65% of Ketchikan's tourists arrived on cruise ships, 24% flew in via commercial airline, and 11% used the Alaska Marine Highway's ferry system. Although the survey did not count the number of Alaska residents who visited Ketchikan, origin-destination information for airline and ferry passengers yields an estimate of 5,900 annual in-state visitors. Visitor expenditure calculations show that out-of-state visitors coming to Ketchikan via ferry and air during the summer of 1977 spent an average of $125 each. Cruise ship passengers averaged $40 each. Visitors during nonsummer months spent $241 on the average. Lodging expenditures differed most between summer and other months, but summer visitors spent less in every expenditure category. Although cruise ship visitors accounted for the lowest per capita outlays in the tourism sector, their volume insured that the total impact on the local economy was substantial. Combined expenditures of in-state and out-of- state visitors totaled $15.3 million in 1977 values. Not included in the expendi- ture analysis were several hundred thousand dollars spent locally by cruise ships for docking, longshoring and agency services, moorage, and other expenses. Transportation There is comparatively more transportation employment per capita in Ketchikan than in either Juneau or Sitka, reflecting Ketchikan's island status and its key role as a regional center for the movement of goods and passengers in Southeast Alaska. Water-based commercial and public transportation and facilities make up by far the greatest share of the industry. Barges, oi] tankers, tugs, floating camps, and cargo vessels are normally accommodated by private shore facilities. Timber loading operations and tanker moorage occasionally require public wharfage when private facilities are un- available. In 1980, only 15% of the large cargo vessels handled by the S.E. Stevedores used the city docks. The bulk of the commercial marine traffic which relies on public facilities consists of ferries, cruise ships, marine charter operations, and the fishing fleet. Ketchikan is the primary fuel distribution center for Southeast Alaska. During 1978, nearly 372,000 tons of petroleum products were received at Ketchikan's major fuel depots, and 150,000 tons were shipped from Ketchikan to virtually every Southeast community. The Alaska Marine Highway system presently consists of nine ferries linking Southeast Alaska's communities to each other; to Prince Rupert, British Columbia; and to Seattle. Four of these ferries provide mainline service, with 12 weekly sailings from Ketchikan. Two others offer frequent runs to nearby islands. Distributive Industries The distributive sectors of the local economy include wholesale and retail trade; services; construction; and Federal, State, and local government. The major purchasers of these sectors' goods and services typically are firms in the timber industry, commercial fishermen and seafood processors, construction firms, and government. Retail firms frequently buy from others in the retail sector as well as from wholesale establishments. IV-8 Despite continuing growth in the number and variety of local businesses, inter- views highlighted the dependence of all types of distributive industries on Ketchikan's two major export industries and expenditures by government agencies. Forest products and commercial fishing revenues flow through these industries via wage payments to consumers, contracts to other businesses, direct and induced construction activity, and direct purchases by processors from local businesses representing practically all industry categories. While the total dollar value of direct purchases is very low in comparison to the value of LPK's exports, direct purchases result in sizable accounts for many local firms. With logging activities shut down and cutbacks in LPK's production, 1981 was a difficult year for many businesses relying on consumer sales. The adverse impacts might have been more widespread and more strongly felt by supply firms, except that purchases related to the start-up of construction of the Swan Lake hydroelectric facility and U.S. Borax and Chemical Corporation's stepped-up exploration activities somewhat offset declines. Logging, commercial fishing, and construction are vital links in the widespread distribution of regional income from export sales to different sectors of the local economy. C. ECONOMIC OUTLOOK Ketchikan's economic future promises rapid growth over the short-term in response to the start-up of a new mining industry as well as to several large public pro- jects and the long-awaited sale of public lands to individuals. The area must plan for long-term stability, however, by wisely managing its renewable resources and by balancing the contributions of potential new commercial and industrial enterprises against their imposition of new demands on limited community services and resources. This section briefly examines the expected employment and industry growth likely to occur. Overall Employment Growth Table IV-2 presents projected levels of employment in each local industry for the years 1985 and 1990. These figures account for historical population growth, and the population growth to be generated by U.S. Borax's Quartz Hill operation and the State Ferry Maintenance Facility. The 1979 to 1985 period reflects relatively intensive construction activity attributable to a number of special projects in addition to normal levels of general construction. These special projects include construction of the Vessel Maintenance shipyard, the Swan Lake hydroelectric project, various transpor- tation projects, a Cape Fox hotel complex, and U.S. Borax mine facilities. The increase shown for manufacturing during the 1979 to 1985 period is primarily fueled by private shipyard expansion and employment associated with the new Vessel Maintenance Facility. It also incorporates an assumption by the local business community that the current slump in national and world timber markets will be overcome, leading to employment increases in Cape Fox Corporation's Iv-9 Table IV-2 Projected Employment Levels 1985 and 1990 Employment Annual Rates of Change 1970- 1979- 1985- 1985- 1979 1985 1990A 1990B 1979 1985 1990A 1990B Fishing 262* 295 325 325 - 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Construction 284 350 450 575 1.2% 3.5% 5.2% 10.4% Manufacturing 1040 1390 1460 1460 0.4% 5.0% 1.0% 1.0% Transportation 457 560 700 780 4.9% 3.4% 4.6% 6.9% Communication & Utilities 132 150 185 250 5.4% 2.0% 4.3% 10.8% Wholesale 128 140 175 215 2.2% 2.0% 4.6% 10.9% Retail 816 1090 1470 1850 3.5% 5.0% 6.2% 11.2% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 25 300 370 450 Tule 525% 4.3% 8.4% Services 773 1130 1550 1980 3.9% 6.5% 6.5% 11.9% Government 1439 1620 1890 1950 1.8% 2.0% 3.1% 3.8% Other 34 34 34 34 - - - - Total Employment 5580 7059 8609 9869 2.3% 4.0% 4.1% 6.0% A: Borax locates mine work force at townsite near mine. B. Borax locates mine work force in Ketchikan; workers commute to mine. * Resident annual fishing employment estimated in Phase I of Waterfront Study. Note: Construction and mining sector employment of Quartz Hill (outside the present Gateway Borough boundaries) is not included in either the A or B totals. The higher employment projected to occur in Ketchikan under option B reflects only the additional secondary and support jobs created as a result of the greater local population. Projected employment, population and revenues from a more detailed Quartz Hill Moly- bdenum Mine Impact Study, commissioned by the Gateway Borough, may be examined in the Planning Department offices. Iv-10 harvesting program and to the reestablishment of Ketchikan's traditional base of timber employment at levels prevailing prior to the market downturn. A slight increase in seafood processing is also included. This projection constitutes the only major manufacturing expansion the local economy has experienced since the early to mid-1970s, creating a strong inducement to employment growth in other sectors. Support industries such as transportation, communications and utilities (TCU) as well as distributive industries (retail trade; services; and finance, insurance, and real estate) are shown to respond both to the basic growth in manufacturing and to Ketchikan's developing status as a regional trade center. Employment in air transportation, retail trade, and services is also directly affected by continuing increases in local tourism. Start-up of the U.S. Borax and Chemical Corporation's Quartz Hill mining oper- ation is the dominant factor affecting the overall level of employment during the five-year period from 1985 to 1990. The key decision affecting employment impacts on Ketchikan is whether the mine's nearly 1000 employee workforce is to be housed in Ketchikan or at a new townsite which would be constructed in the vicinity of the mine. Because this decision has yet to be made, a range is depicted for 1990 representing the relative effects of both options. By 1990, about 1,800 indirect and direct jobs are expected to be generated from U.S. Borax's operation even with a townsite near the mine. Projected employment increases indicate that approximately 100 new commercial establishments will be formed by 1985 and from 240 to 380 additional establish- ments will be formed by 1990. The majority of these will seek to locate within the Ketchikan city limits, particularly during the earlier projection period. Expected Area Industrial Growth The most promising prospects for economic growth in Ketchikan in the near future are within the tourism, shipbuilding and repair, and mining industries. Tourism Prospects for the continued growth of tourism in Southeast Alaska are excellent. The cruise ship trade is anticipated to increase with respect to both vessel size and the number of vessels touring. Ketchikan has the most advantageously located docking area in Southeast; cruise passengers enter the downtown area as they disembark. One constraint to Ketchikan's bid for a continued or increased share of the tour ship business, in competition with other communities, is its limited range of community services and entertainment opportunities. Available local sightseeing services consist of bus, plane, harbor boat, and walking tours. A visitor in- formation representative is stationed at the dock. IV-11 The volume of tourism is further restricted by the area's limited visitor accomodations; however, the bottleneck of hotel space will be eliminated in the early 1980s with the completion of Cape Fox Corporation's hotel. This additional 120 guest room capacity will not only allow for future visitor increases, but is likely to encourage a greater duration of stay and total ex- penditure per visitor. With a community center in the offing, entertainment services may be improved. A small cruise vessel with a capacity of 88 passengers began to operate in Ketchikan. This cruise vessel conducts seven-day tours from Ketchikan to other Southeast Alaska communities. Passengers beginning the cruise in Ketchikan overnight in town. Approximately 15 tours per season would result in about 1,320 total passenger days and nights spent in Ketchikan. Overall annual growth in cruise ship passenger visits is likely to occur at a substantial rate until large vessel capacity limitations are reached. Ketchi- kan's limit of 180 stops, totaling 115,000 visitors, would be reached in five years at a 13% annual increase. This level of cruise trade would result in $4.6 million in annual expenditures and provide between 70 and 100 annual jobs. The Airport Master Plan projects an increase in air passenger travel at an annual rate of 4.5%. If this growth trend reflects increases in the number of visitors to Ketchikan other than cruise ship passengers, visitors arriving via commercial airline and State ferry in 1985 and 1990 are projected to total 67,000 and 84,000 respectively. Applying the expenditure levels utilized pre- viously, 1985 visitor expenditures would be $15.5 million; in 1990 visitor expenditures are expected to reach $19.3 million. These local receipts would induce direct and secondary employment opportunities totaling 300 jobs in 1985 and 420 jobs in 1990. Shipbuilding and Repair A 1980 study by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities estimated the total Alaska-based shipyard market to consist of 214 vessels over 100 feet in length, and 776 vessels between 50 and 100 feet. In addition, Coast Guard and Alaska Marine Highway vessels need repair services. Ketchikan's share of this Alaska-based market was estimated at 20% of the total. Recent expansion of capacity at the Seaward Shipyard and scheduled construction of the Alaska Marine Highway Vessel Maintenance Facility will contribute to a growing concentration of vessel repair support facilities in Ketchikan. The vessel maintenance shipyard is scheduled to begin operation by late 1984 with shiplift, wharfage, and minimal shop facilities. The State's study deter- mined that the new shipyard is not likely to compete with existing shipyards, since it will be equipped to handle much larger vessels than those shipyards can presently accommodate. Sixty to 70 additional persons are expected to be direct- ly employed by the Ferry Maintenance Facility. IV-12 Assuming that all of the ship repair facility's wage payments ($2.7 million to Alaska Marine Highway employees, $1.4 million in contractual services, and $1.6 million to non-ferry repair and maintenance employees) are made to Ketchikan residents, about 243 direct and indirect jobs and $2,906,640 in secondary local wage receipts would be generated. Mining The U.S. Borax molybdenum mine at Quartz Hill, discussed in depth in Chapter V, is projected to require an annual workforce of 850 to 950 persons during its operating life, beginning in late 1987. Assuming a workforce of 750 and wage pay- ments of $28,000 per worker (the average for manufacturing employees in Ketchi- kan), annual direct wage payments would total $23.8 million. These figures do not capture the full local economic impact of the mine since they do not include direct purchases from local firms and any induced growth in employment resulting from the location of support and leisure activities in Ketchikan. Although U.S. Borax has yet to determine whether it will construct a new town in the vicinity of the mine or base its workforce in Ketchikan, the scale of the project is so large that the mine's development and operation will spur significant growth in Ketchikan's economy in either situation. Fisheries Despite growth in the harvestable resource, the existing limited entry system ensures that the size of the salmon fishing fleet will not increase significantly unless the fleet is unable to handle increased harvests using longer openings or larger gear. But since taxes have recently been reduced or repealed as a result of the State's oi] wealth, financial considerations could well cause a shift in vessel homeports from other states to Alaska, with an indeterminate number elect- ing Ketchikan. Major growth in local cannery and cold storage facilities has occurred in recent years, and plant capacity is unlikely to expand again in the near future. However, the number of new enterprises engaged in the harvest, processing, or marketing of special products such as smoked salmon, abalone, and geoducks is growing. * While projections of future activity levels in traditional Alaskan fisheries are typically conservative, indicating little prospect of substantial increases or declines, studies focusing on the development of an Alaskan bottom fish industry show some growth potential. A large-scale bottom fish industry in Alaska was to be predicated on the right of U.S. fishermen and processors to displace foreign fishing activities within the 200-mile limit established by the Fisheries Manage- ment and Conservation Act of 1976. Nevertheless, the high hopes of recent years have not been realized. Prices paid to fishermen per pound of bottom fish have been very low compared to salmon prices, and economic incentives have failed to attract investment to the industry. Because bottom fish stocks are most highly concentrated in western Alaskan waters, the volume of harvest in Southeast probably would be insufficient to induce additional onshore processing capacity in Ketchikan. * With the increases in flying frozen products out to Seattle, hard access (if provided) to the airport may lower costs and improve efficiency; thus providing for a more stable operation of existing facilities. While expan- sion of facilities is not foreseen, modernization of existing facilities is being discussed, which would also help in stabilizing Ketchikan's fishing industry. IV-13 Forest Products The Alaska National Interest Lands Act of 1980 targeted a stable harvest level of 4.5 billion board feet per decade for the Tongass National Forest. This harvest level was set to preserve the area's current level of forest products manufacturing demand. However, this legislation could not guarantee a stable market. While the timber market is difficult to predict, industry experts expect an increase in the near future. The market for round logs may pick up by 1983, but prices are expected to remain low until the mid-1980s, reflecting the sharp decline in the present timber market. Because the Japanese prefer round logs over cants, the market for cants is expected to lag behind the round log market. In any event it will take a rather large increase to bring the market up to the levels which existed prior to 1980. The market for pulp is expected to revive by mid-1982. The future world market for dissolving pulp (the type produced at Ward Cove) is anticipated to be stronger than that for other types of pulp. Nonetheless, continued efforts to find new markets for pulp products ape essential to provide some stability against a fluctuating world economy. Cape Fox Corporation may construct an additional sawmill, similar in operation to the one at Ward Cove. Outside of a few small sawmills, no major increase in wood processing facilities and operations is anticipated for the future. Construction Construction of the Swan Lake dam began in spring 1982. In addition to the Swan Lake facility, probable local public construction projects include the Vessel Maintenance Facility, the State jail, Bar Harbor expansion, City Float improvements, a sewage treatment facility, Airport ferry dock improvements, and a new elementary school. Unscheduled, but still under discussion for the next ten years, is con- struction of portions of the secondary bypass road, a bridge or tunnel to Gravina Island (and possibly Pennock Island), a community center complex, hospital expan- sion and a mental health clinic complex, a new sanitary landfill and incinerator, a youth detention center, a downtown parking garage, a women's jail, general Airport improvements, a central floatplane moorage, new police stations, and transient barge mooring facilities. Dominating the construction activities of private industry in the Ketchikan area for the next five years will be the U.S. Borax molybdenum mine's support facili- ties, possibly including a self-sufficient town near Quartz Hill. Other substan- tial activities include the Cape Fox Corporation's Alaska Village Hotel complex, possible rehabilitation of the Ketchikan and Northern Terminal in Saxman, and increased residential construction due to population growth and State and Borough land disposals in the area. While highly variable, construction employment appears to be gaining due to this variety of construction projects. Iy-14 Transportation Since growth in local charter traffic and waterborne freight will follow population growth in both Ketchikan and the island communities in the vicinity, both types of activity have prospects for significant future growth. Air transporta- tion will expand to accommodate both population increases and tourism growth. Prospects are good for growth in the local State ferry network. Regular service between Ketchikan and Hyder has long been advocated by Hyder residents, and the Southeastern Alaska Transportation Plan recommends that such service start in 1985. The probability of additional ferry service between Ketchikan and the mainland will increase if a townsite is developed to house the workforce at the proposed Quartz Hill molybdenum mine, although it is possible that private ferry service would be used. Distributive Industries Most of the firms interviewed in connection with the Waterfront Development and Management Study have expansion plans, some of which are under way. Many respon- dents indicated that their firms plan to expand facilities in the near future provided there is a turnaround in timber markets, interest rates decline, and the U.S. Borax mining venture continues its development. Most, including many located on the central waterfront, stated that there is room for expanding their current level of operations at their present locations. Iv-15 CHAPTER V SPECIAL ISSUES KETCHIKAN’S COASTAL RESOURCES FACE GROWING PRESSURE FROM SEVERAL SOURCES, THE EVOLVING PATTERN OF WATERFRONT LAND USE AND AVAILABILITY WITHIN THE CITY OF KETCHIKAN AND THE ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE NEARBY U.S, BORAX MINING PROJECT ON THE NATURAL AND SOCIO- ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT OF BOROUGH RESIDENTS WILL PRESENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES, THE RESOLUTION OF THESE CHALLENGES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCE THE FUTURE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE KETCHIKAN AREA, TASK FORCE DISCUSSIONS WHICH ADDRESSED THESE RESOURCE USE AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES IDENTIFIED A RELATED PROBLEM: COMPLEX REGULATION AND PERMIT PROCEDURES, CONSEQUENTLY, THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM S ROLE IN SIMPLIFYING THE PROCESS. OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION MERITS DETAILED EXAMINATION, V-1 A. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT Because the waterfront plays a crucial role in determining Ketchikan's future economy and guiding land use patterns, a closer examination of upcoming demands is warranted. Sections D, E, and F of Chapter III respectively discuss existing waterfront develop- ment, transportation patterns, and potential waterfront development areas. Chapter IV discusses the overall waterfront economy. This section focuses on future water- front transportation needs and resultant demands for waterfront space, with emphasis on local government's role in meeting those demands. Waterfront Projects A variety of waterfront development projects are being planned or scheduled to handle increased demands projected. These projects are discussed below, arranged by transportation mode. Ferry Systems The major improvement project scheduled for ferry facilities is the relocation of the Borough Airport ferry dock with construction of a new terminal and parking area. Because of congestion due to sharing the ferry ramp with State local ferries, service efficiency has been significantly hampered. The Airport Master Plan recommended relocating the dock to permit the ferry to make three round trips per hour and to eliminate ramp congestion. The Borough Assembly chose recently to relocate the dock directly across from the Airport. The State Department of Transportation, the funding agency, is to begin the budgeting process in 1983. The Airport Master Plan also recommended development of a new ferry terminal at the Airport which would include a transfer bridge resting on a float. A private water taxi system between the Airport and the downtown area was also suggested as a step toward improving water transportation to the Airport. Every public effort should be made to encourage such a system. Cruise Ship Docking The recent growth in tourism has increased the demand for docking space for the larger tour ships. The City of Ketchikan is pursuing State funds for a major recon- figuration of City Float which includes a dolphin which would allow the docking of slightly larger tour ships at downtown Berth II. However, even with the improvements, available berths will not accommodate tour ships over 700 feet in length. Lightering passengers from large cruise ships moored in the Narrows will suffice until summer water traffic becomes too congested and hazardous. Scheduling of cruise ship traffic, in conjunction with the City Float expansion, will greatly increase existing overall capacity. v-2 33 Small Boat Harbors A preliminary harbor demand study conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers estimates that, by the year 2000, there will be a total need for about 317 moorage slips, even after the completed expansions of Bar Harbor and City Float. Rough estimates produced by the Corps show the moorage demand to be as follows for the year 2000: Recreational Commercial Charter Other Total Existing Demand Transient 70 50 --- --- 120 Wait List 59 43 --- --- 102 Trailered 65 --- --- --- 65 Future Demand 183 7 20 15 235 Total 377 110 20 15 522 The Bar Harbor expansion will provide for about 275 additional moorage slips; the City Float expansion will add 40 slips, leaving a deficit of 207 moorage slips by the year 2000. Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a breakwater feasibility study for a small boat harbor at Saxman. Moorage dock designs have yet to be initiated. If no delays are encountered in designing and funding, construction of a small boat harbor at Saxman could begin within three to four years. Recently, the Alaska Depart- ment of Transportation conducted feasibility studies to expand the Knudson Cove harbor. However, this project is also years away from funding and construction. Local government assistance through project sponsorship, facility maintenance agree- ments, financial construction and planning will aid in keeping these needed boat harbor projects in active status. Shipbuilding and Repair The State Vessel Maintenance Facility may cause future displacement of neighboring facilities. The State's Master Plan for the Facility presumes that adjoining munici- pal property will become available for shipyard use during later development phases. For this to occur, municipal public works facilities would have to be relocated. If private development of support facilities occurs in response to the later development phases, additional areas near Carlanna Creek will be needed. The mobile home park across from the State shipyard site might be suitable. Planning for the relocation of public works and for additional support areas should commence in the near future. V-3 Cargo Transportation As discussed in Chapter III, the factor currently limiting expansion of cargo trans- portation is space for freight storage. Boyer has upland fill planned to improve their barge terminal storage capacity. For the adjoining Foss terminal, already congested, little option exists but to fill additional tidelands to create more storage space. With expansion and increased sailings, the private sector should be able to keep pace with cargo volume growth. The City of Saxman has preliminary plans for upgrading the Ketchikan Northern Terminal, a cargo transshipment area once used by Foss. The plans include about 500 feet of wharfage, increased storage space on fill, and renovated ramp facilities. In addi- tion, roughly 50 acres across Tongass Highway from the terminal have been designated by the City as an industrial expansion area. These improvements, combined with breakwaters in the Saxman area, would make Ketchikan Northern Terminal a suitable site for a cargo transportation facility. Ketchikan's port does not provide convenient mooring for transient barges. The pro- posed U.S. Borax mining development and the State vessel repair facility are likely to spur an increase in transient barge stop-overs. Alternative temporary moorage areas are needed both close to terminal and repair centers and in remote, less con- gested, areas. Projects serving this need should be encouraged by government. Marine Aviation In the commercial marine aviation sector, there is no noticeable demand for water- front space on the Ketchikan side of Tongass Narrows. Instead, the trend is for relocation to the Airport. The Airport Master Plan calls for re-design of the Air- port's seaplane float facility to increase its usefulness and capacity. In addition, a floatplane taxiway and apron is scheduled for later development phases of the Airport. Seaward Development A pierhead line establishes the preferred limit of seaward development of piling sup- ported facilities. Exposure to prevailing winds and minimizing navigational obstacles and congestion were the primary factors evaluated while deriving the proposed pierhead line shown in the Waterfront Development and Management Study. Recreational beaches were also considered. Pierhead lines are useful management tools in guiding waterfront development within shoreline areas less subject to wind and wave damage. For large ship navigation, a clear, open shipping channel is essential. Consequently, it is necessary to limit dock encroachment, particularly in narrow channels like Tongass Narrows. The pro- posed pierhead line could be used by permitting agencies in reviewing projects for adverse navigational impacts. Summary of Significant Findings The following conclusions illustrate the trends expected in future waterfront development. Waterfront Development Areas °O During the next five to ten years, presently suitable, available, and access- ible waterfront property on the Revilla side of Tongass Narrows appears to be adequate for locating small commercial/industrial waterfront developments. Waterfront along the Airport operational area has the best short-term development potential, because of the existence of ferry access; an airport road system; and proximity to power, water, and telephone facilities. Once breakwaters are constructed, the south Saxman area, particularly around the Ketchikan Northern Terminal, should be considered to be a prime available waterfront site for industrial development. For any single large commercial/industrial development within the next ten years, as well as for future growth beyond ten years, the best areas are George Inlet adjacent to the mouth of White River, and the Airport Re- serve on Gravina Island. Demand for Waterfront Space 0 Twenty-five acres of commercial/industrial waterfront land with about .8 mile of frontage would be required to accommodate 1990 projected growth rates. Barring unanticipated major industrial activity, projected growth in water- related industries could be accommodated until 1990 through use of Ketchikan Northern Terminal, creation of additional fill areas adjacent to barge operations, relocation of the public works warehouse adjoining the Vessel Maintenance Facility, and increased use of Ketchikan International Airport by local air taxi services. New water-related commercial establishments will encounter significant competition from non-water-oriented commercial establishments for available waterfront space. Despite planned Bar Harbor and City Float expansions, new small boat harbors must be created to meet the projected demand for approximately 200 new stalls by the year 2000. Suitable sites for transient barge moorage, particularly in less congested areas, will be needed in the immediate future. When the limited supply of desirable commercial/industrial waterfront along the existing road system is depleted, access to suitable expansion areas will be necessary. B. QUARTZ HILL MOLYBDENUM MINE DEVELOPMENT The Alaska Coastal Management Act permits coastal districts to specify Areas Meriting Special Attention (AMSAs) for which separate cooperative management plans may be developed. The U.S. Borax molybdenum mine site at Quartz Hill in the Misty Fjords National Monument may qualify as an AMSA because of the substantial impacts mine devel- opment is expected to have on the Ketchikan area's coastal and community resources. Annexation of the Quartz Hill area by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough is currently being examined and could be the preferred means of mitigating impacts on Ketchikan. Consequently, an AMSA designation appears premature at this time and is viewed as an alternative avenue through which the Borough could gain necessary influence in the development of Quartz Hill. While not formally nominated as an AMSA by the Ketchikan Coastal District in this plan, the Quartz Hill area is a candidate for such nomi- nation. Through a significant amendment to the plan, AMSAs may be nominated at a later date. This section contains an overview of the planned mining project, a brief summary of the types of impacts Ketchikan and Ketchikan residents could expect and a look at the extent to which the project meets requirements for AMSA designation. The U.S. Borax Project 34 A large-scale molybdenum mining project is planned by the U.S. Borax and Chemical Corporation within the Misty Fjords National Monument, across Behm Canal from the Borough. U.S. Borax conducted a geochemical exploration program in the area in 1974, resulting in its discovery of molybdenum, an essential component of steel alloys. The 1.5 billion ton molybdenum ore deposit is one of the world's largest, holding at least 10% of the total known minable ore reserves of this mineral. The deposit is situated on a knoll known as Quartz Hill which straddles the watershed line dividing the Blossom River and the Keta River surface water drainage areas. (Figure V-1). There are no roads, airstrips, electrical power lines, or other utility corridors in the area. Access directly to the site is therefore currently limited to helicopters, with float plane and marine transportation available from Ketchikan to nearby tide- water. U.S. Borax plans to build a 9 to 10-mile all-weather gravel road from tide- water to Quartz Hill in order to remove a 5,000-ton sample of molybdenum ore. This bulk sample will allow sufficient testing of process technology, metal recoverability, and tailings characteristics to complete design of the ore processing and tailings disposal systems. The topography of the region surrounding Quartz Hill limits surface access routes to two general corridors - the Blossom route, from tidewater at the Wilson Arm fjord up the Blossom River and Beaver Creek valleys to the mine; and the Keta Route, from tidewater at the Boca de Quadra fjord up the Keta River, Hill Creek, and White Creek valleys to the mine. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 permits mining development in the Misty Fjords National Monument within a 149,000-acre wilderness exclusion area which includes Quartz Hill and the heads of the Boca de Quadra and Wilson Arm fjords. Selection of the Blossom access route favored by U.S. Borax and recently approved by the U.S. Forest Service, will have implications for the location of future mine facilities, including transportation facilities and townsite or campsite construction. V-6 Figure y-l Quartz Hill Area Map jeueg wyeg KAISER ENGINEERS V7 The U.S. Forest Service was required to produce an overall mining development concepts analysis document (CAD) within nine months of ANILCA's enactment, as well as an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project's surface access road and bulk sampling phase. The CAD was issued on Sept. 1, 1981; a final EIS on the construction of an access road in the Blossom River drainage was issued July 23, 1982. A full-project EIS, expected before summer of 1984, must be completed before construc- tion of permanent roads, facilities, and accommodations may begin. The mine will be developed using the open pit method, in which a steep-walled cone- shaped pit will be progressively deepened over the life of the mine, which is expected to be in operation for approximately 70 years. Mining takes place on the pit floor. and wall. Because the contiguous nature of the ore body makes the excavation of multiple pits impractical, waste will be dumped outside the pit rather than back- filled into it. U.S. Borax estimates that approximately 60,000 tons of ore will be removed daily and processed by crushing, grinding, and standard flotation tech- nology to separate the molybdenite. The resulting concentrate will be packaged in tote bins (reusable shipping containers) designed for long distance transportation. An estimated 3,000 tons of concentrate will be shipped monthly. The tailings or debris produced in the separation process will total about 59,896 tons per day. The tailings will contain predominantly quartz and other silicate minerals, with minor amounts of acid-forming compounds such as pyrites, and traces of the various reagents utilized in the separation process. Tailings disposal may take place on either land or marine sites. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has determined that overall biological resource values, including habitat quality, are higher in the Smeaton Bay drainage than in the Boca de Quadra. The U.S. Forest Service has decided to permit marine tailings disposal in the Boca de Quadra only. The ore processing plant is expected to operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The project will require an estimated 62,250 KW of electrical energy, about three times the expected electrical output of the Swan Lake hydroelectric project currently under construction. A work force of 1,000 will be needed during the construction phase of the project from 1984 through 1987. These workers will live in camps at the mine site. For the duration of the mining operation, approximately 931 employees of U.S. Borax and its subcontractors will work at Quartz Hill. Two major alternatives for housing of these employees and their families have received much consideration. They are 1) construction of a new full-service town in the mine's vicinity; and 2) housing employees and their families in Ketchikan, with workers transported by sea and/or air to the project area where they would work 4 or 7 days of 12-hour shifts followed by 4 or 7 days off. Although some workers are likely to choose in-town living and others on-site residence in any event, the primary housing option selected by project planners will greatly influence the nature and magnitude of the project's impacts on the Ketchikan area. Anticipated Impacts of the Mine Development on Ketchikan and Ketchikan residents Selection of the townsite housing alternative implies more intense human activities and greater conflict with coastal ecological and wilderness values near the project site. The Ketchikan commute alternative, in turn, would result in increased pressure on the Borough's waterfront transportation network and socioeconomic environment. Pending further results of Environmental Impact Statement's socioeconomic impact studies, and additional field work, expected impacts of the project can be described in only general terms. V-8 Changes in environmental quality due to mine development will affect the lifestyle and livelihood of many in the Ketchikan community. Ketchikan area residents hike, camp, boat, hunt, and fish in the Misty Fjords area. Summertime tourist shuttles to the National Monument are based in Ketchikan. The area's commercial fishing industry harvests marine life produced in the streams and bays near the mine site. Activities which permanently affect the rich variety of resources and the unique character of this pristine coastal area will directly impact Ketchikan residents who visit and/or use the resources in the area. Salmon stocks, for example, may encounter some declines due to the effects of increased construction and activity near the Blossom River. Marine tailings disposal, if selected, may reduce stocks of commercially valued marine species which mature in the Boca de Quadra fjord and its estuaries.34 Other impacts on the natural environment of the project area which may reduce Ketchikan residents' use and enjoyment of the area include degradation of air quality from diesel emissions and dust, damage or destruction of hillside vegetation from blasting and construction activity, and displacement of waterfowl habitat as well as disturbance of their migration, movement, and nesting patterns. 35 Presence of a construction camp, marine facilities, road construction, and associated support activities will also diminish the primitive nature of the Smeaton Bay/ Wilson Arm area. The landscape's aesthetic value will be somewhat reduced by the visibility of the road, facilities, and campsite or townsite in the area. However, the develop- ment of improved access to the Misty Fjords area is likely to enable many more Borough residents to view the scenic National Monument. It is estimated that an on-site, self-sufficient community Foy the project's employees and their families would be about the size of Wrangell. Impacts due to recreational use of the area by residents of a townsite would further alter the area's wilderness character. Adjacent wilder- ness will also be affected by the commotion, pollution, and noise generated by the processing operation and final access route traffic as well as by the full-scale project's air and water transportation activity. In addition to environmental impacts on the waters and coast in the project_area impacts on Ketchikan's economic sectors and community resources will occur.393435 The magnitude of the socioeconomic impacts will depend on the primary employee housing option selected by U.S. Borax. Under either alternative, however, Ketchikan's economic and social future will be affected by the increased employment opportunities and population growth which the mine's development will bring to the area. As the nearest established community, Ketchikan inevitably will serve as the embarkation point and regional center for the project. Distributive industries, area housing and land use, community services and recreation facilities, transportation facilities, local government, social services, and public utilities, all will grow as Ketchikan accommodates this new primary industry. One of the prime tools for mitigating the human impacts is planning. An AMSA plan should ensure that the benefits of such an operation are realized and the negative impacts are mitigated. The number of local workers employed by the U.S. Borax mine operation is a second major factor which will influence population increases.” Ketchikan residents, respond- ing to a U.S. Borax-sponsored attitude survey in the fall of 1981, expressed consider- able interest in mine-site employment. °°37% of those surveyed said they would apply for such a job if it required a move to a new townsite, and a majority of Borough residents (53%) would seek project employment under the seven-day (i.e. week on, week off) commute option. The Ketchikan commute option would require significantly more V-9 transportation-related traffic in nearby coastal waters and waterfront locations. In addition to the direct employment requirements (currently estimated at 1,000 personnel during the construction phase, and 931 during the operations phase, including 86 mine-site subcontractor employees), indirect and secondary employment impacts will occur in Ketchikan's economy. An estimated 1.3 jobs will be created in the local economy as a result of every $100,000 in local purchases by U.S. Borax in addition to the 1.2 jobs generated by the spending of each new primary industry worker's wage and salary income within the community. 3 Impacts on local housing will be most dramatic if the Ketchikan commute option is selected; the vacancy rate for housing in the Borough is already very low - about one percent. 6At least in the early years of the project, the housing problem will be primarily one of available and affordable rental units in and near the City of Ketchikan. Pressure on community services and facilities such as schools, health care, social services, fire and police protection, power, and wastewater disposal would be more intense under the Ketchikan commute alternative's greater population pressure. Gateway Borough studies of the mine development's projected impacts on the Ketchikan area, as well as the feasibility of annexing project facilities, will assist local government in its efforts to predict and quantify the full range of impacts and implement solutions to these socioeconomic pressures. Areas Meriting Special Attention The Misty Fjords area, including Quartz Hill, is currently located outside the bound- aries of Ketchikan's coastal district planning area delineated in Figure I-2. Never- theless, the Quartz Hill area may be recommended to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council as an Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) by the Borough under the Alaska Coastal Management Act. If the Coastal Policy Council then finds that the area requires special management because it has outstanding value to the general public, because it is particularly sensitive to change, and/or because plans for the area or claims upon its resources could preclude other uses, it will initiate the planning for an AMSA. Once the Coastal Policy Council concurs with the appropriateness of an AMSA desig- nation, a cooperative planning and management program begins among all affected parties to preserve, protect, enhance or restore the values for which the area was given special status. The AMSA planning effort is especially useful for areas in which conflicting uses of coastal land and water resources are anticipated. The Quartz Hill area constitutes an area “where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters," as well as meeting other independent statutory criteria for an area which could be designated an AMSA.3/ Mitigation of socioeconomic impacts on Ketchikan and Ketchikan residents would be a primary objective for the Borough in participating in a cooperative AMSA planning program. Because the coastal management program is oriented toward land and water uses in a district's coastal area, community resources such as housing could be appropriately and effectively addressed in an AMSA planning effort. However, socio- economic impacts such as burdensome drains on local police and emergency medical services probably would not fall under the established intentions of an AMSA planning effort. Consequently, an AMSA planning approach to mitigation of socioeconomic impacts has some considerable limitations when compared to the leverage and compre- hensive planning opportunities annexation would give the Borough. For these reasons, the questions of an AMSA nomination should be addressed after the question of annexa- tion has been resolved. This issue is the subject of a separate Borough study. V-10 In sum, the Borough intends to preserve all avenues of local. input regarding the values Ketchikan residents place on the Quartz Hill project area's coastal resources and the impacts the project is expected to have on local land and water uses and community services. The AMSA designation process, beginning with an amendment to this plan nominating the Quartz Hill area as an AMSA, would constitute one such route to encourage cooperative and effective planning efforts for the area - an option which the Borough may or may not decide it needs to exercise in order to mitigate the significant impacts outlined in this section. V-11 C. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS There has been widespread concern that government regulations have become unneces- sarily burdensome to private individuals and entrepreneurs desiring to construct improvements to property. Much of this concern has been focused on permitting pro- cesses, that of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in particular. This section exam- ines: 1) the types and number of permits Ketchikan residents and industries have historically sought to obtain from the Army Corps of Engineers, 2) local concerns about permitting procedures, and, 3) recent efforts to improve and simplify the permitting process. Corps of Engineers Permit Activity in the Ketchikan Area All individuals, organizations, commercial enterprises, and governmental agencies planning to engage in activities that would affect navigable waters in the Ketchikan area must apply to the Corps of Engineers for one or both of the following permits: 1. Permit for structures or work in or affecting navigable waters of the U.S.; 2. Permit for discharge of dredge or fill material into all U.S. waters, including wetlands. In addition, if state tidelands are affected by the proposed activity, then a state tideland permit or lease is required from the Department of Natural Resources. Figure V-3 offers a profile of the Corps of Engineers' permits granted in the Ketchi- kan area during the period from 1960 through 1980. Annual permit activity during this 21-year period exhibited a gradual increase during the early 1970s, followed by a dramatic rise in the years from 1975 to 1980. Two factors largely account for the observed patterns: 1. Implementation of the Clean Water Act in 1975-1977 which required the Corps to issue permits for dredge or fill material into U.S. waters. 2. Increases in tideland fill activity as one response to the increas- ing scarcity of developable, desirable land. The number of permits for projects requiring fill has been rising steadily through the years. During the period from 1970 to 1974, fill-related permits averaged three per year. For the period from 1975 to 1979, the average number of fill-related per- mits rose to eight per year. The proportion of residential fill permits has also increased, demonstrating the increasing economic viability of filling tidelands to obtain land suitable for construction. Transportation-related permits during the entire period totaled 128, twice the number of fill permits. Because transportation-related permits generally are requested for water-dependent activities requiring floating structures or pilings, which are less disruptive than fill, major agency objections to issuance of these permits are less frequently encountered. However, fill permits, particularly those for residential purposes, have received close scrutiny by permitting and reviewing agencies. V-12 asow a bg- fi 6z- Wiis b/- “WY EL-A, YZ "SHU il byrnpy puoysapyy jo edly hg 28¢t1-0%6) ‘Suanpwiyddy jiiligy s1dduill7 40 sit1g7 ie GLb) = OL bI §9b} = O9bl wee re OE cn Ie SU i Z \j 02 HE §2 Hi | t ie! EC ut i oh ogg lig ra 24 0736/-09b/ ‘suayonddy pray stoauiluz Jo A109 SuolLqzeoLiddy ylwuag suasuLbuq yo sduog Z-A aunbL4 Local Concerns with the Permitting Process Because of the increased complexity of Corps permitting procedures beginning in the 1970s, as well as growing demands for tideland fills, the issue of Corps permits encompasses several local concerns, expressed in Task Force reports and at public meetings, as summarized below: o Projects should be evaluated for public access to the waterfront, and for incorporation of the waterfront into design of commercial structures. o Permits necessary to allow more convenient water access to waterfront land such as floats, and launching ramps, should be granted if they do not obscure traditional use of navigable waters. o Fill within stream floodways should be discouraged. o Tideland dredge and fill should not be permitted in areas critical to the productivity of local commercial and subsistence fisheries. o There should be more local review of permits and tideland lease applications. o Permitting and reviewing agencies must recognize the need for more log storage areas along the road system, as close as possible to major timber harvesting areas. o Fill permits should be granted for industrial property unless the granting of a fill permit would physically alter or preclude use of other private or public property. o Permitting and reviewing agencies must recognize that development in Ketchi- kan is constrained by the lack of sufficient upland area, and that fill has been and will continue to be a viable means of creating space for community growth. o The fill permit review process is too lengthy and involves too many govern- ment agency reviews which are often inconsistent and reflect a lack of knowledge and understanding of local conditions. These concerns still reflect the need for permit review and do not support abolishment of regulations. Rather, these concerns elucidate the need for reasonable review that responds to local needs and the surrounding environment. In essence, the permit process ought to be limited to the objective of protecting important environmental values, and should not be used to regulate types of land use. One of the most widely discussed local needs not being adequately addressed by the permitting process is the need for fill in the intertidal area for residential uses. In the review of permits, residential tideland fill has been categorically objected to on the basis that such use is not water-related. The need to lift these categori- cal objections resulted in both the Planning and Zoning Commission and Borough Assembly passing resolutions in August 1980. V-14 Another common complaint about permits is the lengthy time expended in processing. Currently, most non-controversial Army Corps of Engineers permits take from four to seven months for processing provided that all reviewing agencies sign off. Permits for controversial projects can take years for processing. For example, it took Cape Fox Corporation 23 months to obtain an approved permit for a sort yard, log dump, log storage site, and dock on the west side of George Inlet, south of the White River. Because permit time delays hold up costly projects, several requests have been made that the local government help to speed up the permit processing time. Efforts to Improve the Permitting Process There has been considerable effort invested by all levels of government to reduce the complexity of the permit review process, and thereby shorten the time required to obtain permits. This intent is reflected in the 1980 Corps of Engineers' permit regulations which expand the range of activities and areas covered by the nationwide "general" permit system. For non-controversial activities, the Corps has issued a "general" approval for certain industrial waterfront activities irrespective of where the project is to be located, provided that the activity meets certain strin- gent conditions. General Permits have been granted for these waterfront activities: Access road construction with less than 200 cubic yards of fill; Bank stabilization with less than 500 cubic yards of fill; Repair of existing fills or facilities that were previously authorized; Installation of navigation aids; Marine life harvesting devices; Survey activities, including core sampling; Utility line crossings, provided no change in bottom contours; Construction of bridges across tidal water where only incidental fill is used. ooooo0o0o°0o°0 There is no application process for these activities provided that specific condi- tions are met. The Corps also grandfathered all structures built prior to 1968 with or without a permit. Another permit reform project has been initiated by the Governor of the State of Alaska for State permits, resulting in newly proposed regulations. The purposes of the proposed revisions are to: 1. Establish the shortest feasible deadline for issuance of State permits for natural resource development, 2. Establish uniform permit procedures, 3 Explicitly define the rights of the applicant and other parties in the permitting process, and, 4, Integrate the State's coastal management decision-making process into the permit process. The District Coastal Management Program provides an opportunity to adopt and implement policies that can help to simplify and to streamline the Federal and State permit process. For example, more flexible permit guidelines for specified areas and acti- vities can be incorporated into the Coastal Management Plan for approval by Federal and State agencies. In this regard, the following guidelines for Army Corp of Engi- neers' tideland dredge and fill permits have been developed for the Ketchikan area: V-15 Allow fill in the intertidal area for residential development outside the City of Ketchikan provided that the following conditions are met: 1) The land does not lie within an environmentally sensitive area depicted on Figure II-14, 2) The property is not within a potential industrial/commercial development area depicted on Figure III-9. 3) The area to be filled is above mean high water, and 4) The property has already been subdivided. Allow fill above and below mean high water for residential development inside the City of Ketchikan provided that the property has less than 300 feet of water frontage. The intent of these proposed guidelines is to lift blanket categorical objections to residential use of the intertidal area. The guidelines recognize the scarcity of developable lands in the City of Ketchikan, as well as the need to make the best use of the waterfront for water-related commercial and industrial development and the need to protect the biological values of tideland. To ensure this balanced perspec- tive, improved local review of permit applications in a timely manner is necessary. The implementation chapter addresses the increased role for local review and coordina- tion of Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Conservation permits. Another approach for the local government in simplifying the permit process is to ex- pand the applicability of the special permit procedure to a broader range of activi- ties through a local permit process. The City and Borough of Sitka applied through the Coastal Management Program to the Army Corps of Engineers for issuance of six special permits covering each of the following uses and activities: 3 1. Piling-supported or floating boat docks up to 30 feet (any dimension) excepting ramp dimensions, with no petroleum storage. 2. Clean rock fill not exceeding 500 cubic yards and not below mean high water in tidal areas, and 2,000 cubic yards in non-tidal areas, excluding areas within 50 feet of anadromous streams, lakes, and tidally-influenced wetlands. 3. Residential sanitary sewer outfalls. 4. Residential utility services including, but not limited to water, sewer, electric, gas, telephone, and television. 5. Private vessel mooring buoys including float-houses (in designated areas only). 6. Culverted crossings of non-anadromous streams with 50-year (2%) frequency of flow less than 20 cubic feet per second. V-16 Sitka did eventually obtain special permit authority because it contracted with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for a detailed estuarine/wetland habitat study. With habitat values thoroughly assessed, resource agencies could determine which types of activities would be non-controversial in designated areas and could accu- rately apply needed conditions or stipulations to each type of activity. There is one major limitation to Sitka's program. Its permits are not general per- mits in the sense that they do not automatically authorize activities. Even for non- controversial types of projects covered by the general permits, an application must be made to the City and Borough of Sitka for a minimum 30-day review and approval process. Discussions with Army Corps of Engineers personnel indicated that activi- ties 3 through 5 covered by Sitka's general permit are now included in new nationwide general permit regulations 39 With the new regulations providing such an expansion of the general permits, then individuals would not need to apply for a permit for those activities; they would be automatically approved provided that all conditions were met. Another element unique to Sitka's permit simplification efforts is the broadening of the local review role to include notification and coordination responsibilities usually undertaken by the lead agency in some distant office. For activities not qualifying for a special permit, i.e. those projects more controversial in nature, Sitka would notify for comments all adjacent property owners and resource agency personnel in Sitka. The objective is to identify and resolve any local objections to the proposed project prior to submitting a formal application to the Corps, thereby reducing overall processing time. Sitka's planning director estimates that the Borough saves three months processing time per permit application. With only about 12 to 15 permits a year falling into the formal review category, the planning direc- tor foresees this local review effort as a "Significant service for an insignificant drain on local administration time." 40 Sitka's permit program and local review process should be viewed as a pilot program with direct implications for Ketchikan's Coastal Management Program. Ketchikan will gain much by monitoring Sitka's program and following its example with any needed improvements. However, because Ketchikan does not have a detailed estuarine/wetland habitat study, the Ketchikan District is not in a position to establish a general permit scheme similar to Sitka. Local review of permits could be initiated in Ket- chikan. Regardless of local involvement in review coordination the guidelines for the granting of fill permits for residential uses could be incorporated into the Army Corps of Engineers' case-by-case evaluation of permit applications. V-17 CHAPTER VI GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES * Asterisks indicate enforceable rules to be applied by State and Federal governmental agencies during consistency reviews. VI-1 Goal: Ts A. ECONOMY AND GROWTH We shall plan for a broad and secure economic base and orderly community growth for Ketchikan, while preserving the beauty and essential character of the community. Objective: a. *Policy: Dis Policy: Objective: a. Policy: b. *Policy om Policy: d. *Policy: e. Policy: To promote sources of employment, economic growth, and community stability. Government review and support and, where appropriate, funding, shall be given for the following activities and projects: 0 Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project, 0 Winter Ferry Maintenance Facility 0 Tourism 0 Bottomfish industry and other fisheries expansion efforts 0 Marine research center 0 State nursery and forest research center 0 Reactivation of Ketchikan Northern Terminal 0 Support facilities necessary for the Borax mine development and operation 0 Diversification of timber manufacturing The Borough shall balance the contributions of potential com- mercial/industrial enterprises against their imposition of new demands on limited community services by: 1) assessing demands early in the project planning stages, 2) developing mitigation measures, and, 3) funding and scheduling service improvements. To promote sound timber management and industry development. Existing State and Federal laws and regulations governing forest practices shall apply to timber harvesting; no further restrictions shall be imposed by local government. Support, through State and Federal permit review and appropriate zoning, shall be given for the expansion of log storage areas where there is documented good natural tide flushing action to minimize build-up of bark and wood chips. The Borough shall promote a State Division of Forestry nursery and research center and shall assist in its development and in site selection. State and Borough land management programs shall include pro- visions for small timber sales on commercial timber lands having either road or shoreline access. The Borough shall move to aid and assist the development of a cedar manufacturing industry. VI-2 35 Objective: a. Policy: b. Policy: 4. Objective: a. *Policy: b. *Policy: 5. Objective: a. Policy: b. Policy: To encourage and support expansion and diversification of Ketchi- kan's commercial, subsistence, and sport fisheries. The Borough shall participate in and support programs to increase local fish rehabilitation, enhancement, harvesting, processing, and shipping. Shoreline and uplands required to expand Ketchikan's commercial fisheries shall be incorporated into the Waterfront Industrial Zone (see Policy B4a), and appropriate waterfront areas shall be zoned as such. To support the revival of Ketchikan's surface and sub-surface mining industry. Land management programs shall identify accessible, high quality rock, sand, and gravel sites outside environmentally sensitive areas (Figure II-14) and allow for their excavation with minimal impact to the surrounding landscape. Where appropriate, a materials extraction plan shall be prepared for large intensive use sites. Reasonable and prudent development within the scope of proven technology and reasonable surface access to all valid existing and future mining claims shall be given due consideration by all involved levels of government in their review of mining develop- ments. To continue promotion of Ketchikan's many tourist attractions and encourage development of needed accommodations. During commercial development zoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall recognize the need for travel and campsite accommodations in and/or near the City of Ketchikan. Local government shall participate in programs to increase the development and marketing of local tourist attractions and events and Misty Fjords National Monument, including charter boats and tours. B. LAND AND WATER USE Goal: We shall maintain a flexible land use planning process directed toward enhancing future economic growth, opening new lands for development, maintaining the diversity of lifestyles available to the people of Ketchikan, and balancing resource development needs with resource protection. 1. Objective: To provide for a land use pattern that balances resource develop- ment needs with resource protection needs. VI-3 2a a. *Policy: b. Policy: c. *Policy: Objective: a. *Policy: b. *Policy: c. Policy: d. *Policy: The environmental sensitivity (Figure II-14) and waterfront development suitability (Figure III-9) analyses shall be used as guides for determining where waterfront development should and should not be directed. The Borough zoning ordinance shall incorporate: 1) A zone that permits managed natural resource extraction, such as timber harvesting and mining; 2) a district that preserves and protects existing and future potable water supplies; and, 3) a zone that provides for parks, open space, public buildings, and other compatible uses. Once these zones are created, the appropriate rezoning procedures shall be initiated. The in- tention of these new zoning designations is to eliminate the incompatibility of uses currently allowed in the Future Development Holding Zone. Major waterfront development shall be allowed in the identified environmentally sensitive areas (Figure II-14), if there is a public need for the proposed development and if the identified resource values are not significantly impaired. To select and develop public lands and to guide development of private lands in a manner that adequately meets present and future needs. During the land selection process and negotiations for land trades, the Borough and State shall obtain property for pro- viding access to shoreline areas traditionally used by the public for recreational, subsistence, and gathering activi- ties. The Borough and State shall support land trade negotiations which would maintain public ownership of the following areas according to the priorities listed: 1. Beaver Falls - for protection of power and water supplies; Harriet Hunt - for protection of recreational resources; Whipple Creek - for protection of watershed, and scenic and recreational resources; and White River (stream bank and mouth) - for protection of recreational resources and fisheries habitat. > Wr The Borough shall manage Borough lands in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Coastal Management Plan. Disposal of residential lands to private individuals shall be the primary objective of the Borough and State land management programs. However, some land shall be managed for a balanced blend of land uses, including woodlots, recreation, watershed protection, and commercial/industrial development. VI-4 e. *Policy: Objective: a. *Policy: b. *Policy: c. *Policy: d. *Policy: e. *Policy f. *Policy: g. *Policy: h. *Policy: 1; *Policy: j. Policy: Special Note: Provisions allowing planned unit developments shall be incorpor- ated into the Borough zoning ordinance and State subdivision is) to allow greater flexibility in development patterns. III-15 To allow tideland development, leasing, and use in an efficient and orderly manner. The use of piling supported or floating structures shall be encouraged over those requiring solid tideland fills. Tideland fill for residential, commercial and/or industrial uses shall be allowed within the City of Ketchikan in areas not environmentally sensitive. Tideland fill for water-related commercial and/or industrial uses shall be allowed in areas not environmentally sensitive which lie outside the City of Ketchikan. Tideland fill above mean high water to be used for non water-related commercial and/or industrial uses shall be allowed in areas not environmentally sensitive that lie outside the City of Ketchikan. Tideland fill above mean high water outside the City shall be allowed on subdivided property that does not lie within an environmentally sensitive area or in a potential industrial/ commercial waterfront development area. If the State should choose to grant tideland leases, first pre- ference to upland property owners shall be considered. Float homes shall be recognized as an approved use of private and state tidelands in all residential zones where 1) adequate sewage treatment (marine sanitation devices) and/or tidal flush- ing exists 2) the float homes are moored in an least 15 feet of water at mean high water 3) the presence of a float house will not jeopardize access to another's upland property and 4) there is no obstruction to use of navigable waters. State tideland leases and Army Corps of Engineers permits for log dumps and storage areas shall protect water access to private property and public lands. The State shall reserve beachfront areas to be used for domestic wood salvaging. The Borough shall monitor local permitting plans and proce- dures in other jurisdictions and the expansion of the Army Corps of Engineers general nationwide permit process, and shall prepare a report on the time savings and effective- ness for Ketchikan of adopting a local permit plan for small individual projects. City of Ketchikan is defined by the city limits in existence as of April, 1983. VI-5 k. Policy: Objective: a. Policy: b. Policy: c. *Policy: d. *Policy: e. *Policy: f. *Policy: Objective: a. Policy: Provided a significant reduction in processing time and in- creased effectiveness can be achieved, the Borough shall institute local review and coordination of Army Corps of Ergineers permits and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Water Quality Certifications. To direct and encourage waterfront development in suitable locales so as to meet upcoming demands in a timely manner. The Borough zoning ordinance shall incorporate: 1) a Waterfront Industrial Zone, and, 2) a Waterfront Commercial/Residential Zone. Within these zones, the following land use priorities shall apply: 1. Water-dependent uses and activities; 2. Water-related uses and activities; 3. Other compatible uses, including recreational uses. To relieve pressure on the waterfront, the Borough shall zone additional upland areas for general commercial use. Non-water-related commercial use of waterfront areas within the City of Ketchikan are allowed where water-dependent or water-related uses are not feasible or prudent. New small commercial/industrial waterfront developments shall be encouraged to locate in currently available, suitable, and accessible areas on the Revilla side of Tongass Narrows, including the Ketchikan Northern Terminal area. New major commercial/industrial waterfront developments shall be encouraged to locate on the Airport Reserve (provided that the planned activity does not restrict or endanger aviation uses), and on George Inlet adjacent to and south of White River. The pierhead line depicted in the Waterfront Development and Management Study Phase Two Summary shall be adopted as a guide in determining the limit of seaward construction of waterfront development projects. To minimize losses of property and life by recognizing the threat imposed by geophysical hazards and planning accordingly. A study and survey of the probable shoreline limits of expected storm surges shall be initiated. Once the necessary height above mean high water to eliminate and/or minimize structural damage from expected storm surges at high tides is determined, appro- priate construction restrictions shall be incorporated into all waterfront zones. VI-6 Goal: b. Policy: Provisions requiring a suitability analysis of proposed devel- opments and improvements on land having a slope of greater than 75% or land in an area known to be subject to landslides and avalanches shall be incorporated into the Borough zoning ordi- nance. All precautions necessary to stabilize the slopes and minimize erosion shall be required. C. TRANSPORTATION We shall work to achieve a balanced and equitable transportation system which is well integrated with all community activities. Objective: a. *Policy: b. *Policy: c. *Policy: d. *Policy: e. *Policy: f. *Policy: g. Policy: h. Policy: i. Policy: To provide adequate public access in a manner that reflects community desires and future needs. Prior to disposal of State and Borough lands, public access routes, such as roads and trails, shall be identified and dedi- cated. For subdivisions beyond the existing road system, waterfront access, trails, and/or stairways shall be recognized as reason- able access; however, reservations for future road access must be adequately considered prior to plat approvals. During the short-range (at least five years), the shoreline north of Settler's Cove shall be accessible via water, air, and trail only. Future roads and highways in waterfront development areas shall be located inland insofar as possible in order to maximize the amount of waterfront property available for water-related uses. A White River loop road connecting the south end of the Tongass Highway to the Harriet Hunt area shall be supported, constructed, and opened to public use in accordance with development plans of the Cape Fox Corporation and projected commercial/industrial waterfront development adjacent to and south of White River. Adequate public access (improved ferry service or a hard link) to future commercial/industrial development on the Airport Reserve shall be encouraged, ensured, and/or provided. Corridor location studies for secondary routes shall be conducted to link the airport facilities with future commercial/industrial sites within the Airport Reserve. The Borough shall seek funding to establish a pedestrian/bicycle path along the Tongass Highway. The Borough should seek to deal with transportation problems in ways other than providing for more and more automobiles. VI-7 Goal: Objective: a. *Policy: b. Policy: c. Policy: d. *Policy: e. *Policy: f. *Policy: To provide for adequate and safe moorage of transient and Ketchi- kan-based marine vessels. Small boat harbors shall be systematically created and/or expanded to provide approximately 300 new stalls at the preferred sites discussed on page III-26 by the year 2000. Near-term implementation of Port of Ketchikan and City Float improvements to accommodate larger cruise ships and a growing charter fleet shall be vigorously pursued. The Port Commission shall investigate the feasibility of acquiring available waterfront property for future municipal- ities water-dependent uses. Provision of additional marine fueling facilities for small crafts shall be supported and encouraged. Additional transient barge moorage shall be supported and en- couraged, particularly in less congested areas. Recreational boat and seaplane launching sites and facilities shall be increased and improved along the roaded system; and docking facilities, tie-up buoys, and floats shall be provided in remote areas suitable for recreational use. D. REGIONAL FACILITIES We shall provide the natural resource facilities necessary for maintaining the general health and safety of the community for present and future generations. Objective: a. *Policy b. *Policy: c. *Policy: To protect the quantity and quality of existing and future com- munity water supplies and to provide for adequate sewage dispo- sal systems. Watershed areas contributing to existing and future potable water supplies shall be protected by buffer strips along streams and lakes supplying community water, measures to minimize erosion, and/or zoning provisions. The Borough and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conser- vation shall develop short and long-range water supply and sewage disposal alternatives for the Ketchikan area. Water quality protection and sewage disposal measures shall be incorporated into subdivision and land development review and approval processes: VI-8 2. Objective: a. Policy: b. *Policy: To develop and enforce drainage controls which protect the safety of residents and prevent damage to public and private property. The Borough subdivision ordinance shall incorporate the following The State Department of Environmental Conservation shall on a time available basis prepare an annual report on the status of water and soil pollution in the Borough. The Platting Board shall require installation of a sewage collection and disposal system approved by the State Department of Environmental Conservation as a condition of final platting of all rural pro- perty unless the State determines the soils can accommodate on-site sewage disposal. If public sewerage is not available and individual disposal systems are approved, minimum lot areas and subdivision design shall be such that the subdivided land is capable of absorbing all sewage within the individual lots in compliance with the State Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation regulations so as not to contaminate other public or private proper- ties. Such subdivisions shall be designed to mini- mize costs of eventual sewerage service. In making public land available for private develop- ment, the State and the Borough shall incorporate consideration of areawide repercussions as well as measures that will enhance overall rural water qual- ity into provisions for sewerage and water services. drainage management provisions. oO Subdivision plats shall indicate existing drainage patterns, adequate drainage facilities, and changes to drainage patterns which will result from land development operations. Effects on downstream drainage patterns and facili- ties existing outside of a subdivision area shall be assessed and considered during the subdivision review process; any necessary improvements shall be required. No subdivision shall be approved unless sufficient drainage is provided. Where upland land clearing, rock excavation, or grading may create hazardous conditions in sensitive areas, a surety bond or other means of guarantee to correct damages shall be required. VI-9 3. Goal: Ie Objective: a. *Policy: b. *Policy: c. *Poliicy: Objective: a. *Policy: b. *Policy: c. *Policy: d. *Policy: To preserve Ketchikan's opportunities to develop hydroelectric resources in an economical and environmentally sound manner. Federal, State, and local land use decisions in the Ketchikan area shall protect the community's options to develop the follow- ing sites for hydroelectric power generation: ° Near-term potential - Lake Grace, Swan Lake, Mahoney Lake, and Lake Whitman. 0 Long-range potential - Lake Perseverance. Hydroelectric power generation at Mahoney Lake shall be con- sidered and developed in concert with Cape Fox Corporation Management plans for the area. Corridors for power transmission lines shall be identified and reserved to allow delivery of power to meet future needs and shall be sited inland from beaches and shorelines unless no prudent inland alternative exists. E. FISH AND WILDLIFE We shall protect and enhance the productivity of fish and wildlife habitat in the Ketchikan area. To protect wildlife and wildlife habitat. Where practicable, critical deer winter range areas shall be pro- tected. Greenbelt access corridors between shoreline and upland deer habitats shall be provided. Local, State, and Federal land management programs shall protect eagle nesting trees. No construction shall take place within 330 feet of a tree with an active eagle nest without first consulting the local Fish and Wildlife Service, and development within this radius shall be limited to low density residential uses. All known eagle nesting trees, critical deer winter habitat areas, mammal concentration areas, and anadromous streams shall be identified on State or Borough land transferred for private use or ownership, but the presence of wildlife shall not preclude land sales or leasing. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Depart- ment of Fish and Game shall assist persons buying or leasing Borough or State property in taking measures to insure that important wildlife habitat is not unnecessarily disturbed or damaged. VI-10 2. 3s Goal: 1. Objective: a. b. *Policy: *Policy: Objective: a. Policy: To protect fisheries resources and habitat. All identified anadromous streams and stream banks; bays and coves with significant amounts of freshwater inflow; and subsis- tence and sport shellfish areas shall be managed to protect and enhance fisheries resources. Tideland dredge and fill, log storage areas, and other development that may directly cause a loss of fisheries habitat shall not be permitted in the immediate vicinity of areas critical to the productivity of local commercial and subsistence fisheries as referenced on Page II-39 as significant salmon-producing streams or on Figure II-14 as subsistence salmon, clam, and dungeness crab areas or herring beach spawning areas. To coordinate fish and wildlife protection and management. The Borough shall notify the Habitat Section of the local Fish and Game office of pending subdivisions, re-zones, and disposal actions. F. QUTDOOR RECREATON We shall provide an improved system of parks, recreation areas, and trails. Objective: a. *Policy: To provide parks and recreation areas easily accessible to Ketchi- kan residents. The following areas and trails shall be retained, classified, and/or managed as recreational resources: 0 Naha River and Jordan and Heckman Lakes; 0 Ward Lake; 0 State Public Interest Lands on the Mountain Point shoreline; ° Black Sands Beach; ° Blank Islands; 0 Harriet Hunt area; 0 Silvis Lake; 0 Loop trail connecting Deer Mountain, White River, Harriet Hunt, and Second Waterfall Creek; 0 State Public Interest Lands at South Point Higgins; 0 Settler's Cove; 0 Rotary Beach; 0 Refuge Cove; State property along Sunset Drive, USS 3681, Lots 1, 2, and 3. 0 State property at Survey Point, USS 3275, Lots 201 and 201A; 0 Beach on southeast end of Pennock Island; and 0 State property at Survey Point USS 3762, Coast Guard Beach. 0 Perseverance Lake and Trail. VI-11 Goal: b. Policy: Gs *Policy: d. *Policy: e. *Policy: fis Policy: g. *Policy: The Borough shall maintain the scenic, recreational, and residen- tial character of Clover Passage by restricting commercial or industrial uses to those which support recreation or tourism activities. All reasonable measures shall be taken to protect the scenic and recreational values of the Whipple Creek Drainage particularly when developing timber harvesting and residential development plans for the area. Public beach designations, swimming areas, camping sites, toilets and picnic facilities shall be increased and improved. Additional cabins shall be funded and constructed in remote areas. A trail system shall be developed and maintained through the cooperative participation of the Borough, the State, Cape Fox Corporation, and the Forest Service. The Borough and City shall provide for separate trail access to and allow non-motorized recreational use of the Ketchikan Lakes Watershed. Trails and access corridors to and along public beaches, includ- ing appropriate easements and rights-of-way, shall be marked and publicized to encourage greater public use. G. COMMUNITY DESIGN We shall recognize those elements that make Ketchikan a beautiful place in which to enjoy life, and we shall pursue all means to maintain those attri- butes and to create others that further enhance the physical quality of the Ketchikan area. Objective: a. *Policy: b. *Policy: Objective: a. Policy: To protect Ketchikan's superior viewsheds. New State roads shall be designed and landscaped to blend with their surroundings and to complement land and water views. The following viewshed protection measures shall be instituted: oO Totem Bight and Saxman Totem Parks - Vegetative and/or open space buffers shall be provided for shielding. 0 Highway Vistas - The State shall provide additional pullouts along South Tongass Highway and increase the buffer areas around existing highway pullouts. To improve the visual quality of the urban waterfront. A landscape management program for Ketchikan's urban waterfront shall be developed. VI-12 3. Goal: 1. Capital improvements to waterfront property owned by the local, State and Federal governments shall incorporate walkways, shelters, and landscaping to facilitate public access and increase public enjoyment. Non-motorized public access to and along the waterfront and corridors providing unobstructed views shall be required in all future commercial waterfront development. To provide for open space. A ten-foot strip of open space encompassing each side of the natural floodplain of Ketchikan, Carlanna, Hoadley, and Whipple Creeks, shall be managed for safety and public aesthetics. H. HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY We shall preserve the unique historic qualities of Ketchikan's downtown and the rich archaeological resources of the surrounding area. b. *Policy: c. *Policy: Objective: a. *Policy: Objective: a. *Policy: b. Policy: Gc. *Policy: To protect Ketchikan's historic resources and heritage. The following historic resources shall be protected at their existing sites: 0 Pennock Island Native burial sites, the Loring Sailor Graveyard, and the City of Ketchikan Ceme- tery; 0 Remaining public wooden streets and walkways throughout the City of Ketchikan; 0 The ANB Hall, Old Saxman School, and Saxman Totem Park; The Guard Island lighthouse; Native petroglyphs and totem poles; and 0 Historic properties survey State and National register nominations. oo The Borough shall investigate financial alternatives and/or incen- tives for public and private rehabilitation and restoration of nominated historic properties. Prior to disposal of State and Borough lands, potential archaeo- logical sites shall be surveyed. VI-13 Goal: le 2. Objective: a. Policy: b. Policy: iC. |||) Poll tey: di) Policy. Objective: a. Policy: b. *Policy: Cc. Policy: I. FUTURE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION We shall recognize that the planning process is ongoing and existing ap- proved plans must be implemented to maintain flexibility and effectiveness. To maintain the currency and applicability of the Coastal Manage- ment Plan. The Coastal Management Plan shall be biennial; significant amendments shall be forwarded to the State for approval. The Quartz Hill area, as delineated on Figure V-3, shall be con- sidered for designation as an Area Meriting Special Attention. In the event that an AMSA designation is necessary, an amendment to the Coastal Zone Plan shall be prepared. The Naha River and Lagoon area shall be considered for designation as an Area Meriting Special Attention. Additional biological surveys in waterfront areas (outside the current City limits) that are suspected to have high environ- mental or fisheries value shall be supported. The results of such surveys shall be incorporated into the biennial update. To_implement the Coastal Zone Management Plan All policies listed shall be implemented in accordance with the procedures outlined in Chapter VII. The Standards and Guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Managment Act and the Forest Service management regulations shall continue to operate in areas of the Borough outside the current Coastal District Planning Area. The outlying areas of the Borough shall be included in Ketchikan's Coastal District Planning Area at a later date. VI-14 CHAPTER VII IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TRANSLATION OF THE KETCHIKAN COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN INTO EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND PROCEDURES IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN A PROGRAM WHICH SEEKS TO SOUNDLY GUIDE DEVELOPMENT IN A BALANCED MANNER WHILE ALSO CONSERVING THE LAND AND WATER RESOURCES ON WHICH AREA RESIDENTS DEPEND. THE ACTIVATION OF THE PLAN MUST RELY ON EXISTING GOVERNMENT PROCESSES, RATHER THAN ADDING ADDITIONAL REVIEW. THE BOROUGH S ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES ARE THE PRIMARY IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS. VII-1 A. IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENTS The Ketchikan Gateway Borough recognizes that the Coastal Management Plan must be implemented in an enforceable and effective manner so that the community's involvement in planning results in the actions desired. The implementation strategy and recommen- dations will directly apply to the Ketchikan Coastal Management District boundaries shown in Figure I-2. For projects in areas lying outside the Coastal Management boundaries, but within Borough boundaries, the Borough will use the following documents in formulating review comments for permit applications and actions circulated by the State Clearinghouse: a. 1976 and updated versions of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically its goals and objectives; b. the Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan, specifically its goals and objectives; c. the Tongass Land Management Plan, specifically its land use designations. d. Alaska Coastal Management Program Standard. The Borough realizes that until a coastal management plan is completed and approved for these outlying areas, its comments will be accepted as guidance only, and will not carry the weight of the consistency requirement. Subject Uses and Uses of State Concern. All uses inventoried and analyzed in the previous six chapters shall be subject to the provisions and policies of the Ketchikan Coastal Management Program. Specifically; all residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and public uses of land and water within the coastal management boundary, regardless of land ownership, shall conform to the approved Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan. Recreational, resource extraction, habitat protection, and preservation activities within the coastal management boundaries shall also be con- sidered "subject uses" of the Ketchikan Coastal Management Program. "Uses of State Concern" are defined as those land and water uses which would signifi- cantly affect the long-term public interest; these Uses, subject to Alaska Coastal Policy Council definition of their extent, include: a. uses of national interest, including the siting of ports and major facili- ties which contribute to meeting national energy needs, construction and maintenance of navigational facilities and systems, resource development of federal land, and national defense and related security facilities that are dependent upon coastal locations; b. uses of more than local concern, including those land and water uses which confer significant environmental, social, cultural or economic benefits or burdens beyond a single coastal resource district; c. the siting of major energy facilities or large-scale industrial or commer- cial development activities which are dependent on a coastal location and which, because of their magnitude or the magnitude of their effect on the economy of the State or the surrounding areas, are reasonably likely to present issues of more than local significance; VII-2 d. facilities serving statewide or interregional transportation or communi- cations needs; and e. uses in areas established by statute as State parks, recreation areas, game refuges, game sanctuaries or critical habitat areas. Proper and Improper Uses. Those land and water uses and activities which are compa- tible with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Ketchikan Coastal Management Program and which comply with the regulations of the Federal and/or State agencies exercising lawful jurisdiction in the coastal area and with the applicable ordinances and regulations of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough shall be considered proper uses. Proposed land and water uses and activities which are found by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough to be incompatible with the goals, objectives, or policies of this coastal program or which cannot be modified to meet the lawful requirements of agencies of competent jurisdiction shall be considered improper uses in the coastal area. Enforceable Rules. The Borough further recognizes that enforceable rules of a dis- trict program are the basis upon which all "consistency" recommendations and determi- nations are made. Those enforceable rules applicable to State and Federal actions have been highlighted in Chapter VI by an asterisk. This notation is done so that all persons and agencies involved in the review and approval process of this Coastal Management Plan are aware of those policies for which consistency decisions will be made by Federal and/or State officials. Likewise, it is these policies that give the local government in its review of the same actions. an opportunity to exert local influence and control. It is expected that existing and improved State and Federal governmental procedures for review of permits, projects and proprietary transactions will apply to these enforceable rules. Appeal Process. The implementation of this plan will be subject to existing appeal processes, including the Board of Adjustment. A "consistency" ruling made by the Director of the Planning Department can be appealed upon request by the affected party to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Local Implementation. There are three elements to the Borough's involvement in implementing the Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan as follows: 1. Administration of existing local ordinances, capital improvement programs, and the decision-making process to carry forth the recommendations in Chapter VI. 2. Establishing local coordination of permit applications and certifications with the appropriate State and Federal agencies in order that permits may be processed sooner without circumventing required review. 3. Participation by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough in a coordinated review program to determine if, and to what extent, proposed land and water uses and activities are consistent with the Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan. The implementation strategy for each element has been designed to be responsive to the values identified in the plan as well as to the need to make efficient use of local government structures and processes without adding additional layers of bu- reaucracy. These strategies are discussed in the following sections. VII-3 B. LOCAL ADMINISTRATION OF ORDINANCES, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PROJECTS The Ketchikan Gateway Borough adopted a Comprehensive Development Plan in 1976. To implement the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision (Title 55) and Planning and Zoning (Title 35) ordinances were adopted. The Planning Department is engaged in a thorough revision of the outdated Comprehensive Plan and subdivision and zoning ordinance. With revisions to these ordinances, the Ketchikan Coastal Man- agement Plan should, can, and will be implemented. The zoning ordinance was drafted and approved in 1967 with very little change made since then. Consequently, the revision of these ordinances will be a major under- taking. It is difficult to anticipate the exact form the ordinances will be in after such a major revision effort. For instance, switching over to performance zoning will be considered. In any event, the intent of the ordinance changes summarized below will be honored and incorporated into the ordinance revisions. While the translation of policies to ordinance is likely to alter from the listed changes, it is still important to show how the intent is carried forth using the existing ordinance. The following listing summarizes new land use designations to be added to the zoning ordinance: A land use designation for resource extraction activities; A land use designation for protecting future and existing water supplies; A land use designation for parks, open space, and public buildings; A land use designation for industrial waterfront: A land use designation for commercial and residential use of the waterfront. aOPWwnNn— Zoning ordinance additions and changes will: 1. Include timber harvesting areas and log storage areas in land use designa- tion for resource extraction activities. on Include suitable sites for commercial fisheries in areas designated for industrial waterfront. 3. Zone new areas in and/or near the City of Ketchikan as General Commercial, a zone which allows for travel and campsite accommodations. 4, Incorporate planned unit development provisions in Suburban Residential, Low Density Residential, and Medium Density Residential zoning stipulations. 5. In developing the new land use designations for industrial waterfront districts and for commercial and residential use of the waterfront, add development requirements that reflect the tideland fill policies under B 3 a-e and and the prioritization for water-dependent uses reflected in policy B 4 a. 6. Change some areas designated High Density Residential to General Commercial in areas immediately upland from the waterfront. 7. Make non-water-related commercial use of the waterfront a conditional use in areas within the City of Ketchikan to be designated waterfront indust- rial and waterfront commercial/residential use. VII-4 10. Ulils 12 13. 14. 15. 16. Wie 18. Include all suitable and existing waterfront areas on the Revilla side of Tongass Narrows in areas designated for waterfront industrial or commer- cial/residential waterfront use. Include all suitable areas on the Airport Reserve and on George Inlet (adjacent to and south of White River) in areas designated for waterfront industrial use. In the revision of the zoning ordinances add a development requirement for a suitability analysis on land having a slope greater than 75% or land in areas known to be subject to landslides and avalanches. Review all zoning designations in watersheds contributing to community water supplies and require appropriate changes in affected zoning require- ments and/or zone the area for watershed protection. Place development requirements on resource extraction activities that will: a) prohibit construction within 330 feet of eagle nesting trees, and b) protect anadromous streams, estuaries (with significant amounts of fresh- water inflow), and subsistence and sport shellfish areas as referenced on page II-39, and in Figure II-14. In developing new land use designations for resource extraction activities, add development requirements that will provide for the protection of fish- eries resources for areas listed in policy E 2 a. Designate areas listed in Policies F 1 a, G1 b, and G 3 a for parks, open space, and public buildings. Add a development restriction on areas zoned General Commercial in the Knudson Cove area to limit commercial use to recreation or tourism support facilities. Consider appropriate areas in the Whipple Creek drainage for the land use designation providing for parks, open space, and public buildings. Include development requirements for public access to and/or along the waterfront on commercial property for waterfront designated for commer- cial and residential use. Change the zoning ordinance for parks, open space, and public buildings to include development requirements for protection of historic resources and be applied to areas listed in policy H 1 a. Subdivision ordinance additions and changes will: ip Include in the Street Design Principles and Standards section, a provision for siting roads inland in areas with waterfront development potential. Include stipulations relating to assessment of soil capacity to absorb on- site sewage disposal in conditions for waiver of required improvements. Add a provision for consideration of soil absorption capacity in the section stipulating lot dimensions and arrangement. VII-5 4. Under Design Principles and Standards, add a new section addressing assess- ment of drainage patterns and facilities. 5. Alter the Improvements and Streets section to recognize waterfront, trail, and/or stairways access for subdivisions beyond the existing road system, yet require consideration of platted roads. 6. Add a provision under Non-Residential Subdivisions to require public access to and/or along the waterfront. 7. Add provisions under Natural Features to require slope suitability analysis and appropriate stabilization and erosion control precautions on steep slopes (75% or greater), avalanche paths, and landslide areas. The ordinance revisions will provide specific, direct implementation tools. It is the intention of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough to incorporate these specific revisions into the Comprehensive Plan updating process. In the interim, a resolution adopting the Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan will require due consideration of the Coastal Management Plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Platting Board and Borough Assembly in carrying forth their review of plats, subdivisions, development projects, and rezone requests. To ensure review of proposed projects the zoning application form will be changed to include a coastal Management consistency check; the application will be considered complete once the Planning Department staff has completed the review. Currently, the Borough is developing a standard set of policies and procedures for the management of Borough lands. The intent of all the following recommendations relating to land management shall be incorporated into the land management program: B 2a-d,C1a,C2c,D1c,£1 b-d, E 2 a,H1c. The application for Borough land will include a consistency check and the application will not be considered complete until such a check with the Coastal Management Plan has been done by Planning Depart- ment staff. The formal adoption of the Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan will require the Borough Manager, Mayor, and Assembly to accept the guiding policy recommendations as approved public policy to direct their daily decision-making duties. The guiding policy recommendations are specific and direct, placing the burden of public acceptance on decision-makers who act inconsistently. Unlike ordinances, policies do not have the weight of law, however, because of the formal legal adoption of the Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan, decisions made con- trary to approved and adopted policy in an arbitrary and capricious manner can be reversed, overruled, or amended through existing administrative appeal processes. Recommendations for public capital improvement projects will be included in the appro- priate budget processes by the Borough and City Managers. When State funding is essential, the Borough legislative committee will consider the capital improvement projects proposed herein. Additionally, the Borough Manager will strive for local budgetary consideration by the appropriate State agency. The annual report to be submitted to the office of Coastal Management will include a summary of all ordinance changes, land program policies, significant decisions, and capital improvement projects that occurred in the previous year. This annual report will essentially provide the State with a track record of how well the Ketchikan Gateway Borough is doing in implementing its approved plan. A bi-annual update of the entire Coastal Management Plan will also serve to keep all affected parties informed. VII-6 C. LOCAL COORDINATION OF PERMITS As stated in the section on Government Regulations, there has been much interest and effort to speed up the permitting process so that costly delay and frustration can be avoided. The Sitka Coastal Management Program has taken some steps in this direction with its special permit provisions and should be considered a pilot program worth watching. Ketchikan's Coastal Management Program however, will expedite the permit- ting process by assisting the individual applicant through the permit approval pro- cess. This approach involves: 1) assistance to the applicant in filing a completed application, 2) a pre-application conference if the project appears potentially con- troversial, and, 3) coordination of public notices so that agency notification periods run concurrently. Following is an outline of the proposed process for local assis- tance and coordination. Type of Permit Covered by Local Review Process: Corps of Engineers: Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material into U.S. Waters Structures or Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the U.S. Environmental Conservation: Discharge into Navigable Waters Certificate Wastewater Disposal Permit Water Quality Certifications Type of Activity Covered by Local Review Process: The local assistance process is primarily designed to deal with minor projects common to Ketchikan residents such as residential fill, sewer outfall, mooring docks and buoys, access road crossings, etc. Major industrial projects such as fish processing plants, major construction projects such as small boat harbors, and projects located within envi- ronmentally sensitive areas may be included in the process upon approval by the Planning Director. The Planning Director will determine whether or not there is adequate staff time to coordinate the application process for major projects. Geographical Area to be Covered by Local Review Process: Ketchikan Coastal Management Boundary, as depicted in Figure I-2. Process for Local Assistance and Coordination: VII-7 1. The applicant comes to the Borough Planning Department for permit applications. Upon request, the planning department staff will review the proposed project for: a) required content and format b) consistency with Coastal Management Plan c) controversial nature of the proposed project 2. The applicant is responsible for all technical drawings and legal descriptions. Once an application is completed, the Planning Depart- ment, if requested to do so, makes a determination as to the complete- ness and format of the application. Completed applications are then sent to the permitting agency. 3. Upon receipt of the application, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Department of Natu- ral Resources (only if a tideland lease is involved) notify the designated staff person that public notice may be issued. The Plan- ning Department staff person then makes arrangements for the public notice in the local newspaper so that all public notice periods run concurrently. The permitting agencies incur all publication costs. 4. If the project appears to be "inconsistent" or conditionally consis- tent with the Coastal Management Plan or controversial in nature, the Planning Department staff coordinates and monitors a pre-application conference with the applicant and local agency officials that are involved in the permit review and approval process. Concerns and compromise hopefully are flushed out in this informal conference. The applicant then submits a permit application that is more likely to be approved in a reasonable time period. This local assistance and coordination offers the advantages of: 1) assisting the individual through the bureaucracy of permits, 2) synchronizing the public notifi- cation periods, and, 3) alleviating potential problems at the onset of the permit process. The disadvantages of this permit approach are its higher administrative cost and the greater work load for the local planning department. It is anticipated that the additional time required of local staff will not be sig- nificant in light of the potential time savings to the individual. However, should this not be the case and the program becomes too burdensome to local staff, the progam may be dropped. Consequently, a six month trial period is recommended. Adoption of the Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan will only constitute adoption of the local assistance and coordination concepts, leaving details to be worked out during the implementation phase. VII-8 D. COASTAL MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS The Ketchikan Gateway Borough intends to be a responsive participant in determining whether or not proposed land and water uses and activities are consistent with this plan. The Borough further recognizes that "great weight" is to be given to local governments in determining consistency of Federal and State actions with the Alaska Coastal Management Program Administrative Order 54. The most appropriate implementation strategy for the Ketchikan Coastal Management District is to use the checks and balances already integrated in the local government structure. The following strategy encom- passes this concept while trying to minimize paperwork and process. Actions to be Subject to Consistency Review The following actions are to be subject to consistency reviews: o All State and Federal actions subject to consistency reviews; grant requests, environmental assessments, etc. o State and Borough capital improvements projects. o Re-zone and variance requests that come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. o Subdivision plats that come before the Platting Board. o Development projects that come before the Port Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, and/or Borough Assembly. Who is to Make Consistency Determinations The Planning Director of the Ketchikan Planning Department will make the consistency determination on all of the above listed actions. In making the consistency determi- nation, the Director will consult as necessary with the chairperson of the appro- priate board as outlined below: o Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee for actions affecting the scenic and recreation resources within the district. o Port Commission for actions affecting the commercial/industrial development of Ketchikan's waterfront. o Planning and Zoning Commission on major development projects and re-zone requests. Consultation with the chairperson as opposed to complete board review is a necessary option to ensure that the process stays within permit review periods. If time permits, or if the complicated and/or controversial nature of the project warrants detailed review, the entire board will be consulted and formal action sought. VII-9 For consistency determinations that result in a "conditional" or an "inconsistent" ruling, the Planning Director shall consult and seek the approval of the entire Planning and Zoning Commission. When Written Findings are Required Detailed written findings shall be required for all "consistent", "conditional" and/or "inconsistent" rulings made to the State. For projects in which a pre-application conference was necessary due to the controversial nature of the project, written findings will be made regardless of the consistency ruling. The written findings will include at a minimum: o Citation of sections of the plan, specifically the Policies, goals, objectives, and recommendations, that are the basis for the ruling; o Recommendations or stipulations that would make the proposed activity consistent; o List of the surrounding areas, activities, and land owners impacted by the proposed activity; o Discussion of resources and habitat affected by the proposed activity: o Discussion of the economic and social significance of the activity and the ruling; o Known public objections; o Appeal process (including dates and times) for the applicant; o Persons and boards consulted in the rulings Twice a month, the staff will present a report to the Planning and Zoning Commission on the "consistency" rulings made during the preceding month. The annual report to be submitted to the Office of Coastal Management will include a summary of all the consistency rulings made during the previous year. E. STAFF REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION The local official responsible for the implementation of the Ketchikan Coastal Man- agement Plan shall be the Planning Director of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. The Planning Director may delegate implementation tasks to staff, but the Director shall remain responsible. No additional full-time staff member, to locally implement the Coastal Managment Program, is anticipated. The Planning Department presently conducts permit and project reviews, so "consistency reviews" should not sufficiently increase staff time to merit hiring of an additional full-time person. Assistance from a part-time employee may be necessary in the final stages of review, publication, and approval of the ordinance revisions and Comprehensive Plan update, the two main FY 83 department projects which will in effect implement this plan. Should the need arise for addi- tional staff to assist in coastal management coordination and review, the Director shall apply for appropriate State funds. Nonetheless, the permanent staff of a Planning Director, Associate Planner, Zoning Administrator and Planning Technician is expected to be adequate for implementation of the coastal management plan. VII-10 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. REFERENCES Ketchikan Gateway Borough Resolution No. 386, August 4, 1980 Local Control: Creating a District Coastal Management Program, Alaska Coastal Management Program, Department of Community and Regional Affairs. George Gee and Kathryn Carssow, "The U.S. Borax and Chemical Corporation Quartz Hill Mining Project: A Thumbnail Sketch of Community Impacts on Ketchikan." Conversations with Bill Hanson, Area Forester, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, January, 1982. Conversations with Joe Thompson, Timber Sales Forester, Tongass National Forest, December 1981. Conversations with Drew Grant, Forest Practices Forester, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, December 1981. Conversations with and information supplied by Phil Doherty, Fiseries Bio- logist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, February 1982. Elliott, Koski, and Meehan, "Chain Logs, Food Chains and Fish Streams," Alaska Fish Tales and Game Trails, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fall 1980. Conversations with and information supplied by Bob Wood, Game Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, November 1981. Lentfer, Schoen, Matthews, and Kirchhoff, "Solving the Puzzle of Forest Relationships," Alaska Fish Tales and Game Trails, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fall 1980. Alves, William, Residents and Research: Findings of Alaska Public Survey on the Importance of Natural Resources to the Quality of Life in Southeast Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1979. Seidelman, Don, "Harvest Estimate of Selected Fisheries Throughout Southeast Alaska," Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Report, Vol. 22, July '80 - June '81. "Recreation Use Information for Tongass National Forest Service," Recreation Information Management System, U.S. Forest Service. Conversations with Dave Barber, Recreation Forester, Tongass National Forest, December 1981. Understanding the Visual Management System, U.S. Forest Service Alaska Region Training Manual, February 1981. Conversations with John Short, Landscape Architect, Tongass National Forest, December 1981. Based on information supplied on Fish and Wildlife Task Force by Don Kelly, Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, June 1979. R-1 18. 19. 20. Zl 225 235 24. 20% 26. (Aks 28. 29, 30. 31. 3255 33. 34. 35. Revised Anadromous Stream Catalog of Southeastern Alaska, Volume III, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Technical Data Report No. 30, 1977. Standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, 6 AAC 80. Rabich, Chris, "Aboriginal Winter Settlements in Southern Southeast Alaska: An Emerging Design," U.S. Forest Service, Ketchikan Area. Matheson, Janet, Ketchikan: A City Historic Properties Survey, Volume One, 1981. "Selection Guidelines," State of Alaska Land Selection Program, Planning and Research Section, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, May 1978. Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department with George Gee, Consultant, Ketchikan Gateway Borough Land Program: A Summary Prepared for the House Resources Committee, February 1981. Reid, Middleton & Assoc., Inc., Charles Pool & Assoc., Inc., & T.A.P., Inc., Ketchikan International Airport Master Plan, Summary Report, 1981. Conversations with Bob Galvin, City of Ketchikan Harbormaster, February 1982. Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department, Ketchikan Traffic Study: An Evaluation of Traffic Patterns and Route Options, June 1976. emps-Sverdrup, Tongass Narrows Crossing, Site Selection Study, December 1981. Conversations with and information supplied by George Gee, Economic Consul- tant, Ketchikan, February 1982. National Institute for Socioeconomic Research, Quartz Hill Socioeconomic Impact Study: Profile of Existing Conditions and Baseline Projection: 1982 - 2052, May 1982. Conversations with Al Ludwick, Support Services Manager, Louisiana-Pacific, Ketchikan pulp mill, February 1982. Conversations with Frank Seymour, Executive Director, Cape Fox Corporation, February 1982. CH2M Hill, Kent Miller, Nickum and Spaulding Associates, Economic Feasibility Study: Alaska Marine Highway Winter Ferry Maintenance Facility, March 1980. Conversations with and information supplied by Dennis D. Wagner, Economist, Army Corps of Engineers, February 1982. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, Mining Development Concepts Analysis Document, August 1981. United States Department of Agriculture; Forest Service, Alaska Region, Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Road Access and Bulk Sampling at the U.S. Borax Quartz Hill Molybdenum Claims, Tongass National Forest, November 1981. R-2 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Entercom, Inc., Ketchikan Gateway Borough Resident Survey, January 1982. AS 46.40.210 (1). City and Borough of Sitka, Sitka Coastal Management Program, Concept Approved Draft, August 1981. Conversation with Jim Wolfe, Chief, Regulatory Permit Section, Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage. December 1981. Conversation with Michael Schmidt, Planning Director, City and Borough of Sitka, November 1981, January and April 1982. GLOSSARY G-1 Alluvial soil Aquaculture Anadromous Aquifer Barrier islands Bedrock Biomass Blowdown Board foot Brackish water Breakwater Buffer area Carrying capacity Climax_vegetation Coastal water Comprehensive plan Coniferous vegetation Sand, clay, and other particulate matter gradually deposited by moving water along a riverbed or shore. The regulation and cultivation of water plants and animals for human use and consumption. Ascending rivers from the sea for the breeding of salmon, steelhead, and Dolly Varden. A layer of rock which contains water that can be removed and used for human purposes. Elongated coastal islands of sand, formed by the action of the sea, which protect a lagoon. Solid rock beneath the soil and superficial rock. The total mass of living matter in a given space. See Windthrow. A unit of measure of lumber, equal to a board one foot square and one inch thick. Fresh water diluted with a small amount of salt water. A barrier constructed in front of a harbor to break the im- pact of waves. A limited use zone separating a developed area from a pro- tected area, or areas of incompatible uses from each other. The limit to the amount of life that can be supported by any given habitat; specifically, the number of individuals of any particular species that can be supported by a habitat. Also, the reasonable limits of human occupancy or use of a resource. The final equilibrium community reached in the process of plant succession. All water bodies in the coastal area, including wetlands and the intertidal area. An official public document adopted by a local government as a policy guide to decisions about the physical development of the community. Cone-bearing trees and shrubs, mostly evergreens. G-2 Conglomerate rock Continental drift Corridor Critical habitat area Distributive industries Dolphin Drainage basin Dredge material Ecosystem Ecotone Eelgrass Erosion Estuary Rock which is made up of rock fragments or pebbles cemented together by clay, silica, etc. The slow shift in the continents' positions as a result of currents in the molten rocks of the earth's mantle (the pl of the earth's interior between the crust and the core). A narrow strip of land dedicated to a special use or activity differing from that of adjacent lands (for example, a power line or bicycle path). The place of residence of an animal species or a community of species during critical periods of its life cycle (such as spawning) or during stressful environmental conditions (such as harsh winters). Those industries primarily engaged in providing goods and services purchased by area residents. Increases in area income enter the economy chiefly in the form of wage and salary payments; these initial increases are "distributed" throughout the economy by expenditures made from household budgets. Retail and services industries constitute the largest employment categories in the distributive sector. A buoy used for mooring a boat. The entire area of shorelands drained by a single water- course and its tributaries. Matter produced during the enlargement or cleaning out of a river channel or harbor. The complete ecological system operating in a given geo- graphic unit, including the biological community and the physical environment. The edge between two habitats, such as forest and marine, or muskeg forest and lake. Critical to many species who must feed in one habitat and seek cover in another. A flowering plant of the pondweed family that grows under water and has long grasslike leaves; often an indicator of biological productivity. The weathering and displacement of rock and soil by the force of moving water, wind, and gravity. A semi-closed coastal body of water which has a free connection with the sea and within which seawater is measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage. G-3 Fault Fetch Fill Fjord Fish trap Fish weir Floodplain Food chain Geoduck Geophysical hazard areas Gillnetting Glacial till Gradients A break in the brittle surface rocks of the earth's crust as a result of unequal stresses, accompanied by slippage or dis- placement along the plane of breakage. The distance along open water within which the wind blows and waves travel without obstruction. Artificial elevation of land by deposit of soil or sediment. A narrow inlet or arm of the sea, bordered by steep cliffs. A device, banned since Statehood because of its role in causing dramatic declines in salmon stock during the 1950s, which includes a net stretched across a spawning stream and a series of funnels through which fish are led into a col- lection pot. A fence of brushwood or stakes built in a stream to catch fish. The land area extending from the normal yearly maximum stormwater level to the highest expected stormwater level in a given period of time (e.g. 5, 50, or 100 years). The step-by-step transfer of food energy and materials, by consumption, from primary plant sources to increasingly higher forms of fauna. A very large burrowing, edible clam found on intertidal beaches in western North America. Those areas which present a threat to life or property from geophysical or geological hazards, including floods, tsunamis, storm surges, landslides, snowlsides, faults, ice hazards, and erosion. A commercial fishing method using light, flexible nets with varying mesh sizes to allow for size selection of the fish taken. Fish usually are caught by the gills in the mesh and die by drowning. Rock debris left behind by glaciers. If the till has been overridden by glaciers, it can become very densely packed and is called compact or basal till. Such tills are common around Ketchikan and are often responsible. for the poorly drained soils on gentle slopes. Differences in intensity of environmental conditions, for example differences in steepness of mountain slopes, in air temperature, or in humidity. G-4 Greenbelt Habitat Igneous rock Immediate vicinity Impoundment Indicator plants Indirect employment Intertidal area Kilowatt hour Labor force Lagoon Lightering Liquefaction Metamorphic rock Molybdenum Muskeg A strip of land in its natural undisturbed state which borders neighborhoods or communities. The place of residence of an animal species or a community of species. Rocks formed by volcanic action or intense heat, such as rocks solidified from molten magma at or below the surface of the earth. Granites and diorites are characteristic igneous rocks found in the Ketchikan region. For purposes of policy E 2 b, 300 feet from the mouths of identified anadromous streams (State Forest Practices Guide- lines) and 100 feet from subsistence salmon, clam, and crab ~ areas or herring beach spawning areas. The gathering and enclosing of water, for irrigation or other use. A species or community of plants whose occurrence serves as evidence that certain environmental conditions exist. Additional jobs created in the local economy which are attributable to the purchases a primary industry makes from other businesses. The area between high and low tide levels. A unit of electrical energy equal to the work done by one kilowatt (1,000 watts) acting for one hour. The total number of persons currently employed and unem- ployed (not at work, but seeking a job). Persons not in either category (such as many students, homemakers, and getqres persons) are not regarded as members of the Tabor orce. An area of shallow salt water separated from the sea by sand dunes or islands. The process of loading or unloading passengers or goods from a large vessel by means of a smaller vessel. The process of changing or being changed into a liquid, thus creating an unstable condition. Rock such as slate, quartzite, and marble, formed when either igneous or sedimentary rock is subjected to high pressures and/or temperatures as two of the earth's crustal plates come together. A soft, lustrous, silver-white elemental metal, used in alloys like steel. A bog or marsh containing thick layers of vegetable matter, often overgrown with moss. G-5 Navigable waters On-site sewage disposa Open space Ore Qutcropping Outfall Overwinter Parent material Petroglyph Pierhead line Planned unit deve lopment Porphyry Potable water Potlatch Protohistoric Purse seining Waters usable, with or without improvements, as routes for commerce by means of customary modes of water travel; includes streams, lakes, and tidal water up to mean higher high water. Direct disposal of sewage on the occupied site through means such as filtration through soils, septic tanks, and flushing out to sea. A tract of land in a natural setting usually surrounded by urban development. Any natural combination of minerals, especially one from which a metal or metals can be profitably extracted. The emergence of a mineral from the earth so as to be ex- posed on the surface, or the mineral that so emerges. The outlet of a river, stream, or other watercourse, or, the point at which a sewer pipe discharges liquid. To spend the winter. The disintegrated rock which overlies the bedrock and makes up the bulk of the soil. Images carved into natural rock surfaces. The numerous petroglyphs discovered in the Ketchikan region are asso- ciated with prehistoric Northwest Coast Indian culture. A line derived primarily from consideration of exposure to prevailing winds and navigational obstacles and congestion, showing the preferred limit of seaward construction of piling-supported facilities. A subdivision zoning technique that allows and encourages small clusters of residential development with large tracts of sur- rounding open space while maintaining standard density levels. An igneous rock having distinct crystals, as of quartz or feld- spar in a relatively fine-grained base. Water fit to drink. A winter festival among North Pacific Coast Indians, or a distribution or exchange of gifts during such a festival. Of, or relating to, the archaeological history of man in the period immediately preceding recorded history. A commercial fishing method in which a group of fish is surrounded by a large net and the "purse" at the bottom of the net is closed, trapping the fish. G-6 Recrystallization Reef Reforestation Riparian Runoff Rural Salmon pack Schist Secondary employment Sedges Sediments Sedimentation Sedimentary rock Silt Slumping State Clearinghouse Sustained yield The growth of new mineral grains in a rock at the expense of old grains which supply the material. A line or ridge of rock, coral, or sand lying at or near the surface of the water. The planting or seeding in of new trees on land once covered by forests. Of, adjacent to, or living on, the bank of a river, stream, or creek. Rain in excess of the amount absorbed by the ground. Pertaining to any areas outside the city limits of Ketchikan or Saxman. The total number of cases of salmon (48 pounds per case) canned in an area. Any of a group of metamorphic rocks containing parallel layers of flaky minerals, such as mica or talc, which split easily into thin, parallel leaves. Additional jobs created in local businesses attributable to the influx of money into the overall local economy from a primary industry's wage payments and local purchases. Grasslike plants, often found on wet ground or in water, that provide food and protection for waterfowl]. Material (such as clay, silt, sand, gravel, organic matter, and debris) deposited by water, wind, or glaciers. The depositing of matter by water or wind. Rock formed by cementing together of small particles which are weathered off other rocks by wind or water. Sandstone, limestone, and conglomerate are characteristic sedimentary rocks found in the Ketchikan area. Fine particulate matter suspended in water. A landslide process in which rock breaks along the edge of a cliff and slips downhill, rotating somewhat backward before it comes to rest below. The State office which circulates documents, permits, projects, etc. requiring multiple state agency and local government review. Its primary function is the notification and coordi- nation of State and local review. The achievement and maintenance of a high annual or regular periodic output of renewable resources on lands (e.g., forests) or in waters (e.g., fisheries) by means of re- source management practices. G-7 @ Tailings Tectonic Tidal flushing Tideflat Tideland Tidewater Topography Totem Trolling Tsunami Upland Uplift Vein Viewshed Waste or refuse left during various processes of milling, mining, distilling, etc. Of or pertaining to changes in the structure of the earth's crust. The replacement of sea water in an estuary or cove that occurs due to the daily cicles of the tides. An unvegetated area that is alternately exposed and inun- dated by the rising and falling of the tide. The area along the waterfront which is exposed and inundated daily by the ebb and flow of the tides - the land between mean lower low water (0.0 feet elevation) and mean high water (+15.2 feet elevation). An area to which water is brought in by the action of the rising tide. The surface features of a region, including its elevations, depressions, and rivers, lakes, etc. as well such man-made features as canals, bridges, roads, etc. Among Native American and other peoples, an animal or natural object considered an entity related by blood to a given family or clan and taken as its symbol. A commercial fishing method using up to six stainless steel lines per troll boat, each with as many as 18 leaders with lure, bait, and hook. A great sea wave produced by submarine earth movement or volcanic eruption. Drainages, aquifers, and land above mean high water, the use of which would have a direct and significant impact on coastal water. (Geologic) A raising of land above the surrounding area, or the land so raised. A more or less continuous body of minerals and rock occupy- ing a fissure, differing in nature and abruptly separated from the enclosing rock, usually deposited from solution by circulating water. The objects or physical setting directly visible from a designated viewing point; the focal point of the viewing experience which includes foreground and background of view and excludes peripheral views. G-8 V-notched drainage A V-shaped valley formed by the strong erosive power of run- ning water on steep gradients, very susceptible to continued @ erosion. Glaciers, on the other hand, usually erode a U- shaped valley. Waterfront That stretch of land that interfaces with tidal waters (above mean high water) which could be used by a water- related activity, including scenic enjoyment. Water-dependent Relating to a use or activity which can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body. Water-oriented Relating to either water-dependent or water-related uses and activities. Water-related Relating to a use or activity not directly dependent upon access to a water body, but which provides goods or services that are directly associated with water dependence and which, if not located adjacent to water, would result ina public loss of quality in the goods or services offered. Watershed The area drained by a river, stream, or creek. Water table The level below which the ground is saturated with water. Wetlands Lands inundated or saturated by water at a frequency and dura- tion sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation that is e@ adapted for wet areas; includes muskegs and marshes. Wilting point The point at which the soil no longer contains enough mois- ture to enable plants to remain erect, thus causing the plants to wilt. Windthrow Trees blown down or destroyed by windstorms, often in areas of heavy rainfall and shallow soils. Zone of direct A coastal zone above the zone of direct interaction, which influence is defined by the inland extent of Sitka spruce-hemlock coastal forest usually extending to between 2,000 and 3,000 feet above high tideland. Included within this zone are the freshwater systems where anadromous spawning and overwinter- i ing occurs and the bulk of the habitat utilized by terres- trial birds and animals. Zone of direct A coastal zone which is defined by the inland extent of coastal interaction erosion, bald eagle nesting, coastal towns, and saltwater intru- sion and tidal influence, usually to 1,500 feet above the high tideland. G-9